In the June 30 Federal Register OSHA ( the US Depatment of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is scheduling two informal public hearings on the proposed rule on general working conditions in shipyard employment. The dates of the two hearings are as follows:
9:30 am September 9, 2008, in Washington, DC
9:30 am October 21, 2008, in Seattle, WA.
The two hearings aim at providing a platform for interested stakeholders to discuss how to improve existing standards on working conditions for employees in shipyard employment.
Notice of intention to appear at the hearing: Interested persons who intend to present testimony or question witnesses at either the Washington, DC, or Seattle, WA, hearing must submit (transmit, send, postmark, deliver) a notice of their intention to do so by July 18, 2008.
Hearing testimony and documentary evidence: Parties who need over 10 minutes for their presentation and those who will present documentary evidence are supposed to supply the agency with copies of their full testimony and all documentary evidence by August,2008
If you want to submit your notice of intention, you can use the Federal eRulemaking Portal,www.regulations.gov.The following three ways are also acceptable: facsimile( on longer than 10 pages) to OSHA Office at 202-693-1648; regular mail, messenger or courier service to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-S049-2006-0675, U.S. Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone 202-693-2350.
It is the employers’ responsibility to provide a safe and healthy workplace for the employees under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. OSHA’s role is to promote the safety and health of America’s working people by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The FirstStep Employment Law Advisor
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently launched a new tool for posters and recordkeeping compliance - The FirstStep Employment Law Advisor.
The FirstStep Employment Law Advisor is one of the elaws Advisors, which are interactive e-tools that provide easy-to-understand information to help employers and employees understand their rights and responsibilities under certain federal employment laws. Each Advisor simulates the interaction you might have with an employment law expert. It asks questions and provides answers based on responses given, and each Advisor includes links to more detailed information that may be useful, such as links to regulatory text and compliance assistance materials.
The FirstStep Employment Law Advisor is designed to help employers determine which of the major DOL employment laws and regulatory requirements their organization must comply with, what recordkeeping and reporting requirements they must comply with, and which posters they need to post.
The Advisor can help all employers, including non-profit organizations, private sector businesses and government agencies.
If employers already know which federal employment laws apply to them, the Advisor can quickly provide basic information about how to comply with these laws, including the requirements for recordkeeping, reporting, posters and other notices. This information can also be printed off as a reference guide.
This Advisor provides three basic starting points depending on your interests and needs:
l FirstStep - Employment Law Overview Advisor provides a short primer on each law's basic provisions as well as any related recordkeeping, reporting and notice requirements.
l FirstStep - Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Notices Advisor provides detailed explanations of each law's recordkeeping, reporting and notice requirements.
l FirstStep - Poster Advisor provides access to short descriptions of DOL poster requirements and links to printable posters.
It is really a great place for employers to double-check their current posters and document retention policies. However, the FirstStep Employment Law Advisor can only give advice on major DOL laws, and it does not cover all laws administered by DOL. In addition, the advisor will not identify laws administered by other federal agencies that might also apply to your business or organization.
The FirstStep Employment Law Advisor is one of the elaws Advisors, which are interactive e-tools that provide easy-to-understand information to help employers and employees understand their rights and responsibilities under certain federal employment laws. Each Advisor simulates the interaction you might have with an employment law expert. It asks questions and provides answers based on responses given, and each Advisor includes links to more detailed information that may be useful, such as links to regulatory text and compliance assistance materials.
The FirstStep Employment Law Advisor is designed to help employers determine which of the major DOL employment laws and regulatory requirements their organization must comply with, what recordkeeping and reporting requirements they must comply with, and which posters they need to post.
The Advisor can help all employers, including non-profit organizations, private sector businesses and government agencies.
If employers already know which federal employment laws apply to them, the Advisor can quickly provide basic information about how to comply with these laws, including the requirements for recordkeeping, reporting, posters and other notices. This information can also be printed off as a reference guide.
This Advisor provides three basic starting points depending on your interests and needs:
l FirstStep - Employment Law Overview Advisor provides a short primer on each law's basic provisions as well as any related recordkeeping, reporting and notice requirements.
l FirstStep - Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Notices Advisor provides detailed explanations of each law's recordkeeping, reporting and notice requirements.
l FirstStep - Poster Advisor provides access to short descriptions of DOL poster requirements and links to printable posters.
It is really a great place for employers to double-check their current posters and document retention policies. However, the FirstStep Employment Law Advisor can only give advice on major DOL laws, and it does not cover all laws administered by DOL. In addition, the advisor will not identify laws administered by other federal agencies that might also apply to your business or organization.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The WHD Criticized By The GAO
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has been criticized by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for mishandling many overtime and minimum-wage complaints and delaying investigating hundreds of cases for a year or more, according to a GAO report issued on July 15th, 2008.
The GAO, which will release its report at a hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee, said that from fiscal years 1997 to 2007, the number of WHD’s enforcement actions decreased 37 percent, from 46,758 in 1997 to just 29,584 in 2007.
Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, said in his prepared remarks for the hearing, “Although the Department of Labor currently has the necessary tools to fight wage theft, the G.AO investigation suggests that the problem of wage theft is only getting worse because of weaker enforcement.”
The WHD defended its performance, saying that it decided to enforce fewer, but more time-consuming and comprehensive claims. In addition, it said that the decrease also resulted from more careful screening of complaints to eliminate those that may not be violations. WHD also stated that part of the decrease is attributable to a 20% reduction in investigative staff.
The GAO also criticized the WHD for focusing on too narrow a range of industries. “WHD focused on the same industries from 1997 to 2007. The agency primarily targeted four industry groups: agriculture, accommodation and food services, manufacturing, and health care and social services.” The WHD didn’t focus on the low-wage industries where, one report said, it would be most likely to find violations. The GAO concludes, “WHD may not be addressing the needs of workers most vulnerable to FLSA violations.” But the WHD said it had also broadened its efforts to include other low-wage businesses, including day care, restaurants, construction and hotels.
In a fact sheet, the Labor Department noted that the back wages collected by the WHD “more than doubled to $220,613,703 in 2007 from $96,719,108 in 1997.” The DOL said that “341,624 employees received back wages in 2007, up from 189,244 10 years earlier.” It also added “The Wage and Hour Division is delivering pay for workers, not a payday for trial lawyers.”
The GAO, which will release its report at a hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee, said that from fiscal years 1997 to 2007, the number of WHD’s enforcement actions decreased 37 percent, from 46,758 in 1997 to just 29,584 in 2007.
Representative George Miller, Democrat of California and chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, said in his prepared remarks for the hearing, “Although the Department of Labor currently has the necessary tools to fight wage theft, the G.AO investigation suggests that the problem of wage theft is only getting worse because of weaker enforcement.”
The WHD defended its performance, saying that it decided to enforce fewer, but more time-consuming and comprehensive claims. In addition, it said that the decrease also resulted from more careful screening of complaints to eliminate those that may not be violations. WHD also stated that part of the decrease is attributable to a 20% reduction in investigative staff.
The GAO also criticized the WHD for focusing on too narrow a range of industries. “WHD focused on the same industries from 1997 to 2007. The agency primarily targeted four industry groups: agriculture, accommodation and food services, manufacturing, and health care and social services.” The WHD didn’t focus on the low-wage industries where, one report said, it would be most likely to find violations. The GAO concludes, “WHD may not be addressing the needs of workers most vulnerable to FLSA violations.” But the WHD said it had also broadened its efforts to include other low-wage businesses, including day care, restaurants, construction and hotels.
In a fact sheet, the Labor Department noted that the back wages collected by the WHD “more than doubled to $220,613,703 in 2007 from $96,719,108 in 1997.” The DOL said that “341,624 employees received back wages in 2007, up from 189,244 10 years earlier.” It also added “The Wage and Hour Division is delivering pay for workers, not a payday for trial lawyers.”
Friday, July 18, 2008
Michigan Minimum Wage Increased to $7.40 Per Hour July 1, 2008
The state of Michigan has increased its minimum wage to $7.40 per hour, up from $7.15 an hour, effective July 1, 2008.
Roughly 58,000 workers in the state of Michigan who make the minimum wage will get the increase. Another 209,000 workers who earn more than $7.15 per hour but less than $7.40 per hour will also get the raise, according to the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute in Washington.
The largest effect of the minimum wage increase will be in the service industry, like hotels and restaurants, as well as nursing homes and businesses that employ teachers’ aids and home health care workers.
"Restaurants are doing everything they can now to survive. It's a mandatory increase in their labor costs at a time they don't have the money," said Andy Deloney, spokesman for the Michigan Restaurant Association.
Michigan's new wage ties Rhode Island for eighth-highest in the United States.
Roughly 58,000 workers in the state of Michigan who make the minimum wage will get the increase. Another 209,000 workers who earn more than $7.15 per hour but less than $7.40 per hour will also get the raise, according to the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute in Washington.
The largest effect of the minimum wage increase will be in the service industry, like hotels and restaurants, as well as nursing homes and businesses that employ teachers’ aids and home health care workers.
"Restaurants are doing everything they can now to survive. It's a mandatory increase in their labor costs at a time they don't have the money," said Andy Deloney, spokesman for the Michigan Restaurant Association.
Michigan's new wage ties Rhode Island for eighth-highest in the United States.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Maryland Increases Its Minimum Wage to $6.55 Per Hour on July 24, 2008
The state of Maryland has increased its minimum wage from $6.15 per hour to $6.55 per hour, effective July 24, 2008. And for tipped employees, the minimum wage will also increase to $3.28 per hour.
The federal minimum wage will increase to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008. The minimum wage in Maryland is automatically replaced with the Federal minimum wage rate because it is higher than the State minimum wage rate.
According to Maryland Department of Labor, with certain exceptions, time and a half the usual hourly rate must be paid for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Exemptions include certain agricultural workers, executives, administrative and professional employees.
Because of the mandated minimum wage increases, the summer job market for teenagers will decline. For every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment for high school dropouts and young blach adults and teenagers falls by 8.5 percent, according to econonist David Neumark.
The federal minimum wage will increase to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008. The minimum wage in Maryland is automatically replaced with the Federal minimum wage rate because it is higher than the State minimum wage rate.
According to Maryland Department of Labor, with certain exceptions, time and a half the usual hourly rate must be paid for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Exemptions include certain agricultural workers, executives, administrative and professional employees.
Because of the mandated minimum wage increases, the summer job market for teenagers will decline. For every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment for high school dropouts and young blach adults and teenagers falls by 8.5 percent, according to econonist David Neumark.
The California DFEH Has Announced A New Plan
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), California’s civil rights agency (whose mission is to protect Californians from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination, as well as hate crimes), has announced an ambitious three-year plan to step up enforcement of the state’s anti-discrimination laws.
Phyllis Cheng, the DFEH’s director, who was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger earlier this year, announced the plan at a presentation given on June 26, 2008 before members of the San Diego County Bar Association’s Employment Law Section.
