|
Your source for the latest developments in workplace rights and employment law, "Today's Workplace" is the blog (weblog) written by Paula Brantner, Program Director of Workplace Fairness. In each entry, Paula focuses on legal and political information relevant to employee rights and fairness issues in the workplace.
|
Friday, February 28, 2003
Progress in Several States on Sexual Orientation Discrimination Laws
It was announced today that New Mexico may soon become the 14th state to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and the third to have a law making gender identity discrimination illegal. See Human Rights Campaign press release.) A celebration is slightly premature, however, as the House and Senate must reconcile different versions of the bill (House Bill 314, Senate Bill 28) before the bill goes to the Governor, Democrat Bill Richardson, who has already pledged to sign it. The reconciliation of the two bills may take a few weeks, due to the backlog of other bills.
While things are moving a little more slowly in the state of Illinois, capital-watchers in that state also recently reported progress on sexual orientation legislation. See Sun-Times article.) Yesterday (Feb. 28), a Senate committee approved a sexual orientation discrimination ban, (Senate Bill 101), an addition to the Illinois Human Rights Act, by a vote of 8-4. In the past, similar bills have passed in the state House but failed in a Republican-controlled Senate. Now that the Democrats control the Senate, the bill is seen as possibly having a better chance, however, the bill's ultimate prognosis remains unclear. Some Democrats from more rural areas who supported the bill in committee may end up voting against the bill on the Senate floor, and the bill's cosponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen (D-Chicago) said she won't call for a vote by the full Senate unless she has enough votes for it to pass. Newly-elected Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and new Senate President Emil Jones Jr., a Chicago Democrat, both support the plan. While the Illinois bill does not explicitly make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, the bill's definition of sexual orientation should encompass transgender discrimination, with the definition of sexual orientation including those "having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity, appearance, expression, or behavior, whether or not traditionally associated with the person's designated sex at birth." Several other states have also introduced anti-discrimination legislation this year. For an update on all pending state legislative efforts, see HRC's What's Happening in Your State page.)
For more information on existing discrimination laws in the states, see the Workplace Fairness sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination pages.
It was announced today that New Mexico may soon become the 14th state to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and the third to have a law making gender identity discrimination illegal. See Human Rights Campaign press release.) A celebration is slightly premature, however, as the House and Senate must reconcile different versions of the bill (House Bill 314, Senate Bill 28) before the bill goes to the Governor, Democrat Bill Richardson, who has already pledged to sign it. The reconciliation of the two bills may take a few weeks, due to the backlog of other bills.
While things are moving a little more slowly in the state of Illinois, capital-watchers in that state also recently reported progress on sexual orientation legislation. See Sun-Times article.) Yesterday (Feb. 28), a Senate committee approved a sexual orientation discrimination ban, (Senate Bill 101), an addition to the Illinois Human Rights Act, by a vote of 8-4. In the past, similar bills have passed in the state House but failed in a Republican-controlled Senate. Now that the Democrats control the Senate, the bill is seen as possibly having a better chance, however, the bill's ultimate prognosis remains unclear. Some Democrats from more rural areas who supported the bill in committee may end up voting against the bill on the Senate floor, and the bill's cosponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen (D-Chicago) said she won't call for a vote by the full Senate unless she has enough votes for it to pass. Newly-elected Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and new Senate President Emil Jones Jr., a Chicago Democrat, both support the plan. While the Illinois bill does not explicitly make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity, the bill's definition of sexual orientation should encompass transgender discrimination, with the definition of sexual orientation including those "having or being perceived as having a gender-related self-identity, appearance, expression, or behavior, whether or not traditionally associated with the person's designated sex at birth." Several other states have also introduced anti-discrimination legislation this year. For an update on all pending state legislative efforts, see HRC's What's Happening in Your State page.)
For more information on existing discrimination laws in the states, see the Workplace Fairness sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination pages.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Is There Less Workplace Privacy These Days?
Workplace monitoring is on the rise, no doubt about it. According to an American Management Association survey, more than three-quarters of major companies now record and review employee communications and on-the-job activities. (See USA Today article.). And that's just after you get a job--background investigations are also on the rise, as companies dealing with post-September 11 jitters have become increasingly wary about hiring the wrong people. (See Washington Post article). According to the results of a survey published by the Society of Human Resource Management, 52% of businesses have implemented increased security provisions since 9/11, and anecdotal comments suggest many companies have implemented this increased security through the use of more thorough background screenings. Another explanation for increased security measures is the faltering economy and the need for maximum workplace productivity.
Firms specializing in background screening and workplace security claim they're receiving more business than they can handle. Database companies can quickly verify identities and check criminal records, driving histories and former addresses, as well as applicants' credit records, education credentials and previous employment. Fees start at just a few dollars for the most basic reports, making it cost-effective from a business perspective. Some on-the-job monitoring that is becoming increasingly prevalent: hiring third parties to keep an eye on employee activity, with actors--introduced as the newest hires--as undercover agents monitoring employee behavior; camera and audio monitoring, made much less costly by new technology; and electronic surveillance which allows managers to record keystrokes, e-mail, online chats, instant messages and more.
But is all this surveillance really necessary? Doesn't it raise privacy concerns? Yes, says Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU, who responds "They [the various forms of surveillance] all raise concerns from the privacy point of view. Our every action and utterance is being watched." But given the dearth of laws protecting workplace privacy, in most instances, these types of surveillance are legal. (See National Workrights Institute issue page). That's not likely to change, given employers' heightened fears about security and productivity. So watch out, because the guy in the next cubicle might just be watching you.
Workplace monitoring is on the rise, no doubt about it. According to an American Management Association survey, more than three-quarters of major companies now record and review employee communications and on-the-job activities. (See USA Today article.). And that's just after you get a job--background investigations are also on the rise, as companies dealing with post-September 11 jitters have become increasingly wary about hiring the wrong people. (See Washington Post article). According to the results of a survey published by the Society of Human Resource Management, 52% of businesses have implemented increased security provisions since 9/11, and anecdotal comments suggest many companies have implemented this increased security through the use of more thorough background screenings. Another explanation for increased security measures is the faltering economy and the need for maximum workplace productivity.
Firms specializing in background screening and workplace security claim they're receiving more business than they can handle. Database companies can quickly verify identities and check criminal records, driving histories and former addresses, as well as applicants' credit records, education credentials and previous employment. Fees start at just a few dollars for the most basic reports, making it cost-effective from a business perspective. Some on-the-job monitoring that is becoming increasingly prevalent: hiring third parties to keep an eye on employee activity, with actors--introduced as the newest hires--as undercover agents monitoring employee behavior; camera and audio monitoring, made much less costly by new technology; and electronic surveillance which allows managers to record keystrokes, e-mail, online chats, instant messages and more.
But is all this surveillance really necessary? Doesn't it raise privacy concerns? Yes, says Barry Steinhardt of the ACLU, who responds "They [the various forms of surveillance] all raise concerns from the privacy point of view. Our every action and utterance is being watched." But given the dearth of laws protecting workplace privacy, in most instances, these types of surveillance are legal. (See National Workrights Institute issue page). That's not likely to change, given employers' heightened fears about security and productivity. So watch out, because the guy in the next cubicle might just be watching you.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Union Membership Down; Is Interest in Joining Up?
Union leaders gathered in Hollywood, Florida for this week's AFL-CIO winter executive council meeting were confronted with some bad news. Union membership has reached its lowest level in two decades, according to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Some 13.2 percent of America's work force belonged to unions in 2002, down from 13.4 percent in 2001, according to the report. The primary explanation for the decline is that manufacturing companies hemorrhaged traditional union jobs faster than organizers could build new membership in other areas. (See AP article.)
Union leaders responded to the bad news with their own poll: one that showed that over half of workers surveyed said that they would form a union tomorrow if given the chance. (See AFL-CIO press release.) Since employers often resist unionization efforts, also under discussion at this week's meeting is a "comprehensive, union movement wide campaign to expose the immoral and illegal tactics employers use to thwart workers’ efforts to form unions." This organizing effort will be known as the "National Rights at Work Committee," and will attempt to counter difficulties workers in many industries have encountered when trying to form unions. (See NY Times article.)
Some critics of the labor movement claim that more needs to be done to stem the decline in union membership. Thomas Geoghegan comments in response: ``The big challenge is whether these labor leaders can think outside the box to figure out a way to pull in people.'' Geoghegan is a labor lawyer and author who frequently comments on unionization issues. A provocative article coauthored by Geoghegan and Barbara Ehrenreich recently appeared in The Nation magazine. Called Lighting Labor's Fire, the article begins with the statement, "The collapse of union membership in America, from its peak at 38 percent in the mid-fifties to 9 percent of the private work force today, is the one big reason for our roaring inequality." It is clear that union membership makes a difference in a workers' wage: even the DOL report acknowledges that in 2002, full-time wage and salary workers who were union members had median usual weekly earnings of $740, compared with a median of $587 for wage and salary workers who were not represented by unions.
