Family Attorney

Firstly, the mythology:
Democrats flurry of Big Ideas. Unfortunately, Big Ideas ballot papers and do not mix and the timing is not quite correct. But you see. After the congress, however, the White House if the curtains were withdrawn, the Dems get crackin ‘at’ em Big Ideas or the re-election campaign, which comes first.
Big Ideas, which they are, in large part, squeezing in words, can be a challenge. Luckily, science most luminous lamps illuminating the pup tent, the Liberals can articulate better than anyone, which is why they can not articulate. Thus, they will be treated seriously stylus on the need to include tax “contributions” criminal and “the protection of lawyers in public opinion.” Like it or not, these fairly effective, and Howard Dean, for one, as lending Framing Lakoff’s theories for his run victory in the White House.
Who still interested, if the Clintonistas and his merry band of hangers-on DLC spoiled broth with a third way of the mark and workfare Zentrismus Smiley Face imperialism? Across the blogosphere, there is a movement from the grass roots is underway, the wind of change against the Repub-lite balances. It’s coming. This time, it really is!

Like all myths, fantasies contain a pious truth: Democrats are timid tactics, and fast, the terms of the debate. The chain netroots real passion about the causes and liberal blogs are grumbled. The excitement is palpable outside the left. Too bad, it does not exist. America, however, has no left-handed left.

The ruling is brutal. With nearly every measure, the United States is the least progressive country in the developed world. (1) The hiking trails most Western European countries and poverty rates, life expectancy, health, child care, infant mortality, maternity leave, paid leave, ‘public infrastructure, the rates of detention and environmental laws. The difference in the standard of living in the United States is not yet there since 1929. The Wal-Mart-founder of the family owns as much as 120 million Americans are combined below. (2) Contrary to received opinion, there is now less social mobility in the United States as in Canada, France, Germany and most of the Scandinavian countries. (3, 4) The European Union is attracting more foreign students than the United States, including more than twice as many from China. His political consensus, studies show, has replaced the American version, given that the model of society to develop the world aspires. (5)

And yet, America was a nation of closet right southpaws? A Zogby poll shows widespread support for the rehabilitation on the detention of juvenile offenders. In a poll NES, those “government, many other services, even if it means an increase in spending outnumber men in the background, a reduction of 2 to 1 A study by the Pew says the same percentage of people who believe they are an exaggeration company profits. He also noted that the majority of Americans believe, “the government should contribute, to the most needy people, even if it means more debts.” (6)

Democratic guide, bless his soul, do you not think too nonsense. You will be notified that you are permanently all public policies rejects a nano-angstrom on the left, a suicide pact. They’ll talk abbürsten since the beginning of the marginal increase in the tax rate of 35% on everything close to the average 70% of the Nixon years. (7) Yes, the progressives Bill Clinton extends the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Family and Medical Leave Act. It also increases in extreme poverty despite high economic growth. (8) It extends the death penalty and murder unsupervised, the biggest increase in pre-trial detention in the 20th century (double what it was under Reagan). (9.10), it has exacerbated inequalities, gave Kyoto, and its own laboratory for secretary of the day, to the presidency on “the world’s largest pro-business administration in history American. “His (2.11) signing of social policy, welfare reform, a cornerstone of dismantling the New Deal: the Confederation cash-assistance program for the poor, to 9 million children (AFDC). (12)

By contrast, the curators of Richard Nixon, the Environmental Protection Agency, expands the Clean Air Act, the Supplemental Security Income program (to the care of the elderly and disabled), the Minority Business Development Agency, has signed the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and implementation of the Confederation first term “affirmative action". Nixon (13) was a “Southern strategy” and a curvature of the right wing, he was also on the left side of Bill Clinton.

The elderly Democrat senator from New York, the “ultra-liberal” Chuck Schumer, who recently killed efforts to increase the coverage rate of fund managers, that the housekeeper: a nice Handout Government Bankers , which is too valuable, every year, half of the supplementary food for women, infants and children. (14.15): “I am not a populist,” said Schumer. (16) (perhaps just an opportunist.) During the presidential election campaign of 2008, the New York Times gently Spot Tete John Edwards’s illicit concern for the poor as “crude populism.” (17) The Word. The other P-word, poverty, has acquired, the liberals of the spirit of sustainable cosmic gravity. Indeed, the book, like in the Middle Ages, after the assassination of the poor, the thinking goes, it can not kill poverty in the richest countries nations of the earth. imaginary This capitulation to the laws of the economy, the rise of neo-liberalism as the dominant dogma of the dominant class. is’ a global phenomenon, but its roots are obviously Americans. One may wonder if it worked against the interests of both the way things are then?

WASHINGTON, April 3 (AScribe Newswire) - leadership of the National Partnership for Women & Families, a coalition of more than 100 organizations, tens of millions of workers insisted that the Bush administration, the Department of Labor (DOL) shall not be used for management procedures protective measures at the workplace to reduce the millions of workers and their families who are entitled to protection mechanisms of Confederation and 1993 families Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The deadline for comments on proposed changes to the FMLA, April 11. The coalition is mobilizing for comments opposing DOL obtains these proposed legislative changes, the FMLA to scale back access for workers.

To reserve a seat, please contact Jason Shevrin at (202) 326-8700.

Since its adoption, 1993, the FMLA has been one of millions of workers and not for the exemption of work for illness in their families, the birth or adoption of a child, family or other needs health, without fear of losing their jobs or health insurance.

In January, Congress and signed by President Bush signed the extension wounded Military Service Act to allow military family members who have the requisite conditions for the extension of the FMLA leave to care for a relative of injured. The DOL may be that the adoption of this extension, if necessary, creating a demand for more information on the provisions of the proposed legislation. DOL The coalition urged to adopt provisions for these military families as soon as the intent of Congress, the place they hold in the regulatory process FMLA.

The National Partnership for Women & Families is a non-profit, non-partisan representation group dedicated to promoting fairness in the workplace, access to health care of high quality and politics, where women and men balancing work and family life responsibilities.

The Department of Labor is proposing changes in the family and Medical Leave Act. The law includes employers with 50 or more employees, employee participation and the right to unpaid leave of up to 12 weeks to care for a newborn or a member of a serious health condition or medical care, if the employee is unable to work due to a serious health condition.

The proposed amendments clarify a wide range of issues related to coverage, the type of distribution of employers and workers must be given to the medical certification forms, and the impact of the military to leave the National Defense Authorization Act.

The Department of Labor is proposing changes and clarifications, including:

• employers allow, under certain conditions, for employees, the doctor to clarify information on the medical certification forms.

• Allow an employee before employment when setting eligibility criteria, the employer does not need to create employment count a break in the continuity of service of five years or more.

• highlighting the consequences, if an employee is not the regular termination or not to follow the usual employers of the appeals procedure for reporting and absences, unless an emergency.

• It is important to clarify that employees can freely their rights to justice without Department of Labor or approval.

According to the commentary of the audience, the lab looks Department problem permanently this summer in the rules.

– Elaina Smiley,
Meyer Unkovic and Scott,
Es@muslaw.com

Keep domestic legal programs

The fine line between a domestic and not an employee of a company could be in trouble.

Many companies have programs Unpaid internships, in which young people who, as a general rule, College High School, or students, who were in the workplace of an employer. The unpaid trainees, as employers, as they can help identify individuals gifted and contain wage costs, while young people welcome the opportunity to learn a trade and their future employment.

But unless a programme of unpaid six complies with the requirements of the division of labor, the employer can be sued for unpaid trainees and / or a fine in accordance with the federal law Fair Labor Standards Act:

1 The trainee must conform to the formation of a vocational school, which means that the trainee has been paid, if I training elsewhere.

2nd The intern may not be in place of an ordinary worker.

The 3rd stage may not be an absolute guarantee for future work.

4th The employer can not benefit immediately from internal work.

5th The trainee should benefit from experience.

6 The employer is required to internally from the outset, the internship is unpaid.

Many employers may determine the existence of an alternative less risky for a program of unpaid internship is to be paid the minimum wage for internships and full integration in the workplace.

Am 11. Februar 2008, dem US Department of Labor (DOL) veröffentlicht vorgeschlagenen Änderungen der Familie Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Vorschriften. Dies ist das erste Mal, wurden vorgeschlagen Änderungen, die seit der Regelungen Verabschiedung des Gesetzes im Jahr 1993. Der FMLA erfordert unter Arbeitgebern, die bis zu zwölf Wochen unbezahlten Urlaub in einem Zeitraum von zwölf Monaten zu teilnahmeberechtigten die Mitarbeiter für die Platzierung oder die Kindes Geburt eines oder für die Annahme Pflegetätigkeit, wenn der Arbeitnehmer oder nicht in der Lage ist zu arbeiten, weil der Arbeitnehmer “Mit der eigenen schweren gesundheitlichen Zustand, oder die Notwendigkeit der Pflege eines Ehegatten, Eltern, Sohn Tochter oder mit einem schweren gesundheitlichen Zustand ..

Last week, for 5 Anniversary of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I spent an afternoon reading the moving stories of more than 4000 dead and 30000 injured servicemembers. As I read, another powerful story - that of the mothers, wives and families of soldiers, and a shame, the lack of support for families, when their love returning from the war.

Denise Bittle, Boston has lost three jobs to care for her husband, who in 2003 was seriously injured in a suicide attack in Baghdad (read their story in The Boston Globe). With his concern for the small boy but, as another estimated 14000 families in this country (iava.org compiled data), one of the wounded veterans.

It’s something to help. In January, Congress and the President, a bill to extend the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), so that family members up to 26 weeks in a workplace protected, unpaid leave to care for service members injured. This increase in the number of weeks (12 to 26), families like Bittles time to adjust to both demanding and changing needs of a person’s life with intellectual or physical wounds of war with fewer fears about the loss of jobs An indispensable.

But this essential contribution to the military family could be delayed.

Why? Indeed, while the Department of Labor is working on the implementation of military expansion FMLA for families who, in the name of efficiency, the implementation of comb in the development of a series of new rules that are quite apart from the military issue, and each access At the family. The result? Military families may wait until the end of the month to leave their enlarged, while a struggle for FMLA widely available for all continues. (See the National Partnership for Women and Families excellent background information on these two subjects.)

The two soldiers and their families are contributing to the United States as a whole, and not the costs of their own. That’s why MomsRising.org is to act, and you can too!

You can help us now with a letter to the Department of Labor today to say, act now to military families. Click here for a simple letter to the ministry to ask to move quickly forward with military expansion, and to keep back on another set of rules, the amendments are not consistent with the theme of family and soldiers from the FMLA. The more points of the ministry is, the more likely they are to this problem quickly.

Regardless of what each of us feels about the war, the military family support is important and a good thing to do - and we must also care for all families of the arrest by the operation of the FMLA.

This is not the time to engage in a benefit for families of military personnel to unnecessary delays. Families of service members need our help and support.

A response to the US Department of Labor (DOL)-Call for comments on its proposed rule under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) travels across the country to gather reactions on the part of their members.

SHRM Government Affairs staff Nancy Hammer, director of regulatory and judicial affairs; Lisa Horn, head of the health sector, Michael Layman, director of employment and labor law, and Mr. Michael Aitken, Director of Government Affairs, traveled to five cities.

Two “listening sessions” ’s SHRM took place while the labour law and the Legislative Conference March 10-12, 2008 in Washington, DC, Chapter Staffers visited a reunion in Kansas City, a place of the event San Francisco Conference and the State Legislature in Augusta, Maine. The last trip will be to Omaha, Neb., in the first week of April.

The proposed amendments to Rule under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) are:

Expanded military obligations leave the family, a part of which to discover the reality. The DOL is a clarification of the meaning of Rule behind Congress required qualified for the provisions of leave active service.

• Focus on what constitutes a “serious health condition", but no changes to the definition.

• clarifications on the medical certification process, in particular by the board, if the certifications are considered incomplete.

• Technical changes reflect the decisions of the US Supreme Court, as Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide Inc, and lower of justice.

• Increase Note obligations for employers and employees of their rights under the FMLA.

SHRM total number of members from 50 to 200 of the FMLA joint meetings, the feedback on the proposed changes, “said Hammer.

“He was interested in an overwhelming influence on the final rule,” she said. “Members are pleased about certain aspects, but [the proposed regulation] does not apply to certain issues, including [members], most of the problems.”

The members said they were pleased that the proposed rule allows employers to obtain information on a direct collaborator of the state of health of the employee’s physician, said Hammer. However, the DOL not the problem of intermittent leave personnel are authorized, in the shortest stages FMLA spotted by the employer is time tracking system.

“We would be happy to see that change, which is very heavy,” said Hammer.

HR-professionals are worried about the definition that the DOL for the needs qualified “for members of the military family.

“It is now very large, but both DOL and you arrive directly to a final rule” on the definition, without the publication of the first proposed definition, that employers can comment, “said Hammer. “This makes members nervous, because there is no definition of” qualified unfortunate situation, “and we do not know where the spectrum is it at the end. Pèsent members, but they are not the definition, until the final rule is published.

At each session, SHRM Hear Government Affairs staff have welcomed a lawyer, gives an overview of the proposed changes. Participants then break into small groups to discuss the rule, their reactions and how it affects their daily work.

SHRM, responses to comments, it is sent to the DOL. In addition, business administration staff is a shorter, more focused, more practitioners comments to the attention of the SHRM’s state councils and chapters present, “said Hammer. Sample letters, the SHRM individual members can use for their own comments during the beginning of April on the website SHRM www.shrm.org / government, she added.

Since SHRM is the chairwoman of the National Coalition to Protect the Family leave, it is also with other members of the coalition comments on the draft of the organization. The comments are the cause of the 11st DOL April 2008.

The DOL, comments, “said Hammer, but nobody is sure, DOL published in the event that the final decision on changes FMLA. Some expect that the publication prior to the event.

“We do not know when this will be, but we know they want this [presidential] management,” she said.

If the rule is issued, there will most likely come into force between 30 and 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register, Hammer added.

SHRM members are seeking comments on proposed amendments to Rule allow access to the Government Affairs SHRM Online.

Beth Mirza is editor of HR-News. You will look under the bmirza@shrm.org.

Articles:

FMLA proposed regulations to clarify the conditions covered, certification, SHRM Online Workplace Law Focus Area, February 8, 2008

DOL Assistant Secretary of Labor says FMLA Rule online SHRM Workplace Law Focus Area on March 12, 2008

SHRM Webcast shows FMLA proposed rules are Hot Topic HR, HR-News, February 25, 2008

Read FMLA gaps, SHRM Member Testifies, HR-News, February 18, 2008

Bush signed FMLA leave military expansion in the Act, HR-News, Jan. 29, 2008

A: The United States says new parents - both mothers and fathers - get 12 weeks. Not paid.

But the federal government’s Family and Medical Leave Act does not apply to more than 40 percent of nongovernment employees, after a 2000 study, Department of Labor. An organization must be at least 50 employees and the workers must work at least one year and 1250 hours to qualify.

For many employees of small businesses, part-time employees or new hires, lucky. The not covered by the FMLA must depend on the company that is very different. Some Member States have also left the legislation, the smallest firms to unpaid leave, as Maine and Minnesota.

But for many working-class families, leave without pay is difficult and often impossible, “said Ann Bookman, director of the MIT Workplace Center.

“It takes a middle class professional are eligible for unpaid leave,” she said.

For the government of a 1996 report finds that only 32.3% of jobs offered by FMLA up to 12 weeks of leave for parents of newborns. Another difficulty lies in the fact that the family leave, it is often on an informal, case-by-case basis in companies too small to be of the FMLA.

“Look with your employer, politics,” said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families. “Look at what is happening with your employees. Sometimes that helps you negotiate something that would be beneficial for you.”

Even for companies to break new parents, fathers less. Women may be the benefits of the inability to leave due to pregnancy and labour, men can not claim.

“It is likely that among women birth, for some time, that men are not necessarily right,” said Ness.

Cultural norms are called upon to play a role. Men are often not use the remedies at their disposal.

“There is the idea that this is the icing on the cake, if the men in childcare,” said Bookman. “The practice in many companies for a male worker commitment to the job and the society are called into question (when he needed time), while among women, it is like” Sure, it is Today, the day after maternity leave. ”

In March 2008, a report on the members of Congress paid to the family to leave the Fortune 100 company, 75% of companies who responded to the proposed paid birth mothers or parents to leave, but only third, it gave fathers. Time for both parents, as a general rule, “paved composed of various programmes, such as accrued vacation and sick days, the report says.

Only 8 percent of the United States private sector offer paid parental leave, employers, “said Ness.

Employees still have the right of association may be generous, if the federal FMLA, Crown corporations or leave without law - but paid leave, as a general rule, subbed, not in weeks unsecured FMLA. This decision is an employer, in its sole discretion.

The war of words on the Democratic presidential candidate is the schuldiger exaggerating his record.

The campaigns of Bill Clinton and Obama have now all bets memos to “interested parties", where the other candidates is found guilty, decorate.

The campaign for the Clinton version can be found here. Under this it raises Senator Barack Obama:

• “gross exaggeration its role on the reform of immigration and housing policy.”

• The use of credit lines for the “disclosure of Nuclear Leak, who never of the commission.”

The campaign Obama version can be found here. Under this it raises Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton:

• Overstating their role in the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

• Exaggerating part of their passage in the family and Medical Leave Act.

Obama The memo also states that no one who is entitled to surprise Bill Clinton was forced to take advantage of their aircraft waiting vehicles in Bosnia during 1996 because of the threat posed by the fire of snipers – a requirement that proved false, and that it sees as anomalies.

