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

Early on when writing the blog, I came across an issue that was so exciting to write about that I spent an evening crafting it up.  It had links, pictures, and was well-sourced.

But then I discovered that the issue involved a client of the law firm.  Uh-oh. It was then that I decided it was time to set up my own set of internal rules that I would try to run the blog by.

I summarized that process in an entry entitled -- "The Blog Post I Didn't Publish -- Will Your Employees Do the Same?" nearly 30 months ago.

In the past three years, I've worked hard to play by those parameters. Those include: 

• No discussions of cases I'm working on or that others from the firm are working on, without explicit client approval.
• No references to clients, again, without approval from the client first
• No use of confidential or "private" (i.e. not protected by privilege but still not public) information.

There are other informal guidelines that I also try to follow including the concepts outlined in IBM's Social Media policy about adding value and being respectful.

Why do I bring this up again now? Because there have been two stories that I've been asked to write about by some readers in recent weeks.  They've made national headlines and it would be natural to write about those issues.  But I've had to explain that those matters fall within the guidelines I've established for myself and, as a result, I would not be writing about it.

A few people seemed a bit surprised by that.  As one said, "You have RULES for your blog?" Well, yes I do. Or try to.

Which leads me to this: Do your employees know the rules or guidelines that they are to play by when it comes to using Twitter, Facebook, or other types of social media? If you're not confident about the answer to that question, perhaps it's time to think about some guidelines to share with them.  Otherwise, you leave it to their own discretion, which may -- or may not -- be the same as your level of discretion.

Need a place to start? Compliance Building has a wonderful list of 150+ guidelines for your consideration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two new sets of statistics released this month by the Connecticut Department of Labor shed some light into the workplaces in Connecticut.

First and foremost, the number of deaths in the workplace last year remained the same as in 2006 -- 38.  While any death is tragic, the rate is far below the national average.  The Hartford Business Journal reports that work injuries claimed nearly 5,500 lives nationwide in 2007, resulting in a rate of 3.7 deaths per 100,000 workers. Connecticut's rate for last year was 2.1 deaths per 100,000.

So, are Connecticut employers and workers more careful than the rest of the nation? That's unlikely, according to the DOL, which attributes the lower death rate to the fact that most jobs in the state are in "low-risk industries".  In other words, there aren't a lot of deaths doing insurance and financial services work in Connecticut. 

Second, the DOL reported to the Governor M. Jodi Rell that it recovered nearly $7 million in unpaid wages for workers in Connecticut during the fiscal year that ended June 30.  The press release from Governor Rell (available here) touts the department's "success":

The Department’s Division of Wage and Workplace Standards recovered $3.2 million after 3,234 workers complained they were not paid wages owed to them. The division also recovered $1 million by enforcing Connecticut’s prevailing wage laws and returned $2 million more to workers unpaid for overtime or the minimum wage. Additionally, the department recovered $58,000 in back pay owed to service workers hired by private contractors for work on state property.

According to Division Director Gary Pechie, the unit handled more than 25,000 telephone and written inquiries during the past fiscal year and provided outreach services to businesses and schools to ensure that laws were fully understood.

Perhaps some of these companies thought they could make a cheap buck at workers' expense. But more likely, many of these companies were simply unaware of their obligations. 

IS following the law easy? At times, no.  Overtime rules can be confusing and employers are often unaware of obligations to, for example, pay wages on a weekly basis unless an exception has been granted.  Some of the laws can be found here, but ultimately, remaining vigilant about such laws will reduce the likelihood that your company's run-in with the DOL will end up as part of one of this "statistic".

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Buried deep, deep, deep within revisions to the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission Act ("CPSCA") is a new cause of action designed to protect whistleblowers of product safety (available here).

This new law, entitled The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008,  will afford protection to both public and private employees in retail and manufacturing sectors to those employees who disclose perceived violations of CPSCA (or related acts) to a State Attorney General, a regulatory agency or their employer. 

The Laconic Law Blog has the details of the bill which was signed by President Bush on August 14, 2008.

For employers in the manufacturing and retail area, many states, including Connecticut already afforded employees who complained about some of these issues state law protection.  But this new bill will allow employees to bring claims under federal law through a new administrative procedure; it does not allow the employees to bring their claims directly in court. 

It's yet another reminder to treat complaints by employees of wrongdoing with appropriate seriousness and notify supervisors that adverse employment decisions should not be based on the complaints.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

First, it expands the construction safety training requirement to any public works project, which includes sewage and water treatment plants, site work, road and bridge work, parking lots, drainage systems, and other public projects.

Second, instead of applying the training requirement to all projects of $ 100,000 or more, the bill applies the existing prevailing wage project thresholds to the training requirement. This means the requirement kicks in for (1) repair and renovation projects of $ 100,000 or more and (2) new construction projects of $ 400,000 or more.

Furthermore, it removes the requirement that the proof of the training be sent to the labor commissioner. Presumably, the proof will be sent to the contracting agency paying for the prevailing wage project. ...

The bill also creates training requirement exceptions for employees of public service companies and commercial vehicle drivers who either pick up at or deliver cargo to public work projects.

It requires the labor commissioner to adopt implementing regulations by January 1, 2009. By law, regulations cannot take effect before the effective date of the act authorizing them.

• The employees who must receive the training (which, under current law, is any employee "performing manual labor") is greater under the bill.  The bill states that a mechanic, laborer, or worker must complete the safety training course.
  
• Notably, according to the OLR, the safety training requirements "do not apply to employees of public service companies, which are defined in statute to include electric, electric distribution, gas, telephone, telegraph, pipeline, sewage, and water companies; cable franchise holders; and railroad companies."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link