Or it could be that the spirit of Howard Jarvis (California's infamous Proposition 13 tax measure author) lives on in most Americans.
I came across a great survey done this past October about health care reform in the U.S., conducted by Deloitte LLC, which showed that only 25 percent of the public favors higher taxes to provide health insurance for the uninsured while 43 percent are outright opposed. The rest are labeled "mixed" or "lukewarm."
The survey also found that 63 percent oppose an individual mandate forcing all people to have health insurance either through work or on their own, while 53 percent favor an employer mandate. Finally (there's more but you can hit the link above to read it), two out of three said health care would be a prime factor in their presidential vote.
(Two-thirds also opposed evidence-based medicine, which means they didn't understand the concept or they saw right through it and realized it's just a code term for rationing. I hope the latter is the case.)
Reading through the results, I concluded (but I had this opinion before reading the survey, to be honest) that the American public still believes that somehow Obama et al. can create a health care system that is free while offering freedom of choice and quick access.
If pipes can dream, then that's what they'll get, but show me that pipe dreaming first.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Law of Unintended Consequences: Fair Pay Acts
I just read an interesting analysis of--and commentary on--the two fair pay laws now sailing through Congress: The Paycheck Fairness Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Maggie Thurber on her ThurbersThoughts blog, after discussing and analyzing the two measures, concludes that they may well put women at a competitive disadvantage because employers might conclude that it's legally safer just to hire men.
Someone then posted a comment that, if employers just want to hire women to pay them less than men, then why hire men in the first place? Just hire women. S/he's got a point--there's no law enabling men to sue if women are being paid more for the same work.
Anyway, Ms. Thurber is a radio talk show host, I believe, as well as being a attorney by education. I thought she did an excellent job in deconstructing the consequences, intended and unintended, of these two laws, which in my opinion will end up gumming up working conditions and landing employers in court much too frequently in battles Congress has set them up to lose.
Maggie Thurber on her ThurbersThoughts blog, after discussing and analyzing the two measures, concludes that they may well put women at a competitive disadvantage because employers might conclude that it's legally safer just to hire men.
Someone then posted a comment that, if employers just want to hire women to pay them less than men, then why hire men in the first place? Just hire women. S/he's got a point--there's no law enabling men to sue if women are being paid more for the same work.
Anyway, Ms. Thurber is a radio talk show host, I believe, as well as being a attorney by education. I thought she did an excellent job in deconstructing the consequences, intended and unintended, of these two laws, which in my opinion will end up gumming up working conditions and landing employers in court much too frequently in battles Congress has set them up to lose.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Unions, Smunions--What, Me Worry?
For all the celestial disturbance over the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), you wouldn't know it from a poll I just discovered at the Manpower Employment Blawg.
The blog posted this question:
What is the #1 most frightening employment law issue you’re facing right now?
And got these results:
1. Terminations (26%)
2. Discrimination (13%)
3. Medical issues (10%)
4. Harassment (9%)
5. (Tie) Wage and hour (8%) and Benefits (8%)
7. Hiring (7%)
8. RIFs (6%)
9. Unions (3%)
So, unions are at the bottom of the list, are they? That being the case (in a very unscientific survey), why all the hubbub over EFCA?
The blog posted this question:
What is the #1 most frightening employment law issue you’re facing right now?
And got these results:
1. Terminations (26%)
2. Discrimination (13%)
3. Medical issues (10%)
4. Harassment (9%)
5. (Tie) Wage and hour (8%) and Benefits (8%)
7. Hiring (7%)
8. RIFs (6%)
9. Unions (3%)
So, unions are at the bottom of the list, are they? That being the case (in a very unscientific survey), why all the hubbub over EFCA?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Triumphs Over Congress
A week ago I wrote that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was being put on fast track for passage by the 111th Congress. With a snap of their fingers (actually, pushing their "yes" buttons), members of Congress did just that and sent Lilly over to the Senate, where Harry Reid and other leaders are confident of having the necessary votes to choke off a Republican filibuster.
(To recount, the Fair Pay Act reverses a Supreme Court decision regarding when the statute of limitations begins on pay discrimination complaints. The court said it begins once the pay-discrimination decision is made; the new law says it begins anew each time a paycheck is issued.)
Meanwhile, this opening salvo in the pro-employee, pro-union, pro-trial-lawyer assault on Bush's eight pro-business years is already drawing criticism and producing warnings.
So far, I haven't heard the word "Armageddon" used in connection with the Fair Pay Act (as it was used toward the Employee Free Choice Act), but here's one dire warning from Forbes.com:
Libertarian Richard A. Epstein calls the passage "Democratic Death Wish On Labor Relations."
Interesting stuff. Epstein is a libertarian and a professor of law at the University of Chicago. He predicts that companies will now have to spend more time preparing for legal action and more time defending themselves in court in cases involving lots of "stale evidence."
He writes that "every dollar that is spent in litigating the past is one less dollar for hiring new workers."