Update 1:35 pm ET. A response to the Clinton Obama Memo:

“The campaign Obama full attack on Hillary is expanding at an affront to the full truth,” Clinton’s campaign, writes on its website sheets race. “Note of the Obama campaign is now totally liberated flagrante misinformation and false allusion to disparage Hillary’s critical role in the passage of SCHIP and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Of course, they believe that the media have on the facts and not others follow correctly, Triviale story of their birth. ”

Arizona coach basketball Lute Olson tells citizens, it was more than his hope that divorce causes staff last season.
Olson, clarifying an interview he ESPN.com Friday, recounted that the citizens’ stress and anxiety “about” a combination of circumstances “forced him to take time.
But Olson would be that the “combination of things,” except to say that he felt “great".
Two weeks, Olson to the inclusion of a statement he had with a medical condition that was not life threatening, but serious need sufficient time to depart from my missions coaching. “
“I do not want (more) further,’’said Olson, citizens to reflect on the development of stress and fear.” It was just a matter of me start from the premise that ( which) already knew the people who are sitting De l ‘, which translates into a staff.'’
Olson return to work on March 7, after first asking for indefinite leave, Nov. 4. He asked for the entire season on December 6, the same day his divorce petition was Christine Olson, his wife of four years.
He spoke briefly with citizens once in December remained silent, but for the rest of the season until his official Family Medical Leave Act, the time has expired, on March 7.
Olson told ESPN.com citizens and could not speak, to explain the journalist or his absence, because the state leaving a medical procedure, it was not possible for him to his situation.
But Barney Holtzman, employment law attorney with the Fennemore Craig PC, simply said, employers, it is forbidden to speak. He said, an employee is allowed to speak in his absence.
“This is not what I was saying,” says Olson citizens. “I could not speak, or - and this is what I said, the University of sports administration.'’
Olson has scheduled a press conference, talking about the situation at noon Tuesday.
On Friday, when news came, it was “stress and pending its Angst'’Scheidung, Christine tells citizens:” It has with himself for a living, and what he says.'’
Olson said: “There is really nothing to respond.'’
“It was a trap, a break away, to face the charges,'’he said.” Once I have a chance to recover and exercise twice a day (it helped). The l’a underscored the feeling that I was not the case, how could I, where the coach, it would be fair for the children.'’
Olson, who might have been just 25 Year as UA’s head coach, to continue to say that coach, provided he has the energy to do the task, feels the way he can still communicate with its children and his love for the game is still there.
“He came to a point where I could not do it,'’he said, referring to the start of the season.
Olson said he needed time to familiarize himself with a multitude of things.'’
“It happens with people who have some time,'’he said.” It is good to be able to come back, but away from things.'’
He said he feels bad for the players, because they have come to Arizona to play for me and for the style we play in général'’in
The past season has come from a total of 19-15 UA interim coach Kevin O’Neill, was 11 months to help support Olson.
“It was a tough year for them, and a difficult year for Kevin,’’said Olson.” It was in a difficult situation… it was difficult for everyone.'’
Read Olson O’Neill is to say to take some time to see what he plans to do, even though earlier this week, O’Neill said, he is the assistant coach and provides for the return the next season.
“(O’Neill) was in a very difficult situation, because children, he was assigned to the thought that they would have another way,” said Olsen. “But they are a good group of kids and try to do what the coach asks him to do. And they did.
“I think Kevin is saying that is not possible, children are more penalty when they had him. That’s Kevin’s credit, in order to enable them to play as hard as he was.'’
Olson said the NCAA Tournament for the 24th time “was a relief for (Kevin), and children, because the series was not arrested at his wristwatch.'’
Olson, suppose the head of its missions coaching Monday, still in his office full time. He met with his players and plans on continuing to see recruits.
“I know, the children are happy, and I am delighted to be back,'’he said.” I think the staff welcomed me back on the e-mails and comments, which I have never seen. And the fans are happy, I am back.
“Maybe it is good for the fans to recognize that, hey, it is not easy to get the job done,” says Olson. “Maybe it takes a year for them to recognize that it is a fairly good.'’

The concept of family has changed. Increasingly, our employees were by persons other than their parents. This is often the case when the person who the worker is a grandparent. This demographic shift has made an impact on the family and Medical Leave Act.

As we have seen in the past, in part, on the FMLA, staff to attend up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for treatment of his own serious illness or a spouse, parents, sons or daughter.

Note that the FMLA not expressly unpaid leave to care for a grandparent of a serious health condition. However, the definition of “parents” covers a person who is “in loco parentis” to an employee, if the staff was small.

Therefore, the FMLA does not leave for the care of grandparents, unless the employee is able to show that the grandparent was in loco parentis. The rules define as in loco parentis took responsibility for the day-to-day, that the employee and for the financial support of workers in his childhood.

The FMLA, it is not necessary to establish a biological or legal relationship to be established in loco parentis. Accordingly, unless the employee is able to show that the grandparent was in loco parentis, to leave, which are not covered by the FMLA.

Another reality of our society is the prevalence of drug abuse, alcohol or drugs. Drug abuse destroys families. It also creates a problem under the FMLA.

Among the provisions relating to the FMLA, the unpaid leave can be taken for the treatment of drug abuse, if the case is the provision of services. The absence of the worker because of the use of the substance, but as for the treatment, not for FMLA.

The question is whether a person in the treatment of the provision of services. By beginning the treatment, do not by the FMLA. A recent case where only one to call the doctor to see if the provision is supported, or making contact with the insurance company to see whether it is health care, will not be processed. Treatments do not begin until the employee had direct contact with the service provider.

Geäusserten opinion of the writer. James Jorgensen practices of the science of law at Hoeppner Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton takes credit on its site to help the campaign for the Family and Medical Leave Act, workers with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the case of a family emergency.

On the road, it highlights similar claims, while willing to offer Democrats in Congress, and sometimes each sponsor Senate Chief Chris Dodd, a former rival, was Clinton, Barack Obama about the Democratic presidential candidacy.

THE SPIN:

On its website, Clinton contains a list of questions, it has fought and is the priority as president. “These include: support for the Family and Medical Leave Act, the new parents to take their time, without the loss of their jobs, and the extension to make it available to more parents and provide more leave. ” From Clinton Obama campaign on the right it has helped, law remembers that was signed just a few weeks after her husband was president, and he had two previous congresses.

THE FACTS:

Bill Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act on February 5, 1993, 16 days after elected President. This was the first major act of his presidency, and the creation of a campaign promise. The former President Bush has had two other veto legislation. The first lady came with her husband, in a heavy Rose Garden signing ceremony, the President, where the 10 legislators of both parties for their work on the bill. It does not have a shout-out to his wife.

Former Rep. William Clay of Missouri, sponsored the bill on the house on this page, just the bill of this Congress in the year 1993, and he recalled no involvement of Hillary Clinton. “The bill was never in trouble,” he said.

But former Rep. Pat Schroeder, a strong supporter of regulation, remembers Hillary Clinton as a “huge” of the proposal by legal counsel during their time as First Lady of Arkansas and during the presidential campaign of 1992 . In the past, Clinton at the White House, Schroeder said that “it was just a rainbow around him on this point. Admittedly, it had worked very hard the last five years to get it . ”

In the final days before the 1993 elections, Congress won authorization bill, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and President Clinton went to Capitol Hill for the whole of last-minute lobbying, according to the news of the day.

Now, in which the Senate, Bill Clinton and Dodd sponsoring legislation has been adopted this year that extend services in the framework of the law to leave the family, encouraging families of the wounded soldiers do six months of unpaid leave to care for love. As a presidential candidate, she has for the extension of unpaid leave for family reasons on an additional 13 million workers and spending $ 1 billion per year to paid leave.

The former relates, the family and Medical Leave Act by the Congress Thursday sought to demystify Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (DN.Y.), legislation, and they say “never to do something.”

Former Rep. William Lacy Clay, Sr. (D-Mo.) is an e-mail circulating compete demand for Bill Clinton, that the right of one of its most judicious home services. The candidate for the presidential election, she says contributed to the receipt of the invoice and the passage for signature during the year 1993.

But Clay, the sponsor of the Senate Christopher Dodd () 1990 1992, before the veto opportunities on both sides of former President George HW Bush.

“All that we need a president to sign it,” said Clay. “The president signed, and we are grateful, but there was no lobbying by him or her.”

Hill has a copy of the e-mail rejection Clay Clinton claimed in the instrument, and rightly so. The former member of Congress wrote: “If Hillary has played an important role in the passage, it was without my knowledge.”

Clay acknowledged that Bill Clinton may have contributed Dodd in the Senate, but given the wide margin of the law has been in the past before, “said Dodd Clay” is not just need help. Dodd did not could be reached for comment.

“She never had anything with him,” said Clay. “I do not believe you should play with this kind of thing.”

While most employees FMLA acronym is easy to describe, the employer finds it extremely difficult to manage.

A law provides that workers have the rights to the right to employment protection for absences due to the birth or adoption of a child, or a serious health condition of an employee or a member the family qualified, the Department of Labor proposed that certain provisions relating to the implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Issued on February 11, those changes would be, most of a flat rate on the FMLA, to the extent that it force on February 5, 1993.

In short, the rule of FMLA covers employers of 50 or more employees and employees must be, for employers and for the 12 months of 1250 hours of service during the past few years are the FMLA.

If a worker for the application period to care for a parent, holding company, to determine whether workers have the right to unpaid leave.

Companies with more than 50 employees must be for the Family and Medical Leave Act, and if this does not happen, this may be a legal proceeding after Melisa Michelsen,’s lawyer Litten & Sipe LLP in Harrisonburg.

“FMLA is a burden for employers,” said Michelsen. “But I encourage, namely law and respect.”

Inside Michelsen was a speaker at Hot Topics in the labor law, organized by the Harrisonburg-Rockingham Greater Augusta and chambers of commerce.

More than 35 people, including the directors of human resources in enterprises Valley, at the seminar on Wednesday, Blue Ridge Community College.

A number of circumstances under FMLA regimes, including the birth of a child, or a serious health condition or the care of a parent or a child with a serious condition, “said Michelsen.

But the law is very broad, took some grey areas, and may lead to tension between employers and workers, she added.

“The law is complicated, and I do not know employers can be true from the beginning,” said Michelsen. “I tell my customers a proactive approach to the effort in good faith".

Silver and Duties

Wednesday seminar was the second in a series of two parts, themes, problems for businesses, “said moderator Cathleen Welsh, a lawyer Lenhart grove top of a PC.

Last week, the meeting is focusing on the Fair Labor Standards Act and immigration. Wednesday seminar lasted until FMLA, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity and Contracting.

Nearly 83000 emoluments of the Equal Employment Opportunity injuries during fiscal 2007 were 9.3 per cent over the previous year and a sharp jump, “said Wales.

“Our society has more quarrelsome,” said Wales. “And more and more people to understand their rights and the availability of these costs database.”

With the migration of federal agencies outside the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia, valley companies have more opportunities to do business with the federal government.

The chances of putting its obligations “affirmative action” and EEOC laws, she added, for both project managers and companies that provide goods or services to contractors.

These laws “require special attention,” she said.

“Companies of this treaty [directly or indirectly] for the federal government must be well aware, to their obligations,” said Wales. “The government says:” We give you the money, but they come with these obligations. ”

JIM LEHRER: With us now are Rahm Emanuel, senior adviser to the President, and Wade Horn, commissioner for children, youth, and families in the Bush administration, now president of the National Fatherhood Initiative to improve the involvement of fathers in children’s lives. Mr. Horn, in general, what do you think of the President’s proposal?

WADE HORN, National Fatherhood Initiative: Well, the package sounds good. It kind of reminds me of those toys as a kids I used to see advertised in the back of comic books where it sounds wonderful, but when you finally get it and you unpackage that toy, it doesn’t quite live up to the expectations of the advertisement. And that’s the way it is with this package. Certainly, it sounds good. I mean, who can be against the idea of increasing the affordability and quality of child care? But there are some fundamental problems with this package. First of all, this package ignores the fact that there are in fact, millions and millions of families where there is a parent who foregoes earnings in order to stay home and raise their children. And this package does nothing for them. In fact, it shifts the tax burden onto those stay-at-home parents.

JIM LEHRER: In what way does it do that?

WADE HORN: Well, it does that because what it does is it provides a subsidy for one particular kind of child care choice. What it says, if you choose to go into the labor force and to put your kid in child care, we’ll give you a subsidy. But the tax to pay for that is spread among all the families in America. And so, if you, in fact, keep your–if you stay at home to raise your child, yourself–

More : pbs.org

SINCE I STARTED at the Human Rights Campaign, I have had the opportunity to talk with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people nationwide about the path to equality. Foremost in the minds of many I have been honored to meet is this question: Why is marriage so important?

If you’re wondering this, you’re not alone. According to a Harris Interactive poll we recently commissioned, half of all GLBT adults think civil unions are the same as marriage. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.

Simply put, civil unions do not provide any of the more than 1,000 protections or securities afforded under federal law through a marriage license. They are recognized today in only one state — Vermont — and provide only the state benefits of marriage. If two men in a civil union travel across state lines, they carry with them none of the rights or protections that they have in Vermont.

These critical distinctions boil down to unfairness. With every paycheck, GLBT employees pay into the Social Security system, allowing spouses and children to access Social Security survivor benefits when a loved one passes away. These benefits can easily total more than $1,800 a month.

But couples in a civil union have no access to these benefits. Even if you have no desire to marry, you’re still paying into a system that discriminates against same-sex couples.

Couples in a civil union have no access to the federal laws like the Family & Medical Leave Act, to equal immigration rights, to continued health care coverage. Under federal law, same-sex couples are strangers.

SOME ALSO FEEL that civil unions are a necessary compromise, given the public’s struggle with marriage. But civil unions are not the solution. Even if civil unions provided all the same legal protections of marriage — which they don’t — they would still be a separate and unequal system.

Ten years ago, many said that domestic partnerships were unrealistic. Five years ago, civil unions were cutting-edge. We are at a moment in history where marriage is a reality. We must not cede that right just because people are uncomfortable.

Sure, there are many of us who may not be ready to settle down now. However, our poll reflects that 78 percent of gay people want to be able to marry. For the 22 percent who don’t, this should still be their personal choice to make, not the government’s.

Speaking of the government, President Bush is prepared to enshrine this unequal treatment in our nation’s Constitution by supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment drafted by Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave. This would not only forever ban any state from allowing same-sex couples to marry but could strike at the heart of a state’s ability to provide even limited legal protections or civil unions to same-sex couples.

The press has reported that Bush plans to announce this as a way to “to start the general election campaign on a fresh issue.” Make no mistake, President Bush is trying to win this election on our backs. He is playing politics with our lives and our families. It’s intolerable, it’s shameful and it’s an ugly way to run a campaign.

IT’S TIME FOR us to speak up. That same Harris poll showed that the majority of us don’t talk to family, friends and colleagues about the impact of discrimination on our lives. We are depriving the people who love us most of the opportunity to fight for us, to vote for us and to end the discrimination against us.

This silence is a barrier to our equality. I personally know the difficulties of coming out. But being out and being able to discuss these issues with your friends and family is so important.

Generally, our friends, families and colleagues don’t know that we can’t get married. They don’t think we can be fired in 36 states for being gay or in 46 states for being transgender. They don’t know that we could be blocked at the hospital room door. Or that we can’t get Social Security benefits. We need to tell them.

Poll after poll shows that people who know openly GLBT people are far more likely to support our equal rights — in the workplace, in marriage rights and in all the areas we lack critical protection.

Some may say that our greatest enemies are extremist groups like Focus on the Family, who are dangerous, loud and well-funded. But at this moment, our greatest challenges are silence, ignorance and apathy.

The majority of Americans care about equality. Most just don’t know we lack it. It’s time for us to do some talking.

More : houstonvoice.com

A new study by McGill University finds that the United States lags significantly behind other affluent countries in leave, sick days and other worker protections.

U.S. policies to ensure decent working conditions for families still lag behind those of other high-income countries, according to a new study by McGill Universitys Institute for Health and Social Policy.

In studying 173 countries, IHSP Director Dr. Jody Heymann found that 168 (97 percent) guarantee paid maternal leave, with 98 (57 percent) of them offering 14 or more weeks of paid leave. The United States, in contrast, does not guarantee paid leave for mothers, a status shared by only Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea.

Sixty-five (38 percent) of the affluent countries grant fathers either paid paternity leave or paid parental leave, 31 (18 percent) of them for 14 weeks or more. In this category, too, the United States does not guarantee paid leave.

Though breastfeeding has been demonstrated to reduce infant mortality, the United States does not guarantee the right to breastfeed at work. Yet, of the 173 countries studied, 107 (62 percent) do.

While 145 (84 percent) of the 173 countries provide paid sick days for short- or long-term illnesses, with 127 (73 percent) providing a week or more annually, the United States provides unpaid leave for only serious illnesses through the Family & Medical Leave Act, which does not cover all workers. The United States has no federal law providing for paid sick days.

The United States also lags in paid annual leave, which it does not offer. Seventy-nine percent, or 137 of the other countries do. In addition, the United States lacks a maximum work week length or a limit on mandatory overtime pay per week, though 134 (77 percent) countries have such laws.

Finally, the United States does not have any mandates that employers provide a day of rest each week so workers are not required to go for long periods without a day off, though 126 (73 percent) other countries do.

“More countries are providing the workplace protections that millions of Americans can only dream of,” said Dr. Heymann, the studys lead author, in a statement.

“The U.S. has been a proud leader in adopting laws that provide for equal opportunity in the workplace, but our work/family protections are among the worst. Its time for change.”

More : eweek.com

U.S Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s father angrily chastised gay activists seeking her support for a bill to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at a recent meeting, accusing gay Atlantans of contributing to her 2002 loss to political newcomer Denise Majette.

Held at McKinney’s district headquarters in Decatur, the March 18 meeting attracted 21 local activists who specifically sought McKinney’s support of HR 1059, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act. The measure would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Meeting attendees, many of whom were veterans, told their personal stories of discrimination while serving in the armed services to McKinney’s chief-of-staff, Warren Miller.

Letters supporting the bill were also given to Miller on behalf of Georgia Equality, American Veterans for Equal Rights, the African-American lesbian group Zami, the gay Stonewall Democrats and the Transgender American Veterans Association.

But after an hour of listening to gay, lesbian and transgender activists, McKinney’s father, Billy McKinney, jumped in. He said he was “taking over the meeting” and demanded to know why his daughter should support gay rights bills after gay voters “abandoned” her in 2002.

“Cynthia and I have been disappointed by people of all races, color, creeds. I blame you — you plural — for what happened,” Billy McKinney told the group.

“I have a remedy for it — I want your names saying you support her campaign right now, and I’ll make it public,” he added.

Billy McKinney is a former Georgia state representative who was once an outspoken gay rights opponent. He has also been criticized for hurting his daughter’s election chances by making allegedly anti-Semitic statements to the media.

“Why, after her 10 years of voting for equal rights, Georgia Equality and the Human Rights Campaign would go against her?” McKinney asked.

“Cynthia supported gays for 10 years, then the gay leadership abandoned her and voted for Majette — that question has to be answered,” he said.

During her 1992-2002 tenure in Congress, Rep. McKinney received a 100 rating on HRC’s scorecard on gay issues. The national gay political group endorsed McKinney over Majette in 2002 and has already endorsed her in the 2006 race, according to HRC spokesperson Jay Smith Brown.