But can we wait for unionization to catch up with the economy, or for the Rights at Work Committee to take off? With little sign of economic improvement, union membership is going to continue to hemorrhage at an alarming rate. One solution proposed by Geoghegan and Ehrenreich is for unions to offer affiliate or individual memberships--a form of membership accessible to any worker, regardless of whether a union had successfully organized the workplace. Our sister organization, the National Employment Lawyers Association, is mentioned in the article as a possible co-collaborator in this effort, with the idea that people would join unions individually if it meant access to an employee rights attorney. It's an interesting idea, which is sure to be discussed in the coming months, involving Workplace Fairness, NELA, and other organizations. It's clear that something must be done if workers are to be able to stand up to their employers, and if unions aren't the solution, then a new solution is needed.
Union leaders gathered in Hollywood, Florida for this week's AFL-CIO winter executive council meeting were confronted with some bad news. Union membership has reached its lowest level in two decades, according to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Some 13.2 percent of America's work force belonged to unions in 2002, down from 13.4 percent in 2001, according to the report. The primary explanation for the decline is that manufacturing companies hemorrhaged traditional union jobs faster than organizers could build new membership in other areas. (See AP article.)
Union leaders responded to the bad news with their own poll: one that showed that over half of workers surveyed said that they would form a union tomorrow if given the chance. (See AFL-CIO press release.) Since employers often resist unionization efforts, also under discussion at this week's meeting is a "comprehensive, union movement wide campaign to expose the immoral and illegal tactics employers use to thwart workers’ efforts to form unions." This organizing effort will be known as the "National Rights at Work Committee," and will attempt to counter difficulties workers in many industries have encountered when trying to form unions. (See NY Times article.)
Some critics of the labor movement claim that more needs to be done to stem the decline in union membership. Thomas Geoghegan comments in response: ``The big challenge is whether these labor leaders can think outside the box to figure out a way to pull in people.'' Geoghegan is a labor lawyer and author who frequently comments on unionization issues. A provocative article coauthored by Geoghegan and Barbara Ehrenreich recently appeared in The Nation magazine. Called Lighting Labor's Fire, the article begins with the statement, "The collapse of union membership in America, from its peak at 38 percent in the mid-fifties to 9 percent of the private work force today, is the one big reason for our roaring inequality." It is clear that union membership makes a difference in a workers' wage: even the DOL report acknowledges that in 2002, full-time wage and salary workers who were union members had median usual weekly earnings of $740, compared with a median of $587 for wage and salary workers who were not represented by unions.
But can we wait for unionization to catch up with the economy, or for the Rights at Work Committee to take off? With little sign of economic improvement, union membership is going to continue to hemorrhage at an alarming rate. One solution proposed by Geoghegan and Ehrenreich is for unions to offer affiliate or individual memberships--a form of membership accessible to any worker, regardless of whether a union had successfully organized the workplace. Our sister organization, the National Employment Lawyers Association, is mentioned in the article as a possible co-collaborator in this effort, with the idea that people would join unions individually if it meant access to an employee rights attorney. It's an interesting idea, which is sure to be discussed in the coming months, involving Workplace Fairness, NELA, and other organizations. It's clear that something must be done if workers are to be able to stand up to their employers, and if unions aren't the solution, then a new solution is needed.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
If College Students Can Do It, So Can You
What would you do to prevent being arbitrarily fired or laid off? How much time are you willing to spend to make sure that you, your family, and your friends don't ever have to face being discriminated against? A day? an hour? half hour? ten minutes? A two-hour drive? a five-minute telephone call? I read today about some North Carolina college students, to whom a tuition hike means the difference between a full-time caseload and a part-time caseload, or choosing between classes and adequate meals, who have decided to take action. But instead of sit-ins and noisy protests, they have instead visited their legislators. See the article "Tuition hikes turn students into lobbyists." These students aren't experienced fat-cat lobbyists, or even kids with trust funds. In most cases, those lobbying are first-generation college students from poor and lower-middle-class families. They don't have a lot of life (or lobbying) experience yet, and many have to dig pretty deep in their closets to find professional clothing. But they do know how important it is that higher education and grants for needy students be adequately funded, and despite their youth and inexperience, they're taking their story to the politicians that matter. In a particularly effective PR ploy, students in New Mexico handed out packets of ramen noodles (the diet staple of poor college students) to legislators to hammer home the effect of budget cuts. Legislators can no longer make drastic cuts to university budgets before first staring in the face the victims of these cuts. And that can be very effective.
In the next several months, there will be a number of issues that will affect you personally as an employee, whether it's a law under consideration in Washington or your state capital, the actions of a company CEO, or the appointment of a judge hostile to the rights of workers. (See Demand Fair Judges!) At this site and elsewhere, you will be asked to do something about these issues. We may need individuals who can tell their story to legislators. (Share Your Story) We may need you to write a letter or make a phone call, sometimes on very short notice. (Action Center) We may want you to tell your friends and coworkers and mobilize as many people as you can. (Tell-a-Friend)
When we ask you to do something, if your reaction tends to be "I can't do that...lobbying is for those articulate politician types" or: "I'm too busy" then think again. Think of those college students who talked about eating grilled cheese sandwiches in order to pay their tuition bills, and who ironed their shirts and wore ties to speak with legislators who made the choices affecting their lives. Surely you can do as much (or even less in many cases--a letter takes 5 minutes or less) to preserve your livelihood, and to demand that you and your coworkers be treated fairly and with respect at work, right?
Sign Up for E-Mail Action Alerts
What would you do to prevent being arbitrarily fired or laid off? How much time are you willing to spend to make sure that you, your family, and your friends don't ever have to face being discriminated against? A day? an hour? half hour? ten minutes? A two-hour drive? a five-minute telephone call? I read today about some North Carolina college students, to whom a tuition hike means the difference between a full-time caseload and a part-time caseload, or choosing between classes and adequate meals, who have decided to take action. But instead of sit-ins and noisy protests, they have instead visited their legislators. See the article "Tuition hikes turn students into lobbyists." These students aren't experienced fat-cat lobbyists, or even kids with trust funds. In most cases, those lobbying are first-generation college students from poor and lower-middle-class families. They don't have a lot of life (or lobbying) experience yet, and many have to dig pretty deep in their closets to find professional clothing. But they do know how important it is that higher education and grants for needy students be adequately funded, and despite their youth and inexperience, they're taking their story to the politicians that matter. In a particularly effective PR ploy, students in New Mexico handed out packets of ramen noodles (the diet staple of poor college students) to legislators to hammer home the effect of budget cuts. Legislators can no longer make drastic cuts to university budgets before first staring in the face the victims of these cuts. And that can be very effective.
In the next several months, there will be a number of issues that will affect you personally as an employee, whether it's a law under consideration in Washington or your state capital, the actions of a company CEO, or the appointment of a judge hostile to the rights of workers. (See Demand Fair Judges!) At this site and elsewhere, you will be asked to do something about these issues. We may need individuals who can tell their story to legislators. (Share Your Story) We may need you to write a letter or make a phone call, sometimes on very short notice. (Action Center) We may want you to tell your friends and coworkers and mobilize as many people as you can. (Tell-a-Friend)
When we ask you to do something, if your reaction tends to be "I can't do that...lobbying is for those articulate politician types" or: "I'm too busy" then think again. Think of those college students who talked about eating grilled cheese sandwiches in order to pay their tuition bills, and who ironed their shirts and wore ties to speak with legislators who made the choices affecting their lives. Surely you can do as much (or even less in many cases--a letter takes 5 minutes or less) to preserve your livelihood, and to demand that you and your coworkers be treated fairly and with respect at work, right?
Sign Up for E-Mail Action Alerts
Comments:
Post a Comment
Monday, February 24, 2003
This Week in the Courts: Learn About Recent Decisions Here
Have you been looking for a place where you can find recent court decisions? Now you can look here to find the latest decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts around the country. The new site feature, This Week in the Courts, will be updated weekly, starting today, and will feature all reported cases dealing with employment, labor, and employee benefits issues. With one click, you will be able to see the latest cases happening around the country. And if you read a case today, then need to reference it a couple of months later, don't worry. We plan on keeping cases around for at least several months, so come back later if you find you need the case you read about today. We also plan to soon add all cases going back to the beginning of 2003, so if you would like to review older cases, please revisit us soon.
This new site feature is found in our site's new "News and Issues" area, which contains this page (Today's Workplace), and our Today's News Headlines, another recently implemented site feature which contains the latest news about new court decisions and workplace trends. We hope you find all of these new interactive features helpful as you try to stay on top of the latest developments that affect workplace fairness.
Have you been looking for a place where you can find recent court decisions? Now you can look here to find the latest decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate courts around the country. The new site feature, This Week in the Courts, will be updated weekly, starting today, and will feature all reported cases dealing with employment, labor, and employee benefits issues. With one click, you will be able to see the latest cases happening around the country. And if you read a case today, then need to reference it a couple of months later, don't worry. We plan on keeping cases around for at least several months, so come back later if you find you need the case you read about today. We also plan to soon add all cases going back to the beginning of 2003, so if you would like to review older cases, please revisit us soon.
