2012 Employment Law Predictions

Employment Lawyer Daniel Scwhartz has a piece out this week in the Connecticut Law Tribune titled "What Does Magic 8-Ball Think About 2012?

Daniel discusses many expected 2012 employment law developments both nationally and in his home state, including expected Supreme Court decisions.  He is keeping his eye on:

 

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp, in which the court will decide the scope of the “outside sales” exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case arose over a dispute regarding the overtime pay of SmithKline’s pharmaceutical sales representatives. Pharmaceutical companies have traditionally viewed sales reps as “outside sales” employees, meaning they are exempt from overtime pay. The U.S. Department of Labor has disagreed. A decision is expected in June.

The Court will also be deciding the scope of the “ministerial exception” in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC. At issue in whether the First Amendment restricts employment-related suits against religious organizations. The law has been universally applied to pastors, priests and rabbis who allege discrimination. But there is a divide about whether the doctrine extends to other church employees. This case is likely to set forth some of the parameters. A decision in this case is expected by June 2012.

I recommend the article to your reading.  You can find the entire article here.

 

 

Department of Labor Proposes Rule Extending Overtime Protection to In-Home Health Care Workers

Though many of the people they care for wouldn't know it, the roughly two million home care aides who tend to the elderly and disabled don’t enjoy the basic protections of most American workers, such as a guaranteed minimum wage and time-and-a-half for overtime. Such workers are also not paid for the time they spend in the car driving from client to client. But a new federal rule could change that, boosting the pay for such workers.

Congress extended FLSA coverage to "domestic service" workers in 1974, amending the law to apply to employees performing services of a household nature in or about the private home of the person by whom they are employed. Domestic service workers were made subject to the FLSA even though they worked for a private household and not for a covered enterprise. Domestic service workers include, for example, employees employed as cooks, butlers, valets, maids, housekeepers, governesses, janitors, laundresses, caretakers, handymen, gardeners, and family chauffeurs. The 1974 Amendments also created an exemption from both the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements of the Act for casual babysitters and persons "employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves." Congress also created a more limited exemption from the overtime pay requirement for domestic service employees who reside in the household where they work.

The legislative history explains that the 1974 Amendments were intended to include all employees whose vocation was domestic service, but to exempt from coverage babysitters and companions who were not regular bread-winners or responsible for their families' support. It was not intended to exclude trained personnel such as nurses, whether registered or practical, from the protections of the Act.

The home care industry has undergone a dramatic transformation since the Department published the implementing regulations in 1975. There has been a growing demand for long-term in-home care for persons of all ages, in part because of the rising cost of traditional institutional care, and because of the availability of funding assistance for in-home care under Medicare and Medicaid. The growing demand for long-term in- home care for persons is also partly due to the significant increase in our aging population.

In response to the growing demand for long-term in-home care, the home health care services industry has grown. According to the National Association of Home Care (NAHC) publication, Basic Statistics About Home Care (March 2000), data from the Department of Health and Human Services' Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) showed that the number of Medicare-certified home care agencies increased from 2,242 in 1975 to 7,747 in 1999. In the NAHC 2008 update, this number increased to 9,284 by the end of 2007. The number of for-profit agencies not associated with a hospital, rehabilitation facility, or skilled nursing facility, i.e., freestanding agencies, increased more than any other category of agency from 47 in 1975 to 4,919 in 2006. These for-profit agencies grew from 2 percent of total Medicare-certified agencies in 1975 to 68 percent by 2006, and now represent the greatest percentage of certified agencies. Public health agencies, which constituted over one-half of the certified agencies in 1975, now represent only 15 percent.

There has been a similar increase in the employment of home health aides and personal care aides in the private homes of individuals in need of assistance with basic daily living or health maintenance activities. Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) national occupational employment and wage estimates from the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey show that the number of workers in these jobs tripled during the decade between 1988 and 1998, and by 1998 there were 430,440 workers employed as home health aides and 255,960 workers employed as personal care aides. The combined occupations of personal care and home health aides constitute a rapidly growing occupational group. BLS statistics demonstrate that between 1998 and 2008, this occupational group has more than doubled with home health aides increasing to 955,220 and personal care aides increasing to 630,740.

