Connecticut Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel Schwartz : Stamford, Hartford New Haven, CT

The State Senate late yesterday approved a bill that would increase the minimum wage in 2009 and 2010.  The bill (H.B. 5105), had previously passed the House and now moves to Governor Rell for her signature.

CT News Junkie reports that Gov. Rell has some reservations about the bill:

Gov. M. Jodi Rell is still uncertain about whether she would sign it. Rell’s spokesman Adam Liegeot said in an emailed statement, “While the governor understands the needs of minimum wage workers, she does not want to take any action that will negatively impact businesses and jobs in Connecticut, especially during this troubled economy. Governor Rell will take her time and review this bill closely before deciding what action to take.”

The bill, if signed, will increase in the minimum wage from $7.65 an hour to $8 an hour starting in January 2009 and $8.25 an hour in January 2010.  Assuming a 40-hour-work week, the average wage increase for those making minimum wage will be a little over $700 annually.

For most employers in the state, the bill will not have any impact because many workers receive more than the minimum wage.  For others who rely on workers at minimum wage, the bill could have a real impact; $700 or so per worker per year could affect those with thin profit margins.  However, others will certainly be able to afford the modest increase.

Although the bill did not have full bipartisan support, it did pass the General Assembly overwhelmingly. I would expect the Governor to sign the bill because a veto would likely be overturned by the General Assembly.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the legislative session coming to a close next week, developments are heating up at a fast and furious pace.  I'll do some quick updating and then provide a more through review when time permits.

First, the State Senate debated the Paid Sick Leave bill (S.B. 217) yesterday for about an hour, when the debate apparently raised questions on its impact on collective bargaining agreements.  The Senate has been working off of some amendments as well, which can be located here.

The Hartford Courant has coverage here.   The CT News Junkie blog has a report earlier this week about it as well.

Second, the State Senate also passed amendments to the state's whistleblower law.  You can find my previous coverage here and you can view the Courant's coverage today of it here.

The bill, which is now listed at S.B. 335, is similar to a prior version proposed back in February and allows the Attorney General to intervene in some whistleblower cases.  The bill now moves on to the House for a vote. 

As I noted before, while the goals of the bill are laudable, the path that it takes to get there is troubling.  The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that an change in employment status (a transfer, for example) within three years of a person's complaint, is retaliatory. That creates a huge shield for employees and encourages them to file complaints -- even those that may not be warranted.

This proposal ignores what courts have been concluding over the years: that it is highly unlikely that an employer would wait a year -- much less three years -- to "retaliate" against such a complaint.  As the U.S. Supreme Court said a few years ago in Clark County Schools v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) in a unanimous, unsigned opinion:

The cases that accept mere temporal proximity between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of causality to establish a prima facie case uniformly hold that the temporal proximity must be "very close."... Action taken (as here) 20 months later suggests, by itself, no causality at all.

Given the highest court's reasoned conclusion that a transfer or firing taken 20 months after a person's complaint does not suggest a connection between the two, what is the rationale behind the proposed legislation that assumes such a connection up to 36 months later?

Unfortunately, the rationale is not likely to be explained or even debated as the bill moves forward.  Legislators will try to show that they are "protecting" whistleblowers, but in doing so, they are likely to create a mess that the courts will be left to clean up.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In small states like Connecticut, at times it feels like everyone is separated by something less than Six Degrees. 

Ten years ago today, a troubled worker walked into the headquarters for the Connecticut Lottery and shot and killed four top lottery officials, before turning the gun on himself.  Although I didn't know anyone personally, others that I worked with did.

The New York Times article the day after the shooting tells a story that is as haunting and chilling today as it was ten years ago:

Angered about a salary dispute and his failure to win a promotion, a Connecticut Lottery accountant reported promptly to his job this morning, hung up his coat and then methodically stabbed and gunned down four of his bosses, one of whom he chased through a parking lot, before turning the gun on himself.