This new site feature is found in our site's new "News and Issues" area, which contains this page (Today's Workplace), and our Today's News Headlines, another recently implemented site feature which contains the latest news about new court decisions and workplace trends. We hope you find all of these new interactive features helpful as you try to stay on top of the latest developments that affect workplace fairness.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Friday, February 21, 2003
Disabled Worker in California Benefits From Less Restrictive State Disability Discrimination Standards
Disabled workers in California won an important victory today as the California Supreme Court announced its decision in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club. (See LA Times story.) At stake in Colmenares was whether the California law barring discrimination in jobs and housing protects people with conditions that limit their participation in a major activity. By contrast, federal law protects the disabled from discrimination on the job only if the condition substantially limits one or more major activities.
Francisco Colmenares filed the lawsuit when his employer, the Braemar Country Club, fired him after 25 years on the job. Colmenares had injured his back on the job in 1981, and the country club accommodated his injury by assigning him light duties and later promoting him to a foreman position that he could handle despite his back problems. Colmenares earned positive job evaluations as foreman until 1995, when a new supervisor gave him poor reviews and eventually reassigned him from golf course maintenance to supervising construction of a clubhouse, a job that required heavy labor. In 1997, Colmenares was fired for "deficiencies in his work performance." Colmenares sued, charging he was fired because of his bad back. The country club countered that he had no disability under state law because his back injury did not "substantially" limit a major life activity.
This ruling is also important because it provides protection to workers who claimed disability discrimination prior to 2001, when a new law went into effect, making clear that California disability discrimination laws were to be interpreted more broadly than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Colmenares' employer, like many other employers in pending lawsuits, argued that prior to 2001, that California law should be interpreted the same way as federal law, which would have made it very difficult for Colmenares and many other disabled plaintiffs to proceed with their disability discrimination lawsuits. However, the California Supreme Court made clear in its ruling today that even prior to 2001, California antidiscrimination law should be interpreted more broadly than federal law, which helps not only Colmenares, but anyone affected by the 2001 change in the law. The federal "substantially limit" standard has been used to defeat innumerable disability claims, putting many disabled workers in the double bind of being either "too disabled" to qualify for the law's protection (not qualified to perform the essential functions or duties of a job), or "not disabled enough" under the "substantially limit" standard. (For more information about disability discrimination law, see the Workplace Fairness web site page on disability discrimination.)
While this decision does not directly affect workers in other states covered by either federal or state disability discrimination laws, it does demonstrate the importance of efforts to pass state laws which are expressly written to overcome some of the limitations of the federal ADA. And whether or not Mr. Colmenares ultimately wins his case (the country club claims that he is not disabled at all, even under the new standard), thousands of disabled workers in California are likely to benefit from the less restrictive California standards interpreted by the California Supreme Court today.
Disabled workers in California won an important victory today as the California Supreme Court announced its decision in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club. (See LA Times story.) At stake in Colmenares was whether the California law barring discrimination in jobs and housing protects people with conditions that limit their participation in a major activity. By contrast, federal law protects the disabled from discrimination on the job only if the condition substantially limits one or more major activities.
Francisco Colmenares filed the lawsuit when his employer, the Braemar Country Club, fired him after 25 years on the job. Colmenares had injured his back on the job in 1981, and the country club accommodated his injury by assigning him light duties and later promoting him to a foreman position that he could handle despite his back problems. Colmenares earned positive job evaluations as foreman until 1995, when a new supervisor gave him poor reviews and eventually reassigned him from golf course maintenance to supervising construction of a clubhouse, a job that required heavy labor. In 1997, Colmenares was fired for "deficiencies in his work performance." Colmenares sued, charging he was fired because of his bad back. The country club countered that he had no disability under state law because his back injury did not "substantially" limit a major life activity.
This ruling is also important because it provides protection to workers who claimed disability discrimination prior to 2001, when a new law went into effect, making clear that California disability discrimination laws were to be interpreted more broadly than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Colmenares' employer, like many other employers in pending lawsuits, argued that prior to 2001, that California law should be interpreted the same way as federal law, which would have made it very difficult for Colmenares and many other disabled plaintiffs to proceed with their disability discrimination lawsuits. However, the California Supreme Court made clear in its ruling today that even prior to 2001, California antidiscrimination law should be interpreted more broadly than federal law, which helps not only Colmenares, but anyone affected by the 2001 change in the law. The federal "substantially limit" standard has been used to defeat innumerable disability claims, putting many disabled workers in the double bind of being either "too disabled" to qualify for the law's protection (not qualified to perform the essential functions or duties of a job), or "not disabled enough" under the "substantially limit" standard. (For more information about disability discrimination law, see the Workplace Fairness web site page on disability discrimination.)
While this decision does not directly affect workers in other states covered by either federal or state disability discrimination laws, it does demonstrate the importance of efforts to pass state laws which are expressly written to overcome some of the limitations of the federal ADA. And whether or not Mr. Colmenares ultimately wins his case (the country club claims that he is not disabled at all, even under the new standard), thousands of disabled workers in California are likely to benefit from the less restrictive California standards interpreted by the California Supreme Court today.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Diverse Set of Affirmative Action Allies File in Supreme Court Case
What do Microsoft, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the American Psychological Association, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Nike, Inc. all have in common? They are some of the most recognizable names that support affirmative action programs and have filed briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the most significant affirmative action battles before the Court in years. While the final filing deadline was Wednesday (2/19) at midnight (a deadline delayed by inclement weather in Washington, DC, which caused the Court to be closed on Tuesday), and thus the final tally of briefs filed is not yet complete, experts expect as many as 60 briefs to be filed in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action program.
One commentator calls the list of brief filers "a who's who in many fields - an unlikely combination of doctors, politicians, social workers, and makers of cereal, ships, tennis shoes, prescription drugs, shampoo, soft drinks and other products." (See AP article.) The military brief was signed by a very notable list of more than two dozen top retired military officers (a group hardly known for their support of liberal policies), including Schwarzkopf, the commander in the Persian Gulf War; Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., Gen. Hugh Shelton and Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, all former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, former head of the U.S. Central Command, and former Defense Secretaries William J. Perry and William S. Cohen. The military officials signing the brief support continuation of affirmative action programs because service academies and ROTC programs need affirmative action to maintain a highly diversified officer corps. Former Army undersecretary Joseph R. Reeder, announcing the legal action, said "It is absolutely essential to our fighting force," Reeder said. "You can't get there yet without taking race into consideration." (See AP article.)
Another relatively surprising group of brief signers includes more than 30 major U.S. companies, most among the most recognizable corporations in the world, including Microsoft Corp., General Motors Corp., 3M, Abbott Laboratories, Bank One, Boeing Co., Coca-Cola, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Sara Lee, Pepsi, Nike, Reebok, American Airlines, United Airlines, ChevronTexaco, Shell Oil, Northrop Grumman, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, General Mills, and the Kellogg Co. (See Reuters article.) Like the military cosigners, these companies are attempting to preserve the diversity of the workforce. A Microsoft representative argued that "By upholding the university's ability to include race and other factors in the admissions process, the courts will preserve Microsoft's ability -- and that of other companies -- to recruit the diverse work force necessary for success in today's global marketplace." Notable among the signatories to the corporate brief are the number of high tech companies involved: Hewlett-Packard, IBM, as well as Intel, and Microsoft, as technology companies have been more reluctant than those in other industries to join the political fray. (See Business 2.0 article.) However, these companies noted that in order to compete in a global business environment, organizations need to build diverse workplaces.
It may come as less of a surprise that numerous politicians have weighed in. One brief was signed by a group of Democratic senators, including presidential hopefuls John Edwards and John Kerry, Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ted Kennedy, while a separate brief was filed Wednesday by 60 members of Congress. (See Reuters article.) The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Michigan case on April 1, with a ruling expected before the Court adjourns at the end of June.
What do Microsoft, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the American Psychological Association, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Nike, Inc. all have in common? They are some of the most recognizable names that support affirmative action programs and have filed briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the most significant affirmative action battles before the Court in years. While the final filing deadline was Wednesday (2/19) at midnight (a deadline delayed by inclement weather in Washington, DC, which caused the Court to be closed on Tuesday), and thus the final tally of briefs filed is not yet complete, experts expect as many as 60 briefs to be filed in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action program.
One commentator calls the list of brief filers "a who's who in many fields - an unlikely combination of doctors, politicians, social workers, and makers of cereal, ships, tennis shoes, prescription drugs, shampoo, soft drinks and other products." (See AP article.) The military brief was signed by a very notable list of more than two dozen top retired military officers (a group hardly known for their support of liberal policies), including Schwarzkopf, the commander in the Persian Gulf War; Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., Gen. Hugh Shelton and Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, all former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, former head of the U.S. Central Command, and former Defense Secretaries William J. Perry and William S. Cohen. The military officials signing the brief support continuation of affirmative action programs because service academies and ROTC programs need affirmative action to maintain a highly diversified officer corps. Former Army undersecretary Joseph R. Reeder, announcing the legal action, said "It is absolutely essential to our fighting force," Reeder said. "You can't get there yet without taking race into consideration." (See AP article.)