The growth in demand for in-home care and in the home health care services industry has not resulted in growth in earnings for workers providing in-home care. The earnings of employees in the home health aide and personal care aide categories remain among the lowest in the service industry. Studies have shown that the low income of direct care workers including home care workers continues to impede efforts to improve both jobs and care. The DOL believes that protecting domestic service workers under the Act is an important step in ensuring that the home health care industry attracts and retains qualified workers that the sector will need in the future. Moreover, the workers that are employed by home care staffing agencies are not the workers that Congress envisioned when it enacted the companionship exemption i.e., neighbors performing elder sitting, but are instead professional caregivers entitled to FLSA protection.

The most important change proposed by the DOL would limit the companionship exemption to companions employed only by the family or household using the services. Third party employers, such as in-home care staffing agencies, could not claim the exemption, even if the employee is jointly employed by the third party and the family or household. This rule would effectively overrule overrule the 2007 Supreme Court decsion Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, and would require 3rd party employers such as staffing agencies to pay companions and home health workers overtime under the FLSA when they work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case On Scope of FLSA Outside Sales Exemption

 If your employer has categorized you as an "outside sales" rep and you are, therefore, not entitled to overtime pay, then this is a case you will want to be following.  The U.S. Supreme Court, ("SCOTUS") has agreed to hear Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham, to decide whether outside pharmaceutical reps are exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.

Specifically, the Court has taken the case to decide the following issues:

  1. Whether deference is owed to the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption and related regulations; and 
  2. Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.

 Issue number 2 is going to get all of the attention from the media and most laypeople.  However, the first issue - what deference is due a federal agency by the Court - is what most lawyers will be following.  Agencies and the regulations they issue affect all of us in our daily lives.  Given the ever-increasing impotence of Congress to get anything done, agencies are likely to be given even more opportunities to issue regulations (which work like laws to you and me) about important areas of our business and personal lives.  Is this good or bad?  Opinions vary.

These regulations must then be interpreted to fit individual factual situations.  Arguing about what regulations mean in a particular context is a big part of what lawyers and judges do.  This case strikes right at the heart of that work.  The Court's decision will either strengthen the authority of an agency to interpret its own regulations or possibly require an agency to go through a more cumbersome rule-making procedure before it can change an interpretation. 

Court Documents:

Read More:

 

 

 

 

Two Florida Restaurants Ordered to Pay Workers more than $900,000

Two restaurants in Jacksonville and their owners have been ordered to pay 30 employees $934,425 in back wages and liquidated damages under the terms of consent judgments. The agreements resolve a U.S. Department of Labor lawsuit based on an investigation by its Wage and Hour Division that alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage, overtime pay and record-keeping provisions.

Investigators found that kitchen employees were improperly classified as exempt from FLSA overtime pay provisions and consequently paid salaries that did not include compensation for hours worked over 40 in a week. Additionally, every week, tipped employees would receive their tips plus a paycheck that together equaled the minimum wage; however, management required the employees to sign and return the paychecks, and would then cash the checks and put the money back into the restaurant. Through this process, while it appeared that the owners were paying wages, the employees actually were allowed to keep only their tips. Finally, the employers did not maintain accurate records of the hours worked by employees.

The employees will receive $584,425 in back wages and an additional $350,000 in liquidated damages.

The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked, as well as one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 per week. If certain conditions are met, the FLSA permits an employer to take a tip credit toward its minimum wage obligation for tipped employees. The employer must pay tipped employees a cash wage of $2.13 per hour or the state mandated cash wage, whichever is higher; all tips must be retained by the employee except for contributions to a valid tip pooling arrangement; employees must be informed of the tip credit provision; and the amount of tips plus cash wages must equal the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 per hour. Additionally, the law requires that accurate records of employees’ wages, hours and other conditions of employment be maintained.

 

Read the Full Report.

 

 

Valley Hospital Has to Make Payments to Employees for Unpaid Overtime and Meal Breaks

Valley Baptist Medical Center in Brownsville and Harlingen was forced to issue checks this month to some of its employees after a two-year investigation by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor concluded the hospital failed to pay for overtime and unused meal breaks.

The DOL ordered VBMC to issue the reimbursements based on provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The reimbursements covered only the period between March 2009 and March 2011 because of a two-year statute of limitations that applies to recovery of back wages under the law.

