Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


I have been out of the office a few days this week in court and as a result, have had to play catchup when I am back in the office.  That has left me less time to read through my usual articles this week, but I did see a few that are worth passing along.  In particular, the article/chart that breaks down the differences between the San Francisco and California sick leave requirements is worth reading.

As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week.


Don't Have a Policy in Place? Don't Panic, But Start Drafting One

Some employers do not have any policies in place.  In fact, some employers do not have enough policies in place.  This article points out a few policies that all employers should have, such as policies that address paid time off, equal opportunity, safety rules, etc.  Going a bit further, the article then suggests how employers can create new policies and the most efficient and effective ways to draft the new policies, depending upon the topic.  Common sense?  Probably.  A life saver for employers if an issue arises that the policy addresses?  Definitely. 


A Comparison of San Francisco & California's Sick Leave Requirements

Recently, the state of California enacted broad sick leave policies for employers.  However, San Francisco had previously passed a similar bill that impacted employers and employees within the city.  This chart breaks down the similarities and differences between the two bills in an easy to follow way.  This is definitely worth a review for those readers that attempt to distinguish the bills.


Reminder: Not Every Employer Action Can Be the Basis of a Lawsuit

Jared Lucan has a very well written article which is a reminder that not every action taken by an employer can be the basis of a lawsuit by an employee.  Lucan points to two recent cases from Connecticut to help illustrate this point.  For employees, I would not take this article as an indication that employers can do no wrong.  Rather, it clarifies that just because an employer takes action on something that impacts the employee, that does not necessarily mean the employer's action gives rise to a lawsuit.  As for an employers, this article clarifies that it is not necessary to walk on egg shells; rather, be aware that while some actions and conduct will result in a lawsuit, not everything that negatively impacts an employee can necessarily lead to a valid claim.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more