Another relatively surprising group of brief signers includes more than 30 major U.S. companies, most among the most recognizable corporations in the world, including Microsoft Corp., General Motors Corp., 3M, Abbott Laboratories, Bank One, Boeing Co., Coca-Cola, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Sara Lee, Pepsi, Nike, Reebok, American Airlines, United Airlines, ChevronTexaco, Shell Oil, Northrop Grumman, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, General Mills, and the Kellogg Co. (See Reuters article.) Like the military cosigners, these companies are attempting to preserve the diversity of the workforce. A Microsoft representative argued that "By upholding the university's ability to include race and other factors in the admissions process, the courts will preserve Microsoft's ability -- and that of other companies -- to recruit the diverse work force necessary for success in today's global marketplace." Notable among the signatories to the corporate brief are the number of high tech companies involved: Hewlett-Packard, IBM, as well as Intel, and Microsoft, as technology companies have been more reluctant than those in other industries to join the political fray. (See Business 2.0 article.) However, these companies noted that in order to compete in a global business environment, organizations need to build diverse workplaces.
It may come as less of a surprise that numerous politicians have weighed in. One brief was signed by a group of Democratic senators, including presidential hopefuls John Edwards and John Kerry, Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ted Kennedy, while a separate brief was filed Wednesday by 60 members of Congress. (See Reuters article.) The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Michigan case on April 1, with a ruling expected before the Court adjourns at the end of June.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Gender Pay Gap Narrowest on Record
We've all been hearing for years about the gender gap when it comes to salaries, and how over the last couple of decades, very little progress has been made in closing that gap. Finally there's some good news, however, according to the latest release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS). (See NY Times article). The remaining bad news: women's pay still lags men's in virtually every sector of the economy. However, full-time female workers made 77.5 percent of what their male counterparts did last year, according to BLS. In the previous eight years, the inequality worsened slightly, to 76 percent in 2001 from 77.1 percent in 1993.
Some of the reasons for the slight turnaround: Women have benefited from an acceleration in the economy's shift toward the services sector during the last two years of economic weakness. Millions of women work in government and health care, two of the only sections of the economy that have added workers since 2001, while men dominate industries like manufacturing and technology that have been hit hard by layoffs and pay cuts. Additionally, a recent rise in the number of women who belong to unions, even as the total number of unionized workers continues to fall, may also be helping them receive salary increases. Closing the gender gap also has helped the stagnant economy: while men's wages have failed to keep up with even the low rate of inflation, women's earnings have continued to grow, giving an important lift to many families and helping sustain consumer spending.
It's premature to conclude that based on one year's data, that the wage gap will continue to narrow, but it's encouraging news, nonetheless. Some additional resources on the gender gap include the National Committee on Pay Equity, which sponsors the national observance of Equal Pay Day to raise awareness about unfair pay in America (This year's Equal Pay Day will occur on Tuesday, April 15.), and the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to broaden the public debate about strategies to achieve a prosperous and fair economy.
We've all been hearing for years about the gender gap when it comes to salaries, and how over the last couple of decades, very little progress has been made in closing that gap. Finally there's some good news, however, according to the latest release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS). (See NY Times article). The remaining bad news: women's pay still lags men's in virtually every sector of the economy. However, full-time female workers made 77.5 percent of what their male counterparts did last year, according to BLS. In the previous eight years, the inequality worsened slightly, to 76 percent in 2001 from 77.1 percent in 1993.
Some of the reasons for the slight turnaround: Women have benefited from an acceleration in the economy's shift toward the services sector during the last two years of economic weakness. Millions of women work in government and health care, two of the only sections of the economy that have added workers since 2001, while men dominate industries like manufacturing and technology that have been hit hard by layoffs and pay cuts. Additionally, a recent rise in the number of women who belong to unions, even as the total number of unionized workers continues to fall, may also be helping them receive salary increases. Closing the gender gap also has helped the stagnant economy: while men's wages have failed to keep up with even the low rate of inflation, women's earnings have continued to grow, giving an important lift to many families and helping sustain consumer spending.
It's premature to conclude that based on one year's data, that the wage gap will continue to narrow, but it's encouraging news, nonetheless. Some additional resources on the gender gap include the National Committee on Pay Equity, which sponsors the national observance of Equal Pay Day to raise awareness about unfair pay in America (This year's Equal Pay Day will occur on Tuesday, April 15.), and the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to broaden the public debate about strategies to achieve a prosperous and fair economy.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Today's News Headlines: Stay on Top of the Latest Workplace Developments
Can't keep track of all the various news articles and Internet stories out there about employment law and workplace issues? Let us do it for you! Just added to the Workplace Fairness web site is the feature "Today's News Headlines." Each day, as we learn of news articles that may be of interest to our readers, we will compile them here. Our "Today's News Headline" page will contain all of the information you need, plus a direct link to each article listed. Don't delay reading the articles you're most interested in, as some news sources delete their articles after just a few days, or require that you pay to access older articles in their archives--this will help you find articles before they go away. If you see an article of interest that we don't have listed, please e-mail us and let us know, and we'll post it right away so that others can benefit.
And if you like (or don't like) what you read, you can use our site's new Action Center to contact the media. Our action center makes it simple to instantly fire off that letter to the editor you've been meaning to write, or to compliment the reporter who provided fair and unbiased coverage of an important issue, so no excuses allowed. We hope that this feature will help make it easier for you to to be better informed on workplace issues, and will help promote more and better coverage of key employment issues.
Can't keep track of all the various news articles and Internet stories out there about employment law and workplace issues? Let us do it for you! Just added to the Workplace Fairness web site is the feature "Today's News Headlines." Each day, as we learn of news articles that may be of interest to our readers, we will compile them here. Our "Today's News Headline" page will contain all of the information you need, plus a direct link to each article listed. Don't delay reading the articles you're most interested in, as some news sources delete their articles after just a few days, or require that you pay to access older articles in their archives--this will help you find articles before they go away. If you see an article of interest that we don't have listed, please e-mail us and let us know, and we'll post it right away so that others can benefit.
And if you like (or don't like) what you read, you can use our site's new Action Center to contact the media. Our action center makes it simple to instantly fire off that letter to the editor you've been meaning to write, or to compliment the reporter who provided fair and unbiased coverage of an important issue, so no excuses allowed. We hope that this feature will help make it easier for you to to be better informed on workplace issues, and will help promote more and better coverage of key employment issues.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Friday, February 14, 2003
Finding Love...At Work?
On a day when love is in the air, it's appropriate to take a look at what's happening to singles looking for love in today's workplace. According to the American Management Association, 30% of workers say they have dated at the office. And 44% have married someone they dated at work. (See AMA’s 2003 Survey on Workplace Dating.) According to one worker who later married her boss, "Old rules are vanishing...[w]orking with your partner is a wonderful way to get to know aspects of his personality." (See USA Today article.) Management attitudes about employees who date seems to be slowly evolving as well as younger employees become managers: according to the AMA survey, nearly 70% of managers in their 30s and 40s say it's OK for employees to date, compared to 66% of managers in their 50s and 60s who find it acceptable for employees to date. Some companies do ban office dating or dating between a supervisor and subordinate. A few companies even ask couples to sign contracts stating that the relationship is consensual, to minimize the risk of sexual harassment lawsuits. Some of the reasons for the rise in workplace dating: More women have joined the labor force, which means male and female co-workers come into closer contact than ever before, and workers are putting in longer hours and getting to know one another on a more intimate basis. These trends are likely to continue, making it increasingly likely that the partner of your dreams might just be in the next cubicle.