According to a newspaper report, VBMC officials would not say how many em-ployees were involved or how much money was reimbursed.

Read the entire article here

 

US Labor Department sues Texas state agency for failing to pay 800 workers for overtime hours amounting to more than $1 million in back wages

The U.S. Department of Labor today filed a lawsuit against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services' Child Protective Services Division in Austin for failing to pay 800 current and former investigators and case workers overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The suit seeks back wages of more than $1 million, plus liquidated damages.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. After an in-depth investigation into CPS' practices statewide, the department's Wage and Hour Division determined that the employees were working "off the clock" rather than compensated for all hours worked. Additionally, supervisors were instructing employees not to record all of their hours worked. Further, required record keeping was not maintained.


The investigation by the Wage and Hour Division's San Antonio office, covering the three-year period from June 2008 to the present, found that CPS willfully violated the FLSA by failing to pay employees for all hours worked over 40 in a week.  In 2000, the Labor Department filed a similar lawsuit against another Texas state agency.  That suit resulted in the state having to cough up $2 million to workers who had been shorted.


The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates of pay, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers must also maintain accurate time and payroll records.

 

 

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain - Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Employees in FLSA Complaint Case

 The Supreme Court has issued an opinion 6-2 in favor of employees (Just Kagen did not participate in the decision) in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.  The court held that for the purposes of invoking retaliation protection under the FLSA a "complaint" may be made either in writing or orally.  The employer had argued that because the statute used the phraseology "filed a complaint," oral complaints should not confer protection against retaliation.

Here is the reasoning of the majority in a nutshell from the Court's syllabus:

 (a) The interpretation of the statutory phrase “depends upon reading the whole statutory text, considering the [statute’s] purpose andcontext . . . , and consulting any precedents or authorities that informthe analysis.” Dolan v. Postal Service, 546 U. S. 481, 486. The text, taken alone, cannot provide a conclusive answer here. Some dictionary definitions of “filed” contemplate a writing while others permitusing “file” in conjunction with oral material. In addition to dictionary definitions, state statutes and federal regulations sometimes contemplate oral filings, and contemporaneous judicial usage shows thatoral filings were a known phenomenon at the time of the Act’s passage. Even if “filed,” considered alone, might suggest a narrow interpretation limited to writings, “any complaint” suggests a broad interpretation that would include an oral complaint. Thus, the three-word phrase, taken by itself, cannot answer the interpretive question. The Act’s other references to “filed” also do not resolve the linguistic question. Some of those provisions involve filed material that is virtually always in writing; others specifically require a writing, and the remainder, like the provision here, leave the oral/written question unresolved. Since “filed any complaint” lends itself linguistically to thebroader, “oral” interpretation, the use of broader language in other statutes’ antiretaliation provisions does not indicate whether Congress did or did not intend to leave oral grievances unprotected here.Because the text, taken alone, might, or might not, encompass oralcomplaints, the Court must look further. Pp. 4–8.

(b) Several functional considerations indicate that Congress intended the antiretaliation provision to cover oral, as well as written, complaints. Pp. 8–14.  

(1) A narrow interpretation would undermine the Act’s basic objective, which is to prohibit “labor conditions detrimental to themaintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health,efficiency, and general well-being of workers,” 29 U. S. C. §202(a).The Act relies for enforcement of its substantive standards on “information and complaints received from employees,” Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U. S. 288, 292, and its antiretaliation provision makes the enforcement scheme effective by preventing “fear ofeconomic retaliation” from inducing workers “quietly to accept substandard conditions,” ibid. Why would Congress want to limit the enforcement scheme’s effectiveness by inhibiting use of the Act’s complaint procedure by those who would find it difficult to reduce theircomplaints to writing, particularly the illiterate, less educated, oroverworked workers who were most in need of the Act’s help at thetime of passage? Limiting the provision’s scope to written complaintscould prevent Government agencies from using hotlines, interviews, and other oral methods to receive complaints. And insofar as the provision covers complaints made to employers, a limiting reading would discourage using informal workplace grievance procedures tosecure compliance with the Act. The National Labor Relations Act’s antiretaliation provision has been broadly interpreted as protecting workers who simply “participate[d] in a [National Labor Relations] Board investigation.” NLRB v. Scrivener, 405 U. S. 117, 123. The similar enforcement needs of this related statute argue for a broad interpretation of “complaint.” The Act’s requirement that an employer receive fair notice of an employee’s complaint can be met byoral, as well as written, complaints. Pp. 8–12.