The DFEH plans to streamline the claim process. Previously, employees had to schedule an office appointment at a regional DFEH office to initiate a complaint. Under the updated procedure, complainants don’t have to go in to a DFEH office; they can file a complaint on-line by visiting the DFEH website to schedule an appointment, and in-person appointments will soon be unnecessary because telephone in-take interviews will start to be used. Initially, four of the ten DFEH offices will accept telephonic in-takes.
The DFEH will also automate the right to sue system. Usually when employees are represented by counsel, they do not want the DFEH to investigate but request a “right to sue” letter, which is a prerequisite to filing a civil lawsuit in court. In fact, the majority of claims are processed this way. “Of the 16,000 employment claims filed each year, about 9,000 of them are filed by employees represented by counsel who want a right to sue letter,” said Ms. Cheng. Implementing an automated online right- to-sue system will free up DFEH staff to work on more discrimination investigations.
Phyllis Cheng, the DFEH’s director, who was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger earlier this year, announced the plan at a presentation given on June 26, 2008 before members of the San Diego County Bar Association’s Employment Law Section.
The DFEH plans to streamline the claim process. Previously, employees had to schedule an office appointment at a regional DFEH office to initiate a complaint. Under the updated procedure, complainants don’t have to go in to a DFEH office; they can file a complaint on-line by visiting the DFEH website to schedule an appointment, and in-person appointments will soon be unnecessary because telephone in-take interviews will start to be used. Initially, four of the ten DFEH offices will accept telephonic in-takes.
The DFEH will also automate the right to sue system. Usually when employees are represented by counsel, they do not want the DFEH to investigate but request a “right to sue” letter, which is a prerequisite to filing a civil lawsuit in court. In fact, the majority of claims are processed this way. “Of the 16,000 employment claims filed each year, about 9,000 of them are filed by employees represented by counsel who want a right to sue letter,” said Ms. Cheng. Implementing an automated online right- to-sue system will free up DFEH staff to work on more discrimination investigations.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Regulation of Using E-Verify
On June 6 2008, the Bush administration signed an amendment to Executive Order 12989, mandating that all companies hired to perform work for federal agencies must use the E-Verify system to ensure that their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States. Businesses failing to abide by this directive risk losing federal contracts.
On June 9, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) designated E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system that all federal contractors must use.
E-Verify, formerly known as the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program, was originally established in 1997 by the Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration. It is a free, internet-based system run by the United States government to allow employers who are enrolled in the E-Verify program to confirm the legal status of new employees.
The current form of the proposed regulation requires that all entities which provide the federal government with over $3,000 worth of goods or services in the United States use E-Verify for all new employees, even those who do not actually work on the federal contract. It also requires such entities to identify all employees who currently work on any federal contract and verify their legal status through E-Verify as well. The only entities excluded from this regulation are those who perform work for the federal government outside of the United States, provide less than $3,000 of goods or services, or provide contracts for commercial, off-the-shelf supplies.
The regulation is now open for public comment until August 12, 2008. Once the public comment period expires, the rule will either be implemented in its current form, or modified based upon the public comments received.
Once the regulation is implemented, the included entities will have 30 days to enroll in the E-Verify program, and then another 30 days to verify all current employees working on federal contracts in addition to all new ones. After that, such entities must verify the legal status of all new employees through E-Verify within three days after their hiring. The mandatory use of E-Verify will be a provision included in all federal contracts.
The E-Verify program will be used in conjunction with the existing I-9 forms. So although the proposed regulation will be implemented after the public comment period expires, federal contractors still have to complete the I-9 form for all new hires.
On June 9, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) designated E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system that all federal contractors must use.
E-Verify, formerly known as the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program, was originally established in 1997 by the Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration. It is a free, internet-based system run by the United States government to allow employers who are enrolled in the E-Verify program to confirm the legal status of new employees.
The current form of the proposed regulation requires that all entities which provide the federal government with over $3,000 worth of goods or services in the United States use E-Verify for all new employees, even those who do not actually work on the federal contract. It also requires such entities to identify all employees who currently work on any federal contract and verify their legal status through E-Verify as well. The only entities excluded from this regulation are those who perform work for the federal government outside of the United States, provide less than $3,000 of goods or services, or provide contracts for commercial, off-the-shelf supplies.
The regulation is now open for public comment until August 12, 2008. Once the public comment period expires, the rule will either be implemented in its current form, or modified based upon the public comments received.
Once the regulation is implemented, the included entities will have 30 days to enroll in the E-Verify program, and then another 30 days to verify all current employees working on federal contracts in addition to all new ones. After that, such entities must verify the legal status of all new employees through E-Verify within three days after their hiring. The mandatory use of E-Verify will be a provision included in all federal contracts.
The E-Verify program will be used in conjunction with the existing I-9 forms. So although the proposed regulation will be implemented after the public comment period expires, federal contractors still have to complete the I-9 form for all new hires.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Standard Mileage Rate Raised to 58.5 Cents
Effective July 1, 2008, the optional standard mileage rate has increased by 8 cents, from 50.5 cents per mile to 58.5 cents per mile, for all miles driven from July 1 to December 31, 2008.
The increase allows taxpayers to use the higher deduction amount as an alternative to recording actual costs of operating a qualifying vehicle. The new rate is also for determining the reimbursement amount to employees who operate an automobile for business purposes.
The Internal Revenue Service made this special adjustment for the final months of 2008 because of the recent gasoline price increases.
"Rising gas prices are having a major impact on individual Americans. Given the increase in prices, the IRS is adjusting the standard mileage rates to better reflect the real cost of operating an automobile," said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. "We want the reimbursement rate to be fair to taxpayers."
The rate for moving and medical mileage also increased 8 cents, to 27 cents; the rate for charity services, however, remained at 14 cents because it is a special case and requires an act or law to change it.
The increase allows taxpayers to use the higher deduction amount as an alternative to recording actual costs of operating a qualifying vehicle. The new rate is also for determining the reimbursement amount to employees who operate an automobile for business purposes.
The Internal Revenue Service made this special adjustment for the final months of 2008 because of the recent gasoline price increases.
"Rising gas prices are having a major impact on individual Americans. Given the increase in prices, the IRS is adjusting the standard mileage rates to better reflect the real cost of operating an automobile," said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. "We want the reimbursement rate to be fair to taxpayers."
The rate for moving and medical mileage also increased 8 cents, to 27 cents; the rate for charity services, however, remained at 14 cents because it is a special case and requires an act or law to change it.
The District of Columbia Increase The Minimum Wage to $7.55 On July 24, 2008
The District of Columbia will increased its minimum wage from $7.00 per hour to $7.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and will increase the minimum wage to $8.25 per hour on July 24, 2009.
The federal minimum wage will increase from $5.85 per hour to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008 and to $7.25 per hour on July 24, 2009. If you are working for the federal government, you arer only entitled to the federal minimum wage. If you work for Washington D.C. government, you are entitled to receive a living wage, which is $11.75 per hour in the current time.
If you work over 40 hours in one week, you should get overtime pay. If the regular pay is $7.55 per hour, overtime pay would be $11.325 per hour. However, some kinds of jobs do not get overtime pay, such as salesmen, professionals, and those domestic workers who live with their employers.
The federal minimum wage will increase from $5.85 per hour to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008 and to $7.25 per hour on July 24, 2009. If you are working for the federal government, you arer only entitled to the federal minimum wage. If you work for Washington D.C. government, you are entitled to receive a living wage, which is $11.75 per hour in the current time.
If you work over 40 hours in one week, you should get overtime pay. If the regular pay is $7.55 per hour, overtime pay would be $11.325 per hour. However, some kinds of jobs do not get overtime pay, such as salesmen, professionals, and those domestic workers who live with their employers.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Colorado Updated Anti-Discrimination By Adding Sexual Orientation
Colorado has signed a new law - Senate Bill 200 – which prevents certain types of discrimination by adding Sexual Orientation as a new protective category, effective May 29, 2008.
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has signed a controversial bill into law that broadens the ban on Sexual Orientation Discrimination created by the 2007 amendments to Colorado’s civil rights law; these banned sexual orientation and religious discrimination in employment. The new bill defines sexual orientation as “a person’s orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person’s perception thereof.”
In the new law, public accommodation is broadly defined as “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public.”
On the basis of the 2007 amendments to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, many Colorado employers have already considered modifying their business policies regarding transgender employees. With the passing of the new law, Colorado employers should revisit those policies and consider whether the same protections should be extended to customers and guests.
Besides sexual orientation, Senate Bill 200 also adds creed, marital status, disability, national origin and ancestry to the protected statuses upon which an individual cannot be denied membership in a union or labor organization. The Colorado law now also broadens the bans prohibiting discrimination in employment decisions on account of sexual orientation in schools.
Similar legislation already exists in the following states: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has signed a controversial bill into law that broadens the ban on Sexual Orientation Discrimination created by the 2007 amendments to Colorado’s civil rights law; these banned sexual orientation and religious discrimination in employment. The new bill defines sexual orientation as “a person’s orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person’s perception thereof.”
In the new law, public accommodation is broadly defined as “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public.”
On the basis of the 2007 amendments to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, many Colorado employers have already considered modifying their business policies regarding transgender employees. With the passing of the new law, Colorado employers should revisit those policies and consider whether the same protections should be extended to customers and guests.
Besides sexual orientation, Senate Bill 200 also adds creed, marital status, disability, national origin and ancestry to the protected statuses upon which an individual cannot be denied membership in a union or labor organization. The Colorado law now also broadens the bans prohibiting discrimination in employment decisions on account of sexual orientation in schools.
Similar legislation already exists in the following states: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Florida’s Guns At Work Law
On July 1, 2008, Florida's Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008 (the "Guns At Work Law") has taken effect. The bill was signed into law by Florida Governor Charlie Crist on April 15, 2008.
The new law prohibits all public and private employers from discriminating against any customer, employee, or invitee who possesses a legally-owned firearm that is kept inside a locked, privately-owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, in most cases, even on an employer’s private property. The law doesn’t apply to schools, prisons, nuclear power plants, military facilities and buildings that store explosives.
Supporters of the law say people have a constitutional right to carry firearms in their cars for protection, while business owners have argued that they have a constitutional right to set the rules on their own property.
However, in order to comply with the new law, employers must do the following:
l Review and update policies prohibiting firearms on the employer's property; lift any ban against keeping legally-owned firearms locked in personal vehicles in parking areas by persons with valid concealed-weapons permits;
l Review and update safety and security measures to deal with the increased risk of violence associated with the presence of guns on company property;
l Provide training on Florida's Guns At Work Law to Human Resources personnel;
l Provide training on Florida's Guns At Work Law to all security personnel.
The new law prohibits all public and private employers from discriminating against any customer, employee, or invitee who possesses a legally-owned firearm that is kept inside a locked, privately-owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, in most cases, even on an employer’s private property. The law doesn’t apply to schools, prisons, nuclear power plants, military facilities and buildings that store explosives.