On a day when love is in the air, it's appropriate to take a look at what's happening to singles looking for love in today's workplace. According to the American Management Association, 30% of workers say they have dated at the office. And 44% have married someone they dated at work. (See AMA’s 2003 Survey on Workplace Dating.) According to one worker who later married her boss, "Old rules are vanishing...[w]orking with your partner is a wonderful way to get to know aspects of his personality." (See USA Today article.) Management attitudes about employees who date seems to be slowly evolving as well as younger employees become managers: according to the AMA survey, nearly 70% of managers in their 30s and 40s say it's OK for employees to date, compared to 66% of managers in their 50s and 60s who find it acceptable for employees to date. Some companies do ban office dating or dating between a supervisor and subordinate. A few companies even ask couples to sign contracts stating that the relationship is consensual, to minimize the risk of sexual harassment lawsuits. Some of the reasons for the rise in workplace dating: More women have joined the labor force, which means male and female co-workers come into closer contact than ever before, and workers are putting in longer hours and getting to know one another on a more intimate basis. These trends are likely to continue, making it increasingly likely that the partner of your dreams might just be in the next cubicle.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Thursday, February 13, 2003
Judges, Judges, Judges! Act Now, Before the Senate Does
In another wild and wacky day in our nation's Capitol, one topic other than war and the budget on the Senate's agenda was federal judicial nominations, and what to do with no less than five different nominees to the federal appellate courts. The nominee furthest along in the process, Miguel Estrada, nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, saw lots of talk and no action today, as Senate Democrats continued their filibustering efforts to prevent a vote before Estrada answers key unanswered questions about his judicial philosophy. (See NY Times article. Free registration required.) Four additional nominees, Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah Cook, John Roberts, and Jay Bybee, were all set to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a vote. Bybee, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee whose vote had not been previously scheduled (any Senator may invoke a one-week delay the first time a nominee is scheduled), was held over until the next meeting of the Judiciary Committee, which may or may not be next week. (The Senate was supposed to be in recess next week, but the Estrada filibuster could prevent that from happening.) The votes on Cook (6th Circuit) and Roberts (DC Circuit) were held over until the next committee meeting after an obscure rule preventing votes from taking place more than two hours after the beginning of the Senate day was invoked. Neither Cook nor Roberts had the opportunity for much questioning at their January 29th Judiciary Committee hearing, which lasted over twelve hours and mostly focused on the record of 6th Circuit nominee Jeffrey Sutton, and so Democrats asked for more time and information before a vote took place. Sutton's nomination is the only one which saw a vote today, as he was approved by the committee on a 11-8 vote, with Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) crossing party lines to vote in support of the Sutton nomination. (See Washington Post article). Activists vowed to carry on the fight against Sutton's nomination to the Senate floor (See Alliance for Justice press release); Senator Feinstein, in particular, is likely to be subjected to a great deal of pressure to change her vote and oppose Sutton.
With all of today's action on judges, it's a perfect opportunity to introduce our site’s new Workplace Fairness Action Center. You now can make your voice heard immediately on the issues workers care about most, in five minutes or less. Here you can find your elected officials and email them on workplace issues or any other issues that are important to you. This is also the place where you can learn more about current issues and legislation and look up media contacts in your local area. We already have a number of alerts focused on many of today's judicial nominees, so we invite you to take action now!
In another wild and wacky day in our nation's Capitol, one topic other than war and the budget on the Senate's agenda was federal judicial nominations, and what to do with no less than five different nominees to the federal appellate courts. The nominee furthest along in the process, Miguel Estrada, nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, saw lots of talk and no action today, as Senate Democrats continued their filibustering efforts to prevent a vote before Estrada answers key unanswered questions about his judicial philosophy. (See NY Times article. Free registration required.) Four additional nominees, Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah Cook, John Roberts, and Jay Bybee, were all set to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a vote. Bybee, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee whose vote had not been previously scheduled (any Senator may invoke a one-week delay the first time a nominee is scheduled), was held over until the next meeting of the Judiciary Committee, which may or may not be next week. (The Senate was supposed to be in recess next week, but the Estrada filibuster could prevent that from happening.) The votes on Cook (6th Circuit) and Roberts (DC Circuit) were held over until the next committee meeting after an obscure rule preventing votes from taking place more than two hours after the beginning of the Senate day was invoked. Neither Cook nor Roberts had the opportunity for much questioning at their January 29th Judiciary Committee hearing, which lasted over twelve hours and mostly focused on the record of 6th Circuit nominee Jeffrey Sutton, and so Democrats asked for more time and information before a vote took place. Sutton's nomination is the only one which saw a vote today, as he was approved by the committee on a 11-8 vote, with Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) crossing party lines to vote in support of the Sutton nomination. (See Washington Post article). Activists vowed to carry on the fight against Sutton's nomination to the Senate floor (See Alliance for Justice press release); Senator Feinstein, in particular, is likely to be subjected to a great deal of pressure to change her vote and oppose Sutton.
With all of today's action on judges, it's a perfect opportunity to introduce our site’s new Workplace Fairness Action Center. You now can make your voice heard immediately on the issues workers care about most, in five minutes or less. Here you can find your elected officials and email them on workplace issues or any other issues that are important to you. This is also the place where you can learn more about current issues and legislation and look up media contacts in your local area. We already have a number of alerts focused on many of today's judicial nominees, so we invite you to take action now!
Comments:
Post a Comment
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Workplace Bullies Hurt the Bottom Line
Most of us have been in a situation where we've been forced to deal with a bully at work: a co-worker or supervisor who engages in hostile verbal or nonverbal communication, interfering actions, or withholding of resources--time, information, training, support, equipment--that guarantee failure. You may have found that there's not too much that can be done about it, especially where the employer condones the bullying behavior as part of a "get-tough" management style. You might be interested to learn, however, that current research shows that bullying results in losses of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in terms of absenteeism, employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, product quality and productivity. (See Cincinnati Enquirer article). That's exactly the kind of message employers should listen to, when other attempts to rein bullies have proven unsuccessful. Some employers may be listening, according to one expert. "I think as the economy has turned down, companies want to improve employee satisfaction in ways that don't have to do with money," says Gregg Campa, director of client relations with the Business Research Lab in Houston. Yet another expert is skeptical, however. Kurt Landgraf, president of Educational Testing Service in Princeton, N.J., and former chief executive of DuPont Pharmaceuticals, says "I think most organizations all talk about how much they care. But the real fact of the matter is, the corporate culture is so accepting of these kinds of aggressive actions, it's not going to go away." Bullying may be more prevalent in workplaces that have competitive reward structures - where managers compete for promotions, salaries, benefits, recognition and office space - which tends to promote more political behavior and abuse. Another previous study on workplace bullying and gender has found that half of all bullies are women, and that women bullies target women 84% of the time, while men bullies target women 69% of the time, making women the majority of targets in the workplace. A good resource for those who have been victimized by workplace bullying is the Workplace Bullying & Trauma Institute. The Institute is led by Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie, founders of the Campaign Against Workplace Bullying and authors of "The Bully At Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity On the Job" The Institute's website, www.bullyinginstitute.org, has a number of articles, surveys, and good advice for those encountering a bully at work, and discusses current efforts to pass an anti-bullying statute in California. This proposed law, if passed, would be the first of its kind in the U.S. or Canada--a trend we would like to see continue.
Most of us have been in a situation where we've been forced to deal with a bully at work: a co-worker or supervisor who engages in hostile verbal or nonverbal communication, interfering actions, or withholding of resources--time, information, training, support, equipment--that guarantee failure. You may have found that there's not too much that can be done about it, especially where the employer condones the bullying behavior as part of a "get-tough" management style. You might be interested to learn, however, that current research shows that bullying results in losses of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in terms of absenteeism, employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction, product quality and productivity. (See Cincinnati Enquirer article). That's exactly the kind of message employers should listen to, when other attempts to rein bullies have proven unsuccessful. Some employers may be listening, according to one expert. "I think as the economy has turned down, companies want to improve employee satisfaction in ways that don't have to do with money," says Gregg Campa, director of client relations with the Business Research Lab in Houston. Yet another expert is skeptical, however. Kurt Landgraf, president of Educational Testing Service in Princeton, N.J., and former chief executive of DuPont Pharmaceuticals, says "I think most organizations all talk about how much they care. But the real fact of the matter is, the corporate culture is so accepting of these kinds of aggressive actions, it's not going to go away." Bullying may be more prevalent in workplaces that have competitive reward structures - where managers compete for promotions, salaries, benefits, recognition and office space - which tends to promote more political behavior and abuse. Another previous study on workplace bullying and gender has found that half of all bullies are women, and that women bullies target women 84% of the time, while men bullies target women 69% of the time, making women the majority of targets in the workplace. A good resource for those who have been victimized by workplace bullying is the Workplace Bullying & Trauma Institute. The Institute is led by Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie, founders of the Campaign Against Workplace Bullying and authors of "The Bully At Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity On the Job" The Institute's website, www.bullyinginstitute.org, has a number of articles, surveys, and good advice for those encountering a bully at work, and discusses current efforts to pass an anti-bullying statute in California. This proposed law, if passed, would be the first of its kind in the U.S. or Canada--a trend we would like to see continue.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Surfing at Work, Working at Home: Who Wins?
One major concern that employers have expressed about employees' internet access at work is that employees will spend too much time conducting personal business or surfing the web, rather than fulfilling work responsibilities. However, a new study suggests that employers have little to fear, as employees who spend time on the Net at work on personal matters more than make up the time at home. (See NY Times article. Free registration required.). In the annual National Technology Readiness Survey (NTRS) conducted by the Center for e-Service at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business, researchers found that workers with Internet access at both home and work spent an average of 3.7 hours per week engaged in personal online activities while at the job, but also spend an average of 5.9 hours per week online at home for work-related purposes. A total of 73% of workers spend as much or more time using the Internet at home for work purposes than at work for personal reasons, while only 27% spend more time on personal pursuits than they give back at work. According to the Center's Director, Roland Rust, the survey results suggest that "Businesses often clamp down on personal use of the Internet at work, citing concerns about productivity, but this study indicates workers more than make up for it at home...The survey suggests companies should accept some personal use of the Internet at work as not only inevitable, but as positive to the organization." Some of the reasons that employees with home access still conduct personal business at work: the workplace offers more desirable infrastructure such as high-speed connections and is likely to already be on, rather than requiring the effort of booting up; and the growth in e-services creates new reasons to go online that might be conducted during the workday. Employees are more likely to engage in work while at home for some of the following reasons: computers give workers newfound freedom. For example, a person can now leave the job early enough to have dinner with the family, and finish up business on the Internet afterwards. This might include checking email, conducting research, ordering travel or purchasing things for work. Workers may also telecommute, and telecommuting may be spontaneous or temporary, such as staying at home in the morning to catch up without distractions. The results of this study suggest that employers need not be so concerned with worker productivity that they devise restrictive policies on personal Internet usage in the workplace, as restricting Internet usage at work may have the opposite effect of discouraging an employee's work-related internet use at home, which is more likely to benefit the employer in the long run.