(2) Given the delegation of enforcement powers to federal administrative agencies, their views about the meaning of the phrase should be given a degree of weight. The Secretary of Labor has consistently held the view that “filed any complaint” covers both oral and written complaints. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has set out a similar view in its Compliance Manual and in multiple briefs. These views are reasonable and consistent with the Act. And the length of time they have been held suggests that they reflect careful consideration, not “post hoc rationalizatio[n].” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 50. Pp. 12–13.

 

(3) After engaging in traditional statutory interpretation methods, the statute does not remain sufficiently ambiguous to warrantapplication of the rule of lenity. Pp. 13–14. 

(c) This Court will not consider Saint-Gobain’s alternative claim that the antiretaliation provision applies only to complaints filed with the Government, since that claim was not raised in the certiorari briefs and since its resolution is not a “ ‘predicate to an intelligent resolution’ ” of the oral/written question at issue, Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 75, n. 13. 

 

I have some crow to eat regarding this decision in that I thought the result would be a much closer decision and would very possibly come out in favor of the employer.  But this decision is certainly a happy surprise for employees, whose protection form retaliation will not be at risk due to hyper-technical application of an employer's internal formal complaint mechanism.

More analysis will certainly be forthcoming in the coming days but I wanted to get the decision up and to you as quickly as possible.  

Here is a link to the decision.  

  

 

 

 

Martin Luther King, Jr.

"This is not a black holiday; it is a people's holiday," -- Coretta Scott King, Nov. 2, 1983. 

A Baptist minister, King became a civil rights activist early in his career. He led the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott and helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957, serving as its first president. King's efforts led to the 1963 March on Washington, where King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. There, he expanded American values to include the vision of a color blind society, and established his reputation as one of the greatest orators in American history.


In 1964, King became the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end racial segregation and racial discrimination through civil disobedience and other nonviolent means. By the time of his assassination in 1968, he had refocused his efforts on ending poverty and stopping the Vietnam War. He was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 and Congressional Gold Medal in 2004.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was established as a U.S. federal holiday in 1986.

 

 

 

Analysis of Oral Argument in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics

 The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.  You recall that In Kasten, the Court will determine whether an employee's making an oral, instead of a written, complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is protected conduct under the statute's anti-retaliation provision.

October 17, 2010 - UPDATE - Link to Oral Argument Audio Added

 

 

Continue Reading...

HR Question: Should I Be Paid For Travel Time?

 We get a high volume of basic HR-related questions here at the HR Lawyer's Blog.  So many, in fact, that we are sometimes not able to respond to each and every one of them individually as we would like. So it occurred to us that it might be a good thing to post some of these questions and answer them publicly on the site.  Thus we begin the first in what we hope will be a regular series titled "HR Questions."

 

Today's question involves application of the Fair Labor Standards ("FLSA") to travel time.  A reader asks:

 

My job requires me to drive from home to various work sites all over the state for my job.  The company does not provide me with a vehicle to drive so I have to use my own and they only start paying me for my time after I arrive at the work site.  Is this legal?

 

Continue Reading...

Federal Minimum Wage Increases to $7.25 Today

Just a reminder that the federal minimum wage increases to $7.25 Today, July 24. With this change, employees who are covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) will be entitled to no less than $7.25 per hour.

Employers can download an updated FLSA Minimum Wage Poster here for posting in the workplace.

 

 

 

Majority of Americans Oppose Forced Arbitration

The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy and Public Citizen have completed a National Study of Public Attitudes on Forced Arbitration.  The release is no doubt an effort to support the Arbitration Fairness Act, which is currently in Congress.

The study is based on a major national survey on mandatory arbitration of employment and consumer claims conducted by Lake Research Partners.