Supporters of the law say people have a constitutional right to carry firearms in their cars for protection, while business owners have argued that they have a constitutional right to set the rules on their own property.
However, in order to comply with the new law, employers must do the following:
l Review and update policies prohibiting firearms on the employer's property; lift any ban against keeping legally-owned firearms locked in personal vehicles in parking areas by persons with valid concealed-weapons permits;
l Review and update safety and security measures to deal with the increased risk of violence associated with the presence of guns on company property;
l Provide training on Florida's Guns At Work Law to Human Resources personnel;
l Provide training on Florida's Guns At Work Law to all security personnel.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Illinois Minimum Wage to Increase to $7.75 July 1, 2008
The state of Illinois will increase its minimum wage from $7.50 per hour to $7.75 per hour effective July 1, 2008, with additional increases to $8.00 per hour on July 1, 2009, and to $8.25 on July 1, 2010.
Increasing the minimum wage to $7.75 per hour will add an additional $520 in annual wages for a full-time minimum wage worker. When the minimum wage of $8.25 per hour takes effect in 2010, state Gov. Blagojevich will have helped boost the pay for minimum wage workers in Illinois by $3.10 per hour in seven years.
Gov. Blagojevich signed legislation in December 2006 increasing the Illinois minimum wage. The governor estimates that nearly 700,000 people will benefit from the increase. "We're facing hits on food, hits on deliveries to us and now labor increases," said Todd Rawls, a local businessman "That all affects insurance, my rent’s gone up, you name it, it has all gone up."
Increasing the minimum wage to $7.75 per hour will add an additional $520 in annual wages for a full-time minimum wage worker. When the minimum wage of $8.25 per hour takes effect in 2010, state Gov. Blagojevich will have helped boost the pay for minimum wage workers in Illinois by $3.10 per hour in seven years.
Gov. Blagojevich signed legislation in December 2006 increasing the Illinois minimum wage. The governor estimates that nearly 700,000 people will benefit from the increase. "We're facing hits on food, hits on deliveries to us and now labor increases," said Todd Rawls, a local businessman "That all affects insurance, my rent’s gone up, you name it, it has all gone up."
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Idaho Minimum Wage to Increase on July 24, 2008
The state of Idaho will increase its minimum wage from $5.85 to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008, in coordination with the federal minimum wage increase. Section 44-1502 of the Idaho Code guarantees that the majority of Idaho employees are paid the state minimum wage.
Pursuant to the bill passed in 2006, the federal minimum wage will increase in a three step process. The Idaho minimum wage is tied to the federal minimum wage. So when the federal minimum wage increases on July 24, 2008 (the second of the three increase steps), the Idaho minimum wage will increase accordingly.
The minimum wage for tipped employees in Idaho will remain unchanged at $3.35 per hour. Idaho state law also provides a special wage for workers under the age of 20: companies may pay such workers an “opportunity wage” of $4.25 per hour during the first 90 days of employment.
Pursuant to the bill passed in 2006, the federal minimum wage will increase in a three step process. The Idaho minimum wage is tied to the federal minimum wage. So when the federal minimum wage increases on July 24, 2008 (the second of the three increase steps), the Idaho minimum wage will increase accordingly.
The minimum wage for tipped employees in Idaho will remain unchanged at $3.35 per hour. Idaho state law also provides a special wage for workers under the age of 20: companies may pay such workers an “opportunity wage” of $4.25 per hour during the first 90 days of employment.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
California Hands-Free Law Goes into Effect July 1, 2008
SB 1613, a new California hands-free cellular telephone law signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, goes into effect July 1,2008. The law prohibits the use of a cell phone in a moving vehicle unless the driver is using a hands-free device.
The new law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from using any type of cell phone while driving. Anyone over 18 can drive and talk on the phone while using a hands-free device.
Specifically, SB 1613 will:
l Prohibit the use of cell phones by drivers unless the driver is using a hands-free device starting July 1, 2008.
l Allow drivers of commercial vehicles to use push-to-talk phones until July 1, 2011.
l Allow drivers to make emergency phone calls without using a hands-free device.
l Allow drivers of emergency response vehicles to use cell phone without a hands-free device.
For violators, the first offense will cost $20, and it will be a $50 penalty for each additional offense.
California Highway Patrol data show that more than 1,000 crashes, injuring 447 people, were blamed on drivers using a hand-held cellular phone in 2007,
“The simple fact is it’s dangerous to talk on your cell phone while driving. CHP data show that cell phones are the number one cause of distracted-driving accidents,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “So getting people’s hands off their phones and onto their steering wheels is going to make a big difference in road safety. The ‘Hands-Free’ cell phone bill will save lives by making our roads safer. I want to thank Senator Simitian for authoring this bill and for his commitment to the safety of his fellow Californians.”
What does the new law mean for employers? If employees have to use a cell phone while driving to perform their work, the employer must provide them with a hands-free device so they can comply with the law. The device can be bought by employer and given to employees, or the employer can agree to pay employees back for reasonable costs. However, if employees don’t have to use cell phones while driving but choose to do so only for their own convenience, then the employer is not required to provide or pay for a device.
The new law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from using any type of cell phone while driving. Anyone over 18 can drive and talk on the phone while using a hands-free device.
Specifically, SB 1613 will:
l Prohibit the use of cell phones by drivers unless the driver is using a hands-free device starting July 1, 2008.
l Allow drivers of commercial vehicles to use push-to-talk phones until July 1, 2011.
l Allow drivers to make emergency phone calls without using a hands-free device.
l Allow drivers of emergency response vehicles to use cell phone without a hands-free device.
For violators, the first offense will cost $20, and it will be a $50 penalty for each additional offense.
California Highway Patrol data show that more than 1,000 crashes, injuring 447 people, were blamed on drivers using a hand-held cellular phone in 2007,
“The simple fact is it’s dangerous to talk on your cell phone while driving. CHP data show that cell phones are the number one cause of distracted-driving accidents,” said Gov. Schwarzenegger. “So getting people’s hands off their phones and onto their steering wheels is going to make a big difference in road safety. The ‘Hands-Free’ cell phone bill will save lives by making our roads safer. I want to thank Senator Simitian for authoring this bill and for his commitment to the safety of his fellow Californians.”
What does the new law mean for employers? If employees have to use a cell phone while driving to perform their work, the employer must provide them with a hands-free device so they can comply with the law. The device can be bought by employer and given to employees, or the employer can agree to pay employees back for reasonable costs. However, if employees don’t have to use cell phones while driving but choose to do so only for their own convenience, then the employer is not required to provide or pay for a device.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
DOL Clarified Compensable Work Time Under FLSA
The U.S. Department of Labor recently has clarified compensable work time under the Fair Labor Standards Act regarding meal breaks, straight time, and overtime. In an opinion letter dated May 15, 2008, the Department issued the following conclusions:
l If an employee fails to take a 30-minute unpaid meal break and the failure to take a meal break does not cause the employee to work more than 40 hours in the workweek, no additional compensation is due to the employee if the employee's total wages for the workweek divided by the compensable hours worked equal or exceed the applicable minimum wage.
l If an employee fails to take a 30-minute unpaid meal break and the employee does work more than 40 hours in the workweek, the 30-minute unpaid meal break must be counted for purposes of determining overtime compensation. An employee must be paid all straight-time wages due for all hours worked before an employee can be said to be paid statutory overtime compensation due.
l If an employee who is regularly scheduled to work 35 hours per week works before the employee's scheduled start time or after the employee's scheduled end time and the employee's total hours are less than 40 hours per workweek, the employee is not due additional straight time compensation if the employee's total wages for the workweek divided by the compensable hours worked equal or exceed the applicable minimum wage.
l If an employee receives certain types of premium pay that are not otherwise legally required, that pay need not be included in the employee's regular rate of pay for purposes of computing overtime compensation. Also, certain types of premium pay may be credited toward the employee's overtime compensation requirements.
l Rounding of time is allowed so long as the employer does not arbitrarily fail to count an employee's fixed or regular working time. Rounding to the nearest five minutes, one-tenth or one-quarter of an hour is acceptable if, in the aggregate, the employer compensates the employees properly for all the time they have worked.
However, this opinion letter only provides guidable interpretation about “work time” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. So when applied to state laws, it may result in a different analysis.
l If an employee fails to take a 30-minute unpaid meal break and the failure to take a meal break does not cause the employee to work more than 40 hours in the workweek, no additional compensation is due to the employee if the employee's total wages for the workweek divided by the compensable hours worked equal or exceed the applicable minimum wage.
l If an employee fails to take a 30-minute unpaid meal break and the employee does work more than 40 hours in the workweek, the 30-minute unpaid meal break must be counted for purposes of determining overtime compensation. An employee must be paid all straight-time wages due for all hours worked before an employee can be said to be paid statutory overtime compensation due.
l If an employee who is regularly scheduled to work 35 hours per week works before the employee's scheduled start time or after the employee's scheduled end time and the employee's total hours are less than 40 hours per workweek, the employee is not due additional straight time compensation if the employee's total wages for the workweek divided by the compensable hours worked equal or exceed the applicable minimum wage.
l If an employee receives certain types of premium pay that are not otherwise legally required, that pay need not be included in the employee's regular rate of pay for purposes of computing overtime compensation. Also, certain types of premium pay may be credited toward the employee's overtime compensation requirements.
l Rounding of time is allowed so long as the employer does not arbitrarily fail to count an employee's fixed or regular working time. Rounding to the nearest five minutes, one-tenth or one-quarter of an hour is acceptable if, in the aggregate, the employer compensates the employees properly for all the time they have worked.
However, this opinion letter only provides guidable interpretation about “work time” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. So when applied to state laws, it may result in a different analysis.
Monday, June 23, 2008
OSHA Gives Advice for Workers in Summer Heat
Every summer, employees who work outdoors experience hot weather and the potential for heat-related illnesses. Now that summer has begun, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is giving all employers and employees nationwide advice about its safety and health resources to help prevent heat stress and heat stroke.
"Every outdoor jobsite faces hazards posed by the sun and heat," said OSHA's Assistant Secretary of Labor Edwin G. Foulke Jr. "We are encouraging employers and employees to take advantage of our published resources that offer sound advice to recognize and prevent heat stress and other heat-related illnesses."
Heat exhaustion and heat stroke are the two most serious forms of heat related illnesses. The symptoms include weakness, headaches and dizziness. Employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for employees in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and all employers and employees need to take appropriate actions to prevent heat stress and heat stroke during this time of the year.
"Every outdoor jobsite faces hazards posed by the sun and heat," said OSHA's Assistant Secretary of Labor Edwin G. Foulke Jr. "We are encouraging employers and employees to take advantage of our published resources that offer sound advice to recognize and prevent heat stress and other heat-related illnesses."
