Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


With a trial yesterday, most of my week was spent preparing exhibits, witness testimony, trial briefs, etc.  Unfortunately, that left me with little time to read through articles and cases.  Nevertheless, I did come across two topics worth highlighting this week.

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


Amidst Legislative Efforts to Curb Minimum Wage Hike, Arkansas Governor Voices Opposition

Earlier this week, a House panel in the Arkansas Legislature endorsed legislation which would curb minimum wage hikes for certain workers in the state, previously approved by voters last November.  Under the legislation currently pending in the House, small businesses, some nonprofits, and teenagers would be exempted from the minimum wage hike.  (Readers might recall that voters had previously approved a minimum wage hike from $8.50/hour up to $11/hour by 2021.). However, Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson stated his opposition to the legislation as did the state GOP.  Even with this pronounced opposition, the sponsor of the legislation indicated the intent to still bring the matter to a vote.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming weeks.  With notable Republicans in the state starting to make their opposition known, this proposal might not have the legs to make it through the Legislature.


California Employers: Your Employees Are Entitled to Reporting Time Pay If Required to Call In to Confirm Shift

At the start of February, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Divison Three issued a decision in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. in which the Court reversed the lower court’s order and held that an employee that is ‘on call’ and required to call in two hours before their shift starts to confirm if they are actually needed for work are entitled to pay for this ‘on call’ period.  Under Wage Order 7, employers in California are required to pay employees “reporting time pay” for each workday “an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work.”  The employee that filed suit in this case argued that having to contact the employer two hours before the shift was to start triggered the reporting for work requirement of Wage Order 7.  The Court of Appeal agreed, unswayed by the employer’s contention that reporting for work required the employee to physically appear at the worksite at the start of a scheduled shift to trigger the reporting for work requirement.  Consequently, it was held that on call scheduling placed a burden on these employees to not make social plans, go to school, or schedule other events, such that the employer not being required to pay these employees reporting time pay would be abuse of Wage Order 7.  Although the Court’s opinion is rather lengthy here, it is a well written opinion that is worth reading.

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

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
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