Majette ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2004, leaving open the congressional seat representing Georgia’s Fourth District, which includes DeKalb County and a portion of south Gwinnett County. McKinney ran to regain her seat, but HRC endorsed Cathy Woolard, who is gay and resigned her post as Atlanta City Council president for the bid.

Georgia Equality does not make federal endorsements and did not back McKinney’s opponent in 2002, leaders said.

But some local gay leaders publicly supported Majette.

“It’s like we get what we deserve,” said state Rep. Karla Drenner (D-Avondale Estates), who is gay and supported McKinney. “The gay community made a huge amount of missteps, and now one of our biggest supporters has become one of our most neutral supporters.”

‘With me or against me’

McKinney’s support of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” may hinge on local gay endorsements, her father suggested.

“You’re either with me or against me,” Billy McKinney said.

“You are asking Cynthia to do a political thing,” he continued. “It was a political thing that put in ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ — Cynthia supported the gay community for 10 years, and then the gay leadership abandoned her and voted for Majette. Why? That question has to be answered.”

Many attending the meeting said they did support McKinney in 2002 and pointed out that Republican crossover during the Democratic primary also contributed to McKinney’s loss.

McKinney faces challenger Hank Johnson in the July 18 Democratic primary.

Johnson, an African-American attorney, is serving his second term on the DeKalb County Commission representing south DeKalb, an area long-considered McKinney’s stronghold.

A Johnson spokesperson declined to comment on his stance on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or any other political issues, saying he is waiting to officially qualify for the race April 24 before making public statements.

In 2002, Majette offered the first credible opponent to the controversial McKinney, who suffered a severe backlash from voters after her perceived public insinuation that President George W. Bush knew about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks before they occurred.

“We thought she was crazy,” said Carol Cornelius, 71, a gay Army veteran attending the meeting. “Now we know a lot of what she said was true.”

McKinney’s support of pro-gay measures during 1992-2002 included speaking in favor of rescinding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” She also voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition to gay marriages, and supported adding sexual orientation to a federal hate crimes bill.

But since returning to Congress, McKinney has not signed on as a co-sponsor of any of the pro-gay measures backed by HRC, including the hate crimes measure, a bill to allow “permanent partners” of gay citizens to immigrate to the U.S., efforts to include gay domestic partners in the federal Family & Medical Leave Act, and a proposal for domestic partner benefits for federal employees, among others.

Meeting attendee Danny Ingram, a member of the local chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights, served in the first Gulf War and was dismissed from the Army under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In an e-mail to gay rights activists summarizing the meeting, Ingram said it is clear that “what Cynthia McKinney wants from us in exchange for her support is endorsements.”

Miller, Rep. McKinney’s chief of staff, reiterated to meeting attendees that she was interested in meeting directly with local gay leaders. He also told Southern Voice that Billy McKinney’s comments were coming as a father and not necessarily as a campaign spokesperson. McKinney said at the meeting that he was his daughter’s campaign manager.

Chuck Bowen, executive director of Georgia Equality, said his organization has no further interest in meeting with Rep. McKinney.

“As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, it is inconceivable to me that Congresswoman McKinney would not put aside political motives and vote to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ rather than support the current policy of restricting the civil rights of LGBT service members,” he said.

More : southernvoice.com

Information Access Management (IAM), a software and solution provider delivering best-in-class talent acquisition, career management and business intelligence solutions launches The Legal Corner, which will supply valuable and timely legal insights to human resource departments and hiring managers through a partnership with well known law firms like Ogletree Deakins and Swift Currie McGhee & Hiers.

The Legal Corner provides up-to-date legal information, white papers, legal opinions and legal alerts regarding changes to laws, which directly impact companies and their employees. After reviewing the legal updates and human resources information, including details about workers’ compensation laws, wage payment under fair labor standards requirements, or the Family & Medical Leave Act, a user can then directly contact counsel for further information if desired.

“As a LIFE System™ user, we are excited about this additional service which can provide us up-to-date understandings of new laws and changes to existing laws which impact our everyday human resource practices. This portal to legal information will be invaluable to our company,” stated Paul Schaefer, PHR VP of HR for United Retail Service. “The Legal Corner is a tremendous asset to understand and learn about legal issues facing human resource and hiring managers,” added Schaefer.

“This partnership provides human resources professionals with access to lawyers who have many years of experience helping companies deal with employment-related legal challenges … all organizations can minimize their exposure to legal problems by properly handling issues dealing with employees,” stated Greg Hare with Ogletree Deakins.

“The Fair Labor Standards Act, Family & Medical Leave Act, and other employment laws are complex and confusing. It is critical for companies to stay in compliance, and our lawyers have a history of helping our clients save money by avoiding problems.” added Hare.

“We are providing HR professionals with a library of legal knowledge,” said Jo Munger attorney for Swift Currie McGhee & Hiers.

Munger added, “Understanding the workers compensation law can protect companies from unnecessary lawsuits.”

“This partnership is another step in our mission to provide corporations with the most robust talent management tool on the market,” stated Chief Executive Officer of IAM, Mark Emery. “The Legal Corner provides human resource and hiring managers information to better understand laws and compliance issues potentially saving companies millions.”

Information Access Management, Inc. (IAM) provides Web-based human resource management systems and business intelligence solutions for forward-thinking companies that view human capital as their most valuable asset. IAM helps companies of all sizes leverage innovative technology to ensure that their current and future employees have the skills that are critical to the company’s success and survival.

Additional information is available at www.iamresources.com

Ogletree Deakins is the third largest labor and employment law firm in the United States, with nearly 30 locations across the country. Mr. Hare is officed in Atlanta, which is the firm’s headquarters. The firms’ more than 350 attorneys represent a diverse range of clients, including more than half of the Fortune 50 corporations in the U.S.A

Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP has more than 50 years experience representing clients in Georgia and throughout the country. With more than 85 attorneys, Swift Currie possesses the resources and abilities to tackle the most complex legal problems.

More : techlinks.net

Gay mayoral candidate loses race in Dallas

Friday, June 22, 2007

DALLAS — Voters in Dallas have selected a wealthy businessman over an openly gay city council member to be their next mayor. Tom Leppert won in a runoff election last week by a large margin. He received about 58 percent of the vote in the final but still unofficial results. Leppert defeated Ed Oakley by more than 13,000 votes. The 53-year-old Leppert says he understands the trust and confidence voters placed in him. Leppert, the former CEO of construction giant Turner Corporation, had never run for elected office before. The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which backed Oakley, praised his efforts even though he lost. “That an openly gay man was a serious contender to become mayor of one of the largest cities in America is a testament to the fair-mindedness of this country, and a wake-up call for the political establishment,” said Chuck Wolfe, president of the Victory Fund.

Maloney bill would add gays to Family & Medical Leave Act

WASHINGTON — Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) this week introduced the Family & Medical Leave Inclusion Act. The legislation would add couples in domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriages to the 1993 Family & Medical Leave Act. “The Family & Medical Leave Act is an extraordinarily successful measure that allows families to provide much-needed care to loved ones. Current law unfairly penalizes same-sex couples who also seek to care for family members,” Maloney said in a statement. She authored and introduced New York City’s first-ever domestic partnership legislation as a member of the City Council in 1986. Maloney introduced the measure with bipartisan backing, including original co-sponsors Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.). Enacted in 1993, the historic Family & Medical Leave Act protects workers from employer sanctions if they need time off from work to care for a sick spouse, parent or child. Maloney’s amendment would expand the protections in the original law to domestic partners and others, including grandparents, siblings and in-laws.

Hopkins official recommends testing those at high risk for AIDS

BALTIMORE (AP) — Testing of high-risk people is the best way to find those who don’t know they are infected with the AIDS virus, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins said in an article published last week. Dr. David Holtgrave also says federal guidelines that call for routine testing of all Americans ages 13-64 for the AIDS virus might not be as effective. Under the government’s new policy, Holtgrave estimated that $864 million would be spent in one year to diagnose nearly 57,000 new infections under the government’s new policy, assuming that 1 percent of those tested are infected. But 188,170 new infections could be identified for the same amount of money by focusing on drug treatment facilities, prisons and community health centers in high-risk neighborhoods. Those populations, Holtgrave wrote, have a higher risk of HIV than the population as a whole and less access to regular health care.

Trans non-discrimination law takes effect in New Jersey

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey has joined eight other states in making it illegal for employers and landlords to discriminate against transgender people. The law, which sailed through the Legislature in December, has received little attention in a state that’s gaining a reputation for being welcoming to lesbian, gay and transgender people. Earlier this year, New Jersey began allowing same-sex couples to unite in civil unions. The law makes it illegal for a landlord to evict a tenant because of his or her gender status and companies cannot refuse to hire people because they are transsexual, cross-dressers, asexual, of ambiguous gender or simply not traditionally feminine or masculine. The law also bans discrimination in credit, business contracts and public accommodations such as stores or restaurants.

Episcopal council rejects key demand from overseas Anglicans

NEW YORK (AP) — A key Episcopal panel defied conservatives last week, saying that Episcopal leaders should not cede authority to overseas Anglicans who want the church to halt its march toward full acceptance of gays. The Episcopal Executive Council said that Anglican leaders, called primates, cannot make decisions for the American denomination, which is the Anglican body in the United States. In February, Anglican leaders demanded that Episcopalians allow a panel — that would include Anglican conservatives from other countries — to oversee conservative Episcopal parishes in the U.S. Episcopalians also were given until Sept. 30 to unequivocally pledge not to consecrate another openly gay bishop or authorize official prayers for same-sex couples.

More : washblade.com

From same-sex marriage to universal healthcare coverage, Massachusetts has rarely shied away from blazing a trail of progressive reform. Now the state is considering another landmark proposal that would give workers here the nation’s most generous paid leave policy.

The bill, which would pay workers their full salary (up to $750 a week) for up to 12 weeks to care for newborns or ill family members, comes just weeks after Republican Gov. Mitt Romney signed legislation that extends health insurance to nearly every state resident.But the proposal is no liberal anomaly: Twenty-six other states considered some form of paid leave in their 2005 legislative sessions. California’s 2004 program is currently the nation’s most comprehensive.

Experts say the issue is gaining traction because it attempts to ease the difficulty many Americans face trying to balance work and family. A Harvard University report published in 2004 showed that of 168 countries studied, the United States is one of just five that don’t offer some form of paid leave to women in connection with childbirth.

Observers say the bill in Massachusetts could unite conservatives and liberals around the issue of family values.

“Both liberals and conservatives recognize the reality of the situation,” says Gary Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. “But they have to make it seem like it is reflecting a new reality, without making it seem like they’ve become France.”

Some 440,000 workers in the state currently take leave each year - about half for their own health reasons - at a cost of $370 million a year to employers, according to a study to be published later this month by Randy Albelda, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Boston. While the number of leaves would go up to 470,000 per year if the bill becomes law, her research shows, employers will save some $100 million - when factoring in less turnover and fewer paid sick days. “What is important about this is that it spreads the cost,” Professor Albelda says. Most workers, she adds, will need leave at some point in their careers.

Take Paul Soderstrom. When the baker was hit by a car on his bike last December, he wondered how his injuries would affect his job at a bakery in Cambridge, Mass. Although he needed more than two months to recover, his company kept him on the payroll - with full health benefits. “I wasn’t hurt on the job,” he says. “[My boss] could have just let me go.”

More : csmonitor.com

We welcome today’s oversight hearing, because any fair and honest assessment of the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) will demonstrate that this law is a resounding success.

The evidence is overwhelming and indisputable: the Family & Medical Leave Act is working for America. It is working for families and it is working for businesses. Research consistently finds that complying with the FMLA costs little or nothing for the large majority of employers. In fact, nearly half (42%) of employers with 100 or more employees report that providing leave actually saves them money through higher productivity, lower turnover, and reduced absenteeism.

Now is the time to look to the future, rather than re-hashing the past. It is time to put our family values into practice by making family and medical leave more available and affordable. More than 20 million Americans have benefited from the FMLA so far, but too many hard-working people are still not covered by the law or simply cannot afford to take the unpaid leave the law provides.

That is why – with support from Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Leahy, Murray and others – we are working to expand the FMLA so that more Americans are able to take time off when their families need them most. That means covering more working families and more family needs, and making sure that people who are legally eligible for leave can also afford to use it. The National Partnership for Women & Families is creating a new national movement – a powerful network of lawmakers, researchers, activists, business leaders and others – that is exploring ways to provide income support to Americans who take unpaid leave to care for a new baby or cope with a medical crisis.

The FMLA is the law of the land, and our country is better off because of it. After six years of proven success, it is time to build on the FMLA’s sound foundation for today’s families and tomorrow’s.

Source : commondreams.org

In his newly published book, The Future of Success (Knopf, January, 2001), political economist and former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich describes a global economy running at hyperspeed. This New Economy, he writes, works to the advantage of consumers but to the detriment of those very same people as employees. Reich frames the problem in terms of overwork and job insecurity, and analyzes what’s driving it. He also offers some solutions, among them a simple recognition by individuals that the very changes in the economy that allow them to buy better goods faster and cheaper also exact a toll on their personal lives and careers.

It’s perhaps not surprising, then, that when he’s asked to name his proudest achievements as former President Clinton’s top labor official for four years, Reich mentions first a law that was intended to help restore balance to workers’ lives, the 1993 Family & Medical Leave Act. “It’s certainly not the full answer but was a beginning,” he says of FMLA, which mandates unpaid time off for many employees of large companies facing family emergencies, such as the birth of a new child.

Reich, whose writings have been widely published in newspapers and magazines, is the author of eight books. After leaving the Cabinet in 1997, he returned to academic life – he had been a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government – and today teaches economic and social policy at Brandeis University. Recently, he talked to BusinessWeek Online writer Pamela Mendels about what the New Economy means for its worker bees. Here are edited excerpts of their conversation:

Q: You write that the rewards of the New Economy are coming at a steep price. What is the cost?
A: The rewards come to us as consumers who have far greater choice of products and services than ever before, and can switch far more easily to a better deal when it comes along. That means that the economy overall is more efficient and more innovative, that consumers have more power than ever before. All that is very good and enables us as consumers to have a higher material standard of living.

But the same technologies that allow far wider choice and easier switching by consumers also are wreaking havoc with our personal lives, because as workers and producers, we have to hustle harder than ever to attract and keep every consumer, customer, and client. Companies must be far more flexible than ever before, which means that they can’t afford the high fixed costs of steady payrolls. So fewer and fewer of us know with any certainty what we’ll earn next year or next month. This causes us to want to make hay while the sun shines, to work harder when the work is available, because we don’t know that we will be in demand in the future.

The New Economy is also a two-track economy, either fast-track or slow-track. In order to attract or keep customers and clients, and in order to stay abreast of new technologies, really in order to stay in the loop, we have to work very hard. We can’t afford to take a lot of vacations or take time off. If we do work part-time, we are on the slow track, and the slow track means that we are vulnerable, highly vulnerable to being either laid off or marginalized.

The New Economy is [also] generating widening inequality, because if you are well educated, well connected, and innovative, your talents are in greater demand than ever before. On the other hand, if you are a routine worker, doing something workers elsewhere around the world could do just as well and cheaper, then you are losing ground. What this means, in turn, is that low-wage workers have to work harder in order to make ends meet, and high-wage workers face huge “opportunity costs” of not working hard. Every decision they make to go slower entails a much larger potential loss of income.

Q: You write about what is required of employees in the economy. Can you explain your terms “shrink” and “geek"?
A: The innovative workers who are commanding the highest compensation in the New Economy are creative workers, able to see new possibilities in technologies, new artistic possibilities, new content. I call these people geeks. The New Economy also requires a second type of personality, whom I call the shrink, as in a therapist. Shrinks are extremely good at intuiting what people might want or need. Their talents lie in discerning what it is that customers might want, even before customers know that they have a want or a need.

Q: You contrast the organization man of the 1950s with the self-promoter of today. What are the differences between the two?
A: The organization man of the ’50s was perfectly adapted to the large-scale bureaucracy of that era, which created huge numbers of identical goods or services and was premised on economies of scale. These people had to fit in. They had to be accepted. They had to conform if they were going to take their place in the industrial order. Conformity and acceptance were the key.

The New Economy is not bureaucratic. It’s more horizontal than vertical. It’s composed of linkages of contractors, subcontractors, and talented individuals who come together on projects and then recombine in a different formation for different purposes. You are no longer promoted up a hierarchy in a particular organization.

Today, the organizations themselves are becoming amorphous and undefined. The way you gain a promotion today is to promote yourself. We are becoming an economy of free agents. Even full-time employees are paid depending upon their performance, their billable hours or commissions or performance bonuses. Or if they’re blue-collar employees, their income depends upon overtime. In this new world, the self-promoter wins, not the organization man. Today’s rewards are going to people who make sure they stand out.

In the Old Economy the question was, “Do you fit in?” In the emerging economy, the question is, “Are you in demand? Have you marketed yourself adequately?”

Q: What do you see as some of the consequences?
A: Today there’s a brittle difference between friendship and a commercial relationship. People get together and make connections for all sorts of reasons and often there are ulterior motives that have a commercial nature. You get a call from an acquaintance or a friend for lunch or for breakfast, and rarely is it simply to catch up with one another’s private lives. Often it’s in order to make a deal. There’s a new sense of relationship in which personal and commercial are intertwined that seriously threatens the quality of friendships and even the quality of one’s own sense of self.

Q: Your solution is overhauling social and employment regulations?
A: Not really. The solution begins with the individual. People have to take stock of how they are living and make some conscious choices.

The second domain of change must be employers. Employers talk a good game about having so-called family-friendly policies at work – job sharing, flextime, and so forth. But there is a yawning gap between rhetoric and reality.

If companies were to take a longer-term view of their competitive position, they’d understand that they are paying dearly for turnover, burnout, and loss of, often, very talented people, because they are not understanding what those people need to live whole lives.

More : businessweek.com

In 1993, Congress passed the Family & Medical Leave Act, which gave employees the right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or for a sick family member. Now, family activists in more than two dozen states are pushing for the next step: ensuring that workers can afford to take time off by subsidizing their leaves.

On Aug. 30, the California Legislature passed a paid-family-leave law that could become the country’s first. Governor Gray Davis has until the end of September to sign or veto it, or let the bill become law without his signature. Although many companies oppose the notion as too burdensome, advocates assume it will become law, given that national polls show 82% of women and 75% of men favor the idea.