Everytime a new labor law comes up for a vote, just remember who contributed the most to the Democrats and Barack Obama in the November 2008 election--unions and trial lawyers. Then you can see who's really going to benefit from any laws or economic stimulus packages coming out of D.C.
(To recount, the Fair Pay Act reverses a Supreme Court decision regarding when the statute of limitations begins on pay discrimination complaints. The court said it begins once the pay-discrimination decision is made; the new law says it begins anew each time a paycheck is issued.)
Meanwhile, this opening salvo in the pro-employee, pro-union, pro-trial-lawyer assault on Bush's eight pro-business years is already drawing criticism and producing warnings.
So far, I haven't heard the word "Armageddon" used in connection with the Fair Pay Act (as it was used toward the Employee Free Choice Act), but here's one dire warning from Forbes.com:
Libertarian Richard A. Epstein calls the passage "Democratic Death Wish On Labor Relations."
Interesting stuff. Epstein is a libertarian and a professor of law at the University of Chicago. He predicts that companies will now have to spend more time preparing for legal action and more time defending themselves in court in cases involving lots of "stale evidence."
He writes that "every dollar that is spent in litigating the past is one less dollar for hiring new workers."
Everytime a new labor law comes up for a vote, just remember who contributed the most to the Democrats and Barack Obama in the November 2008 election--unions and trial lawyers. Then you can see who's really going to benefit from any laws or economic stimulus packages coming out of D.C.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Warning About WARN for Employers
The WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) specifies that 60 days' notice must be given in firms with more than 100 full-time employees when large-scale layoffs are going to take place. The act kicks in when 50 employees at one location are laid off within a 30-day period, or when 33 percent of the workfoce is laid off, or when 500 employees are laid off (regardless of the percentage of the workforce).
However--and there are a lot of howevers in WARN--the window extends to 90 days when the layoffs are staggered but reach those same thresholds in combination. ("Caught you trying to cheat!" is the emphasis here.)
Here's another however: WARN defines full-time employees as those who have averaged at least 20 hours per week in six of the past 12 months, or another definition--if the entire workforce averages 4,000 hours per week excluding overtime.
I bring this up for a couple of reasons. One is that the incoming Obama administration has been loud about extending the 60-day notification to 90 days. The other is that just this week one union at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago (remember the showdown over WARN during that factory shutdown?) filed suit to force the owners to return equipment to the Chicago site that was reportedly relocated before closing.
Now, here's the interesting part: The union alleges that Republic's owners ferreted away the machinery in the middle of the night to a location in Indiana, where they intended to set up new, non-union operations, and then told the workers that the Chicago firm was shutting down because Bank of America wouldn't extend them a line of credit.
If this is true, it brings to light a fascinating new wrinkle and shows that Republic did indeed scheme to avoid WARN.
In the end, to avoid a public relations nightmare, BofA forked over about $1.5 million to Republic, and the workers received 60 days of pay and benefits.
Which brings up the final point: There's no way an employer would want dozens of laid-off workers sitting around the workplace for 60 days while knowing they're getting the axe. It's doubtful they'd do much constructive work, and it's likely that pilferage and sabotage would take place. Pay them 60 days' worth and see them off.
So, if the Obama team manages to up the WARN stakes, many companies will face paying three months of wages and benefits just to downsize in an effort to survive in tough economic times.
Better to gid rid of them now! LOL Just kidding, of course.
However--and there are a lot of howevers in WARN--the window extends to 90 days when the layoffs are staggered but reach those same thresholds in combination. ("Caught you trying to cheat!" is the emphasis here.)
Here's another however: WARN defines full-time employees as those who have averaged at least 20 hours per week in six of the past 12 months, or another definition--if the entire workforce averages 4,000 hours per week excluding overtime.
I bring this up for a couple of reasons. One is that the incoming Obama administration has been loud about extending the 60-day notification to 90 days. The other is that just this week one union at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago (remember the showdown over WARN during that factory shutdown?) filed suit to force the owners to return equipment to the Chicago site that was reportedly relocated before closing.
Now, here's the interesting part: The union alleges that Republic's owners ferreted away the machinery in the middle of the night to a location in Indiana, where they intended to set up new, non-union operations, and then told the workers that the Chicago firm was shutting down because Bank of America wouldn't extend them a line of credit.
If this is true, it brings to light a fascinating new wrinkle and shows that Republic did indeed scheme to avoid WARN.
In the end, to avoid a public relations nightmare, BofA forked over about $1.5 million to Republic, and the workers received 60 days of pay and benefits.
Which brings up the final point: There's no way an employer would want dozens of laid-off workers sitting around the workplace for 60 days while knowing they're getting the axe. It's doubtful they'd do much constructive work, and it's likely that pilferage and sabotage would take place. Pay them 60 days' worth and see them off.
So, if the Obama team manages to up the WARN stakes, many companies will face paying three months of wages and benefits just to downsize in an effort to survive in tough economic times.
Better to gid rid of them now! LOL Just kidding, of course.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Employment Testing Can Backfire
Conservative columnist George Will this week (Monday) wrote a column in which he traced the widespread requirement for college degrees for jobs just about anyone could do to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent interpretations and enabling legislation.
