Hazard pay has been a recurring topic over the past year. Readers will recall reading about developments on that front a few times. A recent article from Politico provides a bit of an update on the matter but although there is a bit of a silver lining...some employers are feeling the pinch. That particular article is worth leading things off this week.
As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.
Long Beach’s Hazard Pay For Grocery Workers Spurs Others to Follow Suit
Alexander Nieves over at Politico wrote a recent article in which he recognized that following the Long Beach City Council approving an additional $4/hour in pay for grocery workers back in January, 37 other cities and counties followed suit and approved additional pay (in the $4 - $5/hour range) for grocery and front line retail workers. While the article notes that this has proven to be a success (in drawing in and retaining workers), there is also a wary nod to the fact that some smaller employers have been (or likely soon will be) unable to keep up and afford this sudden increase in labor cost. That ultimately results in large scale employers such as Amazon, Ralph’s Grocery, etc. being able to outlast their smaller competitors and eventually gain increased market share. The big takeaway here: While an increase in pay for some workers during the coronavirus pandemic has been beneficial to the workers, some employers a struggling to stay afloat.
Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling and held that workers at an Amazon warehouse that spent time in line for security screening were entitled to compensation under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. (Readers might recall that a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court case, Integrity Staffing v. Busk, held that under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Portal to Portal Act, workers did not need to be compensated for time spent in security screening.) Confused? Let us clear things up. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held, while federal laws spell out an employer’s minimum obligations (as set up in the FLSA), states can impose additional obligations (here’s looking at you, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.) Following this ruling, as this Bloomberg article suggests, employees might use this Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling to argue that they are now entitled to compensation for time spent getting screened for Covid (or related health screenings in the workplace.) If nothing else, it is almost a certainty that we will start to see cases over the coming months (and years) that rely upon this Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling to argue that time spent in security and health checks in the workplace amounts to compensable time.
The Wall Street Journal published an article on Wednesday in which it noted the ongoing turmoil swirling at Activation Blizzard following the company’s response to a harassment suit filed against the company recently. That suit, which alleges widespread harassment against female workers at the company along with claims that male workers are paid more than their female counterparts, has started to pick up traction in the news media. Although Activation Blizzard stated it would contest the charges in the suit while also expressing empathy for those that felt mistreated at the company, that did little to quell this week’s walk out. It will be interesting to see how this suit plays out in the months ahead.
Comments
Post a Comment