As the shots rang out through the hallways of the lottery headquarters here in this quiet Hartford suburb, witnesses and the police said, dozens of employees, some yelling, ''Run to the woods,'' headed into the brushy hillside surrounding the office while others dived into nearby ditches.

The gunman, Matthew Beck, 35, had walked into the executive offices, stabbed and shot one top official and shot two others -- saying ''bye-bye'' to one of them -- and then chased the State Lottery president, Otho R. Brown, several hundred yards into a parking lot. Mr. Brown, 54, stumbled as he ran, the police said, and just as officers arrived on the scene, they saw Mr. Beck fire a semiautomatic handgun at the executive, killing him immediately.

Within seconds, as two Newington police detectives approached Mr. Beck, he put the gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, to his right temple and shot himself, said John Connelly, the head of the state police.

In addition to Mr. Brown, the other victims were three of the most senior managers at the Connecticut Lottery Corporation, a quasi-public authority: Linda Mlynarczyk, 37, chief financial officer, of New Britain; Frederick Rubelmann 3d, 40, vice president of operations, of Southington, and Michael Logan, 33, information systems manager, of Colchester.

The Hartford Courant, in fact, won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of that event.  In light of headlines each month about various shootings at workplaces around the country, it seems foolish to suggest that this particular shooting led to massive changes here. But I think for many, it did change the way we think about workplace violence issues.

In hindsight, the employee exhibited signs of stress before the incident, even writing an angry letter to officials in the weeks prior.  After this incident, I'm certain there were some employers who took any threat by an employee much more seriously.  I'm not suggesting that more should've been done beforehand (I don't know enough about it to judge), but I do think that employers in the state were re-awakened to the need to have and enforce workplace violence policies.  Employee Assistance Programs seemed more prominent and discussions about guns in the workplace followed. 

Others have written about workplace violence policies and suggestions to follow. But on today's anniversary (on which the Governor has suggested a moment a silence at 8:45 a.m.), perhaps the best thing we all can do is simply to recall the events of that horrible day and resolve that the lessons learned from that day won't be forgotten.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Recently, a colleague received an e-mail that suggested that all employers must post information that "lists employee's rights to health insurance under Connecticut Law."  When I heard about it, something didn't seem right.  After all, since when do employees have a right to health insurance in Connecticut (and, isn't that a heated topic of the Presidential campaigns?). 

So I started digging.  A peek at the Department of Labor website came back with nothing.

A search on Google for a "Connecticut Healthcare Advocate Poster" provided a link to the website of a company, Progressive Business Compliance, that does, in fact, sell a poster for $12.99 that appears to be on point.  The website page states specifically. "New Poster February 2008! Employers are required to display this poster.  Lists employee's rights to health insurance under Connecticut."  The website allows a viewer to buy this "Healthcare Advocate" poster directly from the site and it has a nice thumbnail picture of what the poster looks like.

Hmm. This seemed strange; still hadn't heard of the law..  But I wondered, why have I seen this poster before? So, I called the Office of the Healthcare Advocate, which is dedicated to serving Connecticut's health insurance consumer. 

And lo and behold, they were extraordinarily helpful.  A poster on rights to health insurance? Never heard of it, they said. But they do have a poster from the Managed Care Ombudsman that lists the services of the Managed Care Ombudsman.  It's required by Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 38a-1046.  Oh, and it's not new. It's been around since 1999.  It lists certain items that a health insurance policy must have -- if health insurance is offered.

Ding, ding! We have an answer!  There is no poster listing an employee's rights to  health insurance, only a poster regarding the services of the Managed Care Ombudsman.  And it's been around for a while (which is why it looked so familiar). 

So, I ask the OHA, can I download this poster from the website? Their answer was no but she graciously agreed to e-mail it to me.  (Don't ask me why it isn't on the website in this age of technology.)