The survey of 800 likely voters nationwide found that:

  • A solid majority of Americans (59%) opposes forced arbitration clauses in the fine print of employment and consumer contracts, including both men and women and majorities of Democrats, independents, and Republicans.
  • Similarly strong majorities (59%) support the Arbitration Fairness Act. Support for the Act also crosses traditional gender and political divides.
  • Even after voters hear arguments in favor of, and opposed to, forced arbitration, opposition to the practice holds firm. Just one-third of the electorate supports the practice.
  • Roughly three-quarters of Americans believe they can sue an employer or company should they be seriously harmed or have a major dispute arise - even if they are bound by forced arbitration terms.
  • Most Americans are unaware of the rights being taken away from them. Approximately two-thirds cannot remember seeing anything about forced arbitration in either Terms of Employment or Terms of Agreement for goods and services.

Here is a link to the study materials.

Here are more materials on the current version of the Arbitration Fairness Act.

Do Federal Judges Discriminate Against Discrimination Claims?

The Wall Street Journal Blog and Paper has a story this week analyzing whether job discrimination plaintiffs get a raw deal in federal court

The WSJ piece examines that question, citing recent studies that show discrimination plaintiffs lose at a higher rate in federal court than other plaintiffs and more often get tossed out of court on summary judgments.

"From 1979 through 2006, federal plaintiffs won 15% of job-discrimination cases. By comparison, plaintiffs in other cases not involving alleged job discrimination enjoyed a 51% win rate, according to this study due to be published later this month by the Harvard Law & Policy Review, the official journal of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy."

This is certainly not news to those of us that work in the employment law trenches day in and day out.  Employment law is a different animal than most other types of cases that courts have to deal with.  Often what is at issue is not what action was taken by an employer but rather what was in the decision-maker's heart when the action was taken.  This has led to some pretty tortured legal tests and summary judgment standards across the country.  And, the simple truth of the matter is that many judges have a reflexive dislike for the subjective nature of the cases.  I think this gets reflected in judges being quicker to substitute their judgment for that of a jury in these types of cases. 

The WSJ Blog article ends with a quote from a New York lawyer lamenting that plaintiff-side employment cases have gotten so hard to win that his firm won't take them anymore.  I think this may be going overboard a bit.  Employment cases are certainly not for the faint of heart but they are winnable. 

One issue which may be contributing to this statistical anomaly is the fact that many employment cases are filed pro se or by lawyers who are not employment law specialists.  This likely leads to a great many cases that are not properly prepared to face the defendant's inevitable motion for dismissal. 

Representing a plaintiff in an employment-related lawsuit takes determination, hard work and a specialized knowledge of state and federal employment statutes and case law.  Employment cases are nothing like personal injury cases.  In my opinion, this is not an area of the law where lawyers should "dabble."  The practice is chock full of counter-intuitive legal standards and procedural traps waiting for the unwary practitioner. 


Source: WSJ Blog

Hat Tip: Ross Runkel

 

Coming Soon: I am working on a longer post discussing what you should keep in mind when looking for an employment law specialist to handle your case.  Watch for it.

 

 

Wal-Mart to Pay Over Half a Billion Dollars to Settle Overtime and other FLSA Lawsuits

Walmart has agreed to pay up to $640 million to settle 63 wage and hour class action lawsuits that have been pending against the company for several years.  The company, which has been fighting such suits for years, apparently finally decided to simply get the matter behind it.  In its statement, the Company indicated that the lawsuits were regarding facts and circumstances of many years ago and that it does not represent Walmart's current approach to employee compensation issues.

As part of the settlement, Walmart has agreed to continue to use various electronic systems and other measures designed to maintain compliance with its wage and hour policies and applicable law.

 

Previous Similar Stories:

Wal-Mart Agrees to Pay $34 Million for Overtime Violations

Does Wal-mart need a hall monitor?

 

 

 

Obama Nominates Hilda Solis for Labor Secretary

Barack Obama has nominated California Democratic Rep. Hilda Solis as his labor secretary.  Solis, the daughter of two Hispanic immigrants, has been in Congress since 2000.  She has never served on the House Education and Labor Committee. She currently serves on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Solis received her degrees from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and the University of Southern California and worked for two federal agencies in Washington, D.C. She was elected to the California State Assembly in 1992 and to the California State Senate in 1994. She was the first Hispanic woman to serve in the State Senate, and was re-elected there in 1998. She became known for her work toward environmental justice and was the recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2000.

