Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


Earlier this week, I was gearing up for the March 16th confirmation hearing for Alexander Acosta, President Trump's nominee for Labor Secretary.  However, given the delay in that confirmation hearing, we will likely have to wait another week for any new developments on that front.  With that being said, I did want to start this post off with a reference to that confirmation hearing and the reason for the apparent week long delay.

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


Labor Secretary Nominee's Confirmation Hearing Postponed

Since President Trump's new nominee for Labor Secretary, Alexander Acosta, was announced, it has been relatively smooth sailing (in comparison to the prior nominee, Andy Puzder).  Although Acosta's confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee ("HELP") had been set for yesterday, according to Jill Disis over at CNN, the hearing has been pushed back a week.  The reason you ask?  Was it because of Acosta's delay in turning over requested documentation and information or perhaps some breaking news scandal?  No, it was much less "flashy"...the HELP Chairman, Senator Lamar Alexander, was going to be traveling back to his home state to make an appearance with President Trump.  With the Chairman of the Committee being unavailable for the scheduled March 16th hearing, it has now been re-set to March 22nd.  I doubt this will impact the likelihood of Acosta's confirmation...but opponents to his nomination will now have a bit more time to investigate his background.


Op-Ed Proposes Limits to Non-Competes in Wisconsin

David Haynes over at The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote an article earlier this month and advocated for loosening the overly restrictive nature of non-competes in the state.  In his article, Haynes argues that Wisconsin should actually be taking steps to limit the restrictive nature of non-competes (counter to what the State Legislature has attempted to do recently), which would in turn create greater job growth.  Whether non-competes actually have the "chilling" effect in the state that Haynes suggests is up for debate...but there certainly is some merit to the argument that the restrictive nature of non-competes in Wisconsin might be preventing some job growth in several sectors of the state economy.


Employers Beware: The Lack of an Oxford Comma Could Be Costly

Earlier this morning, I came across Daniel Viktor's article over at The New York Times in which he noted that a recent decision out of the First Circuit Court of Appeals could cost an employer upwards of $10 million in a class action overtime pay lawsuit.  The reason you ask?  The lack of an Oxford comma in a state statute...specifically in relation to an exemption for overtime pay carved out in a section of the relevant statute.  There is not necessarily anything he employer could have done differently in this instance (in regard to how the statute was written...and then interpreted by the Court of Appeals).  However, with the Court of Appeals reversing the District Court's ruling in favor of the employer, might we see the Supreme Court take the case?  Regardless, this is an interesting (if not thought provoking) case note that is worth checking out.

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