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

Last week, I talked about a push by some state politicians to encourage more telecommuting and perhaps four-day work weeks among state workers.  The Connecticut House Republicans have even discussed it on their blog, House Rules.  The union representing state workers has also discussed the proposals in detail on its blog as well.

The Hartford Courant chimed in over the weekend with an editorial that encouraged state legislators to "conserve hot air by working together".  But ultimately, I suspect both sides will sit down and work on some proposal to address the underlying issues present. 

What continues to be fascinating about this debate is that path that some other states have chosen to go.  Delaware Employment Law Blog has interesting piece about Utah that is, understandably, somewhat critical of the proposal.  Utah is going to a mandatory four-day work week.  DELB also notes that Ohio didn't exactly have a great experience with four day workweeks before in a state experiment.  Will Utah's experience be different?

Aaron Newton sees things differently. In his post entitled "The Four-Day Workweek", he outlines the environmental case for a four-day workweek. (H/T Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog.) He then provides 16 reasons why this is an idea whose time has come.  It's a good primer on some of the issues related to a four-day work week. 

So what does the future hold? Using a trusty Magic 8-ball, the right answer to this issue is hazy.  For some employers, going to a four-day work week may make sense, but clearly for others, it won't. 

But one thing is clear: The issue is not going away and it would be beneficial for the state to at least look at the issue further.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Earlier this week, I discussed the state's telecommuting practices amid requests from some politicians to expand the state's telecommuting programs.  In perhaps a slow week for news, the Hartford Courant has continued to followup on its articles and expanded its coverage into discussing the possibility of four-day work weeks -- something Utah is implementing.

But both ideas -- widespread telecommuting and four-day work weeks -- for state workers appear long shots right now with bi-partisan (but not unanimous) support for maintaining the current system. 

Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell discussed the idea of four-day work-weeks for state workers:

I talk about state employees as public servants, and that's exactly what they are.  And the public expects them to be there five days a week, whether you're getting a fishing license or you're getting a permit for a storm-water system in a town. You can't do those things from home. You have to be there physically to greet the person and take the information. Some things can be done by telecommuting, but certainly most all of public service is a five-day-a-week job.

And earlier this week, a spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, the highest-ranking senator and Democrat, chimed in on a plan to have some staffers for House Republicans telecommute.

"We always knew the Republicans were phoning it in; now they want to make it official policy," said Derek Slap, spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn. "The reality is that the GOP plan would not save taxpayers any money and would not ease congestion. In fact, the only people the plan would help would be Republican caucus staff members."

As I mentioned earlier this week, all of this runs counter to the trend in the corporate work towards these flexible options.  Bank of America, for example, launched a telecommuting program earlier this month to great fanfare, hoping to boost the numbers of employees that telecommute. 

Will the state start taking more cues from the corporate world? That seems unlikely for now.  But as more corporations consider these options, it'll be fascinating to watch how their experiences shape policy discussions going forwards. 

For those that are curious about employment laws on the subject, there's nothing about our state or federal employment laws that prohibit either telecommuting or four-day work weeks (we don't for example have a "daily" overtime rule, like Nevada).  So it boils down to a policy argument about the benefits of four-day work weeks and telecommuting. Right now, the status quo is winning.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)

There's been lots of talk of late of how employers are finding various ways to help employees reduce the costs of commuting. In other states, there has even been talk of shifting to four-day workweeks or telecommuting.

Connecticut has long since adopted a telecommuting plan and policy. But an article in this week's Hartford Business Journal reveals that it has been used very sparingly.  The HBJ reports that "Ten years after the state adopted a telecommuting policy, only 140 of approximately 50,000 state employees had telecommuting agreements in 2007."

Now, some unions and other state leaders are now looking to expand that, but may face some opposition from Governor Rell's office:

Richard Harris, a spokesman for the governor, said it would be difficult to increase the number of state employees who work from home.

When you look at the things that state workers do — in many, many instances — it is difficult for them to telecommute because they interact directly with the public,” Harris said.

Linda Yelmini, director of labor relations for the state, doesn’t favor an expanded telecommuting policy. “Many private employers have reduced or completely eliminated these types of programs because experience has shown that lower productivity and lack of management control is often the result,” said Yelmini in an e-mail.

What's odd about this approach is that it seems like it is running counter to the trend in the private workplace.  But even more confusing is that the state's approach runs counter to press releases that are put out by the Connecticut Department of Transportation under its "Telecommute Connecticut!" program for private employers. These press releases state that its findings reveal that telecommuting does, in fact, "work". 

