Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


I come across minimum wage related articles routinely every week.  One of the questions that always runs through my mind when I read about minimum wage increases is whether employers actually comply with the new wage rates.  This week, The Chicago Tribune published a great article on that exact topic and the increased pressure on the City of Chicago to hold employers accountable that do not comply with the minimum wage ordinance previously passed for workers in the city.  That article is well worth a read.

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


Proposed Class Action Alleges Amazon Denied Workers Regular Breaks & Overtime Pay

Recently, a proposed class action was filed in Sacramento County Superior Court in which the complaint alleged that workers at an Amazon shipping center were regularly denied breaks and overtime pay.  As Marissa Lang at The San Francisco Chronicle writes, the employee that filed the complaint asserted that he was regularly denied overtime wages and compensation for missed meals and rest breaks during long shifts.  This complaint is similar to other lawsuits filed against Amazon which alleged that the company shorted its employees on overtime, meal breaks, and other requirements (as provided by California law).  It will be interesting to read the answer filed in this case (and whether the proposed class action is allowed to proceed).



On January 1, 2018, the hourly minimum wage rate will increase again for Michigan workers from $8.90/hour to $9.25/hour.  Paula Gardner notes that this is the third and final scheduled hourly minimum wage increase, previously approved by the Michigan Legislature's approval of the Workforce Opportunity Wage Act in 2014.  (Although future wage hikes will not exceed 3.5% and will be established by the State Treasurer based upon the unemployment rate the Consumer Price Index).  This is still a far cry from where many minimum wage advocates would like to see the hourly minimum wage in the state set...but it still leaps and bounds above the federal minimum wage rate ($7.25/hour).


Chicago Raised Its Minimum Wage 3 Years Ago...But Not Everyone Has Seen a Pay Increase

Nereida Moreno and Greg Trotter at The Chicago Tribune wrote a well researched article earlier this week in which they note that while Chicago passed a minimum wage ordinance three years ago, many workers have not seen a pay increase.  The reason?  Employers simply are not following the ordinance.  Advocates of these hourly workers are now pushing the City of Chicago to take a more aggressive approach, enforce the ordinance, and hold employers that do not follow the ordinance accountable. Whether the City of Chicago will spend the time and resources to go after these employers is anyone's guess.  But there is starting to be increased pressure on the City to take action.  Time will tell...


Paid Family Leave Gains Steam in New Hampshire

Adam Sexton at WMUR News noted that attempts to bring paid family leave to New Hampshire appears to be gaining steam.  After a similar measure stalled out last year, lawmakers in the state are giving it another shot by proposing to set up a paid family leave insurance system.  The system would be funded by voluntary payments from employees and employers that would enable workers to take up to 12 weeks of paid leave at up to 60% of their salary.  The measure, which appears to have bipartisan support, still has a ways to go...but this is certainly something that could become a reality sooner rather than later.


Trump Administration Urges Supreme Court to Strike Down "Fair Share Fees" (a/k/a Agency Fees)

File this one under news that should not come as much of a surprise.  This past Wednesday, the Trump administration filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is currently considering Janus v. AFSCME, and urged the Court to bar unions from collecting "fair share fees" a/k/a agency fees.  For those unfamiliar with this case, there has been a long precedent of allowing public employees to pay some fees to unions that represent them (called "fair share fees" or agency fees), even if those employees do not actually belong to the union.  This case seeks to bar unions from collecting these fees from employees that are not actually members of the union on the grounds that these "forced" fees violates the Constitutional rights of these non-union employees.  When the issue was last before the Supreme Court in 2016, the Court split 4 - 4 on the issue (after Justice Antonin Scalia passed away).  With Justice Neil Gorsuch now on the bench, I would expect the Court to rule 5 - 4 in favor of barring unions from collecting these fees from non-union employees.

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more