Heat exhaustion and heat stroke are the two most serious forms of heat related illnesses. The symptoms include weakness, headaches and dizziness. Employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for employees in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and all employers and employees need to take appropriate actions to prevent heat stress and heat stroke during this time of the year.
Nevada’s Minimum Wage Increases to $6.85 in July, 2008
The state of Nevada will increase its minimum wage for common employees from $6.33 per hour to $6.85 per hour. And for employees with qualifying health benefits, such as group health insurance, the minimum wage will increase from $5.30 per hour to $5.85 per hour; both rates will be effective July 1, 2008.
Worker safety standards are enforced by the Nevada Division of Industrial Relations under the Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Act. Under the act, each employee receives a 10 minute unpaid rest for each 4 hours worked, and a 30-minute unpaid meal break for each 8 hour shift.
The federal minimum wage will increase from $5.85 per hour to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008. This means that Nevada employers who offer health insurance but do business across state lines will pay workers at least $6.55 per hour. Nevada employers who offer insurance and do not do business out of the state will be able to pay employees $5.85 per hour.
Worker safety standards are enforced by the Nevada Division of Industrial Relations under the Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Act. Under the act, each employee receives a 10 minute unpaid rest for each 4 hours worked, and a 30-minute unpaid meal break for each 8 hour shift.
The federal minimum wage will increase from $5.85 per hour to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008. This means that Nevada employers who offer health insurance but do business across state lines will pay workers at least $6.55 per hour. Nevada employers who offer insurance and do not do business out of the state will be able to pay employees $5.85 per hour.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
House Panel Approves Minimum Wage Increase in Delaware
Delaware's minimum wage could be pushed to the highest in the nation by 2010. The House Labor Committee approved a new minimum wage bill on June 11, 2008. The measure now moves to the House floor.
The bill’s sponsor, Democratic state Senator Bobby Marshall, says Senate Bill 204 would increase Delaware’s minimum wage from $7.15 per hour to $7.75 per hour effective March 1, 2009, and to $8.25 one year later.
The federal minimum wage will be increased in July from $5.85 to $6.55 per hour and again in July 2009 to $7.25 per hour. If the DE bill passes, it would continue Delaware's tradition of requiring a higher wage than the federal minimum. The bill’s opponents contend that the minimum wage increase in the state of Delaware would put a burden on small business owners and could discourage entry-level hiring.
The bill’s sponsor, Democratic state Senator Bobby Marshall, says Senate Bill 204 would increase Delaware’s minimum wage from $7.15 per hour to $7.75 per hour effective March 1, 2009, and to $8.25 one year later.
The federal minimum wage will be increased in July from $5.85 to $6.55 per hour and again in July 2009 to $7.25 per hour. If the DE bill passes, it would continue Delaware's tradition of requiring a higher wage than the federal minimum. The bill’s opponents contend that the minimum wage increase in the state of Delaware would put a burden on small business owners and could discourage entry-level hiring.
U.S. DOL auditing all Fragomen permanent labor certifications
On June 2, 2008, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that it has begun to audit all permanent labor certification applications filed by attorneys at Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP.
The DOL says that it is doing so because it has information indicating that in at least some cases the Fragomen firm may have improperly instructed clients who filed permanent labor certification applications to contact their attorney before hiring qualified U.S. workers.
Specifically, several recruitment forms drafted by Fragomen attorneys instructed their clients that “After interview, should any of the applicants appear to be qualified for the position, please contact a Fragomen attorney immediately to further discuss the candidate’s background as it relates to the requirements stated for said position.”
The DOL said they are going to audit all of Fragomen's permanent labor certification applications to see if anything illegal or improper was done.
The permanent labor certification process, established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows an employer to hire a foreign worker to work permanently in the United States, but only where it been established through a strict, detailed recruitment process that there is no qualified, willing and available U.S. worker to fill the position. According to the Department's regulations, the employer’s attorney is not supposed to be involved in the recruitment process (unless he or she is typically involved in the employer’s hiring). Audits of applications are one of the major tools the Department uses to ensure program integrity, and they are used to thoroughly examine applications to ensure that all program requirements have been properly followed. They are routine and regularly undertaken to ensure the program’s integrity.
“The department’s decision to further investigate these applications will help ensure the integrity of the permanent labor certification process and ultimately protect job opportunities for American workers,” said Gregory F. Jacob, solicitor of labor. “The department takes seriously its responsibility to ensure that American workers have access to jobs they are qualified and willing to do and that their wages and working conditions are not adversely affected by the hiring of foreign workers.”
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is now investigating the matter.
The DOL says that it is doing so because it has information indicating that in at least some cases the Fragomen firm may have improperly instructed clients who filed permanent labor certification applications to contact their attorney before hiring qualified U.S. workers.
Specifically, several recruitment forms drafted by Fragomen attorneys instructed their clients that “After interview, should any of the applicants appear to be qualified for the position, please contact a Fragomen attorney immediately to further discuss the candidate’s background as it relates to the requirements stated for said position.”
The DOL said they are going to audit all of Fragomen's permanent labor certification applications to see if anything illegal or improper was done.
The permanent labor certification process, established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, allows an employer to hire a foreign worker to work permanently in the United States, but only where it been established through a strict, detailed recruitment process that there is no qualified, willing and available U.S. worker to fill the position. According to the Department's regulations, the employer’s attorney is not supposed to be involved in the recruitment process (unless he or she is typically involved in the employer’s hiring). Audits of applications are one of the major tools the Department uses to ensure program integrity, and they are used to thoroughly examine applications to ensure that all program requirements have been properly followed. They are routine and regularly undertaken to ensure the program’s integrity.
“The department’s decision to further investigate these applications will help ensure the integrity of the permanent labor certification process and ultimately protect job opportunities for American workers,” said Gregory F. Jacob, solicitor of labor. “The department takes seriously its responsibility to ensure that American workers have access to jobs they are qualified and willing to do and that their wages and working conditions are not adversely affected by the hiring of foreign workers.”
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) is now investigating the matter.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Assembly Approves Paid Sick Leave
On May 28, the California Assembly passed legislation that would make the state the first in the nation to ensure at least a week of paid sick leave for all workers.
Paid sick days could be used for a personal illness, to care for a sick family member, or to recover from domestic violence or sexual assault.
Nearly six million working Californians, or about 40% of the workforce, currently receive no paid sick days through their employers. Assembly woman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, said her Assembly Bill 2716 would protect those who are forced to choose between working while sick or losing pay.
"(It's) a win-win for workers and employers alike and is an important part of maintaining a healthy economy here in California," Ma said, "When employers offer paid sick days, employee morale is better, turnover is less, and health care costs decrease." Dr. Vicky Lovell of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research Institute concluded that AB 2716 will save California nearly $1 billion annually, primarily due to reduced turnover and reduced spread of illness in the workplace.
The Assembly approved the bill with no support from Republican, who said AB 2716 would impose a one-size-fits-all mandate that many small businesses simply could not afford. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken no position on the legislation, which now moves to the Senate, where Ma has indicated it will be heard in June.
Under AB 2716, businesses of 10 employees or more would be required to provide up to nine days of sick leave per year while those with fewer than 10 employees would provide up to five days. Full-time and part-time workers would earn one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The benefit could be used after 90 days of employment.
AB 2716 is co-sponsored by the California Labor Federation and California Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and is supported by a statewide coalition of over 50 organizations including local governments, health professionals and civil rights organizations.
"Simply put, workers should not live in fear of being fired when they take a day off when they or their children are sick," said Ma.
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the requirement would be overseen by the Department of Industrial Relations, whose costs would be about $600,000 annually if the bill were signed into law. The measure also could be enforced through civil lawsuits.
Paid sick days could be used for a personal illness, to care for a sick family member, or to recover from domestic violence or sexual assault.
Nearly six million working Californians, or about 40% of the workforce, currently receive no paid sick days through their employers. Assembly woman Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, said her Assembly Bill 2716 would protect those who are forced to choose between working while sick or losing pay.
"(It's) a win-win for workers and employers alike and is an important part of maintaining a healthy economy here in California," Ma said, "When employers offer paid sick days, employee morale is better, turnover is less, and health care costs decrease." Dr. Vicky Lovell of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research Institute concluded that AB 2716 will save California nearly $1 billion annually, primarily due to reduced turnover and reduced spread of illness in the workplace.
The Assembly approved the bill with no support from Republican, who said AB 2716 would impose a one-size-fits-all mandate that many small businesses simply could not afford. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken no position on the legislation, which now moves to the Senate, where Ma has indicated it will be heard in June.
Under AB 2716, businesses of 10 employees or more would be required to provide up to nine days of sick leave per year while those with fewer than 10 employees would provide up to five days. Full-time and part-time workers would earn one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The benefit could be used after 90 days of employment.
AB 2716 is co-sponsored by the California Labor Federation and California Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and is supported by a statewide coalition of over 50 organizations including local governments, health professionals and civil rights organizations.
"Simply put, workers should not live in fear of being fired when they take a day off when they or their children are sick," said Ma.
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the requirement would be overseen by the Department of Industrial Relations, whose costs would be about $600,000 annually if the bill were signed into law. The measure also could be enforced through civil lawsuits.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Florida woman gets 7 years in slavery case
A Fort Lauderdale federal jury recently sentenced a South Florida woman to seven years and three months in prison for keeping a teenage girl from Haiti in servitude for six years.
Maude Paulin, a 52-year old former school teacher from Miami-Dade County, was convicted in March along with her mother, Evelyn Theodore, of conspiring to enslave the girl, forcing her to work, and harboring an illegal immigrant.
Simone Celestin, who was living at a Haitian orphanage, was brought to the U.S. in 1999 at age 14 and escaped from the Paulin home in 2005.
During the trial, Simone Celestin, 22, testified she was brought to the United States from Haiti when she was 14 to be a maid in the Paulins' home in southwest Miami. Then she was forced to work 15 hours per day, seven days per week and sleep on the floor. When she failed to finish her long list of chores, Maude Paulin and Theodore would beat her with "anything handy," including shoes and kitchenware. In 2005, Celestin escaped from the home and alerted authorities.
Testimony showed that Celestin got virtually no schooling, was frequently threatened, and beaten. Celestin testified that she thought about killing herself frequently during the ordeal.
Maude Paulin admitted she had made mistakes in bringing Simone Celestin to the U.S. and apologized for what happened, but insisted she wanted only good things for the girl.
"I love Simone with all my heart," Paulin told Senior U.S. District Judge Jose A. Gonzalez Jr. at a sentencing hearing. "Unfortunately, I can't change what is already done… I regret it. I blame myself."
Paulin’s daughter Erica Paulin said "My mother is an inspiration to her friends and her family, to so many people. She is not a monster."