Indeed, on the department's telecommuting pages for private employers, there are specific responses to the complaints that telecommuting doesn't work.

Myth: Telecommuting changes managers' expectations of employees when they're not in the office.
Fact: You don't need to see employees working; you need to know the results of their activity. By establishing concrete goals for telecommuters, employees working from home will know what work is expected of them and you will know that the work is getting done.

Who's right? Obviously, there is an element of truth to both sides. Telecommuting isn't for every employer and every job is not right for telecommuting.  But with gas prices high and more employers trying to attract quality candidates, telecommuting does make sense for employers in several instances.

It'll be interesting to see where this debate goes in the upcoming months.  Even among federal workers, the trend seems to be more encouragement of telecommuting and alternative work arrangements.  Will Connecticut finally follow suit? We'll just have to see.

In the meantime, employers who want more information about telecommuting can go to the state's website which has a number of helpful resources on the subject.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Connecticut Senate voted late today to override the veto of the minimum wage bill that was sent to Gov. Rell last month.   The vote was 25-9 in the Senate.   The vote completes the override process of the minimum wage bill that I discussed here earlier today.

Thus, effective January 1, 2009, the minimum wage in Connecticut will increase to $8.00/hour and on January 1, 2010, the minimum wage will increase to $8.25/hour.  The bill language can be found here. 

Notably (and not widely reported), the General Assembly has also voted to override the veto of the tip credit bill applicable to people such as waiters and bartenders.  Changes to the tip credit are also effective January 1, 2009 and you can read the changes in the bill here. Essentially, the gratuity allowance for service employees in the restaurant industry will increase to $2.48/hour, up from current levels of $2.24/hour.  A history of those increases can be found here.   The rate for bartenders will also change as well.  The DOL has a website page devoted to restaurants here.

Gov. Rell today was quick to criticize the legislature in a statement she released:

This is a seriously short-sighted decision that - even if well-intentioned - will have long-lasting negative consequences for employers and employees alike all over Connecticut. An increase in the minimum wage will bring an increase in the costs of goods and services, the loss of jobs and unrecognized costs to employers in the form of higher Social Security, unemployment tax and workers compensation payments.

CT Newsjunkie has this additional report on the vote. 

For employers, the override means a few things and it's worth clarifying a few points as well:

1. Not only will wages needs to increase for the lowest paid workers in January, but workplace posters will need to be updated as well.
   
2. As I've said before, although federal law provides a different minimum wage, Connecticut will apply to employees in Connecticut. Thus, regardless of what an employer may hear now, it will need to apply this law starting in January.
   
3. Even though the General Assembly has overriden the veto, and the law becomes "effective" October 1, 2008, it will not apply to employers until January 1, 2009. While employers may certain increase wages beforehand, there is no legal requirement to do so.  Until then, the minimum wage in Connecticut remains at $7.65/hour. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

In a bit of a surprise (and in a busy day for employment law in Connecticut), Governor Rell vetoed a bill which would have increased the minimum wage to $8/hour starting Jan. 1, 2009 (and $8.25/hour in 2010).  The veto to House Bill 5105 (H.B. 5105) also effectively kills Senate Bill 55 (S.B. 55) which dealt with an increase in tip credit.  Gov. Rell had approved of an increase two years ago so it was not unreasonable to expect her to follow suit here.

She released a press release, available here which stated, in part:

“There is no doubt that families, particularly low income families, have been hurt by our strained economy,” Governor Rell said. “We all feel the pinch when buying groceries, filling up the gas tank and heating our homes. Yet we must also realize that Connecticut employers face these same financial pressures and are having an extremely difficult time making ends meet.

“We cannot take a chance on hurting families or employers by signing another minimum wage increase into law at this time,” the Governor said. “Businesses have told me that they would not be hiring if the wage hike went into effect. Employers that are now operating on the margin may be forced to close or leave Connecticut to more business-affordable states, resulting in job losses that will undermine the already fragile foundation of financial security for thousands of families.”

I noted earlier this month that the minimum wage bill passed both the House and Senate in overwhelming majorities. The bill passed the House, 106-45, and the Senate, 25-11.  An override needs 101 votes in the House and 24 votes in the Senate.  Thus, it is possible that the General Assembly will reconsider this bill in a special session and overrule the veto.  Indeed, the Hartford Courant is reporting this afternoon that legislators are already clamoring for one.

House Majority Leader Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, said Democrats may attempt an override.