And, she did. So, are you curious what it looks like? This is the poster that she e-mailed me. You can compare it to the thumbnail image available for sale on the PBC website and make your own judgment about it. (IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: As with this entire blog,  I make no representation that this poster does, in fact, comply with the applicable law and readers are strongly cautioned to seek legal advice about whether their postings comply with applicable law.)  If you want your own poster, you can certainly contact the OHA at 1-866-HMO-4446.  Perhaps if enough people call them, they will even post it to the website.

This situation presents a good reminder tor HR professionals and company staff that it is always best to consult with an attorney about their legal obligations, particularly on posters.  And it reminds me of the (seemingly) old adage that just because it is on the Internet, that does not mean it's true.  It is always best to go to the underlying source to resolve any questions you might. And you might save a few bucks by doing so.

(4:30p UPDATE) See comments by Kevin Lembo, from the Office of Healthcare Advocate below regarding the poster.  There will be some further developments in this topic likely tomorrow.  Stay tuned. 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (4)

A few weeks ago, I posted on a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court that ruled that an order denying class certification is not an appealable final judgment. I said back then that the case, Palmer v. Friendly Ice Cream Corporation, gives employers and other defendants in class actions, "an important arrow in their quiver of defending against class action cases."

This week,the Hartford Business Journal discussed the case in some detail with some good information about the underlying claims raised by the wait staff. 

The dispute between the food servers and restaurants hinges on the differences in the hourly wages paid to waiters and other non-wait staff. Restaurants are allowed to pay waiters below minimum wage levels, reducing wait staff pay by a 29.4 percent “tip credit,” which is based on the assumption that waiters are expected to earn much of their income from tips.

Food servers claim that their wallets take a hit when employers assign them tasks that don’t include waiting tables, such as brewing coffee, rolling napkins or cleaning restrooms.
For that reason, servers employed by T. G. I. Friday’s and Friendly’s want to be paid for the extra tasks they perform while on the job, so they have been working together to form class-action groups to fight restaurants.

The reporter from the story happened to call me for my views on the case, which I was happy to share with her. You can check out my quotes from the story here.  

Without sounding like I'm trying to fawn over them, the HBJ really is an under-appreciated publication that fills a good niche on business news in the state.  If you aren't looking at their site, you are really missing out on some great little nuggets about Connecticut business.

The case also highlights the importance of following wage rules carefully. The application of a "tip credit" isn't exactly the easiest formula for employers to apply in practice. Employers who may pay under minimum wage for one reason or another should consider themselves targets for potential claims and should ensure that they are in full compliance with the wage and hour laws.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Attorney John Williams is well-known in this state for his avid representation of various state workers -- particularly state police officials -- in discrimination matters.  Yesterday, he held a press conference to announce that he will be filing a class action lawsuit in a few weeks challenging the hiring procedures of the Connecticut State Police.

The Hartford Courant has the details in an article this morning:

Racism is so entrenched in the Connecticut State Police that basic hiring practices ensure only a few minority troopers will even enter a training class, never mind be promoted in the ranks, an attorney representing a black troopers' coalition said Thursday.  ...

Only candidates who score at least 85 out of 100 on a written test are chosen to continue training, even though the passing score is 65. That practice discriminates against members of minority groups, Williams said.

Public Safety Commissioner John A. Danaher III vehemently denied Williams' accusations and defended the department's hiring practices, saying they are fair and blind to race. He also said he has taken steps since becoming commissioner to recruit more members of minority groups, including reaching out to more colleges and forming a selections unit that is largely minority.

WTNH has this report on the subject, as does the AP.  Because the complaint hasn't be filed yet, it is too early to tell the exact legal theories and arguments that will be used in the case, but it appears to be following a well-worn path of what are known as "disparate impact" cases.

So what is "disparate impact"? Well, when most of us hear of discrimination cases, they are known as "disparate treatment" cases, not "disparate impact" cases. These cases allege that someone intentionally discriminated against them because of a protected class (race, gender, etc.)