But Prosecutor Edward Chung of the U.S. Justice Department’s civil rights division sees it differently, saying the defendant simply won’t admit that she did something wrong. "Maude Paulin does not to this day acknowledge that she committed this crime, " Chung said, "This was a middle school teacher placed in charge of this community's children. She was the one who committed this crime and she's the one who still to this day believes she's done nothing wrong." Chung also said Paulin had shown no remorse for "an extremely serious crime."
Paulin’s ex-husband, Saintfort Paulin, was found guilty of harbouring an illegal immigrant and was sentenced to 18 months' probation, including six months of house arrest, and ordered to pay a fine of $500. He told Gonzalez that he left the home in 2001 and that Celestin's treatment was his ex-wife's idea. "I ended up going along willingly. I'm sorry for what transpired," said Saintfort Paulin, who now lives in New Jersey.
A sentencing hearing for Theodore was postponed because she suffered a stroke after her conviction,
The sentence received by Maude Paulin was at the lower end of federal guidelines, but is still higher than prison terms in many similar cases.
Prosecutors said Celestin is one of thousands of Haitian children, known by the Creole term "restaveks," who are forced into involuntary servitude both in Haiti and in the U.S. UNICEF has estimated that up to 17,500 such people are brought to the U.S. each year to become slaves.
Gonzalez said Maude Paulin and her mother are liable for more than $162,000 in restitution to Celestin. They were convicted of conspiring to violate Celestin's 13th Amendment rights to be free from slavery, of illegally forcing her to work for them, and of harboring an alien for financial gain.
Maude Paulin, a 52-year old former school teacher from Miami-Dade County, was convicted in March along with her mother, Evelyn Theodore, of conspiring to enslave the girl, forcing her to work, and harboring an illegal immigrant.
Simone Celestin, who was living at a Haitian orphanage, was brought to the U.S. in 1999 at age 14 and escaped from the Paulin home in 2005.
During the trial, Simone Celestin, 22, testified she was brought to the United States from Haiti when she was 14 to be a maid in the Paulins' home in southwest Miami. Then she was forced to work 15 hours per day, seven days per week and sleep on the floor. When she failed to finish her long list of chores, Maude Paulin and Theodore would beat her with "anything handy," including shoes and kitchenware. In 2005, Celestin escaped from the home and alerted authorities.
Testimony showed that Celestin got virtually no schooling, was frequently threatened, and beaten. Celestin testified that she thought about killing herself frequently during the ordeal.
Maude Paulin admitted she had made mistakes in bringing Simone Celestin to the U.S. and apologized for what happened, but insisted she wanted only good things for the girl.
"I love Simone with all my heart," Paulin told Senior U.S. District Judge Jose A. Gonzalez Jr. at a sentencing hearing. "Unfortunately, I can't change what is already done… I regret it. I blame myself."
Paulin’s daughter Erica Paulin said "My mother is an inspiration to her friends and her family, to so many people. She is not a monster."
But Prosecutor Edward Chung of the U.S. Justice Department’s civil rights division sees it differently, saying the defendant simply won’t admit that she did something wrong. "Maude Paulin does not to this day acknowledge that she committed this crime, " Chung said, "This was a middle school teacher placed in charge of this community's children. She was the one who committed this crime and she's the one who still to this day believes she's done nothing wrong." Chung also said Paulin had shown no remorse for "an extremely serious crime."
Paulin’s ex-husband, Saintfort Paulin, was found guilty of harbouring an illegal immigrant and was sentenced to 18 months' probation, including six months of house arrest, and ordered to pay a fine of $500. He told Gonzalez that he left the home in 2001 and that Celestin's treatment was his ex-wife's idea. "I ended up going along willingly. I'm sorry for what transpired," said Saintfort Paulin, who now lives in New Jersey.
A sentencing hearing for Theodore was postponed because she suffered a stroke after her conviction,
The sentence received by Maude Paulin was at the lower end of federal guidelines, but is still higher than prison terms in many similar cases.
Prosecutors said Celestin is one of thousands of Haitian children, known by the Creole term "restaveks," who are forced into involuntary servitude both in Haiti and in the U.S. UNICEF has estimated that up to 17,500 such people are brought to the U.S. each year to become slaves.
Gonzalez said Maude Paulin and her mother are liable for more than $162,000 in restitution to Celestin. They were convicted of conspiring to violate Celestin's 13th Amendment rights to be free from slavery, of illegally forcing her to work for them, and of harboring an alien for financial gain.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
U.S. DOL announces $20 million competition for demonstration projects to assist dislocated workers
On May 16, the Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor announced a competition for nearly $20 million in funding to build the skills and employment options for workers who have been dislocated or at risk of dislocation. State workforce agencies that want to get the grant have to compete to design demonstration projects targeting these workers.
“The programs that state workforce agencies devise will let workers vulnerable to joblessness take greater ownership of their careers,” said acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Brent R. Orrell.Proposals may fall into four categories: “Entrepreneurship Opportunities for Dislocated Workers” programs will help individuals launch small businesses. “Getting Ahead of the Curve: Raising Educational/Skill Levels of Workers in Declining Industries” projects will develop strategies to upgrade the career skills of workers who are likely to face unemployment. “Innovative Adult Learning Models for Dislocated Workers” projects will identify new and innovative ways to train unemployed workers. Efforts aimed at “Preventing Dislocations of TANF Recipients Moving Into Entry Level Jobs Subject to Economic Churn” will help former TANF recipients maintain employment and enter or advance within high-growth industries. (“TANF” stands for “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.”)
“The four categories outlined in this announcement offer state workforce agencies an opportunity to tailor programs that address their particular workforce needs,” said Orrell.
Each state workforce agency can only submit a single application under one of the four categories. To deliver services with sufficient depth, each application must detail partnerships that include employers, education and training providers, faith-based, community, and philanthropic organizations.This competition will close on June 13, 2008.
“The programs that state workforce agencies devise will let workers vulnerable to joblessness take greater ownership of their careers,” said acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training Brent R. Orrell.Proposals may fall into four categories: “Entrepreneurship Opportunities for Dislocated Workers” programs will help individuals launch small businesses. “Getting Ahead of the Curve: Raising Educational/Skill Levels of Workers in Declining Industries” projects will develop strategies to upgrade the career skills of workers who are likely to face unemployment. “Innovative Adult Learning Models for Dislocated Workers” projects will identify new and innovative ways to train unemployed workers. Efforts aimed at “Preventing Dislocations of TANF Recipients Moving Into Entry Level Jobs Subject to Economic Churn” will help former TANF recipients maintain employment and enter or advance within high-growth industries. (“TANF” stands for “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.”)
“The four categories outlined in this announcement offer state workforce agencies an opportunity to tailor programs that address their particular workforce needs,” said Orrell.
Each state workforce agency can only submit a single application under one of the four categories. To deliver services with sufficient depth, each application must detail partnerships that include employers, education and training providers, faith-based, community, and philanthropic organizations.This competition will close on June 13, 2008.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
$6.55 Per Hour: The Second Step of the Federal Minimum Wage Increase
The federal minimum wage will take the first of its two additional scheduled increases effective July 24, 2008, when the federal minimum wage moves from $5.85 per hour to $6.55 per hour.
On May 25, 2007, President Bush signed a bill that amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to provide for a three-step increase in the federal minimum wage: to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments.
If an employee is covered by both a state minimum and the federal minimum, the worker is entitled to the higher of the two.
As of February 2008, Washington has the highest minimum wage of all 50 states, and California, Massachusetts and Oregon follow. Kansas has the lowest minimum wage. Texas is one of a number of states that pegs its state minimum wage to the federal minimum wage; the current federal minimum wage applies for most jobs in these states.
On May 25, 2007, President Bush signed a bill that amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to provide for a three-step increase in the federal minimum wage: to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments.
If an employee is covered by both a state minimum and the federal minimum, the worker is entitled to the higher of the two.
As of February 2008, Washington has the highest minimum wage of all 50 states, and California, Massachusetts and Oregon follow. Kansas has the lowest minimum wage. Texas is one of a number of states that pegs its state minimum wage to the federal minimum wage; the current federal minimum wage applies for most jobs in these states.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Same-sex marriage in California
California has been one of the most active battlegrounds in the same-sex marriage debate. The fight began in earnest in 2000 when the state's voters passed Proposition 22, which defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Four years later, the supreme court of the state of Massachusetts reached a conclusion that defining marriage as “between a man and a woman” and excluding same-sex couples is a violation of constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection under a proposed (but not enacted) Massachusetts law. The issue is also currently pending before the Connecticut Supreme Court.
In September 2005, the California Assembly became the first state legislature in the nation to proactively approve same-sex marriages. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ultimately vetoed the bill on the basis of Proposition 22. Then the California Supreme Court began to consider whether Proposition 22 violates the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.
On May 15, 2008, the ban on same-sex marriage was overturned, making California the second state, behind Massachusetts, to allow full marriage rights for same-sex partners. Marriage licenses will be issued to same-sex couples starting on June 14, 2008.
For several years, California had already been providing legal protections, similar to those for which married couples are eligible, to same-sex domestic partnerships, granting "same-sex couples all state-level rights and obligations of marriage — in areas such as inheritance, income tax, insurance and hospital visitation"
In the most recent review, California laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples were deemed to violate same-sex couples' rights under the California Constitution. The Court explained that, "in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
Because the Court found the exclusion is not justified, the decision will enable same-sex couples to be married in the eyes of the State of California. However, the Court's decision does not alter federal law or the marriage laws of other states.
The Court also evaluated the challenged marriage statutes under the Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution, concluding that the laws excluding same-sex couples from the definition of marriage do not discriminate on the basis of sex but discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
California businesses and employers must be alert. As same-sex couples begin to exercise their new right to marry under California law, discrimination against these individuals may subject employers and businesses to legal liability. Complaints of discrimination based on the exercise of the right to marriage by same-sex couples also should be taken seriously.
In addition, before this decision was issued, employment discrimination on the basis of marital status and registered domestic partner status were both already prohibited to the same extent in California, and the protections available to same-sex couples under these laws will remain the same. What is new is that same-sex couples can now claim the same protection via marriage as opposite-sex couples.
Finally, same-sex couples who were married in other jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage before this decision and then relocated to California will not presently be considered "married" and are not currently entitled to the protections or benefits available to married persons.
Four years later, the supreme court of the state of Massachusetts reached a conclusion that defining marriage as “between a man and a woman” and excluding same-sex couples is a violation of constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection under a proposed (but not enacted) Massachusetts law. The issue is also currently pending before the Connecticut Supreme Court.
In September 2005, the California Assembly became the first state legislature in the nation to proactively approve same-sex marriages. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger ultimately vetoed the bill on the basis of Proposition 22. Then the California Supreme Court began to consider whether Proposition 22 violates the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.
On May 15, 2008, the ban on same-sex marriage was overturned, making California the second state, behind Massachusetts, to allow full marriage rights for same-sex partners. Marriage licenses will be issued to same-sex couples starting on June 14, 2008.