Either way, the attention the issue is getting in California is likely to focus national attention on paid leave. The movement has taken off since a 2000 Labor Dept. survey found that 78% of those who say they want to use the federal leave law can’t afford to do so. Already, 28 states have some kind of paid-leave law pending. “That was the catalyst for a lot of us to act–when we realized that millions of people can’t use the federal law,” says Art Pulaski, head of the AFL-CIO’s California unit, which has pushed the bill in that state.

Popular though the idea may be, the question, of course, is who will pay for the new benefit. The California bill would expand an existing program called State Disability Insurance. Employees could tap the SDI system for about half their pay, up to a maximum of $380 a week, for six weeks, to care for a new baby or a sick relative. The funds would come from a 50 cents-a-week hike in the current SDI employee tax. Not everyone is thrilled with the plan. At a news conference earlier this month, California Manufacturers & Technology Assn. President Jack Stewart said: “California would be the first state to pay people to take leave time off. It sets up a new tax at the wrong time.”

In an effort to get business on board, the bill’s sponsors made some concessions. They agreed to halve the duration of leave time to be subsidized, which originally matched the federal law’s 12 weeks. They also accepted that employees should pay the entire 50 cents instead of splitting it 50-50 with employers.

Even so, some business groups remain opposed to the legislation. Both the California Chamber of Commerce and the Manufacturers & Technology Assn. have lobbied hard against it, calling it a “job killer” that would cost employers $2 billion a year. Some companies believe the program would be difficult to administer and would encourage more workers to take leaves. It would also create inequities, since all would pay for benefits only some use. “We’re opposed to this bill,” says Intel Corp. spokesman Robert I. Manetta. “Our understanding is that it will create an extremely expensive and easily abused leave system.”

Small employers are even more opposed, because they say the bill would require companies with fewer than 50 employees to give workers their jobs back if they take a leave–which they need not do under the federal law.

But the bill’s patrons say business’ fears are overblown. They argue that the costs of fill-in workers would be offset by a decline in turnover and a rise in retention. The reason: Fewer workers would quit when a new child or medical emergency comes along. Proponents cite a recent study by University of Chicago economist Arindrajit Dube, which found that such factors would save companies in the state a total of $89 million a year. State taxpayers would save $25 million a year, because fewer low-wage workers would quit to take a leave and wind up using welfare or food stamps.

Advocates are now gearing up to push for paid leave in the other states. One early target: Massachusetts, which passed a bill in 2000 that GOP Governor A. Paul Cellucci didn’t sign. Whatever the outcome in the Golden State, the issue is now on the national agenda.

More : businessweek.com

Kathy Flora told her boss and co-workers immediately when she found out she had breast cancer in 2003. Judi Swedek hid the news when diagnosed with the same disease several years ago. She scheduled radiation treatments at the end of her work day and declined chemotherapy, worried that symptoms such as hair loss would draw attention to her illness. “At the time I was more afraid of losing my job [at a New York investment bank] than I was of the cancer,” says Swedek, now a business consultant in Colorado. If they had it to do over, each would handle the disclosure of her illness differently. Flora, who worked for an outplacement firm from her Bedford, N.H., home would be more deliberate about whom she told and when, while Swedek, who found the fear of discovery only magnified her stress, wishes she had been less secretive. As new treatments for cancer, AIDS, and other illnesses allow people to continue working, more are facing such issues. Recent court rulings have limited who can qualify under a 1990 law requiring employers to accommodate disabled workers. At the same time, the courts have made it easier to win coverage under a law providing extended unpaid leave.

REGULATORY ISSUES
More than 130 million Americans – almost half the population – live with some chronic condition. These can range from common ailments like arthritis and high blood pressure to cancer and psychological disorders, according to a 2004 study at Johns Hopkins University. While many have no impact on an employee’s ability to do the job, serious ones raise questions for sick employees and their managers. When and how should an employee tell about an illness? Should co-workers know? How can one decide how much leeway to ask for, given office politics and the shifting legal terrain?

Two federal laws come into play when a worker is disabled or seriously ill. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers with 15 or more employees to make a “reasonable accommodation” for a disabled worker as long as it does not present an “undue hardship” to the company and the employee can perform the job’s essential functions. The Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), applies to companies with 50 or more workers. It provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave that can be taken all at once or over time for an employee with a serious illness or who is caring for a sick spouse, child, or parent. The employee is guaranteed his or her old job or an equivalent one upon return and company-subsidized health insurance during the time away. States and cities may have their own laws.

While sick employees need to understand their rights, litigation should be a last resort, says David Landay, an attorney who represents the chronically ill. Who needs a lawsuit while struggling through an illness? Not to mention the cost, which L. Susan Slavin, a Jericho (N.Y.) litigator, says can easily run $50,000, even if the case is settled.

When deciding how to handle news of an illness, Landay advises talking to a company veteran who can say how other sick employees have been treated. Some companies – fearful a chronic illness will jack up their insurance rates or that the work won’t get done – push sick workers out or into a lesser job, says Slavin. Large companies are better with chronic illness than small ones, she says. It’s easier for them to cover an employee’s absences, and the insurance risk is spread among more staffers. Plus they have human-resource workers and in-house lawyers who know the company’s obligations under the law.

Some practical reasons argue for disclosing an illness. Hiding it can be emotionally draining and interfere with treatment, as Swedek discovered. And if you haven’t told your boss, you’re not protected from discrimination under the ADA. If you’ll need an accommodation under the ADA (time off for treatment, say, or to work at home), your company will have to know. Ditto if you’ll want to take a leave under the FMLA. Letting co-workers know may mean the difference between their support or resentment as they take on some of your duties.

When you tell, do it in a way that presents solutions, not problems, advises Page Tolbert, a social worker at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan. Wait until you know what kind of treatments and time away will be required (something Flora wishes she had done before alarming her supervisor). Then, you can sit down with suggestions for covering your absences. “Bosses feel much calmer if you go in with a plan rather than if you march in and say: ‘I’m going to disrupt the office,"‘ says Tolbert.

Review your company health, life, and disability coverage and then find out if you can upgrade during the company’s annual sign-up period without taking a physical, Landay advises. If you need to look for another job, know that group plans, by law, generally must cover pre-existing conditions as long as you don’t allow your insurance to lapse more than 63 days, and you were covered for 12 months under your former plan, he says. Landay suggests you don’t tell a prospective employer about your condition – at least not till you get a job offer.

CONSIDER YOUR BOSS
Remember your illness likely presents difficulties for your boss as well. Frank Morris, a labor and employment lawyer in Washington tells of one company where three of four tech help desk employees went out under the FMLA at the same time. The company had to hire an outside firm to pick up the slack.

Still, many businesses want to accommodate sick employees, considering it a morale booster and a better alternative than finding and training a replacement. While the law doesn’t require FMLA leave to be with pay, New York Life, an insurance company based in Manhattan, continues to pay those on medical leave, with duration depending on length of service.

Both Swedek and Flora left their jobs within months of their diagnosis. In the end, Swedek decided she wanted a less pressured environment and moved to Colorado. Flora’s position was cut during a restructuring. Both women successfully completed their cancer treatment.

Hanging on to a job can mean medical insurance, pay, and stability. But, says Flora, while your co-workers care about you, they aren’t family. At some point, what they care about most is getting the job done. That’s why it’s important to manage your illness in the most professional way possible.

More : businessweek.com

Last year the Bush Administration kicked off a small war when it rewrote national overtime regulations. Now women and labor groups are gearing up for a new showdown as the Labor Dept. prepares rule changes for another cherished plank of workplace law, the 1993 Family & Medical Leave Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court gave the Administration its opening in 2002, when it ruled that employers must give workers more explanation about how their leave policies mesh with the FMLA. The White House and employers in turn viewed the edict as an opportunity to reopen the books and try to make the law less burdensome. Companies are targeting two key changes: narrowing the definition of a serious medical condition that qualifies for unpaid leave and upping the minimum leave employees can take, now as little as an hour or even less. Employers say such measures would help curb what they claim is abuse by employees who use the law to miss work when they aren’t really sick. The law “has worked fairly well, but we’re concerned with employees who use it as an excuse for, say, chronic tardiness,” says Michael J. Eastman, director of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Outraged advocacy groups insist that such sweeping changes would all but gut the FMLA. Their biggest fear: a new definition of a serious medical condition, which could slash usage of the law in half, they assert. “We haven’t seen evidence of widespread abuse; employers just want to dilute a law used by millions of Americans,” charges Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families, a Washington (D.C.) group.

WHO’S CHEATING?
What’s surprising about Corporate America’s campaign is that there has been relatively little open complaint about the FMLA in recent years. The law allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid annual leave for the birth or adoption of a child and for the serious health condition of the employee or a parent or child. Although the FMLA was widely perceived as a maternity leave law, more than 80% of the time it’s used by workers recovering from an illness or caring for a sick family member, surveys show. And 42% of users are men. Because companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt, the law covers only 60% of the workforce. It’s underused even by that group: One Labor Dept. survey found that 78% of those who say they need leave don’t take it because they can’t afford to lose the pay.

Even so, employers have had to make some accommodations. More than 14% of eligible workers use the FMLA every year, according to a recent survey of employers by the Employment Policy Foundation (EPF), a Washington pro-business group that supports FMLA changes. It also found a hike in the frequency of use: 35% of leave-takers were off more than once in 2004, the survey found, vs. 25% in 2000. And 10% took 15 or more leaves last year, the study shows. “People are using the law more, and we think it’s not being used for what it was intended,” asserts EPF President Janemarie Mulvey.

The survey doesn’t show employee cheating, however, not even by frequent leave takers, concedes Mulvey. It also didn’t ask about leave taken in hour-or-less increments. Another recent survey, by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), did find that 51% of corporate HR professionals cited tracking small segments of FMLA leave as their top gripe about the law. But they weren’t asked how big a problem that posed for scheduling or productivity, or whether abuse was suspected. The EPF and other business groups cite anecdotal abuse complaints. Critics say that’s a thin reed on which to hang an FMLA overhaul.

Equally murky is the definition of a serious medical condition. The law doesn’t delineate what counts as serious. But a rule of thumb has evolved that an illness is serious if it lasts for at least three days, is certified by a doctor’s note, and requires some kind of follow-up after the initial medical visit. That allows room for abuse, companies say, especially for chronic conditions that can require episodic leave. “When there’s a pattern of leave that raises questions, like an illness that always flares up at 2 p.m. on Friday, that’s a problem,” says Sarah F. Pierce, the manager of employment legislation at SHRM.

For business, the preferred remedy is to tighten up the definition of serious. Employer groups haven’t publicly suggested any new language, but FMLA advocates suspect that employers would like to see a 10-day minimum leave, up from three days. That would be hugely controversial, since fully half of all FMLA use involves serious illnesses lasting fewer than 10 days, according to a 2000 Labor Dept. study.

The Labor Dept. missed a May target date to issue its proposed new rules and is still mulling what to do, says Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Victoria A. Lipnic. If the plans involve significantly unraveling the FMLA, the Administration may well have another stiff workplace battle on its hands.

More : businessweek.com

Who exactly is Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr., and what does he stand for? Some Washington Democrats see the answer in Roberts’ association with the conservative Federalist Society, which advocates states’ rights and limits on federal power. But the White House has gone out of its way to insist that Roberts, currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has never been a member of the society.

The spat may seem to be just another Beltway brouhaha, but don’t be fooled. It is at the center of a heated debate over Roberts and the sort of Supreme Court Justice he would make. In the last decade the federalist movement, made up of conservative lawyers and legal scholars who believe that Washington has run roughshod over the powers that the Constitution reserves for the states, has grown increasingly influential. The movement’s record before the Supreme Court is mixed, but the court has shifted more sharply toward reining in congressional power in recent years. Given Roberts’ limited record, everyone from corporate executives and environmentalists to abortion-rights activists wants to know whether he’ll push the cause of states’ powers further.

Business has a huge stake in that question. For decades, Congress has invoked its Constitutional authority “to regulate Commerce…among the several States” to intervene in everything from employment practices to protections for endangered species. As a rule, corporations abhor regulation. But when regulation is inevitable, they would rather have a single national standard than 50 diverse state rules. States’ rights are “a double-edged sword for business,” says Robert Gordon, senior vice-president of the liberal Center for American Progress. “Companies would like to be rid of a lot of federal regulation, but if Congress lost the power to regulate in a lot of these areas, you’d have a patchwork.”

HIGH STAKES
No one expects Roberts’ views on states’ rights vs. federal powers to derail his candidacy. Yet figuring out where he comes down will be a central focus of his confirmation hearings. His leanings will have big implications for a host of hot-button issues, from economic regulation to abortion to civil rights. And while the tussle over federal power encompasses several legal principles, much of the debate will come down to how Roberts might interpret the Constitution’s commerce clause. Says Douglas T. Kendall, executive director of the Community Rights Counsel, a Washington-based public-interest law firm: “The stakes in the direction of the commerce clause could not be any higher.”

The last time the commerce clause took center stage was in the late 1930s: President Franklin D. Roosevelt was threatening to pack the Supreme Court to dilute the power of conservative justices who struck down New Deal legislation as an overreach of Congress’ authority. After FDR’s 1936 reelection the court finally saw things his way, upholding the National Labor Relations Act in 1937. Since then successive courts have allowed Congress to expand the commerce clause to promote Social Security, the minimum wage, the Civil Rights Act, and other programs. When the 1960s civil rights movement discredited “states’ rights” as a euphemism for segregation, federal power reigned supreme.

But 10 years ago, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist hit the brakes. In 1995, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law requiring states to maintain gun-free zones around schools, ruling that the statute had nothing to do with interstate commerce. In 1997 the court invalidated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was meant to protect religious worship from such “undue burdens” as restrictive zoning imposed by state and local governments.

The court delivered a double whammy in 2000 when it weakened the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and watered down the Violence Against Women Act. The following year the justices limited the scope of the Clean Water Act and gave a nod to state sovereignty with a decision that stripped state workers of their right to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

But the states’ rights backers aren’t winning them all – which makes Roberts’ role as a replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor all the more crucial. In recent years, O’Connor moderated her long-held support of states’ over federal power. In 2003 she joined a 6-3 majority that stunned court watchers by upholding congressional authority to pass the Family & Medical Leave Act. This past June advocates of a limited federal role were dealt another blow when the Supreme Court ruled that the Justice Dept.’s authority to police illegal drugs trumped a California law that allowed seriously ill patients to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

A BIG QUESTION MARK
Democrats already are grilling Roberts on his view of the commerce clause, and they have won some assurances. After a private July 26 meeting with the judge, Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) was cautiously optimistic. “I think a lot of people are going to be happy with his views on the commerce clause – at least people of my philosophy,” Schumer says.

Still, Roberts’ ultimate stance in the states-vs.-feds struggle looms as a big question mark. Before he became a judge in 2003, Roberts had argued both sides before the Supreme Court. As a lawyer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, he supported federal marine safety standards when a state court wanted to punish a boat maker for not installing propeller guards. But in 2002 he successfully defended California’s right to temporarily prevent building near Lake Tahoe to protect against overdevelopment. Local landowners had argued that the state was unconstitutionally depriving them of higher returns on their property.

As a judge, Roberts has faced the states’ rights question only once. In his now-famous opinion on the arroyo Southwestern toad in Rancho Viejo v. Norton, he was skeptical of how the Endangered Species Act could invoke interstate commerce to protect a toad that lives only in California. But while Roberts dissented from the majority, which decided in the toad’s favor, he didn’t join fellow judge David B. Sentelle, who slammed the majority for upholding regulation of “an activity that is neither interstate nor commerce.” Roberts “could have gone with Sentelle to indicate he was part of the brigade of fire-breathing conservatives, and he didn’t,” says Simon Lazarus, public policy counsel to the National Senior Citizens Law Center.

Conservatives hope Roberts will breathe more fire once he has donned the Supreme Court’s robes. In today’s expansive view of the commerce clause, “Congress has the power to regulate anything and everything,” says Roger Pilon, vice-president for legal affairs at the libertarian Cato Institute. “The result of that is you’ve got a leviathan instead of the limited government that James Madison envisioned.”

Liberals are just fine with that. And conservatives have been known to put pragmatism over their states’ rights principles, as when business pushes Uncle Sam to preempt state regulators or when congressional Republicans snatched the Terry Schiavo right-to-die case out of the Florida courts. So when Roberts faces senators in September, both sides of the political spectrum will be eager to try to pin the Supreme Court nominee down. Given the wide swath that federalism cuts through American life, his answers could reverberate for a generation and beyond.

More : businessweek.com

If your company employs fewer than 50 people, exempting it from the 1993 Family & Medical Leave Act, chances are you don’t grant the new parents in your employ the 12-week unpaid leave that the law requires. It’s not that you’re a Grinch: While “family-friendly” policies sound great, studies show fewer and fewer small companies can afford them.

You soon may have no choice but to let new parents go, however, if your state legislature adopts a new Labor Dept. rule that went into effect June 20. The rule gives states the option to take the payroll taxes you’re already sending to the unemployment insurance trust fund and use the money to cover paid leaves for workers with newborn or adopted children.

Whether you like the concept or hate it, you’re likely to worry about how your company will function when key staffers are absent. The details – the leave’s duration, pay, and eligibility criteria – would vary from state to state (see table, below).

“A mom needs to spend time with her child to bond properly,” says Patti Glick, registered nurse and founder of The Foot Nurse, a wellness services and products company in Cupertino, Calif., “but as a business owner, it would be a hardship.”

CYNICAL PANDERING? Now, 15 states with strong economies and unemployment-fund surpluses are seriously considering the measure. Some observers see Massachusetts passing it by late July.

Critics and advocates have come out swinging, with women’s and labor organizations rallying behind the program and the business lobby lambasting it as an illegal “raid” of state unemployment funds they say were set up 60 years ago exclusively to help sacked workers looking for a job.

“By opening it now for other purposes, workers won’t get it when we hit a recession – or there’ll be increased taxes on employers to replenish the fund,” says Randy Johnson, vice-president for labor and employee benefits with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The chamber accuses Clinton of “cynical” pandering to female swing voters in an election year, and hopes to kill the program with a lawsuit against the Labor Dept.