"Disparate Impact" cases are something different.  LawMemo has a nice little summary in its blog:

Disparate impact is the idea that some employer practices, as matter of statistics, have a greater impact on one group than on another.

A good example, taken from the first US Supreme Court Title VII case on the topic: When hiring laborers, the employer required applicants to have a high school diploma. The diploma requirement screened out vastly more blacks than it did whites. Therefore, there was a disparate impact based on race, even though there was no intentional discrimination.

The Supreme Court said that once the employees proved a significant disparate impact, the burden shifted to the employer to prove that the diploma requirement had "a manifest relationship to the employment in question."

Federal legislation enacted in 1991 says that if the employees prove that a practice causes a disparate impact, then the employer must demonstrate that the practice "is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity."

The allegations being raised by Attorney Williams are similar. He appears to be saying that the decision to screen applicants based on their score of a written test has a disparate impact on black applicants.  The EEOC has issued some guidance on employment tests that shed further light on the subject:

Moreover, as the EEOC notes, in 1978, the EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures or “UGESP” under Title VII.  UGESP provided uniform guidance for employers about how to determine if their tests and selection procedures were lawful for purposes of Title VII disparate impact theory:

UGESP outlines three different ways employers can show that their employment tests and other selection criteria are job-related and consistent with business necessity. These methods of demonstrating job-relatedness are called “test validation.” UGESP provides detailed guidance about each method of test validation.  

In general, disparate impact cases are typically long drawn out cases that rely, in good measure on statistical analyses by experts.  They are costly and time-consuming affairs.  Thus, don't expect a quick resolution to the claims raised in this new lawsuit.  Indeed, the State Police will likely spend lots of time arguing that the standards it uses are "job related" and "consistent with business necessity".   Who will prevail? Stay tuned....

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There aren't a lot of Connecticut legal blogs, so when a new one comes on the scene, the least I can do is a quick shout out. 

The Blog -- A Connecticut Law Blog -- describes itself as providing "Thoughts on Connecticut Law with a Side of Baseball".  Its author, Ryan McKeen, is an attorney in East Hartford, Connecticut.  He e-mailed me on Wednesday and it is nice to hear from a loyal reader.

Ryan is, however, a Red Sox fan.  Given that the Connecticut Employment Law Blog is Yankees territory, we'll let it slide since we've just begun Spring Training. Feel free to check out Ryan's blog.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In yesterday morning's post, I indicated that people should be wary of drawing generalities from some recent decisions granting summary judgment for employers.  Indeed, I went out of my way to note that each judge has their particular way of handling employment discrimination cases.

I also highlighted District Court Judge Christopher Droney for his statement in his chambers practices that:

in employment cases, for example, many summary judgment motions and motions to dismiss are being filed. He believes that most of these motions have merit and need to be considered by the court.

Of course, I could've also noted that just because Judge Droney believes that the motions need to be considered, that does not mean he will necessarily grant them. 

So what does Judge Droney do yesterday afternoon? He issues a ruling denying, for the most part, an employer's motion for summary judgment. Go figure.

The case, Spiotti v. Town of Wolcott, isn't particularly novel for the issues it brings (police officer claims that she was discriminated against because she was a woman and that her supervisor allegedly told her that she was ineligible for certain positions because she was a "mother").  The court did grant summary judgment to the individual supervisors, on the grounds that the statute only allows for claims against employers -- not individuals.  But that issue is pretty well settled now.

So, my message from yesterday remains even clearer today: summary judgment is certainly not dead as a procedural tool in this district -- but there is no hard and fast rule that it will be granted either.  And employers who believe that filing for summary judgment is the best decision in each case are kidding themselves over whether its truly the best course of action.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For football fans in Connecticut, it doesn't get any better than this -- Patriots and Giants in the Super Bowl. With loyalties evenly divided in this state between the Giants and Patriots, interest in the Super Bowl will be at an all-time high. (My allegiance has always been with the Giants, particularly since Robert Kraft's tease of moving the Patriots to Connecticut in the late 1990s). 