One major concern that employers have expressed about employees' internet access at work is that employees will spend too much time conducting personal business or surfing the web, rather than fulfilling work responsibilities. However, a new study suggests that employers have little to fear, as employees who spend time on the Net at work on personal matters more than make up the time at home. (See NY Times article. Free registration required.). In the annual National Technology Readiness Survey (NTRS) conducted by the Center for e-Service at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business, researchers found that workers with Internet access at both home and work spent an average of 3.7 hours per week engaged in personal online activities while at the job, but also spend an average of 5.9 hours per week online at home for work-related purposes. A total of 73% of workers spend as much or more time using the Internet at home for work purposes than at work for personal reasons, while only 27% spend more time on personal pursuits than they give back at work. According to the Center's Director, Roland Rust, the survey results suggest that "Businesses often clamp down on personal use of the Internet at work, citing concerns about productivity, but this study indicates workers more than make up for it at home...The survey suggests companies should accept some personal use of the Internet at work as not only inevitable, but as positive to the organization." Some of the reasons that employees with home access still conduct personal business at work: the workplace offers more desirable infrastructure such as high-speed connections and is likely to already be on, rather than requiring the effort of booting up; and the growth in e-services creates new reasons to go online that might be conducted during the workday. Employees are more likely to engage in work while at home for some of the following reasons: computers give workers newfound freedom. For example, a person can now leave the job early enough to have dinner with the family, and finish up business on the Internet afterwards. This might include checking email, conducting research, ordering travel or purchasing things for work. Workers may also telecommute, and telecommuting may be spontaneous or temporary, such as staying at home in the morning to catch up without distractions. The results of this study suggest that employers need not be so concerned with worker productivity that they devise restrictive policies on personal Internet usage in the workplace, as restricting Internet usage at work may have the opposite effect of discouraging an employee's work-related internet use at home, which is more likely to benefit the employer in the long run.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Monday, February 10, 2003
Wal-Mart: World's Biggest Employer, and Possibly World's Worst?
Almost every day now, it seems, we learn a little bit more about the labor and employment policies of Wal-Mart. And it's hardly ever good news. As recently reported in USA Today, "[n]ever before has the retail empire, founded in 1962, come under such blistering attack [for the way it treats its employees.]" (See USA Today article.) Currently facing Wal-Mart may be the largest sex discrimination case ever, a class action case filed in California on behalf of female employees claiming that Wal-Mart discriminates against women in promotions, jobs assignments, training, and pay throughout the United States. (See Wal-Mart Class website.) This case just received a critical boost when two studies by experts studying Wal-Mart's pay structure found statistically significant evidence of pay discrimination. (See LA Times article. (Free registration required.)) One study, conducted by Oakland-based expert Richard Drogin, found that female workers at Wal-Mart earned 4.5% to 5.6% less than men doing similar jobs and with similar experience levels between 1996 and 2001 and that among nonsalaried workers, men earned an average of 37 cents an hour more for similar work. The study also found that the pay gap widens higher up the management ladder, with male management trainees making an average of $23,175 a year, compared with $22,371 for women trainees. The second study, a management analysis by Washington, DC-based economist Mark Bendick, Jr., determined that 20 comparable retailers employed a greater average percentage of women in 1975 -- 41.6% -- than Wal-Mart did more than 20 years later. Today, women make up an average of 56.6% of the management positions at those competitors, the report said. The study found that women were underrepresented in management in Wal-Mart in 49 states, with the greatest gender gaps found at Wal-Mart stores in Texas, Florida and California. (Copies of both studies are available at the Wal-Mart Class website.) Another class action lawsuit claims that Wal-Mart routinely underpays its hourly employees by forcing them to clock out and continue working beyond the end of their paid shifts, and locks the doors of the store to prevent any employees from leaving before the work is all completed. (See Wal-Mart Employment Practices Class Action information.) In a similar case in Oregon, a federal jury in December 2002, found Wal-Mart Stores guilty of forcing its employees to work overtime without pay from 1994-1999. After deliberating for four days, the jury issued its unanimous verdict that Wal-Mart violated federal and state wage-and-hour laws in requiring employees to work "off the clock." (See Federal Jury Finds Wal - Mart Guilty in Oregon Overtime Pay Case.) Union groups have long had a beef with the nation's largest retailer, which has historically resisted all of its workers' attempts to unionize, for its anti-union activities. The United Food & Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) maintains on its website a number of charges against Wal-Mart, including most recently, information about two new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaints for its illegal campaign of intimidation, harassment and retaliation against workers attempting to organize with UFCW in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Noblesville, Indiana. Some of Wal-Mart's actions under dispute in those cases include allegations that Wal-Mart managers: told associates their union activities were being monitored; asked associates to spy on co-workers on behalf of the company; refused to allow distribution of union literature and confiscated materials from employees; threatened workers who accepted union literature; threatened workers with reprisals including loss of profit sharing due to union activity; and attempted to buy-off workers with increased hours, promises, and tokens in order to discourage support for the union. (See UFCW press release.) According to the UFCW, there are a total number of 45 National Labor Relations Board complaints against Wal-Mart in 25 states. Wal-Mart has been found guilty in 10 of those cases, settled 8 of them and the rest are pending. For further information about some of the ongoing battles against Wal-Mart on behalf of workers, see some of the following websites:
Wal-Mart Watch
WAL-MARTyrs.com
Wal-Mart Litigation Project
Almost every day now, it seems, we learn a little bit more about the labor and employment policies of Wal-Mart. And it's hardly ever good news. As recently reported in USA Today, "[n]ever before has the retail empire, founded in 1962, come under such blistering attack [for the way it treats its employees.]" (See USA Today article.) Currently facing Wal-Mart may be the largest sex discrimination case ever, a class action case filed in California on behalf of female employees claiming that Wal-Mart discriminates against women in promotions, jobs assignments, training, and pay throughout the United States. (See Wal-Mart Class website.) This case just received a critical boost when two studies by experts studying Wal-Mart's pay structure found statistically significant evidence of pay discrimination. (See LA Times article. (Free registration required.)) One study, conducted by Oakland-based expert Richard Drogin, found that female workers at Wal-Mart earned 4.5% to 5.6% less than men doing similar jobs and with similar experience levels between 1996 and 2001 and that among nonsalaried workers, men earned an average of 37 cents an hour more for similar work. The study also found that the pay gap widens higher up the management ladder, with male management trainees making an average of $23,175 a year, compared with $22,371 for women trainees. The second study, a management analysis by Washington, DC-based economist Mark Bendick, Jr., determined that 20 comparable retailers employed a greater average percentage of women in 1975 -- 41.6% -- than Wal-Mart did more than 20 years later. Today, women make up an average of 56.6% of the management positions at those competitors, the report said. The study found that women were underrepresented in management in Wal-Mart in 49 states, with the greatest gender gaps found at Wal-Mart stores in Texas, Florida and California. (Copies of both studies are available at the Wal-Mart Class website.) Another class action lawsuit claims that Wal-Mart routinely underpays its hourly employees by forcing them to clock out and continue working beyond the end of their paid shifts, and locks the doors of the store to prevent any employees from leaving before the work is all completed. (See Wal-Mart Employment Practices Class Action information.) In a similar case in Oregon, a federal jury in December 2002, found Wal-Mart Stores guilty of forcing its employees to work overtime without pay from 1994-1999. After deliberating for four days, the jury issued its unanimous verdict that Wal-Mart violated federal and state wage-and-hour laws in requiring employees to work "off the clock." (See Federal Jury Finds Wal - Mart Guilty in Oregon Overtime Pay Case.) Union groups have long had a beef with the nation's largest retailer, which has historically resisted all of its workers' attempts to unionize, for its anti-union activities. The United Food & Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) maintains on its website a number of charges against Wal-Mart, including most recently, information about two new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaints for its illegal campaign of intimidation, harassment and retaliation against workers attempting to organize with UFCW in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Noblesville, Indiana. Some of Wal-Mart's actions under dispute in those cases include allegations that Wal-Mart managers: told associates their union activities were being monitored; asked associates to spy on co-workers on behalf of the company; refused to allow distribution of union literature and confiscated materials from employees; threatened workers who accepted union literature; threatened workers with reprisals including loss of profit sharing due to union activity; and attempted to buy-off workers with increased hours, promises, and tokens in order to discourage support for the union. (See UFCW press release.) According to the UFCW, there are a total number of 45 National Labor Relations Board complaints against Wal-Mart in 25 states. Wal-Mart has been found guilty in 10 of those cases, settled 8 of them and the rest are pending. For further information about some of the ongoing battles against Wal-Mart on behalf of workers, see some of the following websites:
Wal-Mart Watch
WAL-MARTyrs.com
Wal-Mart Litigation Project
Comments:
Post a Comment
Friday, February 07, 2003
EEOC Filings Up, But Has Workplace Discrimination Increased?