TODAY’S EMPLOYEE. But what’s really giving the program its impetus is something else entirely: the new character of today’s workforce, and recognition from states that something has to be done to bring these employees under the traditional safety net. Recently, states have begun quietly expanding unemployment-insurance eligibility, responding to the fact that fewer and fewer people have been qualifying. In the 1970 recession, 75% of unemployed workers collected unemployment benefits. Now, it’s just 35% on average (in Texas, it’s 22%).

Those who were brought under the net included part-timers, frequent job-changers, former welfare recipients, and parents with more than one job. That new parents would be next in line for some help from unemployment insurance isn’t surprising given who today’s employee is.

More often than not today, both parents of a two-parent family work, says the Labor Dept. The percentage of single mothers with children under a year old who work is surging and is now about 60%. Fully two-thirds of working mothers earned half or more of their family’s income as of the late 1990s, according to the Center for Policy Alternatives.

WELL-FUNDED. Studies show that “Baby Unemployment Compensation,” as the program is nicknamed, wouldn’t cost much, so it wouldn’t saddle small-business owners with a new tax burden. Most state unemployment trust funds are flush – they’ve doubled on average since the end of the last recession, from a total of $26 billion in 1992 to more than $50 billion in 1999, says Maurice Emsellem, director of public policy with the National Employment Law Project.

As of December, 1999, 33 states’ funds were “solvent,” he explains – defined as being able to pay out a full year of benefits during a severe recession without taking in any revenues. The states seriously considering the program are much better off. In Massachusetts, the program would cost between $32 million and $42 million a year, out of a trust fund of $1.9 billion.

It’s ironic that business groups say people taking leave would “raid” state trust funds. Companies themselves have effectively cost the funds $34 billion dollars through payroll tax cuts enacted by 25 states since 1994.

FLEXIBLE FIRMS. When it comes to entrepreneurs’ most immediate concern – temporary loss of a staffer – what data exist are encouraging. Given a maternity leave and time to establish breastfeeding, studies show women actually return to work sooner, stay with their employer longer, and are absent less often to care for a sick child. When they are, the absence is usually briefer.

And small companies have the advantage of flexibility, says Glick. “We’d work something out,” she says. “I’d probably hire a temp.”

More : businessweek.com

When Robert G. Teal co-founded Silicon Valley startup Quinta Corp. in 1996, he cringed at the time and expense it took to hire and retain employees. At his banker’s suggestion, he signed up TriNet Employer Group Inc. to assume most of the human-resources tasks of his fledgling disk-drive developer. TriNet helped hire Quinta’s workforce and recruit qualified engineers. And it set up a benefits program that took advantage of TriNet’s group discounts, allowing Quinta to match larger companies’ packages. Today, TriNet handles everything from payroll to benefits for 100-employee Quinta. As for Teal, he never had to learn many of the distracting details of being an employer. “We focused on product development and technology,” he says. “That has been one of the greatest benefits.”

Across the country, entrepreneurs and small-business owners are turning to professional employer organizations (PEOs), as companies such as San Leandro (Calif.)-based TriNet are called, to be their human-resources managers. Billing themselves as “co-employers” PEOs check references, set up 401(k) plans, and even do the dirty work of firing while generally exercising no more than a veto over key personnel decisions. More than 2.5 million workers are hired through such arrangements, up from 200,000 a decade ago, according to the National Association of Professional Employer Organizations. Most are full-time, permanent employees, not temps.

For a small business, the potential benefits are obvious. Imagine if someone else screened job candidates you interviewed, and sorted through health and retirement plans–and then ran them. What small-business owner would not gladly give up scrutinizing compliance with federal and state employment laws? Sometimes, PEOs even save a company money. A PEO typically charges 3% to 6% of net salary. But passing along the lower costs of group benefits or handling administrative chores efficiently can result in net savings.

Yet for all the benefits, small-business owners need to understand a PEO doesn’t necessarily protect them from legal liability on some employment issues. Most PEOs insist that for legal purposes they are the “ultimate employer” and have the final right to hire, fire, and discipline employees. At the same time, PEOs claim to be “co-employers” in other areas. So, while the PEO is generally responsible for paying wages and taxes and handling benefits, the business owner can still face liabilities involving on-site actions such as discrimination or safety violations.

MONIKER. What’s more, small companies that sign up with a PEO can find they are now subject to laws covering larger employers. Case in point: The federal Family & Medical Leave Act exempts companies with less than 50 employees. Since, technically, the PEO is the employer and over the threshold, some PEOs require that clients take back a worker after a leave. But some don’t. And if a worker is not retained, the owner could be sued along with the PEO as the joint employer. There’s no hard and fast way to deal with such issues, other than for the client and the PEO to agree up front about how to handle them–for example, by sharing the cost of benefits during the leave. “It’s important to know which responsibilities you are keeping,” says Gregory L. Hammond, an Akron (Ohio) attorney specializing in PEOs.

PEO is actually a new name for employee leasing, which started in the mid-’60s as a way for small-business owners to evade federal rules requiring equal pension treatment for employees. The workers, legally speaking, were leased from another firm. After Congress closed the loophole in the 1980s, the industry began marketing itself as outsourced human-resources departments.

PEOs struggled for respectability in the early 1990s. Some companies ran into trouble over insufficient insurance. Others went into bankruptcy after taking on too many clients with high benefit costs they couldn’t control. A few well-publicized failures stuck some small companies with unfunded workers’-compensation or health-benefit claims. Scam operators skipped town with clients’ payrolls.

Today, small companies that do their homework are taking less of a risk. Some 15 states regulate the industry, ranging from simple registration to rules requiring minimum net worth and background checks of firm principals. In January, 1996, the Institute for Accreditation of Professional Employer Organizations began issuing credentials for firms that pass a review of audited financial statements, liquidity ratios, and other standards. So far, 16 of the country’s 2,000-odd PEOs, representing 15% of the dollar payroll processed by PEOs, have passed muster. The group won’t say how many have applied.

A host of new corporate players have helped to make PEOs more reliable, too. Payroll processing firms such as Paychex Inc. and temporary-help agencies such as Kelly Services Inc. have gotten into the business. Insurance giant CNA and security-guard company Wackenhut Corp. this year acquired or started PEOs. And longtime industry operators such as Vincam Group in Coral Gables, Fla., have gone public, backed by major Wall Street firms.

Finding a PEO can be as simple as looking in the phone book under “employment service–employee leasing” (table). But choosing the right one is harder–and crucial. In addition to credentials and financial health, it’s important to understand the range of services a PEO offers and its compatibility with your company. Some specialize in small companies (up to 20 employees), some in midsize (up to 600), while others focus on particular industries.

As a rule, PEOs can benefit smaller companies the most. When a workforce reaches 100 or more, a business owner can justify a full-time administrator for payroll and benefits. But an employer needs 200 to 400 workers before the purchasing power for health care and other benefits starts to equal a PEO’s.

Vitty A. Marcinkevicius, owner of Royal Care Holdings Inc., in Saratoga, N.Y., is one happy PEO user. In 1989, his pharmaceutical-services firm hired a PEO now owned by NovacareEmployee Services, a PEO unit of Novacare Inc., in King of Prussia, Pa. But Marcinkevicius was more than a little apprehensive about letting an outsider control areas so critical to his company, even after his attorney and accountant researched the idea and approved the PEO. “This was a major change for us,” he says. “[It] was affecting every employee and their families, including management. A wrong guess could have caused a substantial blow to our staff and our business.”

SOLD! The next hurdle was selling the concept to his 60 employees. At first, there was some resistance, says Marcinkevicius. But the mood improved once the staff realized that onsite management wouldn’t change, and the PEO would introduce or improve health-care coverage, a 401(k) plan, insurance options, and access to a credit union.

Marcinkevicius’ initial concern that employees would be less loyal if paychecks came from someone else turned out to be unfounded. He says Royal Care retains the “right to hire and fire,” while Novacare gives Royal Care managers guidance in performing employee evaluations. And the PEO seamlessly handled an acquisition Royal Care made last May that brought 47 employees to a staff that now totals 270. Novacare even helped to meld the companies’ vacation policies. The few glitches, such as occasional errors on deductibles as health plans changed, were quickly corrected.

Still, using a PEO can require a lot of adjustments. As your co-employer, PEOs don’t just do benefits administration, either, warns attorney Hammond. “The number one impediment to a PEO not doing its job properly is the customer, because the customer wants the benefits but not the intrusions,” he says.

Since the PEO is assuming responsibility and liability, it may require you to buy new equipment, revise procedures, or improve safety. “We make a living out of being a good, cost-effective employer,” says Vincam CEO Carlos Saladrigas. “The key is not simply that you aggregate but that you manage better.” Vincam has a physician and 40 nurses on staff and fields inspectors to help clients meet safety standards.

More : businessweek.com

In 1993, Congress passed the Family & Medical Leave Act, which gave employees the right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or for a sick family member. Now, family activists in more than two dozen states are pushing for the next step: ensuring that workers can afford to take time off by subsidizing their leaves.

On Aug. 30, the California Legislature passed a paid-family-leave law that could become the country’s first. Governor Gray Davis has until the end of September to sign or veto it, or let the bill become law without his signature. Although many companies oppose the notion as too burdensome, advocates assume it will become law, given that national polls show 82% of women and 75% of men favor the idea.

WHO PAYS? Either way, the attention the issue is getting in California is likely to focus national attention on paid leave. The movement has taken off since a 2000 Labor Dept. survey found that 78% of those who say they want to use the federal leave law can’t afford to do so. Already, 28 states have some kind of paid-leave law pending. “That was the catalyst for a lot of us to act – when we realized that millions of people can’t use the federal law,” says Art Pulaski, head of the AFL-CIO’s California unit, which has pushed the bill in that state.

Popular though the idea may be, the question, of course, is who will pay for the new benefit. The California bill would expand an existing program called State Disability Insurance. Employees could tap the SDI system for about half their pay, up to a maximum of $380 a week, for six weeks, to care for a new baby or a sick relative.

The funds would come from a 50 cents-a-week hike in the current SDI employee tax. Not everyone is thrilled with the plan. At a news conference earlier this month, California Manufacturers & Technology Assn. President Jack Stewart said: “California would be the first state to pay people to take leave time off. It sets up a new tax at the wrong time.”

“EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.” In an effort to get business on board, the bill’s sponsors made some concessions. They agreed to halve the duration of leave time to be subsidized, which originally matched the federal law’s 12 weeks. They also accepted that employees should pay the entire 50 cents instead of splitting it 50-50 with employers.

Even so, some business groups remain opposed to the legislation. Both the California Chamber of Commerce and the Manufacturers & Technology Assn. have lobbied hard against it, calling it a “job killer” that would cost employers $2 billion a year. Some companies believe the program would be difficult to administer and would encourage more workers to take leaves. It would also create inequities, since all would pay for benefits only some use. “We’re opposed to this bill,” says Intel Corp. spokesman Robert I. Manetta. “Our understanding is that it will create an extremely expensive and easily abused leave system.”

Small employers are even more opposed, because they say the bill would require companies with fewer than 50 employees to give workers their jobs back if they take a leave – which they need not do under the federal law.

HIDDEN SAVINGS? The bill’s patrons say business’ fears are overblown. They argue that the costs of fill-in workers would be offset by a decline in turnover and a rise in retention. The reason: Fewer workers would quit when a new child or medical emergency comes along. Proponents cite a recent study by University of Chicago economist Arindrajit Dube, which found that such factors would save companies in the state a total of $89 million a year. State taxpayers would save $25 million a year, because fewer low-wage workers would quit to take a leave and wind up using welfare or food stamps.

Advocates are now gearing up to push for paid leave in the other states. One early target: Massachusetts, which passed a bill in 2000 that GOP Governor A. Paul Cellucci didn’t sign. Whatever the outcome in the Golden State, the issue is now on the national agenda.

Source : businessweek.com

In 1993, Congress passed the Family & Medical Leave Act, which gave employees the right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a newborn or for a sick family member. Now, family activists in more than two dozen states are pushing for the next step: ensuring that workers can afford to take time off by subsidizing their leaves.

On Aug. 30, the California Legislature passed a paid-family-leave law that could become the country’s first. Governor Gray Davis has until the end of September to sign or veto it, or let the bill become law without his signature. Although many companies oppose the notion as too burdensome, advocates assume it will become law, given that national polls show 82% of women and 75% of men favor the idea.

WHO PAYS? Either way, the attention the issue is getting in California is likely to focus national attention on paid leave. The movement has taken off since a 2000 Labor Dept. survey found that 78% of those who say they want to use the federal leave law can’t afford to do so. Already, 28 states have some kind of paid-leave law pending. “That was the catalyst for a lot of us to act – when we realized that millions of people can’t use the federal law,” says Art Pulaski, head of the AFL-CIO’s California unit, which has pushed the bill in that state.

Popular though the idea may be, the question, of course, is who will pay for the new benefit. The California bill would expand an existing program called State Disability Insurance. Employees could tap the SDI system for about half their pay, up to a maximum of $380 a week, for six weeks, to care for a new baby or a sick relative.

The funds would come from a 50 cents-a-week hike in the current SDI employee tax. Not everyone is thrilled with the plan. At a news conference earlier this month, California Manufacturers & Technology Assn. President Jack Stewart said: “California would be the first state to pay people to take leave time off. It sets up a new tax at the wrong time.”

“EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.” In an effort to get business on board, the bill’s sponsors made some concessions. They agreed to halve the duration of leave time to be subsidized, which originally matched the federal law’s 12 weeks. They also accepted that employees should pay the entire 50 cents instead of splitting it 50-50 with employers.

Even so, some business groups remain opposed to the legislation. Both the California Chamber of Commerce and the Manufacturers & Technology Assn. have lobbied hard against it, calling it a “job killer” that would cost employers $2 billion a year. Some companies believe the program would be difficult to administer and would encourage more workers to take leaves. It would also create inequities, since all would pay for benefits only some use. “We’re opposed to this bill,” says Intel Corp. spokesman Robert I. Manetta. “Our understanding is that it will create an extremely expensive and easily abused leave system.”

Small employers are even more opposed, because they say the bill would require companies with fewer than 50 employees to give workers their jobs back if they take a leave – which they need not do under the federal law.

HIDDEN SAVINGS? The bill’s patrons say business’ fears are overblown. They argue that the costs of fill-in workers would be offset by a decline in turnover and a rise in retention. The reason: Fewer workers would quit when a new child or medical emergency comes along. Proponents cite a recent study by University of Chicago economist Arindrajit Dube, which found that such factors would save companies in the state a total of $89 million a year. State taxpayers would save $25 million a year, because fewer low-wage workers would quit to take a leave and wind up using welfare or food stamps.

Advocates are now gearing up to push for paid leave in the other states. One early target: Massachusetts, which passed a bill in 2000 that GOP Governor A. Paul Cellucci didn’t sign. Whatever the outcome in the Golden State, the issue is now on the national agenda.

Source : businessweek.com

President Bush today announced the nomination of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas called Pryor’s nomination “extremely troubling” and said it was “an unfortunate continuation of this administration’s efforts to pack the appeals courts with divisive far-right nominees.”

Neas noted that Pryor is one of the nation’s most aggressive advocates for a states’ rights approach to the Constitution. As Attorney General and as a leader in the Federalist Society, Pryor has successfully urged the Supreme Court to roll back the clock on federal protections against age discrimination and discrimination against people with disabilities. In another case, he urged the Court to limit disparate impact analysis, a foundation of civil rights enforcement, in order to defend Alabama’s refusal to offer drivers license exams in any language other than English. Pryor has recently filed an amicus brief in a pending case before the Supreme Court involving the state of Nevada that would leave state employees with no real recourse for violations of the Family & Medical Leave Act.

In a March 2001 speech, Pryor praised the recent series of Supreme Court states’ rights rulings as “a breakthrough in the restoration of dual sovereignty and enumerated powers.” And he has called for the Court to expand its states’ rights rulings in other areas.

Pryor hopes that Bush administration Supreme Court appointments will further the states’ rights cause. “Most of the important federalism decisions of the last decade were reached by a 5 to 4 vote,” Pryor says. “A single appointment to the Court by the Bush administration could decide the fate of federalism. If all goes well, that future will be bright.”

Pryor is a fervent opponent of reproductive rights for women. “I will never forget Jan. 22, 1973, the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children,” he told a rally in 1997.

Pryor considers much of the Supreme Court case law preserving the separation of church and state to be “errors.” At a public rally on behalf of a judge who was sued for praying and displaying the 10 Commandments in court, Pryor announced, “God has chosen, through his son Jesus Christ, this time and this place for all Christians…to save our country and save our courts.” In 1997 Pryor stated, “The matters about life and death and freedom and religion are not being decided in our country anymore by the people and their elected representatives. They are being decided in court, and I think there is something wrong with that.”

Neas said the Bush administration’s efforts to pack the federal appeals courts with far-right ideologues would have a devastating impact on civil rights, reproductive rights, religious liberty, environmental protection, consumer and worker rights, and much more. He called on Senators to fulfill their constitutional obligation to review judicial nominees carefully and to reject those who are not committed to preserving Americans’ rights, liberties, and legal protections.

More : commondreams.org

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 (AScribe Newswire) – “The Family & Medical Leave Act was a godsend,” according to one Atlanta-based mother who used the law to care for her teenage daughter, who was fighting a losing battle against cancer. Since its enactment 12 years ago on Aug. 5, 1993, more than 50 million working Americans have used the…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Atlantis Financial Resource L.L.C., Old Greenwich. Filed by Water Pollution Control Authority of the City of Bridgeport, Bridgeport. Plaintiff’s attorney: Russell D. Liskov, Bridgeport. Action: plaintiff claims that defendant has failed to pay bills due; seeks $1,014, plus interest and cost for monies allegedly owed. Filed Dec. 15. Case no. CV044004505.

Central Connecticut Coast YMCA, Bridgeport. Filed by Water Pollution Control Authority of the City of Bridgeport, Bridgeport. Plaintiff’s attorney: Russell D. Liskov, Bridgeport. Action: plaintiff claims that defendant has failed to pay bills due; seeks $964, plus interest and cost for monies allegedly owed. Filed Dec. 15. Case no. CV044004505.

East Coast Classics Inc., Stratford. Filed by Trader Publishing Co., Norfolk, Va. Plaintiff’s attorney: Howard E. Kantrovitz, New Haven. Action: plaintiff claims it published defendant’s advertising in its Auto Trader Magazine at the request of defendant; plaintiff claims there remains a balance due; seeks $4,354, plus interest and cost for balance allegedly outstanding. Filed Dec. 7. Case no. CV044004267.