Under Will's telescope, the problem was that courts and juries began finding that employment tests, whether intentionally or not, often resulted in skewed results whereby certain classes of people would do better than others. Thus the tests discriminated, willy-nilly or no.
The solution for employers, according to Will, was simply to require that employees have college degrees for jobs beyond the routine and mundane. Certainly, the jump in those attending college in recent years might be an indicator of this, although technologically advanced work sites and workloads could be another factor.
At any rate, this brings up the interesting story of firefighters in Akron, Ohio, who had to take a test for advancement. Somehow, the results skewed against those firefighters who were either white or over 40. The 23 affected firefighters sued, and the jury agreed, awarding them a $2-million judgment.
If there's a lesson here, it's "don't give tests," though that seems like a ridiculous approach to screening employees for skill sets. Problem is, courts and juries base judgments on results, not on intent of the tests, and even if the results are random, they can still lead to findings of discrimination.
If you're an employer, you may want to delve into both the Employee Communication and Compliance Handbook and the Employee Handbook and Personnel Policies Manual from Personnel Concepts.
Under Will's telescope, the problem was that courts and juries began finding that employment tests, whether intentionally or not, often resulted in skewed results whereby certain classes of people would do better than others. Thus the tests discriminated, willy-nilly or no.
The solution for employers, according to Will, was simply to require that employees have college degrees for jobs beyond the routine and mundane. Certainly, the jump in those attending college in recent years might be an indicator of this, although technologically advanced work sites and workloads could be another factor.
At any rate, this brings up the interesting story of firefighters in Akron, Ohio, who had to take a test for advancement. Somehow, the results skewed against those firefighters who were either white or over 40. The 23 affected firefighters sued, and the jury agreed, awarding them a $2-million judgment.
If there's a lesson here, it's "don't give tests," though that seems like a ridiculous approach to screening employees for skill sets. Problem is, courts and juries base judgments on results, not on intent of the tests, and even if the results are random, they can still lead to findings of discrimination.
If you're an employer, you may want to delve into both the Employee Communication and Compliance Handbook and the Employee Handbook and Personnel Policies Manual from Personnel Concepts.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Lilly Ledbetter Rides Into Congress
Well, not literally, but the woman whose name is attached to a famous Supreme Court decision did speak at last summer's Democratic National Convention.
Her name is also attached to a bill that, according to the New York Times, is on a Democratic fast track for approval and, no doubt, a signature by Barack Obama once he's in the White House.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act greatly modifies the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. decision, which held that the statute of limitations on pay discrimination cases runs from the moment the decision is made on the discriminatory pay.
Poor Lilly filed her claim after the statute had run its course, and her lawyers were unsuccessful in arguing that the original decision lives on in each paycheck.
You guessed it. Congress is now legislating that the statute does just that--begins anew each time the discriminated employee receives a paycheck or is affected by the original decision.
Republicans filibustered Lilly out of the Senate last year, but with the Democrats only one vote from foolproof cloture-closing power, she (the law) stands a good chance this year.
Indeed, ending filibusters by the GOP over its cadre of labor-friendly bills, including the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), may be one reason the Dems are now warmly embracing Illinois Senate appointee Roland Burris after denying him a seat yesterday, though they'd certainly never own up to it.
Anyway, employers won't have many options now if they discriminate in pay (i.e., pay different people different wages for performing the exact same work, provided they have the same qualifications and seniority (I assume on these last two provisions, though I'm certainly not a legal expert by any means).
So, Lilly Ledbetter may never have gotten the pay she deserved from Goodyear, but she'll now be the bane of every employer in America, at least those who disciminate in pay.
Her name is also attached to a bill that, according to the New York Times, is on a Democratic fast track for approval and, no doubt, a signature by Barack Obama once he's in the White House.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act greatly modifies the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. decision, which held that the statute of limitations on pay discrimination cases runs from the moment the decision is made on the discriminatory pay.
Poor Lilly filed her claim after the statute had run its course, and her lawyers were unsuccessful in arguing that the original decision lives on in each paycheck.
You guessed it. Congress is now legislating that the statute does just that--begins anew each time the discriminated employee receives a paycheck or is affected by the original decision.
Republicans filibustered Lilly out of the Senate last year, but with the Democrats only one vote from foolproof cloture-closing power, she (the law) stands a good chance this year.
Indeed, ending filibusters by the GOP over its cadre of labor-friendly bills, including the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), may be one reason the Dems are now warmly embracing Illinois Senate appointee Roland Burris after denying him a seat yesterday, though they'd certainly never own up to it.
Anyway, employers won't have many options now if they discriminate in pay (i.e., pay different people different wages for performing the exact same work, provided they have the same qualifications and seniority (I assume on these last two provisions, though I'm certainly not a legal expert by any means).
So, Lilly Ledbetter may never have gotten the pay she deserved from Goodyear, but she'll now be the bane of every employer in America, at least those who disciminate in pay.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