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has just announced its charge filing and litigation statistics for Fiscal Year 2002, and charge filings are decidedly on the upswing. The EEOC reports that from September 2001 to September 2002, charge filings, the first step in bringing a claim of discrimination, increased 4.5 percent, reaching their highest levels in seven years. (See Findlaw article.) Certain types of discrimination complaints saw fairly dramatic increases: religious discrimination (up 21%), age bias (14.5%), and national origin discrimination (up 13%). EEOC Chairwoman Cari M. Dominguez attributes the rise in charge filings to the poor economy, an aging and multinational work force and backlash from the 2001 terrorist attacks. She especially notes the rise in age discrimination filings, remarking that this issue "continues to be troublesome for us, because with baby boomers getting into the 50-plus category, it's cause for concern that employers have not yet gotten their arms around this issue." Of the 84,442 charges filed during the 2002 fiscal year (up from 80,840 the previous year), the largest number of charges continue to be filed in the areas of race discrimination, sex/gender discrimination, and retaliation. So will the number of charge filings continue to increase? Certainly, the fewer options workers have to find new jobs comparable to the ones that they have lost generally means that they are more likely to take a closer look at the circumstances surrounding their termination, rather than just moving on to something better. They may also have more time, energy, and motivation to challenge discrimination if their efforts to find comparable employment have been unsuccessful. And the more older workers there are that grew up in the 60s and 70s, knowing about their rights and prepared to fight for them, then the more likely it is age discrimination cases will continue to increase. We've all heard of various post-9/11 incidences of religious and national origin discrimination, involving workers of Middle Eastern descent and/or the Muslim faith, and sometimes even turban-wearing Sikhs, who have been wrongly treated as if they were in close alliance with terrorists. Hopefully, those claims will soon start to subside as our nation starts to heal from this tragedy and gain more tolerance and understanding of those of different faiths and cultures. However, it will be interesting to see whether the economy continues to contribute to a high number of claims until we've had a full economic recovery.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has just announced its charge filing and litigation statistics for Fiscal Year 2002, and charge filings are decidedly on the upswing. The EEOC reports that from September 2001 to September 2002, charge filings, the first step in bringing a claim of discrimination, increased 4.5 percent, reaching their highest levels in seven years. (See Findlaw article.) Certain types of discrimination complaints saw fairly dramatic increases: religious discrimination (up 21%), age bias (14.5%), and national origin discrimination (up 13%). EEOC Chairwoman Cari M. Dominguez attributes the rise in charge filings to the poor economy, an aging and multinational work force and backlash from the 2001 terrorist attacks. She especially notes the rise in age discrimination filings, remarking that this issue "continues to be troublesome for us, because with baby boomers getting into the 50-plus category, it's cause for concern that employers have not yet gotten their arms around this issue." Of the 84,442 charges filed during the 2002 fiscal year (up from 80,840 the previous year), the largest number of charges continue to be filed in the areas of race discrimination, sex/gender discrimination, and retaliation. So will the number of charge filings continue to increase? Certainly, the fewer options workers have to find new jobs comparable to the ones that they have lost generally means that they are more likely to take a closer look at the circumstances surrounding their termination, rather than just moving on to something better. They may also have more time, energy, and motivation to challenge discrimination if their efforts to find comparable employment have been unsuccessful. And the more older workers there are that grew up in the 60s and 70s, knowing about their rights and prepared to fight for them, then the more likely it is age discrimination cases will continue to increase. We've all heard of various post-9/11 incidences of religious and national origin discrimination, involving workers of Middle Eastern descent and/or the Muslim faith, and sometimes even turban-wearing Sikhs, who have been wrongly treated as if they were in close alliance with terrorists. Hopefully, those claims will soon start to subside as our nation starts to heal from this tragedy and gain more tolerance and understanding of those of different faiths and cultures. However, it will be interesting to see whether the economy continues to contribute to a high number of claims until we've had a full economic recovery.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Thursday, February 06, 2003
Substituting Lower Paying Jobs for Higher Paying Jobs
Many employees, if asked, would say that an employer cannot just reduce your salary, or lay off a group of higher-paid employees in order to create new jobs at a lower pay scale. In most cases, however, they would be wrong. It's a perfectly legal practice -- and it may be on the rise. Circuit City announced yesterday that it would lay off 1,800 members of its sales staff. (See Sacramento Business Journal story.) That's not really big news, however: in this day and age, layoffs are everywhere, and Circuit City's sales and earnings are down, especially when compared to chief competitor Best Buy. What IS news is that Circuit City is converting all of its sales staff positions to lower-paying hourly jobs, instead of a commission-based structure, and not rehiring its laid-off sales staff. Here's how the numbers stack up: Approximately 3,900 sales counselor positions will not be converted to the hourly jobs and will be eligible for a severance package. However, the company expects to have only 1,800 total fewer sales workers, which means that stores will have to hire replacement workers to cover more than half of the open positions. If the Circuit City workforce were unionized, we might call those workers "scabs." But it's not, so the 3,900 laid-off sales counselors have no leverage to protest the elimination of their jobs. Circuit City is no stranger to anti-employee practices--for years, it fought to defend its mandatory arbitration program, which prevented employees who had been discriminated against from having their day in court, until it finally prevailed before the U.S. Supreme Court in Circuit City v. Adams. It may be able to get away with firing its higher-paid workers and replacing them with lower-paid workers as well, as more and more employers seek to reduce their labor costs and take advantage of the much larger pool of available workers. Has this happened to you? or are you aware of other companies that are doing the same thing? We would like to hear from you whether this is becoming a widespread practice, so please e-mail us and let us know what you think about this.
Many employees, if asked, would say that an employer cannot just reduce your salary, or lay off a group of higher-paid employees in order to create new jobs at a lower pay scale. In most cases, however, they would be wrong. It's a perfectly legal practice -- and it may be on the rise. Circuit City announced yesterday that it would lay off 1,800 members of its sales staff. (See Sacramento Business Journal story.) That's not really big news, however: in this day and age, layoffs are everywhere, and Circuit City's sales and earnings are down, especially when compared to chief competitor Best Buy. What IS news is that Circuit City is converting all of its sales staff positions to lower-paying hourly jobs, instead of a commission-based structure, and not rehiring its laid-off sales staff. Here's how the numbers stack up: Approximately 3,900 sales counselor positions will not be converted to the hourly jobs and will be eligible for a severance package. However, the company expects to have only 1,800 total fewer sales workers, which means that stores will have to hire replacement workers to cover more than half of the open positions. If the Circuit City workforce were unionized, we might call those workers "scabs." But it's not, so the 3,900 laid-off sales counselors have no leverage to protest the elimination of their jobs. Circuit City is no stranger to anti-employee practices--for years, it fought to defend its mandatory arbitration program, which prevented employees who had been discriminated against from having their day in court, until it finally prevailed before the U.S. Supreme Court in Circuit City v. Adams. It may be able to get away with firing its higher-paid workers and replacing them with lower-paid workers as well, as more and more employers seek to reduce their labor costs and take advantage of the much larger pool of available workers. Has this happened to you? or are you aware of other companies that are doing the same thing? We would like to hear from you whether this is becoming a widespread practice, so please e-mail us and let us know what you think about this.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Businesses Want to Toughen the Family & Medical Leave Act
Say you have the flu. Say you have the flu really badly (not just the 24-hour variety), so badly that you end up going to your doctor for relief. Say it's so bad that you end up missing more than three days of work. Should you be fired? Some business groups seem to think that you should. As noted in Monday's entry, the Labor Department (DOL) is expected to propose changes to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) very soon. And if business groups have their way, your flu bout might no longer qualify as a "serious health condition," and you might no longer have the ability to take unpaid FMLA leave without worrying about being fired. (Interestingly enough and surely no coincidence, the FMLA was enacted 10 years ago yesterday, and the DOL home page is today featuring a special "Know Your Rights" section on the FMLA. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao is quoted as saying "Perhaps now more than ever, when balancing work and home life is increasingly difficult, it is vitally important for employees and employers to understand their rights and obligations under the law.") What's causing all the outrage? In a 1996 ruling, the Labor Department ruled that the common cold, flu, earaches, headaches and other routine ailments all can qualify as "serious health conditions" -- IF you are out for more than three days and are receiving treatment from a medical provider, such as antibiotics for the flu. Business groups whine that this interpretation has created a serious burden. (See Washington Post article.) One company official was anonymously quoted as saying "People use this as a way to get additional sick leave without any repercussions." How about the repercussion of not getting paid if your sick leave has been exhausted, or as is the case in many workplaces, you don't have any at all? Or having to pay to see a doctor for a cold or the flu just to verify that your condition is serious enough that you shouldn't be at work infecting your coworkers? Should we fear that an employee's "serious health condition" is going to be completely eradicated from the list of circumstances where workers are protected under the FMLA? We'll see in March, when the proposed changes are expected to be released. (For more FMLA information, see the Workplace Fairness FMLA page.)
