Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week: Labor Department Edition


Over the past week or so, the Labor Department has updated guidance as to several notable coronavirus related matters that impact employers and employees alike.  While there were several other non Labor Department related developments I came across this past week, given the timeliness of these updates, I think it is appropriate to focus on these two updates this week. 

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


Labor Department Issues Guidance on Tracking The Remote Working Hours of Employees

At the end of August, the Labor Department issued guidance for employers and employees alike in regard to the tracking of the remote working hours of employees during the coronavirus pandemic.  Of note, while employers are required to pay their non exempt employees overtime for any work hours over 40 during the course of a work week (per the Fair Labor Standards Act), there is a bit of breathing room with this guidance.  For instance, the Labor Department confirmed that in a remote work environment, an employer must “exercise reasonable diligence” to ensure non exempt employees are paid for all time worked.  This “reasonable diligence” requirement can be satisfied by an employer establishing a system that requires non exempt employees to accurately record and report all time worked.  However, the Labor Department has stipulated that in a situation where an employee fails to report unscheduled work hours during the employer provided system, an “employer is generally not required to investigate further to uncover unreported hours.”  For those interested in the entire scope of the Labor Department’s guidance, I refer you to the link.


Labor Department Updates Informal Families First Coronavirus Response Act Guidance

Some readers might have kids already in school, or perhaps returning within the coming weeks.  Last Thursday, the Labor Department updated its FAQ section as to how the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) comes into play with many employees now juggling remote work and the opening of schools.  While I suggested readers take a look at the entire guidance for a thorough overview, I will point out that the Labor Department has stipulated that if a school opens on a hybrid attendance basis (open for in person education some days and virtual learning for other days), eligible employees may take paid FFCRA leave only on the days their children are required to participate in virtual learning...so long as the employee has the need for “leave to actually care for [the] child during that time and only if no other suitable person is available to do so.”  As well, if a school provides parents the choice of whether to allow their child to attend in person or participate virtually (and the parent chooses to have their child participate in virtual learning rather than in person), the employee is “not eligible to take paid leave under the FFCRA because [the] child’s school is not ‘closed’ du to COVID-19 related reasons.”

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