Solis is well-liked by labor.  Service Employee International Union ("SEIU") President Andy Stern hailed the nomination of Solis: 

"As someone who has pounded the pavement knocking on doors for Hilda Solis in her first upset campaign in California, I can tell you firsthand that this woman is about opening doors for millions of Americans who get up and go to work each day.

From the streets of Los Angeles where she marched with the janitors who were fighting for jobs with dignity that can support a family through SEIU's Justice for Janitors campaigns, to the halls of Congress where she has been an outspoken supporter of healthcare rights for all, a livable minimum wage, and workers' right to come together for a voice on the job, Hilda Solis has never backed down from the good fight to make the American Dream available to all."

You can find Congresswoman Solis' Homepage here.  It has links to her statements and bills that she is attached to. 

The Associated Press quoted Randy Johnson, vice president for labor issues at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with regard to what the response of business groups would be to her nomination: "There’s a new sheriff in town, but they’ll still have to deal with the business community, and they know it.  We would hope she will continue to support programs that help educate employers about voluntary compliance with the law rather than pursue heavy-handed enforcement.”

 

Sources: AP, Wikipedia, SEIU Press Release



 

The Presidential Candidates on HR Issues

As promised, here is additional information regarding what each of the presidential candidates plans to do with regard to workplace and HR issues.  This information is taken directly from the candidates' respective campaign websites without any editing or alteration whatsoever.

John McCain

John McCain is calling for National Commission on Workplace Flexibility and Choice. This Commission would bring together a bi-partisan set of leaders representing workers, small and large employers, labor, and academics.  The Commission would make recommendations to the President on how modernizing our nation’s labor laws and training programs can help workers better balance the demands of their job with family life and to enable workers to more easily transition between jobs.

The Commission would examine the following issues that John McCain believes are important to workplace flexibility and choice:

  • Modernizing the nation’s labor laws so that they allow for more flexible scheduling arrangements
  • Ensuring that the nation’s labor laws don’t get in the way of working at home
  • Promoting telework so that workers can spend less time commuting
  • Making health more portable so that workers don’t lose their benefits when they switch jobs
  • Ensuring that workers can choose retirement plans that best suit their needs
  • Providing workers with more choice in job training assistance so that they can build the skills they need for new and better jobs

Barack Obama

Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year.

  • Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.
  • Fight Attacks on Workers' Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB's "Kentucky River" decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws.
  • Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.
  • Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs.
  • Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies: The Obama plan will increase funding for federal workforce training programs and direct these programs to incorporate green technologies training, such as advanced manufacturing and weatherization training, into their efforts to help Americans find and retain stable, high-paying jobs. Obama will also create an energy-focused youth jobs program to invest in disconnected and disadvantaged youth.
  • Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.
  • End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas: Barack Obama believes that companies should not get billions of dollars in tax deductions for moving their operations overseas. Obama will also fight to ensure that public contracts are awarded to companies that are committed to American workers.
  • Reward Companies that Support American Workers: Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 with Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to reward companies that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers. The legislation would provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America if it has ever been in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.
  • Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act: The FMLA covers only certain employees of employers with 50 or more employees. Obama will expand it to cover businesses with 25 or more employees. He will expand the FMLA to cover more purposes as well, including allowing workers to take leave for elder care needs; allowing parents up to 24 hours of leave each year to participate in their children's academic activities; and expanding FMLA to cover leave for employees to address domestic violence.
  • Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave: As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.
  • Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve a million more children. Obama will include measures to maximize performance and effectiveness across grantees nationwide.
  • Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.
  • Protect Against Caregiver Discrimination: Workers with family obligations often are discriminated against in the workplace. Obama will enforce the recently-enacted Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines on caregiver discrimination.
  • Expand Flexible Work Arrangements: Obama will create a program to inform businesses about the benefits of flexible work schedules; help businesses create flexible work opportunities; and increase federal incentives for telecommuting. Obama will also make the federal government a model employer in terms of adopting flexible work schedules and permitting employees to request flexible arrangements.

Obama on The Dignity of Work

Barack Obama recently spoke at some length regarding his views regarding labor and workplace issues.  The video of his remarks is included below.  Leave a comment and tell us what you think.

P.S. I am looking for video of McCain addressing work-related issues and will post it up as soon as I find it.   