Say you have the flu. Say you have the flu really badly (not just the 24-hour variety), so badly that you end up going to your doctor for relief. Say it's so bad that you end up missing more than three days of work. Should you be fired? Some business groups seem to think that you should. As noted in Monday's entry, the Labor Department (DOL) is expected to propose changes to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) very soon. And if business groups have their way, your flu bout might no longer qualify as a "serious health condition," and you might no longer have the ability to take unpaid FMLA leave without worrying about being fired. (Interestingly enough and surely no coincidence, the FMLA was enacted 10 years ago yesterday, and the DOL home page is today featuring a special "Know Your Rights" section on the FMLA. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao is quoted as saying "Perhaps now more than ever, when balancing work and home life is increasingly difficult, it is vitally important for employees and employers to understand their rights and obligations under the law.") What's causing all the outrage? In a 1996 ruling, the Labor Department ruled that the common cold, flu, earaches, headaches and other routine ailments all can qualify as "serious health conditions" -- IF you are out for more than three days and are receiving treatment from a medical provider, such as antibiotics for the flu. Business groups whine that this interpretation has created a serious burden. (See Washington Post article.) One company official was anonymously quoted as saying "People use this as a way to get additional sick leave without any repercussions." How about the repercussion of not getting paid if your sick leave has been exhausted, or as is the case in many workplaces, you don't have any at all? Or having to pay to see a doctor for a cold or the flu just to verify that your condition is serious enough that you shouldn't be at work infecting your coworkers? Should we fear that an employee's "serious health condition" is going to be completely eradicated from the list of circumstances where workers are protected under the FMLA? We'll see in March, when the proposed changes are expected to be released. (For more FMLA information, see the Workplace Fairness FMLA page.)
Comments:
Post a Comment
Tuesday, February 04, 2003
New Developments at the EEOC for Disabled Employees
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the government agency that handles claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, and disability, recently issued two important announcements related to disability discrimination. Last week, the agency announced that it had reached its largest settlement ever in a case against the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) on behalf of public safety officers who were disabled in the line of duty. (See EEOC press release and Mercury News story.) CalPERS' formula for calculating industrial disability retirement (IDR) benefits reduced the total percentage of benefits according to an employee's number of years over age 30 when hired, so that the older an employee was when hired, the less the employee received if he or she became disabled. Therefore the plaintiff, Ronald Arnett, who joined the Fremont, California police force at age 43, received only 32% of his salary for his IDR benefit when he suffered permanently disabling injuries after five years of service, while if he had been hired at age 30, he would have received 50% of his pay. Arnett and other affected officers filed suit in 1995, claiming that the policy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. However, the case suffered a setback in 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, ruled that private plaintiffs could not recover monetary damages from state governments for age bias. Following the Kimel case, the EEOC chose to intervene in the officers' case, since the agency still was able to file suits against state employers and to recover monetary damages. While the settlement only directly affects the 1,700+ retired public safety officers, it is still significant because of the EEOC's intervention, demonstrating that the agency is willing to intervene on behalf of public employees who cannot sue state employers themselves.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the government agency that handles claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, and disability, recently issued two important announcements related to disability discrimination. Last week, the agency announced that it had reached its largest settlement ever in a case against the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) on behalf of public safety officers who were disabled in the line of duty. (See EEOC press release and Mercury News story.) CalPERS' formula for calculating industrial disability retirement (IDR) benefits reduced the total percentage of benefits according to an employee's number of years over age 30 when hired, so that the older an employee was when hired, the less the employee received if he or she became disabled. Therefore the plaintiff, Ronald Arnett, who joined the Fremont, California police force at age 43, received only 32% of his salary for his IDR benefit when he suffered permanently disabling injuries after five years of service, while if he had been hired at age 30, he would have received 50% of his pay. Arnett and other affected officers filed suit in 1995, claiming that the policy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. However, the case suffered a setback in 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, ruled that private plaintiffs could not recover monetary damages from state governments for age bias. Following the Kimel case, the EEOC chose to intervene in the officers' case, since the agency still was able to file suits against state employers and to recover monetary damages. While the settlement only directly affects the 1,700+ retired public safety officers, it is still significant because of the EEOC's intervention, demonstrating that the agency is willing to intervene on behalf of public employees who cannot sue state employers themselves.
The EEOC also released on Tuesday a new fact sheet about telework (telecommuting) programs, and how employers may use these programs as an accommodation for disabled employees. (See EEOC press release.) The fact sheet, issued on the two-year anniversary of the President's New Freedom Initiative, is designed to promote telework as a key strategy for increasing the employment of people with disabilities. While telework had previously been identified as one means of reasonably accommodating a disabled employee, see EEOC Guidance, the fact sheet further explores and explains ways this specific accommodation option can work to benefit both employees and employers. For example, an employer who does not currently have a telework program may be required to allow a disabled employee to work from home, while an employer who already has established such a program may need to waive eligibility requirements (such as one year of tenure) to accommodate employees with disabilities. While an employer is not required to establish a program or allow a particular employee to participate if the job is not conducive to telework (because, for example, it requires frequent face-to-face contact with coworkers or clients), employers must determine whether some or all of the job's essential functions can be performed at home, and are encouraged to reassign marginal job functions, and use telephone and e-mail to lessen the need for a disabled worker's full-time presence in the office. While this fact sheet does not change existing law or the EEOC's previous guidance on this subject, it does make clear that telework is here to stay, and that telecommuting's increasing feasibility and use make it a viable option for accommodating employees with disabilities who cannot be in the traditional office setting for an entire work day or workweek.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Monday, February 03, 2003
Labor Department to Change Several Labor Law Regulations
Changes to overtime calculations, job training program funding, and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) are all in the works as the Bush Administration's Labor Department (DOL) listens primarily to the concerns of businesses instead of workers and moves to change several decades-old employment regulations. (See AP story.) Most people are surprised to find out that there is no legal limit to the amount of overtime an employee can be asked to work in most circumstances (your state law or union contract may limit overtime, but overtime is not limited under federal law). The only disincentive that exists to prevent employers from requiring employees to work limitless amounts of overtime is the requirement that employees who work more than 40 hours in a workweek be paid time-and-a-half. (See DOL Overtime Pay page.) Proposed changes, however, will make many more employees exempt from overtime pay requirements. While it is clear that the laws determining who is exempt from overtime have become outdated and overly complicated and confusing, the solution is not to make fewer employees eligible to earn overtime. One bright spot (and perhaps the only one) in the proposed regulations is that the lowest monetary threshhold for who is exempt from overtime pay will be increased, so that more lower-wage workers will potentially be eligible for overtime pay. Other changes appear to be in the works regarding the Family & Medical Leave Act. In the story cited above, it appears that employers want leave for the birth or adoption of a child to be eliminated from the FMLA, as well as some weakening of the intermittent leave provisions. (For more FMLA information, see the Workplace Fairness FMLA page.) It appears the so-called "family-friendly" policies of this Administration will only extend so far, if the rumored changes, expected to be made available for public comment in March, actually take place. Stay tuned for more on this topic.
Changes to overtime calculations, job training program funding, and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) are all in the works as the Bush Administration's Labor Department (DOL) listens primarily to the concerns of businesses instead of workers and moves to change several decades-old employment regulations. (See AP story.) Most people are surprised to find out that there is no legal limit to the amount of overtime an employee can be asked to work in most circumstances (your state law or union contract may limit overtime, but overtime is not limited under federal law). The only disincentive that exists to prevent employers from requiring employees to work limitless amounts of overtime is the requirement that employees who work more than 40 hours in a workweek be paid time-and-a-half. (See DOL Overtime Pay page.) Proposed changes, however, will make many more employees exempt from overtime pay requirements. While it is clear that the laws determining who is exempt from overtime have become outdated and overly complicated and confusing, the solution is not to make fewer employees eligible to earn overtime. One bright spot (and perhaps the only one) in the proposed regulations is that the lowest monetary threshhold for who is exempt from overtime pay will be increased, so that more lower-wage workers will potentially be eligible for overtime pay. Other changes appear to be in the works regarding the Family & Medical Leave Act. In the story cited above, it appears that employers want leave for the birth or adoption of a child to be eliminated from the FMLA, as well as some weakening of the intermittent leave provisions. (For more FMLA information, see the Workplace Fairness FMLA page.) It appears the so-called "family-friendly" policies of this Administration will only extend so far, if the rumored changes, expected to be made available for public comment in March, actually take place. Stay tuned for more on this topic.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Archive
