New york secure choice

Hi,

A client recieved a letter that New York requires all employers with five employees to offer a retirement plan. Is this true?  It appears from research that this program is voluntary in NY. Thank you

https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/nyc-moves-establish-auto-ira-program

Bill,thank you!

1 hour ago, Bill Presson said:

https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/nyc-moves-establish-auto-ira-program

It seems that the New York secure choice was indeed voluntary , and now they are trying to push for mandatory. In these times, is it fair to force emoloyers to sponsor a plan?  (even if it jusy employee deferrals, it still costs the employer). Thank you very much.

Well it is New York so . . .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZMsv7ojbvA

SSRRS, it’s unclear whether your query is about New York State or New York City.

There are differences between the State’s and the City’s law.

On 5/8/2021 at 4:18 PM, Peter Gulia said:

SSRRS, it’s unclear whether your query is about New York State or New York City.

There are differences between the State’s and the City’s law.

Thank you, Peter Gulia. The query is about Melville, New York.

If the employer is sure it has no one living or working in NYC, it would consider New York State’s law, which you found is voluntary—that is, the State law imposes no punishment on an employer that does not facilitate the program.

9 minutes ago, Peter Gulia said:

If the employer is sure it has no one living or working in NYC, it would consider New York State’s law, which you found is voluntary—that is, the State law imposes no punishment on an employer that does not facilitate the program.

Thank you very much for this clarification. If the company is based in Melvile, New York, however as  construction company it is possible that they might have a  job in NYC or an employee that lives in NYC. If any of these two are applicable, would the employer be required to now offer a plan? It seems that quite a few companies today have been struggling even before this additional new required expense.

The text of New York City’s legislation includes this:

Covered employer.  The term “covered employer” means any employer as defined in subdivision 3 of section 190 of the labor law that (i) employs no fewer than five employees whose regular duties occur in the city, consistent with any rules promulgated by the retirement savings board pursuant to section 20-1408; (ii) has employed no fewer than five such employees without interruption for the previous calendar year; (iii) has been in continuous operation for at least two years; and (iv) has not offered or maintained in the preceding two years a retirement plan, provided that an entity described in clauses (i) through (iv) in the definition of “participating employer” shall not constitute a covered employer.

https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?From=RSS&ID=3498476&GUID=6E78D2BB-A4BA-4FD8-8C03-ABA62C914AEB

An employer would want its lawyers’ advice about how to interpret this.