GINA summarized

Great summary of Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) requirements. Full regulations here.

Res judicata does not bar subsequent retaliation claim

The 11th Circuit just decided an interesting FLSA retaliation case. The plaintiffs filed suit  concerning overtime violations. Subsequently, after the initial suit was filed, the plaintiffs filed a second suit alleging retaliation occurring after the filing of the original claims. Because there was no amendment or subsequent pleading asserting the second claim in the first suit, disposition of the first suit did not bar the second suit as res judicata.

You're a f#@$*^% a$$#@!!

Protected Concerted Activity exhibited in Youtube animation. Hat tip to Workplace Prof Blog. Enjoy!

Union plays hardball in Atlantic City

UNITE HERE, potentially looking at a bitter labor dispute with Reveal Entertainment, has launched an initiative aimed at Reveal's investors in advance of a $1.3 billon dollar high yield debt offering.

Construction industry union organizing

Here is a pretty interesting long post about union organizing in the construction industry in and around Washington D.C.

Social Security overhaul not urgent

Social security is not on life support or at least so says a new report issued by the Center for Economic Policy and Research. The report calls for a delay in tinkering with a program whose need and popularity has only been increased by the Great Recession.

GINA

Yesterday the EEOC has published final rules for implementation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

10(j) injunction affirmed

The federal Fifth Circuit has affirmed a 10(j) injunction ordering the reinstatement of unfair labor practice strikers. The Employer unsuccessfully argued the Board's December 2007 delegation of authority to the General Counsel was invalidated by the Boards subsequent loss of a quorum.

Employees protected by NLRA when commenting about employer in social media

The Hartford, CT, Region of the NLRB has issued a complaint in a case involving the termination of an employee who posted negative comments on Facebook about her supervisor. The Region's investigation determined the employee's remarks posted to her personal Facebook page from home which drew comments from co-workers supporting her assessment of the supervisor was protected concerted activity. The Region also determined the company’s blogging and internet posting policy blanket provisions, (1) prohibiting employees from making disparaging remarks when discussing the company or supervisors and (2) prohibiting employees from depicting the company in any way over the internet without company permission, interfered with employee rights to engage in protected concerted activity. At this stage these claims are just allegations, but employers should take note these allegations are likely to receive sympathetic treatment by the current NLRB. Previously the Office of General Counsel had issued an advice memorandum approving a narrowly crafted internet non-disparagement policy. The acceptible policy prohibited the following: "Disparagement of company’s or competitors’ products, services, executive leadership, employees, strategy, and business prospects."

State anti-EFCA measures

Four states (Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah) passed provisions requiring secret ballot elections to determine a union's majority status. First, it is extraordinarily unlikely the NLRB will abandon secret ballot elections, so any petition would be processed under the current, long-standing secret ballot election procedures used by the NLRB. As for voluntary recognition situations, under which employers and unions may by-pass the election process, the effect is less certain, but absent a major rethinking of federal preemption, I do not see how states can permissibly regulate the process of determining majority status by card check or other non-election evidence that a majority of the employees support unionization.

Union firewall for Democrats?

Hart research polled union and non-union voters in 100 swing congressional districts. Findings are expected in part, and unexpected in part. Union voters provided the firewall for many surviving Democrats, particularly in the Senate races, while white working class voters more dramatically supported Republican candidates (white non-college educated men picked Republicans 67 to 33 percent). Despite the voting, however, it seems working class voters favored many positions favored by Democrats: (for example, 63 percent against tax cuts for earners of $250,000+, 62 percent against social security privatization, 75 percent against reducing or eliminating the minimum wage).

NFL Lockout players

Here is a recent post about the influence Patriot's owner Robert Kraft has in league matters in general, and in decision making about labor policy and the looming potential lockout. No one has more stature and clout.