And with such interest and enthusiasm, friendly wagering among friends will no doubt follow.  But what happens when those people want to bring such wagering into the workplace in Connecticut? The short answer is "Player Beware". 

In Connecticut, gambling and wagering is prohibited by various state laws, including Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 52-553 and 52-554.  There is no clear exception for "workplace" bets, or small bets. According to the statutes, a bet is a bet, regardless of where it is placed. (The obvious exceptions to this general rule are the Indian casinos in the state -- Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun.)

However, there is one well-worn exception to the "no gambling" rule.  Specifically, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 53-278b states that people (not companies) are:

exempt from prosecution and punishment under this subsection for any game, wager or transaction which is incidental to a bona fide social relationship, is participated in by natural persons only and in which no person is participating, directly or indirectly, in professional gambling. 

Thus, the language appears to create an exception to the idea of professional gambling -- if there is a "bona fide social relationship."  Would workplace relationships qualify for this exemption? That's obviously an open question.  Some might quality; others clearly won't.  As the Office of Legal Research for Connecticut's General Assembly stated in August 2007:

The law does not define “incidental to a bona fide social relationship”; the legislative history of the law does not indicate the legislature's intent in enacting the exemption (see House and Senate debate attached); and we found no controlling Connecticut court ruling on the meaning of the term as it pertains to gambling.

For employers, this exception does not apply however.  Clearly, by referencing only "natural persons" (meaning people, not "corporations"), the law is intended to only protect individuals, not employers, from prosecution.  Thus, company-sponsored Super Bowl office pools would appear to be out. (That goes for Oscar Award wagering too.)

But what about the smaller, employee initiated ones? Again, the statute's language focuses on "social relationships".  A few people wagering may appear to be better than a 100-person office pool.  However, there is no "sure bet" that a small office pool among peers will pass muster under review.  And thus, "Player Beware" is the surest answer to this.

Is there any real likelihood of prosecution? Probably not. It does not appear to be a priority for enforcement. But for employers in the state, that doesn't mean it should promote such pools either.  Having a clear and established policy on gambling (that would include, for example, a prohibition of company computers to help run such a pool) may be a good start to avoiding further issues down the road.

For background on office pools in general, some posts have already gotten a jump start on the topic.  John Husband, of the Colorado Employment Law Letter, has a fun article on the subject here.  Despite lawyers' tendency to be cautious on the subject, Husband reminds us that office pools can be more than simply money:

As with many aspects of employment law, there is no clear-cut rule regarding workplace gambling that will fit every company and every situation. Office pools, Oscar pools, and group lottery tickets often constitute significant ways that managers build camaraderie and teamwork and relieve employee stress.

Perhaps, over the next two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, instead of worrying about office pools, employers in Connecticut can have fun with the topic.  Nothing in the law prohibits Super Bowl parties, and displays of team spirit in the workplace.  Imagine a workplace "rally" where employees can cheer on their favorite sport with the employer giving away football-related gifts. That certainly would build workplace morale.  Enjoying the time leading up to the Super Bowl is something that I think all football fans in the state can agree on. 

UPDATE 1/30: Attorney General Richard Blumenthal recently chimed in that he viewed office pools as okay, so long as the house did not profit from it.  “Office pools are generally legal unless they’re done for a profit by the person organizing it,” Blumenthal said. “In other words, if there’s a house, so to speak, or an organizer takes a cut (then it’s illegal).”

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a few days, it will be Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, January 15th.  And next Monday, January 21, 2008, is officially recognized as the federal holiday as the third Monday in January.  It is also a state recognized holiday in Connecticut as well the other 49 states, in some fashion or another.   So, if you work for a federal or state employer in human resources, or otherwise, you are going to have a day off (obviously, our state police and others never get a  "day off").