Jay Siegel Associates Inc., Easton. Filed by Fleet National Bank, Providence R.I. Plaintiff’s attorney: Jane W. Arnone, Stamford. Action: plaintiff claims defendant took out a loan from it in the…

More : accessmylibrary.com

When Robert G. Teal co-founded Silicon Valley startup Quinta Corp. in 1996, he cringed at the time and expense it took to hire and retain employees. At his banker’s suggestion, he signed up TriNet Employer Group Inc. to assume most of the human-resources tasks of his fledgling disk-drive developer. TriNet helped hire Quinta’s workforce and recruit qualified engineers. And it set up a benefits program that took advantage of TriNet’s group discounts, allowing Quinta to match larger companies’ packages. Today, TriNet handles everything from payroll to benefits for 100-employee Quinta. As for Teal, he never had to learn many of the distracting details of being an employer. ‘’We focused on product development and technology,'’ he says. ‘’That has been one of the greatest benefits.'’

Across the country, entrepreneurs and small-business owners are turning to professional employer organizations (PEOs), as companies such as San Leandro (Calif.)-based TriNet are called, to be their human-resources managers. Billing themselves as ‘’co-employers'’ PEOs check references, set up 401(k) plans, and even do the dirty work of firing while generally exercising no more than a veto over key personnel decisions. More than 2.5 million workers are hired through such arrangements, up from 200,000 a decade ago, according to the National Association of Professional Employer Organizations. Most are full-time, permanent employees, not temps.

For a small business, the potential benefits are obvious. Imagine if someone else screened job candidates you interviewed, and sorted through health and retirement plans–and then ran them. What small-business owner would not gladly give up scrutinizing compliance with federal and state employment laws? Sometimes, PEOs even save a company money. A PEO typically charges 3% to 6% of net salary. But passing along the lower costs of group benefits or handling administrative chores efficiently can result in net savings.

Yet for all the benefits, small-business owners need to understand a PEO doesn’t necessarily protect them from legal liability on some employment issues. Most PEOs insist that for legal purposes they are the ‘’ultimate employer'’ and have the final right to hire, fire, and discipline employees. At the same time, PEOs claim to be ‘’co-employers'’ in other areas. So, while the PEO is generally responsible for paying wages and taxes and handling benefits, the business owner can still face liabilities involving on-site actions such as discrimination or safety violations.

MONIKER. What’s more, small companies that sign up with a PEO can find they are now subject to laws covering larger employers. Case in point: The federal Family & Medical Leave Act exempts companies with less than 50 employees. Since, technically, the PEO is the employer and over the threshold, some PEOs require that clients take back a worker after a leave. But some don’t. And if a worker is not retained, the owner could be sued along with the PEO as the joint employer. There’s no hard and fast way to deal with such issues, other than for the client and the PEO to agree up front about how to handle them–for example, by sharing the cost of benefits during the leave. ‘’It’s important to know which responsibilities you are keeping,'’ says Gregory L. Hammond, an Akron (Ohio) attorney specializing in PEOs.

PEO is actually a new name for employee leasing, which started in the mid-’60s as a way for small-business owners to evade federal rules requiring equal pension treatment for employees. The workers, legally speaking, were leased from another firm. After Congress closed the loophole in the 1980s, the industry began marketing itself as outsourced human-resources departments.

PEOs struggled for respectability in the early 1990s. Some companies ran into trouble over insufficient insurance. Others went into bankruptcy after taking on too many clients with high benefit costs they couldn’t control. A few well-publicized failures stuck some small companies with unfunded workers’-compensation or health-benefit claims. Scam operators skipped town with clients’ payrolls.

Today, small companies that do their homework are taking less of a risk. Some 15 states regulate the industry, ranging from simple registration to rules requiring minimum net worth and background checks of firm principals. In January, 1996, the Institute for Accreditation of Professional Employer Organizations began issuing credentials for firms that pass a review of audited financial statements, liquidity ratios, and other standards. So far, 16 of the country’s 2,000-odd PEOs, representing 15% of the dollar payroll processed by PEOs, have passed muster. The group won’t say how many have applied.

A host of new corporate players have helped to make PEOs more reliable, too. Payroll processing firms such as Paychex Inc. and temporary-help agencies such as Kelly Services Inc. have gotten into the business. Insurance giant CNA and security-guard company Wackenhut Corp. this year acquired or started PEOs. And longtime industry operators such as Vincam Group in Coral Gables, Fla., have gone public, backed by major Wall Street firms.

More : businessweek.com

Tucked away in the latest “Economic Report of the President” is a slew of statistics describing the contribution women have made to the supercharged U.S. economy. The annual report, released in mid-February by President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, says that “the progress made by women in the paid labor market has been one of the most important economic changes of the 20th century.” A political statement? Not really, when you consider the evidence presented in the 432-page report. “Clearly, this past century has brought a number of amazing improvements in the quality of life and standard of living for Americans,” says Martin N. Baily, the council’s chairman.

From 1950 to 1999, the percentage of women among U.S. architects nearly quadrupled, to 16%; the percentage of women economists nearly tripled, to 51% of the profession; the share of women pharmacists increased sixfold, to 49%; and the number of women lawyers went up sevenfold, to 29%. Women journalists now total 50% of the workforce, up from 38% in 1950.

According to the White House report, in 1999 about 60% of females 16 years of age and older were in the workforce. That’s up from about 20% at the turn of the 20th century. During the same time period, the labor-market participation rate for women 25 to 44 years of age – the average child-bearing years – rose from less than 20% to more than 75%.

A PRICE FOR PROGRESS. As more women have entered the workforce, the ratio between what the average woman earns and what the average man earns has narrowed, according to the report. In 1967, for example, the ratio of wages paid to full-time female workers, vs. those of male workers was about 60 cents to every dollar paid to men – and that remained fairly constant throughout much of the ’60s and ’70s. By 1998, the ratio had shot up to 73 cents on the dollar. But what’s behind the gap? About one-third of the disparity is due to differences in skills and experience, another third is attributed to the fact that men and women work in different industries, and the final third is unaccounted for, according to several studies cited in the report.

What’s the main reason for women’s greater presence in the workforce? Increased education and training, says the Presidential report. The study also cites new workforce opportunities for women, plus changes in family structure. There are more and more single women in the workplace, with just 56% of the adult population married today, compared with 68% in 1960, the report notes. Meanwhile, the percentage of working, married women making more than $20,000 a year (in inflation-adjusted 1998 dollars) rose to 43% in 1998, from 14% in 1968.

There is a price to be paid for this progress. “Although the choice to enter the labor market results in more material goods for families, these benefits come at the expense of home time,” the report says. In his 2001 budget, President Clinton proposes expanding coverage under the Family & Medical Leave Act to smaller businesses with as few as 25 employees. The current threshold is for companies with at least 50 employees. The law allows new parents to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave.

More : businessweek.com

It took mere minutes for a partisan divide to open over Samuel Alito. Even as President George W. Bush was introducing the Third Circuit Appeals Court judge as his pick to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, political activists on the Right and Left were girding for battle over Alito’s positions on civil rights, affirmative action, and abortion.

But one group is breathing a big sigh of relief: Corporate America. Of the dozen or so names on Bush’s rumored short list of high court candidates, Alito ranked near the top for the boardroom set.

In the 800-plus opinions he has penned during his 15 years as a federal judge, Alito consistently has come down on the side of limiting corporate liability, limiting employee rights, and limiting federal regulation. “He would be a liability restrainer,” says Stan Anderson, legal-affairs lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Philosophically, Alito is described as a strict constructionist on constitutional law, sticking to the text of the law and the intent of legislators at the time the law was written. That’s good news for social conservatives, who had drawn knives against Bush’s previous nominee for the O’Connor seat, White House counsel Harriet Miers. Miers withdrew from consideration on Oct. 27, after the conservative punditocracy skewered her as a legal lightweight with a skimpy record.

“SCALITO"? And Alito stands in contrast to John Roberts, who tried to dispel notions that he was a strict constructionist during his Senate confirmation hearings to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (see BW Online, 9/14/05, “Roberts Robes Himself in Pragmatism").

Although he has never been in business, Alito’s long record sets off few alarm bells with corporate groups. After graduating from Yale Law School in 1975, he spent eight years in the Army Reserve. He clerked for Judge Leonard Garth on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a court he would join more than a decade later, before serving as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. He joined the Reagan Administration’s Justice Dept. in 1981, before moving back to New Jersey in 1987 to serve as U.S. Attorney.

For conservatives, Alito’s official résumé is enhanced by his membership in the Federalist Society, a club of lawyers and law students that espouses a limited role for the nation’s judges. Indeed, the 55-year-old judge has drawn such devotion from the conservative Right that he’s earned the nickname “Scalito,” a reference to Justice Antonin Scalia, another darling of social conservatives.

MINORITY OPINIONS. In truth, Alito probably hews closer to the philosophy of Justice Clarence Thomas than that of Scalia. He appears to give less deference to precedent than Scalia might, and more often takes critical aim at Congress for what he considers to be overreaching.

Business would likely benefit from the Alito approach. The judge wins stellar marks from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which vetted a handful of would-be nominees based on their records on legal liability, employment law, and the like.

As a judge, Alito has written numerous minority opinions making the case for setting a higher bar on claims of racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace. He issued a landmark decision upholding the free-speech rights and freedom of association of business trade groups in 1995’s Pfizer v. Giles, and he backed commercial-speech rights in Pitt News v. Pappert.

More : businessweek.com

Q: How do I find out if an employer is “family-oriented"? I am the husband of a woman with multiple sclerosis and the father of a young daughter. Therefore, I want to work for a company that is understanding about employees’ lives off the job. Should I be frank and tell a potential employer up front about my family needs? – K.R.

A: There are two steps you need to take before approaching employers. The first is to define precisely what you mean by “family-oriented,” says Pam Lassiter, principal at Lassiter Consulting, a career-management agency in suburban Boston. Given your wife’s condition, is your main concern that the company offer a generous family medical plan? Or do you want to make sure you have adequate time to care for your wife and daughter? Or perhaps you have other needs? The answers will help shape your job hunt and the questions you ask once you’re being courted for a job.

Step No. 2: Plunge yourself into research to pinpoint companies with reputations for family-friendliness. Scour corporate Web sites, which often detail a company’s perks and benefits. And look for the many “best company” lists compiled by business publications.

BEST-OF LISTS. Perhaps the best known is Working Mother magazine’s annual 100 Best Companies for Working Mothers nationwide survey. Some communities have local lists. Child-care centers, especially ones that receive corporate support, should be able to provide you with the names of organizations or publications with “best of” lists in your area, says Paul Rupert, president of Rupert & Co., a Washington (D.C.) workplace-consulting company.

A strong word of caution: Don’t rely on these lists to tell you the full story. “Keep in mind that oftentimes these surveys reflect what it’s like in portions of a firm but not in all its workplaces,” says Kathleen Christensen, director of the Working Families Program at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation in New York City.

Now you’re ready to approach employers. It’s a good idea not to bring up your family situation in interviews: The last thing a hiring manager wants to hear is why a candidate can’t do the job. “You have to think about why it’s in the best interests of the employer to hire you,” Lassiter says. “They will never do it just to be nice.” Therefore, you need to understand fully what the position entails and then decide whether you can do it. If you can’t, the reasons are irrelevant. If you can, be confident and win over the interviewer.

PUMP FOR INFO. So, how do you get the information you need before signing on? First, have a detailed discussion with your future boss about his or her expectations. Find out the name of the person you’d be replacing to get another view. Talk to anyone you know who works at the company. Most important, seek out those who are most familiar with your department – potential colleagues, supervisors, and subordinates – and pump them for information, says Helen Scully, president of Scully Career Associates, a career-management company in Sacramento, Calif. It’s perfectly O.K. to ask your would-be boss to introduce you to them.

Also, luckily for you, it’s increasingly common for job candidates to request a confidential meeting with human resources, Scully says. That’s the time to ask about medical benefits and flexible-scheduling programs.

If you need more time than a flexible schedule would allow, consider looking for a part-time job. Sometimes, the future boss will whittle a few hours off a full-time position. But generally, supervisors want to get to know your work first. That means being full-time for at least a few months, Rupert says

More : businessweek.com

Employers have made significant inroads over the last decade to extend equal opportunity to people with disabilities. But obstacles still bar full inclusion of the disabled in the American workplace. And the most difficult to tear down may be a bias by the nondisabled. So says a new Cornell University study released this month to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s signing. The landmark law, passed on July 26, 1990, mandated sweeping employment protections for the disabled, including a requirement that employers of 15 or more make “reasonable accommodations” for the disabled in hiring and work.

The Cornell study was based on survey responses of the human-resources staff and/or equal-employment-opportunity representatives of 865 private and 403 federal employers. It found that the vast majority of organizations have made changes to meet the needs of their disabled staff. For example, 93% of government and 82% of private employers reported that they had made their facilities accessible. Some 87% of federal employers and 69% of their private counterparts said they had restructured jobs or adjusted work hours to assist the disabled. And 91% of federal employers (85% in the private sector) responded that they had trained employees in nondiscriminatory hiring and recruitment practices.

“Employers seem to be taking the ADA seriously in terms of recognizing policies and practices to eliminate discrimination. That’s very positive news,” says Susanne M. Bruyère, the study’s author and director of an employment and disability program at Cornell’s School of Industrial & Labor Relations in Ithaca, N.Y.

NO SANCTUARY. Still, she says, the survey shows a number of rough spots. For one, government and private employers alike believe, in significant numbers, that lack of training and related work experience have hampered their disabled staff. For another, private employers often lag behind federal ones in aiding disabled workers. One particularly striking example: 90% of government employers reported having acquired or altered equipment to assist disabled employees, but only 59% of private employers had.

“One hypothesis is they have had longer to get up to speed on this,” explains Bruyère. The federal government was required to extend workplace protections to the disabled 17 years before the ADA by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

That hardly means, however, that the federal workplace is a sanctuary for the disabled. One of the study’s more troubling findings is that significant numbers of both organizations reported that “attitudes/stereotypes” had proved a barrier to the employment or advancement of the disabled. In fact, the figures were higher for federal workplaces: 43% to 22% at private employers. The higher figure at federal agencies may, again, be a function of the longer life of disability-rights law in the government workplace, Bruyère speculates. Perhaps tension is higher because more initiatives are under way, she says.

LEGAL TANGLE. And bias isn’t an easy problem to solve. Survey respondents were asked to choose from seven possible problems they might have encountered in meeting the needs of their disabled workers, from adjusting medical questions to changing the performance-management system. The single biggest bloc of both private and federal employers – about 33% of both groups – said changing co-worker or supervisor attitudes had proved either “difficult” or “very difficult.”

Another obstacle is the complexity of the law, according to the private employers polled. Large groups reported being either “frequently” or “occasionally” uncertain about how to coordinate the ADA with other complex worker-protection statutes, such as those concerning occupational safety or workers’ compensation. The most confusion stemmed from the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA): 58% of respondents said they had experienced uncertainty about whether an employee who requests family leave is also covered by the ADA. Fully 68% were perplexed about how to coordinate leave under the ADA and FMLA with other federal mandates and corporate policies.

This finding comes as little surprise to businesses, especially smaller companies without big human-resources staffs dedicated to understanding the minutiae of government regulation. “It’s very confusing for small business,” says Mary E. Leon, a spokeswoman for the National Federation of Independent Business, a Washington (D.C.) advocacy group.

More : businessweek.com

QUESTION: I went out on sick leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), but I know for sure I can’t do my old job any more–and job accommodations won’t help me. Do I still have a right to a job?

ANSWER: Unfortunately, the law does not give you this protection. “You are entitled to return to the same or equivalent job you held before you took the leave, but if you can’t perform it, the employer is not obligated to create a job…

More : accessmylibrary.com

By Jerome Obermark, The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tenn. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News

Feb. 5–Pamela Grafton returned to work last week at First Tennessee Bank after 12 weeks of maternity leave for the birth of her daughter, Addie.

Grafton, vice president of retirement services for the bank, has worked there almost nine years and has had two children in three years.

Her return last week almost coincided with the 10th anniversary of the federal Family & Medical Leave Act, which is observed today. Over the past decade, the FMLA has helped more than 35 million people take time off for their loved ones without putting their jobs at risk.

The law requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide unpaid leave up to 12 weeks a year for maternity, adoption, personal…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

May 29–Employees’ cases of common flu can require employers to give the workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off while they recover, a federal appeals court in Virginia has ruled.

The case involved AT&T Corp. account representative Kimberly Miller, who was terminated after missing a week of work while she recovered from the flu. She won her case after arguing the federal Family and Medical Leave Act forbids employers from punishing workers for taking time off work while they recover from illness or injury,…

More : accessmylibrary.com

For most of the nation’s low-wage workers, when they get sick they are out of luck. That is because 76 percent of low-wage workers in this country have no paid sick leave.

In fact, no state in the nation is doing as much as it should to guarantee paid sick leave to employees, according to what is being billed as the most comprehensive look to date of laws and…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Karen Bowley entered the work force at age 15. At age 36, she left the ranks of wage earners and a salary of $41,000 a year to stay home with her infant daughter, Megan.

Five years and thousands of diaper changes later, Bowley, now a Corona resident with two young children, doesn’t regret the decision despite the lingering discomfort of needing to rely on her husband for spending money.

“Still, to this day, it’s hard for me to ask for money,” Bowley said.

According to a report published in the Christian Science Monitor in November, the number of mothers choosing to leave their jobs and stay home with their children is rising slightly.

The report indicated that 55 percent of women with infants less than a year old were employed in 2001 compared with 59 percent of women with infant children in 1998.

A report released in March 2002 by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics seemed to support the publication’s data.

The bureau’s Employment Characteristics of Families Summary report showed that the numbers of married-couple families in which only the husband was employed numbered 10.5 million in 2000, out of a total of 54.7 million married-couple families. That figure increased…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Yet when the 40-year-old network administrator at the Capital District Transportation Authority in Albany decided to take a one-month paternity leave this year after the birth of his first child, it was no big deal. He didn’t think twice of asking for it. And his family didn’t think the notion of a man taking off time to be with his wife and baby was unusual, either.

“It’s pretty well accepted at this point,” said Dennie, whose daughter, Skyler, is now 7 months old.

Ten years ago Tuesday, President Clinton signed the Family & Medical Leave Act into law. Its passage gave millions of U.S. workers the right to take time off – albeit unpaid – for a variety of reasons, such as caring for a newborn or tending to an ill family member.

