Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


The past few weeks have been very busy for me wrapping things up in the office to close out the end of last month.  I did find some time to read a few different articles this week.  One of the more informative articles (both for those who practice labor law or just have a passing interest) concerns what employers can and cannot say during a union organization campaign. 

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


Employers: A Few Useful Tips on What to Say (& Not Say) During a Union Organization Campaign

Ryan Kunkel and Todd Hanchett have written a very good article with a few tips for employers that are dealing with a union organization campaign.  In particular, the article suggests things that employers can legally say and things the employer is prohibited from saying during this organization campaign.  While every situation is different and this article is not exhaustive, this is well worth a quick review for employers struggling to deal with a union organization campaign (and a tighter window because of the new "quickie" election rules that have gone into effect).


Minor Leaguers Get Conditional Class Certification

A few weeks ago, the judge in the minor leaguers' FLSA suit granted the plaintiffs conditional class certification.  For those who might not remember, early last year, several minor league players filed suit against Major League Baseball, Bud Selig (Commissioner at the time), and three MLB teams on the grounds that the minor leaguers were not paid minimum wage in violation of the FLSA.  (Minor Leaguers Bring FLSA Suit).  The Court's granting of conditional class certification means that the suit could include as a claimant all minor league baseball players who worked for the MLB or any MLB franchise since February 7, 2011 but had not spent any time in the major leagues.  Very interesting development.


Call Center FLSA Suit Proceeds

Doug Hass has an interesting note on an FLSA suit brought by employees that worked in a call center.  Apparently, the employer used a time keeping system that tracked an employee's log-in and log-out times as well as any "idle" time.  The employer allegedly deducted for this incremental time, although an employee could file a reimbursement claim with a manager (although these were apparently infrequently granted).  The district court in Minnesota where this case is pending recently allowed this claim to proceed forward.  Well worth keeping an eye on to see how this case progresses.


Some Need to Know Information About Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors

The Laconic Law Blog posted a well written article on what employers need to know about the Executive Order that President Obama signed which mandates paid sick leave for federal contractor and subcontractor personnel, set to take effect on January 1, 2017.  Granted, we still have over a year until this Executive Order takes effect...but employers would be smart to start reviewing things now to ensure they are in compliance.


Negative Job References...What is an Employer to Do?

Jon Hyman has a great note on what an employer is faced with when considering whether to give a negative job reference.  Readers should take note that Jon ties his analysis of the situation into current Ohio law.  While many readers are not from Ohio nor have Ohio laws apply to them, it is worth a read to get a feel for how different states and jurisdictions handle the issue.

Comments

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

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday

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