Brian Dake

Gov. Tony Evers signed off Wednesday on the Ho-Chunk Nation’s plans to open a casino and entertainment complex in Beloit, hailing the project as job creator that will help the region recover from the economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As eligibility for the COVID-19 widens to more groups in the coming weeks, the state’s top health official said employers will play an important role in helping their employees access the vaccine when the time comes.

Interim Wisconsin Department of Health Services secretary Karen Timberlake said the role of employers varies, but could include allowing employees to take off work to get vaccinated, hosting on-site vaccine clinics or simply sharing information about vaccine safety with employees.

“We think you have a role to play,” Timberlake told GMC members. “And we do think that the most important thing you can be doing is helping your employees with access to good, fact-based, science-based information about vaccine efficacy and safety, vaccine availability, what the plan is for your workplace when your employees become eligible.”

“We know that employers are a very trusted messenger for their employees around these kinds of matters, so our job as a health department is to equip you with the facts you need,” she added.

Employers should consider how transportation challenges could prevent employees from accessing the vaccine and potentially partner with a local health department or health systems to ease those issues. With vaccine appointments generally being held during traditional work hours, Timberlake said employers should also consider allowing employees to get their shot on paid time.

On Friday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) posted updated FAQs about recent legislation that extended and amended tax relief to certain small- and mid-sized employers under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).

The FAQs are available at COVID-19-Related Tax Credits for Required Paid Leave Provided by Small and Midsize Businesses FAQs.

The updates to the FAQs cover how the COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020, enacted December 27, 2020, extends the availability of the tax credits created by the FFCRA to eligible employers for paid sick and family leave provided through March 31, 2021, as well as other amendments to the credits.

The paid sick and family leave credits, which previously were available only until the end of 2020, have been extended for periods of leave taken through March 31, 2021.

In addition, an eligible employer can receive the paid sick leave credit for employees who are unable to work due to caring for someone with coronavirus or caring for a child because the child’s school or place of care is closed, or the paid childcare provider is unavailable due to the coronavirus. Eligible employers may claim the credit for paid sick leave provided to an employee for up to two weeks (up to 80 hours) at 2/3 the employee’s regular rate of pay, or up to $200 per day and $2,000 in total.

Employers are also entitled to a paid family leave credit for paid family leave provided to an employee equal to 2/3 of the employee’s regular pay, up to $200 per day and $10,000 in total. Up to 10 weeks of qualifying leave can be counted towards the family leave credit.

Eligible employers are entitled to immediately receive a credit in the full amount of the paid sick leave and family leave plus related health plan expenses and the employer’s share of Medicare tax on the leave provided through March 31, 2021. The refundable credit is applied against certain employment taxes on wages paid to all employees.

Eligible employers may claim the credits on their federal employment tax returns (e.g., Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return), but they can benefit more quickly from the credits by reducing their federal employment tax deposits. If there are insufficient federal employment taxes to cover the amount of the credits, an eligible employer may request an advance payment of the credits from the IRS by submitting a Form 7200, Advance Payment of Employer Credits Due to COVID-19.

President Joe Biden signed an executive order Friday ordering the Department of Labor to issue guidance that clarifies “workers have a federally guaranteed right to refuse employment that will jeopardize their health and if they do so, they will still qualify for unemployment insurance.”

Generally, you can’t refuse what’s considered “suitable work,” whether it’s a new job offer or a call to return to a reopened workplace, and still receive unemployment insurance. In more traditional times, suitable work is thought of as a job that matches your skill set and pays a similar rate as your old one.

Under the Trump administration, states, local governments and employers were often left to determine what constituted as a safe work environment free of risks to workers’ health and safety during the Covid pandemic. Recent moves from the Biden White House aim to formalize a national standard.

As with existing protocol, new federal guidance will still require workers to demonstrate how their work environment places their health in jeopardy, that they’ve done something to raise the issue with their employer to enforce an improved standard, and that their employer has chosen to not act on recommended health and safety guidance, such as that from the CDC, local or state regulations — and soon, federal guidance on workplace health and safety.