A decade later, some observers say both employees and employers have adopted different attitudes toward the concept of leave. Some companies have gone beyond the federal requirements by creating more liberal policies, calling them recruitment and retention tools. And some employees who once might have considered a leave a form of career suicide simply can’t…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Here’s what’s happening in the current labor market:

A living wage: Everyone wants to have one, but the term “living wage” is a very specific one that applies to regulations many cities in the United States have passed since 1994.

According to a national study by the Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco, living-wage laws “mandate that businesses under contract with the city, or in some cases receiving assistance from the city, must pay their workers a wage sufficient to support a family financially.”

The…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Q. I went out on sick leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), but I know for sure I can’t do my old job any more _ and job accommodations won’t help me. Do I still have a right to a job?

A. Unfortunately, the law does not give you this protection. “You are entitled to return to the same or equivalent job you held before you took the leave, but if you can’t perform it, the employer is not obligated to create a job for you,” according to Peter A. Steinmeyer of Chicago, an employment lawyer with…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Have you ever called in sick when the real reason you had to stay home is that you had a seriously sick child or other family member to care for?

In other words, have you ever lied in order not to lose pay or use up a paid day off?

Too often, I hear from workers who say they are forced to hide their real reason for not showing up at work because they can’t afford to tell the truth. But now there are some signs that this dilemma is beginning to be resolved, at least in some parts of the United States.

“Many…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Have you ever called in sick when the real reason you had to stay home is that you had a seriously sick child or other family member to care for?

In other words, have you ever lied in order not to lose pay or use up a paid day off?

Too often, I hear from workers who say they are forced to hide their real reason for not showing up at work because they can’t afford to tell the truth. But now there are some signs that this dilemma is beginning to be resolved, at least in some parts of the United States.

“Many people do…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Here’s what’s happening in the current labor market:

A living wage: Everyone wants to have one, but the term “living wage” is a very specific one that applies to regulations many cities in the United States have passed since 1994.

According to a national study by the Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco, living-wage laws “mandate that businesses under contract with the city, or in some cases receiving assistance from the city, must pay their workers a wage sufficient to support a family financially.”

The Institute notes that…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Q. I went out on sick leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), but I know for sure I can’t do my old job any more _ and job accommodations won’t help me. Do I still have a right to a job?

A. Unfortunately, the law does not give you this protection. “You are entitled to return to the same or equivalent job you held before you took the leave, but if you can’t perform it, the employer is not obligated to create a job for you,” according to Peter A. Steinmeyer of Chicago, an employment lawyer with the national law…

More : accessmylibrary.com

WASHINGTON, June 16 (UPI) – States and the federal government are doing a poor job of making sure employees get paid sick leave, according to a report by the National Partnership for Women and Families.

Sick leave benefits businesses, the study added, by allowing sick workers to stay home and not infect others, improving worker performance, and helping children recover faster.

The study, “Get Well Soon: Americans Can’t Afford to be Sick,” looked at how each state, the District of Columbia, and the federal government provide access to paid sick days for public and private-sector workers.

On a report-card scale of A to F, no state earned an A. California earned a B+. Most states fell somewhere between C and D-. The federal government earned a C- for its family sick leave policy.

“The findings paint a picture of need and neglect,” said Debra Ness, National Partnership president-elect. “The failure to provide paid sick days to workers causes profound harm to families, and unnecessary costs to businesses, which pay to recruit and train new workers…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Changes from generation to generation can be substantial _ and when it comes to work/life balance, the difference is telling.

“Generation X parents are less satisfied with the amount of time they allocate for family than boomer parents,” said James Chung, president of Reach Advisors, a marketing strategy and research firm based in Belmont, Mass.

“While `quality time’ may be the focus for baby boomer parents, Gen X parents strive for as much time as possible with their children.”

Chung bases his observation on a recent study his organization did of 1,492 baby boomers and 1,291 Gen Xers…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Dec. 1–QUESTION: My daughter, due to soon have a baby, took five weeks of leave this year under the Family & Medical Leave Act for an unrelated medical condition. She recently had to take another two weeks of FMLA leave when her doctor put her on full bed rest.

She would like to take at least six weeks of maternity leave after the baby is born. But the company says she is entitled only to five weeks of FMLA leave because of her two previous absences.

It seems to us that the pregnancy is a separate issue, and while…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

In 1993, Congress passed the Family & Medical Leave Act, which gave employees the right to 12 weeks of unpaid sick leave to care for a newborn or sick family member. Since then, family activists (and organized labor) in a large number of states have been pushing hard to ensure that workers can afford to take time off by subsidizing their leaves.

That idea became a reality in California when Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill at the end of September,…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Nov. 6–Here’s what’s happening in the current labor market:

A living wage: Everyone wants to have one, but the term “living wage” is a very specific one that applies to regulations many cities in the United States have passed since 1994.

According to a national study by the Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco, living-wage laws “mandate that businesses under contract with the city, or in some cases receiving assistance from the city, must pay…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Oct. 2–John (not his real name) asked his boss for time off to tend an ailing mother down south. Long before the Family & Medical Leave Act was law, the employer allowed him the time off to be with family. A few days later, the employer discovered that John had taken time off to try another job in a northern Wisconsin city. Consequently, John was terminated on the basis of a major work rule violation.

Is this an isolated case, an exception to the always-tell-the-truth principle most learn in childhood? Perhaps not, if recent studies are accurate.

When researching their book, The Day America Told the Truth, James Patterson and Peter Kim used a cathartic process, which allowed interviewees to unburden themselves with total anonymity. Surveying thousands of Americans, they found out that “just about everyone lies – 91 percent lie regularly.” “I can’t believe that’s true,” said Walter Drew, who was a Kimberly-Clark Corp. executive for 30 years and then Menasha Corp. chief executive officer for four years. “I haven’t seen it in my business experience.

Dick Kendall, human resources professional with more than 25 years experience at three different local companies, has found that people lie in the interview process and after they’re hired.

“While I wouldn’t say the problem is epidemic, I have witnessed employees who have jeopardized a…

More : accessmylibrary.com

John (not his real name) asked his boss for time off to tend an ailing mother down south. Long before the Family & Medical Leave Act was law, the employer allowed him the time off to be with family. A few days later, the employer discovered that John had taken time off to try another job in a northern Wisconsin city. Consequently, John was terminated on the basis of a major work rule violation.

Is this an isolated case, an exception to the always-tell-the-truth principle most learn in childhood? Perhaps not, if recent studies are accurate.

When researching their book, The Day America Told the Truth, James Patterson and Peter Kim used a cathartic process, which allowed interviewees to unburden themselves with total anonymity. Surveying thousands of Americans, they found out that “just about everyone lies – 91 percent lie regularly.” “I can’t believe that’s true,” said Walter Drew, who was a Kimberly-Clark Corp. executive for 30 years and then Menasha Corp. chief executive officer for four years. “I haven’t seen it in my business experience.

Dick Kendall, human resources professional with more than 25 years experience at three different local companies, has found that people lie in the interview process and after they’re hired.

“While I wouldn’t say the problem is epidemic, I have witnessed employees who have jeopardized…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Aug. 4–Brad Dennie could have been a trendsetter 10 years ago.

Yet when the 40-year-old network administrator at the Capital District Transportation Authority in Albany decided to take a one-month paternity leave this year after the birth of his first child, it was no big deal. He didn’t think twice of asking for it. And his family didn’t think the notion of a man taking off time to be with his wife and baby was unusual, either.

“It’s pretty well accepted at this point,” said Dennie, whose daughter, Skyler, is now 7 months old.

Ten years ago Tuesday, President Clinton signed the Family & Medical Leave Act into law. Its passage gave millions of U.S. workers the right to take time off – albeit unpaid – for a variety of reasons, such as caring for a newborn or tending to an ill family member.

A decade later, some observers say both employees and employers have adopted different attitudes toward the concept of leave. Some companies have gone beyond the federal re…uirements by creating more liberal policies, calling them recruitment and retention tools. And some employees who once might have considered a leave…

More : accessmylibrary.com

May 24–GEN X PARENTS DIFFER FROM BOOMERS: Changes from generation to generation can be substantial–and when it comes to work/life balance, the difference is telling.

“Generation X parents are less satisfied with the amount of time they allocate for family than Boomer parents,” said James Chung, president of Reach Advisors, a marketing strategy and research firm based in Belmont, Mass.

“While ‘quality time’ may be the focus for Baby Boomer parents, Gen X parents strive for as much time as possible with their children.”

Chung bases his observation on a…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Changes from generation to generation can be substantial _ and when it comes to work/life balance, the difference is telling.

“Generation X parents are less satisfied with the amount of time they allocate for family than boomer parents,” said James Chung, president of Reach Advisors, a marketing strategy and research firm based in Belmont, Mass.

“While `quality time’ may be the focus for baby boomer parents, Gen X parents strive for as much time as possible with their children.”

Chung bases his observation on a recent study his organization did of 1,492 baby boomers and 1,291 Gen Xers…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Jul. 12–LIMELIGHT RARELY SHINES ON LABOR LAWS: Every year, legislation passed by the 50 states that regulates employment generally goes unnoticed.

But state labor laws are too important to ignore.

“There are more state laws than federal laws that affect employers and employees,” said Stephen B. Mead, an attorney in the labor and employment group of Ross & Hardies, a law firm headquartered in Chicago with branches in Washington and New York. “Many state laws mirror federal laws…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

NEW YORK _ The way Jason Patch sees it, the $12,000 he gets as a teaching assistant at New York University for grading papers, preparing lectures, and keeping office hours works out to about $44 a day. That, he grumbles, is a pittance compared to what a junior faculty member gets for the same amount of work.

To get more money, Patch, a doctoral candidate in urban sociology, and his fellow graduate students are hoping to do something a lot of student teaching assistants nationwide have done: unionize.

Faced with low pay, long hours and high living expenses, students are turning to major labor unions to bargain for everything from higher teaching stipends to better health-care plans.

Although unionization efforts have been under way for years, so far only students at public colleges have organized. If NYU’s students succeed in forming a union under sponsorship of the United Auto Workers, it will be a first for a private university. Experts say it would mark an important turning point.

Adjunct, or part-time, faculty members, who often teach the majority of classes but are paid far…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Dec. 15–QUESTION: My company is going backwards: We used to have job sharing, part-time work and flexible hours, but suddenly management is saying we must work 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and that’s it. Some of the people I work with now are in a bind. I’m so upset about what’s happening I couldn’t sleep a wink last night. Today, most companies work to accommodate good employees, but not mine. I’ve suggested so many alternatives but get no response. What can I do or say?

ANSWER: You are a kind, caring…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

By Carol Kleiman, Chicago Tribune Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News

Oct. 8–Have you ever called in sick when the real reason you had to stay home is that you had a seriously sick child or other family member to care for?

In other words, have you ever lied in order not to lose pay or use up a paid day off?

Too often, I hear from workers who say they are forced to hide their real reason for not showing up at work because they can’t afford to tell the truth. But now there are some signs that this dilemma is beginning to be resolved, at least in some parts…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Plaintiff, Donald Barrett, was a header for defendant, Detroit Heading, LLC, a manufacturer of screws, nuts, and bolts for the automotive industry. Mr. Barrett suffers from hypertension. He had previously been hospitalized for this condition and had been regularly treated for it by his primary care physician, Dr. Vincent Maribao.

On November 1, 2004, Barrett’s wife – a competency-evaluated nursing assistant – took his blood pressure. His…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

In this 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1983 action arising out of a jail suicide, the district court holds that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15©, plaintiff’s claim against a new defendant relates back to the original claim, so as to prevent the bar of the statute of limitations.

Based on recent 4th Circuit precedent, I find the claim relates back and deny the motion to dismiss.

In this negligence action, the original defendants were the County of Buchanan, the county sheriff’s office, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the state department of corrections and two deputies. The commonwealth and its department of corrections were dismissed by stipulation, and the county later was dismissed by stipulation. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint naming the sheriff as a defendant. Plaintiff did not object to dismissal of the County of Buchanan Sheriff’s Office. The sheriff now seeks dismissal of the claim against him, pleading the bar of the statute of limitations.

Service of the original complaint was obtained on the sheriff’s office by personally serving the sheriff on March 14, 2007. The sheriff is represented by the same counsel as the sheriff’s office and the other two remaining individual defendants and there is no claim of prejudice. The real question is whether, as required by Rule 15©(3)(B), the sheriff knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, he would have been named.

In Goodman v. Praxair Inc., [VLW 007-2-120], the 4th Circuit recently clarified the proper interpretation of Rule 15©. Earlier decisional interpretation had focused on the type of mistake involved, and whether it resulted from clerical error, lack of knowledge of the identity of the proper defendant, or strategic error or oversight. Goodman held that instead the focus must…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Certification - Bankruptcy Question

Because an order of the bankruptcy court involves a question of law as to which there is no controlling decision from the 4th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, the district court grants the creditor’s motion for certification.

The creditor contends the bankruptcy court erred in overruling its objection to confirmation of debtors’ Chapter 13 plan and holding that the Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to surrender the creditor’s collateral, a financed automobile, in full satisfaction of its secured claim.

The question that must be decided is what happens when as a result of the hanging paragraph following 11 U.S.C. Sect. 1325(a)(9), section 506 vanishes from the picture. The majority view among bankruptcy judges is that, with Sect. 506(a) gone, creditors cannot divide their loans into secured and unsecured components. Because Sect. 1325(a)(5)© allows a debtor to surrender the collateral to the lender, it follows that surrender fully satisfies the borrower’s obligations. If this is so then many secured loans have been rendered non-recourse, no matter what the contract provides. The minority view is that Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code plus the law of contracts entitles the creditor to an unsecured deficiency judgment after surrender of the collateral, unless the contract itself provides that the loan is without recourse against the borrower. That unsecured balance must be treated the same as other unsecured debts under the Chapter 13 plan.

Here, the parties dispute the effect of the hanging paragraph on a claim secured by collateral surrendered to the secured creditor pursuant to Sect. 1325(a)(5)©. However, as neither the 4th Circuit nor the Supreme Court has considered the issue, the court grants the creditor’s motion for certification.

Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas LLC v. Waters (Wilson, J.) No. 5:07cv00057, July 18, 2007; USDC at Harrisonburg, Va. VLW 007-3-286, 6 pp.

Jurisdiction - Federal Question - OSHA

A plaintiff who has sued his employer Mead Westvaco and two of its employees, alleging negligence and workplace safety violations resulting in plaintiff’s injuries from inhaling chlorine dioxide gas while repairing an elevator on Westvaco’s premises, has his suit dismissed for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

The court will not belabor this matter. Even if the Occupational Safety and Health Act provides the “foundational requirement” for the standard of care that was breached, the case still does not arise under the laws of the U.S. and there is not federal question jurisdiction.

The 4th Circuit has held, and plaintiff concedes, that OSHA does not create a private right of action, and the existence of a private right of action is a prerequisite for finding federal question…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

John R. Cernelich

Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP

1400 KeyBank Center

800 Superior Ave.

Cleveland, Ohio 44114

P: (216) 622-8251

E-mail: jcernelich@calfee.com

John serves as co-chair of the firm’s labor and employment department, representing management in arbitration proceedings, before administrative agencies, and in both state and federal courts. He regularly counsels human resources professionals on day-to-day personnel actions, compliance with EEO laws, wage and hour concerns, noncompete covenants and issues arising under the federal Family & Medical Leave Act.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Pete Collins

SVP, Commercial Lending

Home Savings Bank

275 W. Federal St.

Youngstown, Ohio 44503

P: (330) 742-3001

F: (330) 742-0499

E-mail: pcollins@homesavings.com

Home Savings has been in business for more than 118 years and offers a full range of commercial banking services, including business loans and lines of credit (such as SBA loan options); deposit and cash management products; and commercial real estate loans, Please contact us so we can help you accomplish your business goals.

More : accessmylibrary.com

The Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993 is now effective. On Aug. 5, the interim rules became applicable.

The law provides that an employer must give an employee up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for certain types of family and medical situations. These include a serious health situation that makes the employee unable to perform his or her normal work functions. It also may mean caring for the employee’s child, husband or wife, or parents, if they have a serious health…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

To many supervisors in the ceramic industry, a request from an employee for a leave of absence regarding a family circumstance can present a management dilemma. A key employee requests leave not because the employee is sick, but because a relative is sick. There is, of course, sympathy for the employee’s problem. The request may come with little time to preplan for the absence. It may be that you are working on a big order over the time period involved and the absence will be particularly difficult to accommodate.

Can you simply say, “I’m sorry, no time off?” The answer can involve…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

WORK FLEXIBILITY: IS IT ONLY FOR A FEW? Are companies fooling themselves about how flexible and family-friendly they are? Some of my readers claim that is the case.

Executives laud telecommuting or flex-time policies as signs of real change but don’t apply them universally. Employees buy the notion that they work for an “employer of choice” but then face managers who refuse to cooperate with the newfangled culture, which is championed by human resources directors – and often touted in the press.

“It’s only been recently…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

The headline shouted in bold type on the front page of this newspaper: “Working Moms Get Good News.” Oh, boy!

Maybe Congress was allowing the Family & Medical Leave Act to become a paid leave, so mothers and fathers actually could use it. Maybe more companies were going to let parents work from home. Maybe my own employer was launching off-hours child care for the editors, designers and press operators who produce the paper at night.

Sadly, I was dreaming. This “news,” if you can call it that, was just another academic study showing that child care doesn’t harm children, so long as they enjoy a good relationship with their mother. (No mention of fathers here.) Stop the presses. Let the hardhearts off the hook who declare, “You chose to have the kids. Now find a place for them. This isn’t an employer’s business.”

Trouble is, this highfalutin, dusty dry, “longitudinal” analysis – which examined the same group of youngsters at ages 3 or 4 and 12 – failed to address…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Every year, legislation passed by the 50 states that regulates employment generally goes unnoticed.

But state labor laws are too important to ignore.

“There are more state laws than federal laws that affect employers and employees,” said Stephen B. Mead, an attorney in the labor and employment group of Ross & Hardies, a law firm headquartered in Chicago with branches in Washington and New York. “Many state laws mirror federal laws but protect a broader range of…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Workers may not be more depressed than in 1992, but the government has logged nearly 8,000 workplace disputes about depression since that year, which was the first full year for the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It all adds up to a lot of administrative headaches for employers and employees. And depression is just one of the mental ailments that increasingly factor into ADA debates, stretching the boundaries of regulations and creating a stream of legal challenges.

