Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


This week, we have a little something for everyone:  a proposed change to the overtime salary threshold, the ongoing gig economy worker classification fight in California, Nevada’s new law re hiring applicants with a positive marijuana test, an update on a parental paid leave policy in Congress, and a New York law that allows employees paid time off to vote.  This is quite the week of developments, to say the least.   

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


Ohio Senator Pushes For Higher Overtime Salary Threshold

As WVXU writes, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown has recently started advocating for a new overtime salary threshold that is higher than what had been proposed during the President Barack Obama administration ($47,476/year)  as well as higher than what has been proposed by the President Donald Trump administration ($35,303/year.)  Senator Brown has proposed raising the current overtime salary threshold from $23,660/year to $51,064/year.  For those unaware, employees with a salary below the salary threshold must be paid overtime if these employees work more than 40 hours in a week.  Needless to say, any change in the overtime salary threshold would have a widespread impact on both employers and employees alike.  Is there room for negotiation here?  Most likely.  However, with Republicans having majority control of the Senate, Senator Brown’s proposal will need to fund at least a few Republican Senators for support or risk falling apart.


Uber & Lyft Go on the Offensive, Fearing Impact of New ABC Test

Jeremy White at Politico wrote a good article earlier this month in which he noted the newfound offensive that both Uber & Lyft have started to go on in California.  Readers will recall that a new ABC Test was created to determine whether a worker was an independent contractor or employee.  This test makes it more difficult for employers to classify workers as independent contractors.  Predictably, these ride sharing companies have started to become concerned that the California Legislature will codify the ABC Test and have started to take steps to prevent this from happening.  Of note, in exchange for an agreement that Uber & Lyft drivers would remain independent contractors, these ride sharing companies would offer "a series of basic commitments on driver earning" and other related matters such as drivers being able to opt into benefits.  Whether this push by Uber & Lyft produces their intended result remains to be seen...but it is worth noting that the ABC Test has spurred them to move quickly to try and eliminate the "threat" this new test could impose.
However, earlier this week, Gig Workers Rising, gathered outside Uber's headquarters in San Francisco to voice their opposition to any proposed legislation which would classify these gig workers as independent contractors.  (The Gig Workers Rising Twitter feed has a bit of background on Tuesday's protest.)  Something tells me this is not the last we have heard on the matter...from either side.


Nevada Employers: Re-Think Refusing to Hire That Applicant With a Positive Marijuana Test

On June 5th, Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak signed a bill into law that prohibits employers in the state from refusing to hire a job applicant on the basis of a positive marijuana test.  (However, there are few exceptions that are carved out, namely for those applying to be a firefighter or emergency medical technician.)  When this law takes effect January 1, 2020, employees will also have the ability to challenge the results of an initial drug screening if employers require one within the first 30 days of hiring.  Employers must then consider a second screening test (paid for by the employee.)  As this article from HRDive shows, there are a hosts of things for multi-state employers to consider, given the varying degree in which many states view marijuana.


Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Paid Parental Leave Policy Popular Among Staff

Perhaps we should file this article under, ‘not a surprise.’  Recently, I had made note of New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s paid parental leave policy for her staff: 12 weeks of paid leave for new parents on her staff.  Apparently there were several expectant parents on her staff and one was interviewed for this article.  I will let readers page through the interview, but the one takeaway here is the reference to this paid leave policy being one of the best provided to Congressional staffers in D.C.  With Representative Ocasio-Cortez being only a freshman legislator, it will be interesting to see if more established legislators follow suit with similar paid leave policies of their own.


New York Adopts New Paid Time Off Law to Allow Workers to Vote

Earlier this year, the State of New York revised a paid time off to vote law for workers in the state.  Under the revised law, all employees that are registered to vote may request a maximum of three hours of paid time off to vote in any public election without experiencing a loss in pay.  Prior to this revision, if an employee had four or more consecutive hours outside of work while the polls were open, it was presumed that the employee was not entitled to paid time off to vote.  Of note, with this revision to the law, that four hour window has been eliminated.  Employers and employees in New York should all take note of this change in the law.

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,...

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

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. ...