 

Tyson Foods Files Reply Brief in Effort to have Supreme Court Redefine "Work"

On Tuesday, the petitioner filed this reply brief in the case of Tyson Foods, Inc. v. de Ascencio. The issue is “whether the time spent donning light protective gear constitutes ‘work’ under the Fair Labor Standards Act if the activities do not require a significant level of exertion.” The cert. petition can be found here and the respondent’s brief in opposition here, while the opinion of the Third Circuit can be found here.


Related Posts:

Olive Garden / Red Lobster Owner Settles Wage-And-Hour Claim for 11 Million

Darden Restaurants Inc., the owner of Red Lobster and Olive Garden, disclosed Thursday that it has settled with a group of former employees who sought unpaid overtime wages and penalties and will pay up to 11 million dollars. Beginning in 2002, a total of five purported class action lawsuits were filed in Superior Courts of California (two each in Los Angeles County and Orange County, and one in Sacramento County) in which the plaintiffs allege that they and other current and former service managers, beverage and hospitality managers and culinary managers were improperly classified as exempt employees under California labor laws. According to its SEC filings, Darden has agreed to pay up to a maximum total of $11.0 million to settle all five cases. The settlement agreement has received final court approval and payment of the settlement proceeds is expected to occur before the end of fiscal 2007.

This is not Darden's first big wage/hour settlement in recent years. From a year ago:
More than 40,000 current and former hourly workers at California Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants will share $9.5 million as part of a settlement involving claims that they were prevented from taking breaks, and that they were required to purchase and maintain their own employee uniforms. Red Lobster workers from more than 40 locations in California who worked there from February 21, 1998 to the present will share $5.5 million, while Olive Garden employees who worked from March 24, 1999 to the present will share another $4 million.

Two food servers at the Brea Red Lobster restaurant filed the first class action complaint in Orange County Superior Court in February 2002, alleging that Red Lobster refused to allow breaks to its non-exempt workers throughout the State of California. The complaint was subsequently amended to include damages and restitution for Red Lobster's former policy of charging workers for uniforms, and for making the employees maintain their own uniforms. In March 2003, an Olive Garden employee filed a similar complaint, seeking certification of all GMRI workers, including both the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains. In May 2004, while the first case was on appeal from an Orange County Superior Court ruling denying the defendant's motions for summary judgment and to compel arbitration, a third lawsuit was filed in Sacramento, California.

Under California Labor Code § 226.7 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 5, employees are entitled to a paid ten-minute break for every four hours of work, or major fraction thereof. Employees working at least 3½ hours are entitled to one paid break, and earn a second paid break after six hours. Furthermore, employees who work more than five hour shifts are entitled to a 30 minute break which need not be paid. Under California Labor Code § 450 and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 5, employers are required to pay for the cost of purchasing and maintaining employee uniforms and may not require employees to purchase anything of value, including uniforms, from the company.
Source: California Wage/Hour Law

Wal-Mart Agrees to Pay $34 Million for Overtime Violations

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has agreed to pay nearly $34 million in back wages and interest for calculating overtime incorrectly over a span of almost 5 years. The agreement with the Department of Labor covers 86,680 employees who worked for the company from February 1, 2002 to January 19, 2007. The department says that Wal-Mart brought the matter to its attention after an internal audit raised concerns regarding overtime calculations. Wal-Mart says it failed to include periodic bonuses and other earned income in determining some employees' regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. In addition, some overtime payments were based on a regular rate calculated for each two-week payroll period, when they should have been calculated weekly.LaborProfBlog makes two points regarding this story:
  1. He says Wal-Mart deserves credit for self-reporting this error; but
  2. It is very surprising that Wal-Mart's HR department allowed this to happen at all. This is not a complicated area of FLSA law.
While Wal-Mart does deserve some credit for self-reporting the issue, it is likely they did so because it was simply good business. By self-reporting and negotiating directly with the Labor Department, they were apparently able to cut a deal in which they are not required to pay any interest or penalties (including standard double damages) that they would most likely have had to pay had this been brought as a lawsuit against the company. It is also as yet unclear to me whether the Labor Department obtained all of the pay records at issue and calculated the wages owed themselves or whether they simply took Wal-Mart's word for what was owed.