For several years, California had already been providing legal protections, similar to those for which married couples are eligible, to same-sex domestic partnerships, granting "same-sex couples all state-level rights and obligations of marriage — in areas such as inheritance, income tax, insurance and hospital visitation"
In the most recent review, California laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples were deemed to violate same-sex couples' rights under the California Constitution. The Court explained that, "in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
Because the Court found the exclusion is not justified, the decision will enable same-sex couples to be married in the eyes of the State of California. However, the Court's decision does not alter federal law or the marriage laws of other states.
The Court also evaluated the challenged marriage statutes under the Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution, concluding that the laws excluding same-sex couples from the definition of marriage do not discriminate on the basis of sex but discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
California businesses and employers must be alert. As same-sex couples begin to exercise their new right to marry under California law, discrimination against these individuals may subject employers and businesses to legal liability. Complaints of discrimination based on the exercise of the right to marriage by same-sex couples also should be taken seriously.
In addition, before this decision was issued, employment discrimination on the basis of marital status and registered domestic partner status were both already prohibited to the same extent in California, and the protections available to same-sex couples under these laws will remain the same. What is new is that same-sex couples can now claim the same protection via marriage as opposite-sex couples.
Finally, same-sex couples who were married in other jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage before this decision and then relocated to California will not presently be considered "married" and are not currently entitled to the protections or benefits available to married persons.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Minnesota Minimum Wage Veto Triggers Response From Worker Advocates
Last week, Governor Tim Pawlent vetoed legislation approved by both houses of the Minnesota Legislature that would have increased the state minimum wage from the current $6.15 per hour to $7.75 per hour in 2009. The state law would have provided a raise beyond federal minimum wage $7.25 next year.
More than 300,000 Minnesota jobs was paid less than Pawlenty vetoed $7.75. Kris Jacobs, director of the statewide JOBS NOW Coalition, said, "I don't think a total of $8 a week above the federal minimum wage for the rest of this year or $13 a week over the next year is too much to ask. Seven out of 10 Minnesotans agree. Twenty-eight states have higher minimum wages than Minnesota."
He also said a minimum wage increase is especially important for workers outside the Twin Cities metro area: although Greater Minnesota workers hold just 41 percent of the state's jobs, they hold 56 percent of the jobs that pay less than $7.75 per hour.
In a statement, the members of the coalition present their response to the veto that the Governor said the wage was too high, so they compromised by lowering the amount in both the first and second years. The Governor said he wanted to keep a sub-minimum wage for younger workers. They compromised by putting it back in the bill. The Governor argued that most restaurant servers earn more than the minimum wage, so they should be excluded from the increase.
"If only that were true," said Jacobs. "According to the Governor's own Department of Employment and Economic Development, the state median wage for servers (including tips) is $7.69 per hour. That's why a tip penalty for servers was the one thing we could not agree on."
More than 300,000 Minnesota jobs was paid less than Pawlenty vetoed $7.75. Kris Jacobs, director of the statewide JOBS NOW Coalition, said, "I don't think a total of $8 a week above the federal minimum wage for the rest of this year or $13 a week over the next year is too much to ask. Seven out of 10 Minnesotans agree. Twenty-eight states have higher minimum wages than Minnesota."
He also said a minimum wage increase is especially important for workers outside the Twin Cities metro area: although Greater Minnesota workers hold just 41 percent of the state's jobs, they hold 56 percent of the jobs that pay less than $7.75 per hour.
In a statement, the members of the coalition present their response to the veto that the Governor said the wage was too high, so they compromised by lowering the amount in both the first and second years. The Governor said he wanted to keep a sub-minimum wage for younger workers. They compromised by putting it back in the bill. The Governor argued that most restaurant servers earn more than the minimum wage, so they should be excluded from the increase.
"If only that were true," said Jacobs. "According to the Governor's own Department of Employment and Economic Development, the state median wage for servers (including tips) is $7.69 per hour. That's why a tip penalty for servers was the one thing we could not agree on."
Friday, May 16, 2008
GINA—a newly passed act to protect employees against genetic discrimination
Employers will soon be prohibited from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their genetic information.
On April 24, 2008, the Senate unanimously passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) by a vote of 95 to 0. On May 1, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the same bill by a vote of 414 to 1.
Genetic tests are now regularly used to determine an individual's predisposition for diseases such as cystic fibrosis, breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, etc. As genetic testing has become more prevalent, the U.S. Congress has enacted GINA to address widespread concerns that genetic test results might be misused, especially in the health care and employment arenas.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) will protect individuals against discrimination based on their genetic information when it comes to health insurance and employment. It will make it illegal for employers to use individuals’ genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions. It will also be illegal for insurance companies to deny or limit coverage, or charge a different rate or premium, to an otherwise healthy individual found to have a potential genetic condition or genetic predisposition towards a disease or disorder.
Thus, the bill will give comprehensive protection against all forms of genetic discrimination.
These protections are intended to encourage American individuals to take advantage, as part of their medical care, of genetic screening, counseling, and testing opportunities that will result from scientific advances in the field of genetics.
Legislation on genetic nondiscrimination that specifically addressed discrimination in health insurance was first introduced in the House of Representatives in 1995 but didn’t pass; similar bills failed to pass in the 104th, 105th and 106th congresses.
In 2002 during the 107th Congress, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was introduced. The bill addressed discrimination in both health insurance and employment decisions but did not pass. In the 108th and 109th congresses, it likewise failed to pass.
But this year Congress passed the Act, and president Bush has stated he will sign the GINA legislation if it comes before him. The employer provisions of the bill would then take effect in November 2009, after the U.S. Department of Labor has had an opportunity to enact implementing regulations.
On April 24, 2008, the Senate unanimously passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) by a vote of 95 to 0. On May 1, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the same bill by a vote of 414 to 1.
Genetic tests are now regularly used to determine an individual's predisposition for diseases such as cystic fibrosis, breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, etc. As genetic testing has become more prevalent, the U.S. Congress has enacted GINA to address widespread concerns that genetic test results might be misused, especially in the health care and employment arenas.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) will protect individuals against discrimination based on their genetic information when it comes to health insurance and employment. It will make it illegal for employers to use individuals’ genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions. It will also be illegal for insurance companies to deny or limit coverage, or charge a different rate or premium, to an otherwise healthy individual found to have a potential genetic condition or genetic predisposition towards a disease or disorder.
Thus, the bill will give comprehensive protection against all forms of genetic discrimination.
These protections are intended to encourage American individuals to take advantage, as part of their medical care, of genetic screening, counseling, and testing opportunities that will result from scientific advances in the field of genetics.
Legislation on genetic nondiscrimination that specifically addressed discrimination in health insurance was first introduced in the House of Representatives in 1995 but didn’t pass; similar bills failed to pass in the 104th, 105th and 106th congresses.
In 2002 during the 107th Congress, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was introduced. The bill addressed discrimination in both health insurance and employment decisions but did not pass. In the 108th and 109th congresses, it likewise failed to pass.
But this year Congress passed the Act, and president Bush has stated he will sign the GINA legislation if it comes before him. The employer provisions of the bill would then take effect in November 2009, after the U.S. Department of Labor has had an opportunity to enact implementing regulations.
Monday, May 12, 2008
US Congress passes Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
On May 1, 2008, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) by a 414-1 vote.
The bill is designed to protect workers against discrimination based on genetic information. Now the bill heads to the Congress and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was first proposed more than 13 years ago, in order pave the way for workers to take advantage of the promise of personalized medicine without fear of discrimination. At the time, fewer than 100 genetic tests existed; today, however, there are more than 1,200 genetic tests that are widely used for medical diagnoses, covering areas such as cancer, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, and heart disease.
When the bill is signed into law, employers will not legally be allowed to ask employees for genetic information. It is also illegal to make employment decisions-- including hiring, firing, promotions, pay, training, status and working conditions -- based on genetic information.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act will be the first federal law to prohibit discrimination based on genetic information; some states already have similar statutes in place.
The bill is designed to protect workers against discrimination based on genetic information. Now the bill heads to the Congress and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was first proposed more than 13 years ago, in order pave the way for workers to take advantage of the promise of personalized medicine without fear of discrimination. At the time, fewer than 100 genetic tests existed; today, however, there are more than 1,200 genetic tests that are widely used for medical diagnoses, covering areas such as cancer, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, and heart disease.
When the bill is signed into law, employers will not legally be allowed to ask employees for genetic information. It is also illegal to make employment decisions-- including hiring, firing, promotions, pay, training, status and working conditions -- based on genetic information.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act will be the first federal law to prohibit discrimination based on genetic information; some states already have similar statutes in place.
The minimum wage in Delaware is $7.15 per hour
Now the minimum wage of the state Delaware is $7.15 per hour.
The Minimum wage law is updated yearly and if the minimum wage in Delaware ever falls below the federal minimum then it is automatically replaced by the federal rate until the state minimum wage rises above the federal minimum.
On January 1, 2007, the first step of the increase went into effect, raising the minimum wage from $6.15 to $6.65 her hour. On January 1, 2008 the minimum wage increased again from $.6.65 per hour to $7.15 per hour.
The Delaware minimum wage applies to businesses with over 10 employees, but there are exceptions to the minimum wage rules. Businesses and organizations that are exempt include disabled workers, student learners, tipped employees, agricultural workers, domestic service providers, commissioned sales people, white collar executives and professionals, state inmates and volunteer workers. “Tipped” employees can be paid a minimum wage of $2.33 per hour. But if their total earnings are less than $7.15 an hour, their employers must make up the difference.
The Minimum wage law is updated yearly and if the minimum wage in Delaware ever falls below the federal minimum then it is automatically replaced by the federal rate until the state minimum wage rises above the federal minimum.
On January 1, 2007, the first step of the increase went into effect, raising the minimum wage from $6.15 to $6.65 her hour. On January 1, 2008 the minimum wage increased again from $.6.65 per hour to $7.15 per hour.
The Delaware minimum wage applies to businesses with over 10 employees, but there are exceptions to the minimum wage rules. Businesses and organizations that are exempt include disabled workers, student learners, tipped employees, agricultural workers, domestic service providers, commissioned sales people, white collar executives and professionals, state inmates and volunteer workers. “Tipped” employees can be paid a minimum wage of $2.33 per hour. But if their total earnings are less than $7.15 an hour, their employers must make up the difference.
Missouri’s Minimum Wage has increased to $6.65 per hour in 2008
Missouri's minimum wage has increased by 15 cents from $6.50 to a new rate of $6.65 per hour on January 1, 2008.
The minimum wage for tipped employees has also increased – from $3.25 per hour to $3.325 per hour. Employers must pay tipped employees at least 50 percent of the minimum wage.
Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations must do study using the Consumer Price Index, and then determine the increases or decreases of the minimum wage for the coming year.
