Skip to main content

Reminder: Today is Super Tuesday - Employees May Be Entitled to Time Off to Vote


In many states across the country, today is primary (or caucus) day...also known as 'Super Tuesday'.  For those that did not vote early and intend to participate in the primary, today is the day to head to the polls.  

As always, the question then becomes whether employees are entitled to time off from work to vote. Of course the answer is...It depends.  Each state treats the matter differently.  So whether you work in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia...make sure to consult the laws in your state first.

Here in Texas, generally, an employer may not refuse to allow an employee to take time off to vote.  However, time off is not required if the employee has two consecutive hours available to vote when the polls are open (and not required to be at work).  See Chapter 276 of the Texas Election Code.  As well, it has been held that if an employee volunteers to work overtime hours on election day, an employer is not required to give time off to vote.  

So the common rule of thumb:  If an employee has sufficient time to vote outside his work hours (two consecutive hours), Texas law does not require the employer give the employee time off to vote.  In most other situations, the employer must allow the employee time to vote.  Failure to do so could result in fines for an employer (that's been the case as far back as 1944...).


For additional information on Texas law:  http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/voting_time_off.html

For additional information on other states:   https://www.workplacefairness.org/voting-rights-workplace

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