"We had good, strong votes in both chambers," Donovan said. ...

"I'm disappointed Gov. Rell would deny a modest increase to our lowest-paid workers in tough economic times," he said. Donovan said he could not recall the last time a Connecticut governor vetoed a minimum-wage increase.

Thus, until and unless the General Assembly overrides the veto, minimum wage in Connecticut will remain at $7.65/hour. 

(H/T: Hartford Business Journal)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Last week, I posted about a working group that Governor Rell had formed to review the workings of the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO).

Today, Hartford Courant columnist Stan Simpson has an interesting column on the same subject.  It's worth a read.  It discussed the ongoing backlog of complaint and the issues that the agency has had with its leadership. 

He also quotes from the current Connecticut NAACP head who laments the fact that the CHRO's top positions are held by white males. 

Now, there's grumbling that the current key leaders — chairman, executive director, legal director, field operations and chief human rights referee — are all white males. The preferred candidate for the deputy director's job also appears to be a white male.

"It's the civil rights community that brought that whole agency into fruition," said Scot X. Esdaile, president of the state NAACP, which supports a thorough review of the agency. "For the [upper leadership] ranks to turn all white is criminal."

Executive Director Raymond Peck points out that about 40 percent of the 100 staffers are non-white, and that about half of the middle managers, including regional directors, are people of color.

"Would it be better if we looked more diverse at the very top? Yes," Peck said. "We want to be as diverse as we can at all levels."

However, credit Simpson with pointing out that, although the CHRO may have been built from the civil rights era, the CHRO's functions of investigating discrimination go far beyond race discrimination today.   Indeed, I pointed out in October that the Annual Report for the CHRO shows decreases in the numbers of employment law claims over the last five years, while some claims (such as harassment) have increased.

According to the report of the types of claims filed in 2006-2007, the statistics show that race discrimiantion employment claims running about equal with gender discrimination claims and not far ahead of age and disability discrimination claims.  Here are some partial statistics on the numbers of claims being filed.

Number of Employment Claims Filed 2006-2007

Age	411
Color	449
Mental Disability	71
National Origin	260
Physical Disability	401
Race	571
Sex	557

Simpson concludes that the best solution may be to "tear it down — [and] rebuild CHRO into an independent, apolitical watchdog that ferrets out discrimination of all kinds and promotes inclusion in state hiring."  Given the numerous attempts to fix the CHRO over the years, you can't blame him for suggesting that the agency work from a clean slate.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

In Connecticut, it's well known that the state agency responsible for investigating complaints, the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) has been the subject  of lots of discussion and criticism for over a decade, dating back to the years under Executive Director Louis Martin.

Recently, a new series of criticisms have been heard about the agency, and the agency appears to be having difficulty keeping up with the caseload.  As such, Governor Jodi Rell has quietly formed a working group to review the agency and its ability to carry out its stated goals.

A recent article by the Waterbury Republican-American picks up the story from here:

The review is expected to take several months, said Christopher Cooper, the governor's chief spokesman. He said the assessment grew out of contacts between the state NAACP and the governor's office this summer.

There are well-documented problems at the human rights commission, including a backlog of complaints, high caseloads for investigators, and allegations of discrimination within the agency itself. Additionally, three executive directors have left under questionable circumstances in the last 10 years.

Cooper said the commission's troubles entered into Rell's decision to look into its possible restructuring....

The governor's working group initially met last month; its second meeting is scheduled for Dec. 13.

Ann Noble, the governor's deputy counsel, is heading the working group. It also includes representatives from the Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, the NAACP, the state's African-American Affairs Commission, Latino, Puerto Rican Affairs Commission and Commission on Aging, and the University of Connecticut's Asian American Cultural Center.

In the article, I was asked to comment on the issues facing the CHRO.  I'll let you read the article (in part, to give the intrepid reporter, Paul Hughes, credit for the article) but suffice to say that I indicated that more needs to be done to speed up the resolution of cases.  Indeed, cases are falling further and further behind, while the caseloads of the investigators increase.

This is an issue that affect both the employee and the employer.  Neither side can be happy with the delays that are plaguing the agency right now.  It increases the cost of litigation to both sides -- which can only serve to make settlement more difficult down the road.

For an agency that has had its share of difficulties over the years, a working group to review it is certainly a welcome addition.   There will be no shortage of issues for the group to address.  Hopefully, the group will reach out to practitioners from both sides of the cases to provide the group with additional feedback and suggestions. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)