For example, you can’t just walk into your work facility, see that no one’s wearing a mask, walk off the job and later file for unemployment. However, if you approach your boss about enforcing universal mask-wearing to minimize the spread of the virus, and they decline to do so, you may have just cause for refusing unsafe work that places your health in jeopardy and qualifying for unemployment benefits while you look for a new job.

The Small Business Administration and the Treasury Department are preparing to revive the PPP five months after its first two rounds of funding ended.

In the latest round, businesses that received loans last year will be able to borrow up to $2 million as long as they have no more than 300 employees and suffered at least a 25% drop in quarterly revenue. First-time borrowers with no more than 500 workers will be able to borrow up to $10 million.

The loans, which can be forgiven, will have five-year terms and carry an interest rate of 1%.

The SBA will initially accept only applications submitted by community financial institutions, or CFIs, lenders whose customers are minority-owned and economically disadvantaged businesses. Starting Monday, applications for first-time borrowers submitted by these lenders will accepted, and on Wednesday, applications for second loans. The SBA said it would begin accepting applications from all its lenders within a few days of that initial period reserved for CFIs.

As with the first two rounds of the PPP, applications must be submitted online at banks and other SBA-approved lenders. All applications must be submitted and approved by March 31. Loan amounts are calculated using a company’s payroll expenses; businesses can use either their 2019 or 2020 payroll to compute how much they can ask for.

Companies will have 24 weeks from the date they receive a loan to use the money. While 60% of the proceeds must be used for payroll in order for loans to be forgiven, companies can use the rest for employee health benefits, mortgage interest, rent, utilities and expenses that are essential to business operations.

The PPP is being restarted under the coronavirus relief bill Congress approved in late December, providing for $284 billion in new loans. The first two rounds, which began April 3 and ended Aug. 8, gave out more than 5.2 million loans worth $525 billion.

After months of stalemate, Congress struck a deal on nearly $900 billion in Covid-19 relief, including a new round of direct payments and help for jobless Americans, families and businesses struggling in the pandemic.

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in another case that could reframe the power of state government to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, reviving a debate that began when justices struck down the state’s “Safer at Home” order in May.

The latest dispute stems from an order restricting bar and restaurant capacity that expired more than a month ago, but it raises issues the court left ambiguous in its “Safer at Home” ruling.

Gov. Tony Evers’ administration issued the order on Oct. 6 through powers invoked by state Department of Health Services Secretary Andrea Palm to respond to public health emergencies.

Palm’s order restricted the size of crowds at indoor businesses like restaurants and bars. Under the order, those businesses were limited to 25 percent of their usual capacity. For example, a restaurant that could normally hold up to 200 people would be limited to a crowd of 50.

The Evers administration argues there’s a key difference in this case.

When the court struck down “Safer at Home,” it carved out an exception, stating without explanation in two footnotes in the majority opinion that it was not striking down the state’s powers to close schools.

The law that spells out the power to close schools states that DHS “may close schools and forbid public gatherings in schools, churches, and other places to control outbreaks and epidemics.” The Evers administration argues that Palm’s latest order did just that.

Critics of Palm’s order argue it should be struck down because it relies on part of the same law that the Supreme Court addressed when it struck down “Safer at Home.”

“We have the same agency here. We have the same pandemic. They are repackaging these same exact arguments they made the last time,” said attorney Misha Tseytlin arguing on behalf of the Mix Up, Inc., an Amery bar and grill challenging Palm’s order. “I understand the composition of this court has changed since, but the law hasn’t changed.”

The Federal Reserve kept its benchmark interest rate at a record low near zero Thursday and signaled its readiness to do more if needed to support an economy under threat from a worsening coronavirus pandemic.

The central bank’s policy statement Thursday was approved on a 10-0 vote. Robert Kaplan, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, who had dissented at the previous meeting, voted with the majority this time. Another dissenter in September, Neel Kashkari, head of the Minneapolis Fed, was absent, with his alternate, Mary Daly of the San Francisco Fed, approving the statement.

The statement was nearly identical to the one the Fed issued in September. At that meeting, it adopted a policy goal change it had made in August to keep rates low for some period of time even after inflation hits its 2% annual target. The reason was to allow the Fed to supply a longer boost to the economy and for unemployment to fall further before the policymakers begin to worry about inflation.