04.08.10
Posted in Employment Law at 8:30 pm by Eric
One of the lesser-known elements of the new health care bill: mandatory breaks for breast-feeding mothers (apparently, there’s no corresponding breaks for fathers). It applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. It doesn’t give much guidance, though. For instance, it doesn’t say how many breaks must be provided or how long the breaks must be. After watching my wife feed many babies, I realize each baby is different when it comes to feeding times. Something tells me most of the babies that are fed under this exemption will be very slow and frequent feeders.
The statute:
(1) An employer shall provide—
(A) a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child’s birth; and
(B) a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.
(2) An employer shall not be required to compensate an employee receiving reasonable break time under paragraph (1) for any work time spent for such purpose.
(3) An employer that employs less than 50 employees shall not be subject to the requirements of this subsection, if such requirements would impose an undue hardship by causing the employer significant difficulty or expense when considered in relation to the size, financial resources, nature, or structure of the employer’s business.
Permalink
12.23.09
Posted in Employment Law at 2:41 pm by Eric
The COBRA subsidy has been extended. Washington earlier passed a 65% COBRA subsidy, which was set to expire on December 31st. The entitlement has just been extended to February 28, 2010. The entitlement allows eligible individuals to receive a 65% subsidy of their COBRA health insurance premiums. The new law also extends the subsidy period from nine months to fifteen months.
Permalink
08.20.09
Posted in Employment Law at 4:53 pm by Eric
What minimum wages do the different states require? Go here for a nifty interactive map from the U.S. Department of Labor.
Permalink
08.19.09
Posted in Employment Law at 12:04 pm by Eric
Your employee lost his uniform and you want to withhold his wages to pay for it? Be very careful. Michigan and Indiana both make it hard. In Michigan, you need to obtain a separate written authorization from the employee for each paycheck, unless the withholding is for the benefit of the employee (e.g., the employee does an automatic deduction for direct deposit into his savings account). In Indiana, you can get a blanket authorization for future wages, but the written authorization must contain certain terms and it’s only effective for a baker’s dozen of reasons (charitable pledges, labor dues, sale of merchandise to the employee, etc.).
Permalink
08.10.09
Posted in Employment Law at 7:49 pm by Eric
Your employer gives you a smart phone. You carry it with you, making yourself accessible 24/7. You respond to a couple of emails and texts. It all seems simple enough.
But how much time should your employer pay you? Did the smart phone put you over 40 hours for the week? Those are the issues beginning to unravel in the courts.
Excerpt:
Last month, three current and former employees sued T-Mobile USA Inc., claiming they were required to use company-issued smart phones to respond to work messages after hours without pay. In a March suit, a former CB Richard Ellis Group Inc. maintenance worker seeks pay for time spent after hours receiving and responding to messages on a work-issued cellphone.
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act says employees must be paid for work performed off the clock, even if the work was voluntary. When the law was passed in 1938, “work” was easy to define for hourly employees. As the workplace changed, so did the rules for when workers should be paid.
In the T-Mobile case, current and former employees say they were required to use company-issued smart phones to respond to work-related messages, including customer complaints, after hours without pay. When the workers reported the hours to management of the cellphone company, the lawsuit says, the employees were told nothing could be done and they should expect to work extra hours as part of T-Mobile’s “standard business practices.”
Permalink
05.21.09
Posted in Employment Law at 11:24 am by Eric
Although a former employee is allowed to compete with his former employer, The Indiana Trade Secrets Act (IC 24-2-3-1 et seq.) provides that a former employee may not use trade secrets or other confidential information acquired during employment in a manner that is detrimental to the former employer’s interests. This applies even in the absence of a written non-compete agreement. Michigan has a similar statute.
Permalink
04.01.09
Posted in Employment Law at 12:34 pm by Eric
Under new final regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), an employer may be deemed to have constructive knowledge that it’s employing an illegal alien if the employer receives a “no-match” letter from the Social Security Administration (which says, “The SSN submitted for this employee does not match any of our records”).
If you receive a no-match letter from the SSA, you need to follow the guidelines provided by the Immigration Control and Enforcement branch of the DHS for obtaining safe-harbor protection against prosecution.
Permalink