That initiative hiked the basic wage from $5.15 to $6.50 per hour in 2007 and the 2008 increase in the minimum wage was based on a 2.2 percent change in the Consumer Price Index between July 2006 and July 2007.The minimum wage law does not apply to retail or service businesses with annual sales of less than $500,000. All other businesses need to pay employees the minimum wage.
The minimum wage for tipped employees has also increased – from $3.25 per hour to $3.325 per hour. Employers must pay tipped employees at least 50 percent of the minimum wage.
Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations must do study using the Consumer Price Index, and then determine the increases or decreases of the minimum wage for the coming year.
That initiative hiked the basic wage from $5.15 to $6.50 per hour in 2007 and the 2008 increase in the minimum wage was based on a 2.2 percent change in the Consumer Price Index between July 2006 and July 2007.The minimum wage law does not apply to retail or service businesses with annual sales of less than $500,000. All other businesses need to pay employees the minimum wage.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Minnesota Minimum Wage Increase Is Now In Governor's Hands
House and Senate negotiators reached agreement on May, 8 that would increase the minimum wage for Minnesota’s lowest-paid workers.
Under the plan, for large employers (enterprise with annual receipts of $625,000 or more), the minimum wage would increase from $6.15 an hour to $6.75 per hour on July 24, 2008, and would increase again to $7.75 per hour in July of 2009. For smaller employers (enterprise with annual receipts of less than $625,000), the minimum wage would increase from $5.25 to $5.75 per hour on July 24, and up to $6.75 per hour in 2009.
“Without an increase in the minimum wage, many of our lowest-paid workers will soon find themselves unable to afford their basic necessities. I believe that this agreement takes a major step in the right direction, and will help thousands of our state’s residents cope with the challenges presented by our current economic downturn,” said Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul, who carried the measure in the Senate.
The House and Senate agreement also increases the state’s training wage from $4.90 to $5.35 per hour in July, and increase to $5.75 per hour in 2009, while reducing the maximum age to receive a training wage down to 17.
Minnesota’s current minimum wage of $6.15 per hour for large employers has fallen below many Midwestern neighbors, including Iowa ($7.25), Illinois ($6.50, increasing to $7.50 in July), Wisconsin ($6.50), and Michigan ($7.15, increasing to $7.40 in July).
The state’s current minimum wage also ranks lowest among the 31 states that have enacted minimum wages above the federal minimum.
Under the plan, for large employers (enterprise with annual receipts of $625,000 or more), the minimum wage would increase from $6.15 an hour to $6.75 per hour on July 24, 2008, and would increase again to $7.75 per hour in July of 2009. For smaller employers (enterprise with annual receipts of less than $625,000), the minimum wage would increase from $5.25 to $5.75 per hour on July 24, and up to $6.75 per hour in 2009.
“Without an increase in the minimum wage, many of our lowest-paid workers will soon find themselves unable to afford their basic necessities. I believe that this agreement takes a major step in the right direction, and will help thousands of our state’s residents cope with the challenges presented by our current economic downturn,” said Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul, who carried the measure in the Senate.
The House and Senate agreement also increases the state’s training wage from $4.90 to $5.35 per hour in July, and increase to $5.75 per hour in 2009, while reducing the maximum age to receive a training wage down to 17.
Minnesota’s current minimum wage of $6.15 per hour for large employers has fallen below many Midwestern neighbors, including Iowa ($7.25), Illinois ($6.50, increasing to $7.50 in July), Wisconsin ($6.50), and Michigan ($7.15, increasing to $7.40 in July).
The state’s current minimum wage also ranks lowest among the 31 states that have enacted minimum wages above the federal minimum.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Michigan Minimum Wage Will Increase to $7.40 in July 2008
The state of Michigan will increase its minimum wage from $7.15 per hour to $7.40 per hour, effective July 1, 2008, 25 cents higher than 2007. For tipped workers, the wage remains at $2.65 per hour.
Businesses can pay the young workers 85 percent of the adult minimum wage, a youth sub-minimum wage. The sub-minimum wage will be increased from $6.08 per hour to $6.29 per hour on July 1, 2008.
The state minimum wage covers employers who employ two or more persons, 16 years of age or older, and also covers some certain employees in federally-covered businesses.
If an employee is covered by both the state minimum and the federal minimum, the worker is entitled to the higher one. In Michigan, almost every employee is entitled to the state minimum wage because state minimum wage is higher than the federal rate.
Businesses can pay the young workers 85 percent of the adult minimum wage, a youth sub-minimum wage. The sub-minimum wage will be increased from $6.08 per hour to $6.29 per hour on July 1, 2008.
The state minimum wage covers employers who employ two or more persons, 16 years of age or older, and also covers some certain employees in federally-covered businesses.
If an employee is covered by both the state minimum and the federal minimum, the worker is entitled to the higher one. In Michigan, almost every employee is entitled to the state minimum wage because state minimum wage is higher than the federal rate.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
VFCP—a program to help benefit employers
In recent years, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) has given employers instructions and provided them information about how to comply with federal benefits laws. At the same time, it also set rules on how employers must manage their employee retirement and benefit plans. Generally speaking, employers who violate these rules will fines and penalties. Employer utilization of the “VFCP” is one way to reduce or eliminate the risk of such adverse consequences.
The Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program (VFCP) is designed to encourage employers to voluntarily comply with the ERISA by self-correcting certain violations of the law. Many workers can benefit from the program as a result of the increased retirement security associated with restoration of plan assets and payment of additional benefits.
Participating in VFCP can save employers a large amount of money in taxes, fees and penalties. Any employer who may be liable for fiduciary violations under ERISA may be eligible to use VFCP, giving them an opportunity to identify and correct problems and certain violations of the law with employee benefit accounts. However, companies must completely and accurately correct all violations, as well as provide proof that the violations were all corrected; those who don’t may still be subject to enforcement actions, including civil penalties, according to ERISA Sections 502 (I) and 502 (i).
The VFCP was begun in 2002 and was expanded in 2006. Now Employers can correct their past errors in 19 categories of transactions.
“The VFCP is an effective strategy in protecting the pension benefits of America’s workers,” said Billy Beaver, director of the ERISA’s San Francisco Regional Office. “Through this voluntary program, EBSA helps employers resolve issues related to employee benefit plans that they sponsor.”
The Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program (VFCP) is designed to encourage employers to voluntarily comply with the ERISA by self-correcting certain violations of the law. Many workers can benefit from the program as a result of the increased retirement security associated with restoration of plan assets and payment of additional benefits.
Participating in VFCP can save employers a large amount of money in taxes, fees and penalties. Any employer who may be liable for fiduciary violations under ERISA may be eligible to use VFCP, giving them an opportunity to identify and correct problems and certain violations of the law with employee benefit accounts. However, companies must completely and accurately correct all violations, as well as provide proof that the violations were all corrected; those who don’t may still be subject to enforcement actions, including civil penalties, according to ERISA Sections 502 (I) and 502 (i).
The VFCP was begun in 2002 and was expanded in 2006. Now Employers can correct their past errors in 19 categories of transactions.
“The VFCP is an effective strategy in protecting the pension benefits of America’s workers,” said Billy Beaver, director of the ERISA’s San Francisco Regional Office. “Through this voluntary program, EBSA helps employers resolve issues related to employee benefit plans that they sponsor.”
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Maine Will Increase Minimum Wage To $7.25 On October 1, 2008
Maine State Governor John E. Baldacci signed LD 1697 on April 17 that will increase the minimum wage from the current $7 per hour to $7.25 per hour, effective October 1, 2008, and increase to $7.50 per hour on October 1, 2009.
The Governor said this legislation makes sure that wages in Maine keep pace with the rest of New England.
“We need to make sure we do everything we can to reward work,” said Governor Baldacci. “Maine men and women should be able to earn a living wage so they can support their families. There is no safety net better than a job with benefits.”
The Governor also said, “this is an important step, and it’s another in a series of efforts that they have joined together on to ensure all Maine people have access to good paying jobs and a brighter future.”
The Governor said this legislation makes sure that wages in Maine keep pace with the rest of New England.
“We need to make sure we do everything we can to reward work,” said Governor Baldacci. “Maine men and women should be able to earn a living wage so they can support their families. There is no safety net better than a job with benefits.”
The Governor also said, “this is an important step, and it’s another in a series of efforts that they have joined together on to ensure all Maine people have access to good paying jobs and a brighter future.”
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Texas Workforce Commission Collects Nearly $10 Million in Unpaid Wages
The state of Texas recovered $9.9 million in unpaid wages on behalf of workers in 2006 and 2007.
The Texas Workforce Commission collected the back wages through its enforcement of the Texas Payday Law, which requires private employers to provide workers with earned compensation in a timely manner.
"Texans who have not been paid for work have a true resource in the Texas Workforce Commission," says Larry Temple, executive director of the Texas Workforce Commission. "Services from our Labor Law Section are at no-cost to the worker, and we work aggressively to collect unpaid wages once we determine wages are due."
Texas Workforce Commission Labor Law investigators annually conduct more than 15,000 wage claim investigations across the state.
TWC also makes presentations to employer organizations, education service centers and workforce boards to educate the public about the Texas Payday Law, the Texas Child Labor Law and the Texas Minimum Wage Act.
The Texas Workforce Commission collected the back wages through its enforcement of the Texas Payday Law, which requires private employers to provide workers with earned compensation in a timely manner.
"Texans who have not been paid for work have a true resource in the Texas Workforce Commission," says Larry Temple, executive director of the Texas Workforce Commission. "Services from our Labor Law Section are at no-cost to the worker, and we work aggressively to collect unpaid wages once we determine wages are due."
Texas Workforce Commission Labor Law investigators annually conduct more than 15,000 wage claim investigations across the state.
TWC also makes presentations to employer organizations, education service centers and workforce boards to educate the public about the Texas Payday Law, the Texas Child Labor Law and the Texas Minimum Wage Act.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
US DOL Announces 125 Million Grants for Workers
According to the U. S. Department of Labor, 69 community colleges and community-based institutions that competed successfully under the President’s Community-Based Job Training Grants Initiative in 36 states have been awarded $125 million in grants within the past few weeks to support training programs for high-growth job sectors.
The grants, known as Community-Based Job Training Grants, are intended to build the capacity of such institutions to train workers to develop the skills for local industries and occupations that are expected to see strong growth, as well as for industries where the demand for qualified workers is already exceeding the supply.
The institutions chosen will use the funds to prepare students for careers in high-growth industries. Awardees were chosen from among 341 applications received in response to a competition announced August 8, 2007. The program was established in 2005 and awarded 72 grants in its first year. The second round of awards, made in 2006, totaled 70 grants.
Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao said, “Community colleges are in a unique position to prepare local workers for careers in high-growth industries. The $125 million awarded today will expand enrollment in education and training programs and provide more workers with the skills they need to succeed.”
The focus of the Community-Based Job Training Grants is to build community colleges’ capacity to equip workers with the skills required to succeed in local industries and to fortify the role that community colleges play in advancing the potential of America’s workforce.
