Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


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.


Pennsylvania Ruling Regarding Paying Workers For Time Spent in Security Line Could Have Broader Impact

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.


Workers Stage Virtual & In Person Walkout Following Activation Blizzard’s Response to Harassment Suit

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

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