Connecticut's Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday Commission has historically had a ceremony that commemorates the day.  That continues this year and information regarding the ceremony can be found here and also here.  The Commission receives counsel and support by the CHRO and the statutory basis for the Commission is found here. 

The birthday has lots of symbolism in the labor and employment world.  Much of today's civil rights laws have their foundation in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  I won't turn this into a history discussion or debate, but suffice to say that King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech and his actions both before and afterwards played a major role in the passage of this bill. 

If you are a private employer, odds have become greater over the years that you give your employees the day off.  A survey in 2007 reported that nearly one-third of large employers give the day off.  I would expect a similar number this year. 

So, the obvious question that I'm often asked is -- if it is a state and federal holiday, why do I have to work? The answer is fairly simple, however.  The United States (unlike some other countries) does not have any "national" holidays. Just because Connecticut or the United States recognizes the day as a legal holiday, employers are free to choose whether to remain open or closed. In case you are curious, the State Department, of all places, as an interesting summary of each of these ten federal days on their website. (In 2009, federal employees in the Washington D.C. area, will also get off January 20, 2009 as a result of "Inauguration Day.")

So, in essence, what the federal and state government does is merely a guide to private employers. . But if employers did not give off certain days, it is a sure bet that employees would flock to employers that did.  It would be hard to imagine an employer surviving with a motto of "No Paid Holidays! in their recruiting materials.

Ultimately, I believe that designating MLK Day as a holiday for private employers -- as with other federal holidays -- is a decision best left up to employers.  In essence, let the marketplace decide.   Certainly, giving the day off allows an employer to tout its commitment to diversity and civil rights with a little more force (though I'm hardly suggesting that giving the day off is a prerequisite for doing so.)  Some employers will instead fashion a compromise by giving employees some "floating holidays" for days such as this. 

Whatever your company decides, it's a good idea to explain to your employees the reasons for your decision. Feel free to post your company's decision below to give our readers some perspectives on the day.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

During the holiday period, the Second Circuit issued a long (and I do mean LONG -- 77 pages!) decision regarding whether Connecticut corrections officers could belong to the Outlaws Motorcycle Club. 

The Second Court upheld the dismissal of First Amendment and other constitutional claims brought by several fired corrections officers who had challenged their firings. They contended, in Piscottano v. Murphy (download here) that their participation in the Club, which the government regards as a criminal enterprise, violated their rights to Freedom of Association.  The Court rejected that claim.  (The Hartford Courant's report can also be read here.)

Wait a Second Blog, has the initial details:

As the Court of Appeals likes to do, it uses this case to flesh out the state of the law on the right of association under the First Amendment, outlining how the Supreme Court has made it easier over the years to allow the government to restrict certain First Amendment freedoms among public employees.

The Court of Appeals first reviewed the Supreme Court's latest pronouncements on the regulation of a public employee's outside activities. Citing San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004), the Court stated that the government has leeway to discipline an employee whose outside speech or associations are detrimental to that operation. It is true, the Second Circuit held, that the plaintiffs in this case engaged in a "protected" association with the Outlaws in that their involvement with the organization raised a matter of "public concern" under the First Amendment. This is because, while the Outlaws Motorcycle Club does not as an organization engage in "public concern" speech, that organization's questionable existence itself would raise concern among the public.

But while "public concern" speech is protected by the First Amendment, the analysis does not end there. The government can still win the case by showing that this associational relationship can hurt governmental operations. Since the plaintiffs are corrections officers associating with an organization with a mission at odds with law enforcement, they can be fired for that association, overriding the First Amendment claim. Moreover, since membership in a large and non-selective social club like the Outlaws does not represent the kind of intimate (family) relationship for which you cannot be punished at work, the right of "intimate association" under the First Amendment does not help the corrections officers, either.