Minimum wage and job loss

Does an increase in the minimum wage cause a reduction of minimum wage jobs? In the past some studies suggested there is a job loss associated with increases in the minimum wage. But a new study, reported here, using comparisons between counties in different states with different minimum wages suggests neither short term nor long term negative effects on jobs occur as a result of increases in minimum wage requirements. Video here

Retoring Labor's clout

In These Times has an interesting post on revitalizing the labor movement. It focuses on University of Texas law professor Julius G. Getman's new book, Restoring the Power of Unions: It Takes a Movement. Getman portray's the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union (HERE) as a model of a member centered labor organization which has created its own mobilized rank and file, a rejuvenation of a movement, solidarity - core values gone missing from other labor organizations. Getman also rejects card check recognition as labor's salvation. He's not against it, he just does not believe it will effectuate needed change. Getman correctly notes two restrictions on labor's economic power have crippled the labor movement over time. The first is Mackay Radio, which held economic strikers can be permanently replaced. The second is Taft-Hartley's ban on secondary economic pressure.

Absence and the reasons for it

A Careerbuilder survey suggests 29% of employees have missed work at least once in the last year for unapproved reasons. Survey also shows 16% of employers have terminated a worker for missing work without a proper excuse.

Senate candidates think minimum wage laws unconstitutional

Two Senate candidates have claimed regulation of the workplace by Congress is unconstitutional. This despite a unanimous Supreme Court upholding the validity of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1941.

Electronic notices required

In a divided decision (Hayes dissenting) the NLRB has adopted electronic notice requirements when that is a "customary means of communicating with employees."

Compound interest daily

The NLRB, in a 4-0 decision, underscores unanimity on providing remedial relief by adopting a new rule that interest on back pay awards will be compounded daily.

Why was it even close?

The Wobblies (International Workers of the World) lost a representation election in Minneapolis at a local fast food chain. The employer vigorously contested the election even hiring a well-known union avoidance consultant. The newsworthy question is why was this one close? The Wobblies have a history as a far left union, and recently have focused on organizing workers other unions have not targeted. The labor organization lost 87-85 with 2 challenged ballots. Even if the 2 challenged votes went its way, the union lost the election, because it could not establish its majority status. Nevertheless, it plans to object to the results claiming the employer engaged in unfair labor practices.

NFL says no health insurance during lockout

The NFL signaled, again, its intention to play hardball. NFL Commissioner Goodell says the NFL's decision is a good reason for the NFLPA to come to the bargaining table and reach a new deal with the league.

The Devil is in the Math

Pro-labor site In These Times has posted a piece claiming an employer's lockout is costing the company more than giving into the union's contract demands. The first question is "why is that news?" One would assume the disrupted continuation of work would be more expensive. Upon closer analysis, . . . more after the jump

NFL lockout and collateral damage

The NFL is big business and the collateral damage from a lockout would hurt more than just the players and the owners.

Effect of Great Recession on employee attitudes

Well, its inevitable this study would be done. And equally inevitable its probably been done several times with varying questions. Quick take: Employees are waking up to life outside of work, and the importance of family as a direct effect of the Great Recession. For some of us, we were rescued earlier. My liberation occurred when a longtime local client was acquired by a multi-national firm, after which they never called again. This occurrence is of course, by no means unique to me, but it made this professional pause and rethink the boundaries of commitment to serving clients before family. The oldest of my 4 children was 12 at the time. After that point, I never missed a school event or an athletic event because of work conflicts. The best part was most client representatives (and even judges) completely understood the point.

Lap top spying costs school

Remember the school district that engaged in surveillance using the district laptops to spy on students at home, previously posted here and here? The school board just approved a $610,000 settlement.

The Multi-Employer pension plan disaster

There are many good reasons to advise a client to beware participation in union sponsored multi-employer pension plans. None the least of which is the crushing withdrawal liability imposed upon small employers who who are vulnerable to the extraordinary and excessive underfunding issues exacerbated by the great recession and investment value declines. While there has been some improvement, the issue still confronts many employers. Thats whats particularly wrong when commentators characterize any government action to address the problem as a bailout for unions.  Its not. Its a bailout for employers saddled with underfunding liability as well as a bailout for participants, many who have worked years for promised pension benefits now in jeopardy.