The grants, known as Community-Based Job Training Grants, are intended to build the capacity of such institutions to train workers to develop the skills for local industries and occupations that are expected to see strong growth, as well as for industries where the demand for qualified workers is already exceeding the supply.
The institutions chosen will use the funds to prepare students for careers in high-growth industries. Awardees were chosen from among 341 applications received in response to a competition announced August 8, 2007. The program was established in 2005 and awarded 72 grants in its first year. The second round of awards, made in 2006, totaled 70 grants.
Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao said, “Community colleges are in a unique position to prepare local workers for careers in high-growth industries. The $125 million awarded today will expand enrollment in education and training programs and provide more workers with the skills they need to succeed.”
The focus of the Community-Based Job Training Grants is to build community colleges’ capacity to equip workers with the skills required to succeed in local industries and to fortify the role that community colleges play in advancing the potential of America’s workforce.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Texas Child Labor Law
The Texas Labor Code states that “the purpose of the Texas Child Labor Law is to ensure that a child is not employed in an occupation or manner that is detrimental to the child's safety, health, or well-being.”
The code defines a “Child” as any individual under 18 years of age. However, except as specifically authorized by the statute, it is illegal to employ a child under 14 years of age.
The Texas State Law also states that a child of 14 or 15 years of age may not work more than eight hours per day or more than 48 hours each week. If a child of 14 or 15 is enrolled in a public or private school, he may not work between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. If a child of 14 or 15 is not enrolled in summer school, he may not work between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. on any day that school is in recess for the summer.
The code defines a “Child” as any individual under 18 years of age. However, except as specifically authorized by the statute, it is illegal to employ a child under 14 years of age.
The Texas State Law also states that a child of 14 or 15 years of age may not work more than eight hours per day or more than 48 hours each week. If a child of 14 or 15 is enrolled in a public or private school, he may not work between the hours of 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. If a child of 14 or 15 is not enrolled in summer school, he may not work between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. on any day that school is in recess for the summer.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Elaws Advisor—a Poster Advisor to help in your business
Every business must display a variety of posters to comply with the poster requirements of several labor laws administered by the state and federal government; posters required for different businesses are also different. This is where elaws Advisors can help.
The elaws Advisor is a kind of interactive e-tool that can simulate the interaction you might have with an employment law expert. It will ask you a series of questions, evaluate your responses and provide a list of posters that you should display.
Each Advisor will also provide links to more detailed information you may find useful, and to DOL contact information for each poster in case of you wish to speak with a DOL representative about a particular issue or case that can’t be determined by the Advisor.
Advisor only provides information about Federal DOL poster requirements; you can contact your State Department of Labor to get information about the requirements for your state.
In addition, the Advisor does not provide posters that may be required for certain businesses. Certain types of posters can only be obtained from the DOL's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), including notices to employees that the employer is insured or self-insured to provide compensation benefits to its employees or eligible survivors in the case of work-related injury, illness or death.
Employers covered by the following statutes must obtain this insurance:
--Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act
--Defense Base Act (covers employees on overseas military, air, or naval bases under a public works contract performed by contractors with agencies of the U.S. Government)
--Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (covers employees of firms working on the outer continental shelf of the U. S. engaged in exploration for and development of natural resources)
--Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities Act (covers civilian employees in post exchanges, service clubs, etc. of the Armed Forces)
You may contact the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs if you are not sure about whether you are covered under one of the above statutes.
The elaws Advisor is a kind of interactive e-tool that can simulate the interaction you might have with an employment law expert. It will ask you a series of questions, evaluate your responses and provide a list of posters that you should display.
Each Advisor will also provide links to more detailed information you may find useful, and to DOL contact information for each poster in case of you wish to speak with a DOL representative about a particular issue or case that can’t be determined by the Advisor.
Advisor only provides information about Federal DOL poster requirements; you can contact your State Department of Labor to get information about the requirements for your state.
In addition, the Advisor does not provide posters that may be required for certain businesses. Certain types of posters can only be obtained from the DOL's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), including notices to employees that the employer is insured or self-insured to provide compensation benefits to its employees or eligible survivors in the case of work-related injury, illness or death.
Employers covered by the following statutes must obtain this insurance:
--Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act
--Defense Base Act (covers employees on overseas military, air, or naval bases under a public works contract performed by contractors with agencies of the U.S. Government)
--Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (covers employees of firms working on the outer continental shelf of the U. S. engaged in exploration for and development of natural resources)
--Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities Act (covers civilian employees in post exchanges, service clubs, etc. of the Armed Forces)
You may contact the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs if you are not sure about whether you are covered under one of the above statutes.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Texas Workers’ Compensation Law
In Texas, workers’ compensation is not a mandatory state program that requires business employers to have insurance policies covering employees for job-related injuries.
However, employers who choose not to accept the provisions of this program will lose the right to assert certain defenses if they are accused. So, employers must give notice to their employees whether they are covered by workers’ compensation insurance.
Texas is the only state in which the employer may optionally purchase workers’ compensation insurance. Employers may choose between providing worker’s compensation coverage, or being subject to a civil suit in the case of worker injury. Worker's compensation insurance may be provided by a private insurance carrier, a competitive state fund, or the business employers may self-insure. In any case, the Texas Workers Compensation law will protect injured workers from any unlawful acts by their employers following an injury.
However, employers who choose not to accept the provisions of this program will lose the right to assert certain defenses if they are accused. So, employers must give notice to their employees whether they are covered by workers’ compensation insurance.
Texas is the only state in which the employer may optionally purchase workers’ compensation insurance. Employers may choose between providing worker’s compensation coverage, or being subject to a civil suit in the case of worker injury. Worker's compensation insurance may be provided by a private insurance carrier, a competitive state fund, or the business employers may self-insure. In any case, the Texas Workers Compensation law will protect injured workers from any unlawful acts by their employers following an injury.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Ohio Military Status Updated
The state of Ohio has updated their Fair Employment law, adding “Military Status” as a new protective category effective March 23, 2008.
Ohio Governer Ted Strichland has signed into law the Ohio Veterans Package, Substitute House Bill 372. Ohio’s Anti Discrimination law now includes “military status” as a protected class for purposes of employment, housing, and public accommodations. Already included as protected classes under Ohio law are race, color, sex, disability, national origin, age (40& older), ancestry and religion.
“Military status” refers to a person’s status in “service in the uniformed services.” “Service in the uniformed services” means the performance of duty in a uniformed service under competent authority, including active duty, active duty for training, initial active duty for training, inactive duty for training, full-time national guard duty and performance of duty or training by a member of the Ohio organized militia in accordance with the Revised Code.
The federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) already protects military service, but the new Ohio amendments broaden this protection. Ohio employers will now need to include “military status” as a protected category on their Fair Employment labor law postings; the state is in the process of updating and releasing new fair employment law postings as of this writing, on 4/7/08.
Ohio Governer Ted Strichland has signed into law the Ohio Veterans Package, Substitute House Bill 372. Ohio’s Anti Discrimination law now includes “military status” as a protected class for purposes of employment, housing, and public accommodations. Already included as protected classes under Ohio law are race, color, sex, disability, national origin, age (40& older), ancestry and religion.
“Military status” refers to a person’s status in “service in the uniformed services.” “Service in the uniformed services” means the performance of duty in a uniformed service under competent authority, including active duty, active duty for training, initial active duty for training, inactive duty for training, full-time national guard duty and performance of duty or training by a member of the Ohio organized militia in accordance with the Revised Code.
The federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) already protects military service, but the new Ohio amendments broaden this protection. Ohio employers will now need to include “military status” as a protected category on their Fair Employment labor law postings; the state is in the process of updating and releasing new fair employment law postings as of this writing, on 4/7/08.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Paid Sick Leave May Become California Statewide
On February 27, on the steps of San Francisco City Hall, Assemblywoman Fiona Ma introduced Assembly Bill 2716 (“AB 2716”) which, if passed, would make California the first state in the nation to require employers to provide sick leave benefits to their employees when they are sick or need time to take care of their sick family members. The bill is modeled after a San Francisco law that requires the city's employers to offer paid sick leave. The SF law, the first of its kind in the nation, went into effect last February.
Under AB 2716, any employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year would be entitled to paid sick time, which would accrue at a rate of at least one hour for every thirty hours worked, and no employee could be discriminated against for requesting sick leave. Most employers would be able to limit an employee's use to nine days in each calendar year, and small businesses with a maximum of ten workers would be allowed to limit annual paid sick days to five days. Sick time would carry over from year to year, and an employee would be entitled to use accrued sick time beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment.
Under Ma’s bill, paid sick days could be used to cover diagnosis, care, or treatment of health conditions of the employee; they could also be used to care for a sick family member or to recover from a domestic violence or sexual assault.
"Nobody wins when people have to go to work sick," Ma said. "This is just the right thing to do. We here in California want to make sure that when they are sick they do not have to worry about losing their jobs, they do not have to worry about losing a day’s pay.” Right now, nearly six million working Californians have no paid sick days through their employers. That’s approximately 40 percent of the state’s workforce, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The bill was only recently introduced and it is difficult to determine if it will be passed through the Legislature, and whether its form and requirements will change along the way. However, voters would likely support such a law, according to sponsors, who cited a University of California, Los Angeles poll that shows 88 percent of California adults surveyed "agreed or agreed strongly that there should be a law guaranteeing paid sick days for all California workers."
If passed, the law would make California the first state in the country to guarantee paid sick days. Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio and Washington DC, are also considering similar legislation, according to Ma's office.
Under AB 2716, any employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year would be entitled to paid sick time, which would accrue at a rate of at least one hour for every thirty hours worked, and no employee could be discriminated against for requesting sick leave. Most employers would be able to limit an employee's use to nine days in each calendar year, and small businesses with a maximum of ten workers would be allowed to limit annual paid sick days to five days. Sick time would carry over from year to year, and an employee would be entitled to use accrued sick time beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment.
Under Ma’s bill, paid sick days could be used to cover diagnosis, care, or treatment of health conditions of the employee; they could also be used to care for a sick family member or to recover from a domestic violence or sexual assault.
"Nobody wins when people have to go to work sick," Ma said. "This is just the right thing to do. We here in California want to make sure that when they are sick they do not have to worry about losing their jobs, they do not have to worry about losing a day’s pay.” Right now, nearly six million working Californians have no paid sick days through their employers. That’s approximately 40 percent of the state’s workforce, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The bill was only recently introduced and it is difficult to determine if it will be passed through the Legislature, and whether its form and requirements will change along the way. However, voters would likely support such a law, according to sponsors, who cited a University of California, Los Angeles poll that shows 88 percent of California adults surveyed "agreed or agreed strongly that there should be a law guaranteeing paid sick days for all California workers."
If passed, the law would make California the first state in the country to guarantee paid sick days. Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio and Washington DC, are also considering similar legislation, according to Ma's office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)