There are a few other notable aspects to the case to point out briefly.

• The case was argued in February 2006 -- thus, the case took nearly two years to decide. The next time you have an appeal before the Second Circuit, don't presume the wheels of justice will move quickly.
  
• It appears to judges focused to some extent on the corrections officers' denials of their knowledge of the criminal activities of the Outlaws group and their seeming denials of actually participating in the group:

In sum, on this record, we think it plain that Piscottano,Kight, and Vincenzo, by, inter alia, repeatedly consorting with the Outlaws and wearing Outlaws colors and apparel in public--even at such times as they were not members of the Outlaws--engaged in expressive activity approving of the nature of the Connecticut chapter of the Outlaws, of the national Outlaws organization, and of other Outlaws chapters.

The fact that law enforcement agencies believe the Outlaws and many of its chapters engage in criminal activity is sufficient in itself to make the nature of those entities a matter of public concern.

• An interesting question is whether courts would come to the same result for a private employer. After all, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-51q purports to apply the reach of some constitutional claims to private employers.   It is plain from reading the decision that the particular position held by the corrections officers (semi- law enforcement) was a factor in the Court's decision.  Would the Court reach the same result for a newspaper delivery person?  That's simply an open question at the point.  But at least under Sec. 31-51q, the employer would have an additional defense that such actions may "substantially interfere" with the employee's performance or the working relationship.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the Iowa caucuses tonight, and the Connecticut primaries just one month away, it's a good time to start paying attention to what the elections of particular candidates would mean to various labor & employment laws.

John Phillips, at The Word on Employment Law, has just saved all of us a lot of trouble by summarizing it in a long, but worthwhile post here.  John even makes a few predictions:

–If a Democrat is elected, an early effort will be made to ensure passage of the amendment making discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In second place is an increase in the minimum wage.

–If a Republican is elected, there will be no early action on a labor and employment issue. In second place is nothing.

–If a Democrat is elected, a more long term goal will be the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Unless the Democrats significantly increase their majority in both houses of Congress, this will be rough sledding. In second place is an expansion of the FMLA.

–If a Republican is elected, a more long term goal will be changing the Fair Labor Standards Act to permit comp time to be substituted for overtime. Unless the Republicans regain control of Congress, this change is unlikely to happen. In second place is a bill to encourage the government and business to work together to give American employees new skills to compete with foreign competitors.

When it comes down to it, the big differences in the candidates remain along party lines; Democrats would typically favor legislation supporting unions while the Republican candidates would not. No real surprise there. 

But some candidates are more enthusiastic about some issues than others.  It is these types of differences that voters should start to think about if they are interested in labor and employment law issues.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We all love surveys and rankings.  From Family Feud to U.S. News School Rankings to American Idol - we love to know who is up, who is down, who is the best and who is the worst.

But some surveys and rankings just don't add up.  Last week, a group calling itself the Alliance for Worker Freedom, ranked each state on an Index of "worker freedom".  (The group, according to its website, "was founded in 2004 to combat anti-worker, pro-union legislation and educate the public about the plight to protect workers rights.")  It contends that the "2007 Index of Worker Freedom (IWF) is the first state-by-state comparative study that measures the level of worker freedom by analyzing actual policy as well as quantitative state data."

And how does Connecticut rank, according to the survey? Survey says: Dead last, with a letter grade of "F". 

What does this mean? Beats me. I can't make any sense out of it.  For example, the state receives zero points because its minimum wage is above the federal minimum wage. Huh? Certainly, in Connecticut, where the cost of living is much higher -- it hardly seems "anti-worker" to have the minimum wage be $7.65.  And Ohio, which has a higher percentage of union workers than Connecticut, receives a "C+", so go figure.

And therein lies the tragedy with surveys like this. They do little to educate the public about the labor and employment facts of a particular state, relying only on an easy to remember "grade system".  

(Hat Tip: Workplace Horizons)

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks