The U.S. Department of Wage and Hour Division held a public stakeholders forum on May 21 to lay out its goals and regulatory agenda — and from the looks of the reports I found, employers better stay on their toes ’cause the feds they are a-watchin you, folks.
Noel Tripp, an attorney with one of the employment law firms I quoted in an April 5 news analysis — Jackson Lewis — was in attendance and filed this report. Reads more like a warning to me. At the very least, it seems clear the Department of Labor’s WHD is gearing up to enhance employees’ rights, but not necessarily bend over backwards to help employers do just that in the process.
According to a story posted by Roy Maurer of the Society for Human Resource Management, WHD Deputy Administrator Nancy Leppink started the forum by defending her agency’s March 24 decision to end its long-held practice of issuing opinion letters to employers’ specific questions about compliance (which my news analysis was about). Leppink told those in attendance the practice was dropped because the “cost benefit was not there.”
Yet, in the same initial greeting, she touted WHD’s “ambitious agenda,” according to Maurer, and listed some of the agency’s more impressive accomplishments, including hiring 250 new investigators (with plans to hire 100 more in 2010) and starting the “We Can Help” campaign, aimed at reaching vulnerable workers who wouldn’t otherwise report violations and noncompliance (this last bit, ala Tripp).
Tripp also offers this parting shot: “Employers must recognize that the newly aggressive WHD is focusing on complance and [will] consider internal or external audits to review wage-and-hour compliance. Employers in traditional low-wage industries must take special notice of the WHD’s initatives.”
I would say ALL employers would be well-advised to open these links I’m providing here and read them very carefully.
Just wanted to make sure everyone saw this recent release from the U.S. Department of Labor about a new disability nondiscrimination law advisory — part of its new elaws Web site, an interactive site developed to help employers and employees understand their rights and responsibilities under numerous federal employment laws. Might want to check this stuff out and report back to us with your impressions and feedback! In fact, we’d appreciate it!
Elena Kagan— President Obama’s choice for replacing the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens—may not be as controversial a candidate as some previous Supreme Court nominees. But the current Solicitor General should still expect some tough questions when she comes before the Senate Judicial Committee, including maybe a few pertaining to military recruiting on college campuses.
In announcing the nomination earlier today, Obama described Kagan, 50, as someone “respected and admired not just for her intellect and record of achievement, but also for her temperament, her openness to a broad array of viewpoints, her habit—to borrow a phrase from Justice [John Paul] Stevens—of understanding before disagreeing, her fair-mindedness and skill as a consensus builder.”
Critics, however, are expected to point to Kagan’s lack of judicial experience as a major concern.
Not much is known about Kagan’s positions on issues in the realm of employment law. But it’s quite likely committee members will bring up her decision as dean of the Harvard Law School to bar military recruiters from using its offices. In an e-mail to students and faculty, she called the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “discriminatory” and a “profound wrong.” But in the face of losing federal funding because of the school’s violation of the Solomon Amendment—which allows the government to withhold money from universities that bar military recruiters—Kagan reversed her position on the ban.
No doubt proponents and opponents of her nomination will attempt to spin this incident to their own advantage. But while it’s not likely to make any difference in the eventual outcome—most expect the Kagan nomination to eventually be approved, unless something unforeseen happens—it does, at the very least, provide a hint into how she might approach some of the employment-discrimination issues that find their way to the High Court.
Sentiments from either side of the proposed biometric national ID card debate are getting more and more heated, as this recent story from the Society for Human Resource Management underscores.
Aside from the politics involved in the idea of including the card in an immigration-reform bill, HR professionals are also “casting a wary eye,” according to the story. The ACLU predicts employers could pay as much as $1.2 billion to issue the cards and workers would have to pay $105 to $139 eachto obtain them. Expanded to the entire U.S. workforce, the program could translate to a cost of $285 billion.
ACLU Legislative Counsel Christopher Calabrese tells SHRM the bureaucracy behind such a program “would involve new government offices across the country, tens of thousands of new federal employees and the construction of huge new information-technology systems.”
Other opponents predict long document-presentation lines, inevitable information errors and bureaucratic red tape. Employers “would have to purchase expensive biometric readers, train HR workers to be immigration agents and endure delays in their workforce,” Calabrese says.
But nothing else could be as fraud-proof and sure to enhance homeland security and reduce the number of illegal immigrants living and working here, card proponents say.
My prediction: This cauldron has a heckuva lot more cooking time ahead.
Interesting ruling today by the U.S. Supreme Court affirming that a court must give deference to an ERISA fiduciary’s second interpretation of ambiguous plan language, even if the first interpretation made by the fiduciary is struck down by the court as unreasonable. The case is explained in a post from Atlanta-based Fisher & Phillips.