“It is just a terribly complex issue that brings with it a great deal of human and organizational trauma,” said David Poole, vice president of consulting services for Overland Park’s Right Management Consultants.

Many of the rules contained within the ADA have not changed since its inception, but more attention has been focused oflate…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Integrated Business Systems & Services, Inc. (Nasdaq-NM: IBSS) ("IBSS") and ASP*n, LLC have formed a strategic partnership to pursue Application Service Provider (ASP) enablement opportunities. Employee management software provider WilCam Systems, LLC is the first company to be accepted into the ASP*n incubation program. ASP*n has also selected IBSS’s proprietary Synapse B2B™ technology for developing ASP deployment capabilities for its clients.

ASP*n is an enablement and incubation firm which provides a “blueprint” for development, capital and technological expertise for companies seeking to provide ASP capability. The ASP deployment model allows application software vendors to provide their technology at a website with browser access rather than installing…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

U.S. policies to ensure decent working conditions for families still lag dramatically behind those of all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries, according to a study released by Harvard and McGill Universities today using updated and expanded data from the 2004 Work, Family, and Equity Index. The 2007 Work, Family, and Equity Index: How Does the U.S. Measure Up? finds:

- Out of 173 countries studied, 168 guarantee paid maternal leave, with 98 of these countries offering 14 or more weeks of paid leave. The U.S. provides no paid leave for mothers. Lesotho, Liberia,…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Feb. 28–Question: I am a salaried employee with a large company that handles insurance claims. I recently returned to work from an eight-week leave surrounding the birth of my child. I used a combination of disability leave for the last six weeks of my pregnancy – for which I had a doctor’s note saying I should do no work of any kind – plus two weeks of unpaid leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act. However, I was required during these eight weeks to keep track of all work-related e-mails and forward…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Question: I am a salaried employee with a large company that handles insurance claims. I recently returned to work from an eight-week leave surrounding the birth of my child.

I used a combination of disability leave for the last six weeks of my pregnancy _ for which I had a doctor’s note saying I should do no work of any kind _ plus two weeks of unpaid leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act.

However, I was required during these eight weeks to keep track of all work-related e-mails and forward urgent items to my…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Mealey Publications (King of Prussia, MN), a unit of LexisNexis (Dayton, OH) will begin the publication of two new monthly reports in July, including Mealey’s Litigation Report: Employment Law and Mealey’s Privacy Report.

Designed to cover litigation involving employees, employers and the workplace, Litigation Report: Employment Law will cover “all aspects of employment law,” Mealey said, including…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Th Bureau of National Affairs (BNA; Washington, D.C.) has begun the publication of ‘Employment Attorney’s Client Advisor,’ a monthly online newsletter targeted to human resources professionals, employment attorneys, corporate legal departments and other professionals involved in writing or reviewing employment policies. An annual subscription costs $750 for one user…

More : accessmylibrary.com

In related news, CCH, Inc. (River- woods, IL) has begun the publication of CCH Family and Medical Leave Guide, a looseleaf volume and accompanying quarterly newsletter that carry summaries and explanations for implementing the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMIA). An annual subscription to the new publication costs $299….

More : accessmylibrary.com

If what’s past is prologue, U.S. Appeals Court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s elevation to the Supreme Court could be good news indeed for employers.

That’s subject, of course, to the Senate giving its approval to President Bush’s nominee. But where some observers claimed that the president’s other two Supreme Court nominees-now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts and White House Counsel Harriet Miers-lacked a sufficient paper trail, Judge Alito’s paper trail is copious. As a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia since 1990, Judge Alito has been involved in hundreds of cases involving employment practices, insurance and liability.

“He’s certainly as open minded on business issues as Chief Justice Roberts appears to be,'’ said Glenn Lammi, chief counsel-legal studies division at the Washington Legal Foundation in Washington. “I think he appreciates the need for businesses to find ways to deal with litigation costs,'’ Mr. Lammi said.

“Predicting a nominee’s long-term decision-making proclivities on likely issues to come before the Supreme Court is like…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Recognizing that “there’s no substitute for a strong family,” Joe Andrew, the National Chair of the Democratic National Committee, announced a new Democratic National Committee issue advertisement that highlights the importance of fathers to strong families.

Source : accessmylibrary.com

If you ask a small-business lobbyist his position on issues, he won’t hesitate to tell you. But with the economy strong, the small-business agenda this presidential election year might not have the same urgency it’s had in past years.

“People may say they’re fed up with (President Bill) Clinton from one standpoint, but they’ll say, ‘By golly, come to think of it, things have been going really well,"‘ said Wayne Corey, executive director of Wisconsin independent Business Inc., a small-business lobbying group in Madison.

Philosophically, small-business owners may oppose such policies as the Family & Medical Leave Act, the increased minimum wage and other government regulation, but as long as the economy is healthy, they aren’t storming the gates as strongly…

More : accessmylibrary.com

As our nation moves toward healing the wounds created by the Sept. 11 national disaster, employers are faced with new labor and employment law challenges. Addressing them can minimize the threat of employee claims and increase the likelihood that any claims will be successfully defended. Being aware of these issues also can help to maintain employee morale and productivity.

During times of crisis, employers become concerned about their employees’ reaction to the events and the uncertainty of their own lives and employment. While this is particularly true for New York and Washington, D.C., area employers, it is also of concern throughout the country. Here are some of the most pressing issues confronting…

More : accessmylibrary.com

A Norfolk federal district judge adopts the reasoning of US Airways Inc. v. PMA Cap. Ins. Co., 340 F. Supp 2d 699 (E.D. Va. 2004), and holds that a defendant must remove an action based on diversity within one year from the time plaintiff has filed a motion for judgment in state court; the removal effort here fails and this products liability case is remanded to state court.

The propriety of removal in this case turns on whether defendant’s notice of removal was timely filed under 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1446(b). The defendant must remove an action within 30 days of receiving notice of an event creating diversity, and even if defendant satisfies this 30-day requirement, the defendant may not remove an action more than one year after commencement of the action.

Here, defendant’s theory of removal is premised on the notion that the action was not initially removable by virtue of plaintiff’s complaint, but became removable when it received plaintiff’s expert disclosure during discovery on July 26, 2006. It is at that time that defendant contends it first received notice from which it could be ascertained that the action was removable. Specifically, defendant contends that through plaintiff’s expert disclosure, it discovered that two codefendants were fraudulently joined. Plaintiff has never controverted this assertion, so this court accepts as true defendant’s contention that it was not aware that the case was removable until July 26, 2006. Because defendant removed the action 22 days after receipt of the expert disclosure, the court finds that the notice of removal was timely under the first limitation of Sect. 1446(b).

As to the second, one-year limitation, under US Airways Inc. v. PMA Cap. Ins. Co., 340 F. Supp 2d 699 (E.D. Va. 2004), the notice of removal would be barred and considered untimely, as the motion for judgment was filed on Nov. 24, 2004. However, in Saunders v. Wire Rope Corp., 777 F. Supp. 1281 (E.D. Va. 1991), this court adopted the approach that the one-year limitation period did not begin to run until the plaintiff filed the complaint and made a bona fide effort to serve defendant. Under the Saunders approach, defendant’s notice of removal, filed Aug. 17, 2006, would be timely because service was not effected on defendant until Oct. 26, 2005.

After examining each of these approaches, this court adopts the reasoning of US Airways Inc. and holds that a defendant must remove an action based on diversity within one year from the time plaintiff has filed a motion for judgment in state court. In support, this court has noted that state law governs the determination of the “commencement of the action” for the purpose of the one-year limit on removal. In Virginia, S.Ct. Rule 3:3 defines an action as commenced by filing the motion for judgment in the clerk’s office; the action is then instituted and pending as to all parties defendant thereto. By the Rule’s plain language, an action is commenced, and thus the one-year limitation period of Sect. 1446(b) begins to run on the date a party files a motion for judgment in the clerk’s office, not the date the defendant was served.

Also, although the 4th Circuit has not explicitly decided this issue, it has referred to the one-year limitation in diversity cases as an “absolute bar to removal of cases” more…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Benefit sponsors are attempting to keep pace with the liberalization of laws that has more Americans choosing adoption as a route to parenthood.

Single people, older people and gay couples are becoming adoptive parents more easily and more frequently than in the past, but fiscal restraints remain challenging. The adoption process typically costs between $8,000 and $30,000, according to federal government estimates, and it can take months to finalize an adoption.

Understandably, employees appreciate any help their employers can provide during the process. Adoption assistance benefits are on the rise among U.S. corporations, according to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). Twelve percent of employers surveyed in 1998 offered adoption assistance benefits. By 2001, that…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Aetna: Turning Promise Into Practice[R] For Health, Dental, Disability, Life, Pharmacy and Long-Term Care coverage, Aetna is putting information to work to create new solutions and help you make smarter choices. It’s part of our commitment to ensure quality healthcare coverage and service for our members and network of medical professionals.

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield

1802 Bayberry Court

Richmond, VA 23226

804-678-0422

Fax: 804-354-2218

www.anthem.com

Make managing your employee benefits package easier by offering health, dental, life, AD&D and EAP plans through Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Your employees get access to national provider networks. You get the simplicity of having one contact for your employee benefits needs. (Life and disability underwritten by Anthemlife)

More : accessmylibrary.com

If all things truly do start on the West Coast, then one day the entire nation may provide paid family leave. On Sept. 23, 2002, the state of California passed the nation’s first comprehensive paid family leave law. The new law will provide six weeks of paid leave to.

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Equip for Equality Goes to Bat for Veteran with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

CHICAGO, Nov. 3 /PRNewswire/ – Equip for Equality filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a Desert Storm Veteran who was fired by Commonwealth Edison ("Com Ed") after he revealed he was experiencing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. The suit was brought against Com Ed and Exelon, its parent corporation, claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family & Medical Leave Act.

Timothy Pruitt served in the Mortuary Services unit of the United States Air Force in Northern Iraq during the first Gulf War, Desert Storm. His duties included identifying and then refrigerating the bodies of his fallen comrades, men and women who had worked with him, eaten meals with him, and…

More : accessmylibrary.com

The number of pregnancy discrimination complaints filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission declined in fiscal 2005 for a third straight year. Even so, complaints were up 31% vs. 1992 and some EEOC officials expect that number to increase this year.

Awareness of the law, a consistently applied policy, training and thorough documentation can help employers avoid pregnancy discrimination claims, say observers (see story, page 6).

“Let’s face it. You’re much better off keeping a valuable, trained employee than you are allowing all the time and money you’ve expended training the employee go to waste and starting all over again,'’ said David Long-Daniels, an employer attorney with Greenberg Traurig L.L.P. in Atlanta.

Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions is considered unlawful sex discrimination under the…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

A company’s growth can result in violation of state and federal laws. As employers ascend up the growth chart, they may reach key thresholds of employee numbers without knowing that new laws apply. California has enacted some of the most stringent employment legislation in the nation, which impacts smaller businesses than otherwise affected by federal law. California employers must be aware of the myriad state and federal laws that govern the workplace and the size thresholds at which those laws apply.

* Laws Applicable To All Employers

California and federal employment laws can pose a challenge to even the most experienced human resource staff. Employers must comply with laws ranging from ergonomics and disability insurance to drug testing and background checks.

Compliance with this list is a daunting task. With each step up the growth chart, a company faces new laws that impose new obligations. While employers must be aware of all the laws that affect their workplace,

More : accessmylibrary.com

Here’s a new year’s resolution for the workplace: Update that employee handbook to ensure yours is comprehensive and complies with changing laws. For example, Ohio’s new concealed weapons law may be a reason for employers to issue a policy on guns in the workplace.

“When writing an employee handbook, companies must consider workforce…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Employers with operations in Massachusetts are finding themselves caught in the crossfire between state and federal law as same-sex marriage becomes legal in the state.

Employers must now contend with a myriad of complex benefit, regulatory, legal, administrative and insurance concerns as town clerks begin to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples today.

And although the focus is now on Massachusetts, the issue ultimately will affect employers nationwide, say observers.

“I think it’s going to be a big challenge for employers,'’ said J.D. Piro, Norwalk, Conn.-based chair of Hewitt Associates Inc.’s health law consulting practice. “It’s a very contentious issue, and it’s going to get a lot of publicity.'’

At the heart of the issue is that Massachusetts now permits same-sex marriages, but both federal law and many states’ laws define “marriage'’ as a union between a man and a woman.

Observers say it could take several years and considerable litigation that may well involve employers before the issue is ultimately resolved, perhaps with a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“I think we’re years and years away from resolution of that issue, which makes it an unavoidable, and somewhat compelling, issue for employers who have to administer their programs in the here and now and can’t anticipate what the law may be five or six years from now and which states may follow Massachusetts’ lead,'’ said Mike Langen, a principal with Valhalla, N.Y.-based Towers Perrin.

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Litigation involving employees, employers and the workplace presents challenges for even the most experienced attorney.

To provide companies and litigators with an essential tool to cover this complex area of litigation, Mealey Publications will launch Mealey’s Litigation Report: Employment Law. This report will cover all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, employee rights and responsibilities,…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Litigation involving employees, employers and the workplace presents challenges for even the most experienced attorney.

To provide companies and litigators with an essential tool to cover this complex area of litigation, Mealey Publications will launch Mealey’s Litigation Report: Employment Law. This report will cover all aspects of employment law, including discrimination, employee rights and responsibilities, human resources considerations, labor law, insurance, safety and health, wage and hour issues, workplace harassment and military leave.

Readers will receive breaking news on rulings that interpret workplace regulations such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Mealey’s Privacy Report Set For July Launch

With the rise of Internet scares, increased security and surveillance related to antiterror efforts and technological advances that make it easier to access personal information, there has been increased worry about the potential to infringe on people’s privacy.

To keep attorneys and employers up to date on important developments in this emerging area, Mealey Publications will launch…

More : accessmylibrary.com

On Jan. 15, 2003, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, a case that will determine whether the approximately 5 million state employees in the United States can recover damages when their employers violate the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

“Most basically, what is at stake is whether hard-working American families have the right to take time to care for loved ones in an emergency and not have to worry about losing their job,” says Debra Ness, executive vice president of the Washington, DC-based National Partnership for Women & Families, which is serving as co-counsel to William Hibbs in the Supreme Court Case. “In this case, Nevada claims that states don’t have to comply with the FMLA, which means that about 5 million state employees and their families would not have the same protection as other workers.”

Since the enactment of the FMLA,…

More : accessmylibrary.com

The balance of power between the federal government and the states is a subject of ongoing concern.

The issue of federalism is a recurring topic in litigation against states and state agencies in federal courts under the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides for sovereign immunity by states against some federal encroachments. E.g., Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 2003 WL 21210426 (U.S. May 27, 2003) (Family & Medical Leave Act applicable to state governments).

But federalism also is the focal point of litigation in other contexts as well. A pair of high-profile cases decided recently by U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank in Minnesota demonstrate the dimensions of this doctrine.

In both cases, the rulings restrained from passing upon the merits of cases that were deemed properly left to be resolved at state levels.

Party politics

A challenge by the Republican party to state criminal prosecution of one of its endorsees for making false campaign statements under Minn. Stat. sec….

More : accessmylibrary.com

Q. My 21-year-old nephew broke his leg in a weekend car crash that left him unable to work.

We notified his construction company the following Monday, and a few weeks later we received a letter saying he had up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act.

The letter said the 12 weeks started when he first missed work, and that his health insurance would be maintained throughout his FMLA leave.

That’s the last we heard from his employer. We recently received a letter from his health insurance company addressed to “Dear Former Participant."…

More : accessmylibrary.com

A high-profile case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court near the end of its recently concluded 2003-04 term concerned the public accommodations provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Supreme Court decision complemented a lower-profile determination by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the costs of disabled parking permits.

Although both cases focused on the ADA, they addressed broader issues regarding the relationship between federal and state government bodies, as well as other constitutional considerations.

Access accommodations

Surprising many observers, in Tennessee v. Lane, 124 S.Ct. 1978 (May 17, 2004), the U.S. Supreme Court departed from its unwillingness to apply federal discrimination laws to state government entities and held that Title II of the ADA applies to those bodies. The high court found, by a 5-4 vote, that a state may be sued under the portion of the ADA that requires “any public entity” to be accessible to the disabled.

The case was brought by amputees and paraplegics confined to wheelchairs who claimed that they were denied access to courthouses in Tennessee because they could not mount the stairs…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

A terminated American Airline employee may amend his wrongful termination and unfair labor practice suit to state a claim for retaliation in violation of the Family & Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. Sects. 2601 et seq.

Plaintiff’s FMLA retaliation claim fits well within the relation-back criteria of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. It arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence which was at the heart of his original complaint, namely, his discharge. In no way can plaintiff’s FMLA claim be said to arise out of “wholly different conduct"; to the contrary, plaintiff’s FMLA claim arises form precisely the conduct alleged in the original complaint. It follows therefore that plaintiff’s FMLA claim relates back to the filing of the original complaint and thus is not time-barred.

Quite apart from the fact that plaintiff’s proposed FMLA claim and the original complaint emanate from a common core of facts, the original complaint was arguably sufficient to put defendant on notice that plaintiff intended to assert an FMLA cause of action. The complaint stated that plaintiff has previously invoked the FMLA and notified management that he would be spending time attending to his disabled wife, that his supervisor discouraged him from taking FMLA leave; and that he suffered adverse employment actions because he insisted on taking his full FMLA leave. Construing the original complaint liberally in plaintiff’s favor, the new facts do not assert a new cause of action, they simply amplify the FMLA cause of action plaintiff inartfully attempted to plead in his original complaint.

Defendant argues that amendment of the complaint is futile because the putative FMLA retaliation claim is barred by issue and claim preclusion arising from the Adjustment Board’s finding that plaintiff was terminated for cause. It is well settled that claim preclusion does not apply to a cause of action the claimant could not have brought in a prior litigation. Plaintiff could not have asserted his FMLA claim in the course of his Adjustment Board proceeding, so claim preclusion does not operate. The board’s finding that plaintiff was terminated for cause does not preclude a finding that unlawful retaliatory animus also played a causal role in the decision to terminate plaintiff, and its decision does not preclude judicial review of his FMLA claim. Plaintiff is, however, bound by the board findings that he was terminated for falsifying documents and for grossly insubordinate behavior. This means that the FMLA claim is futile unless plaintiff can plead, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, and then adduce proof of, FMLA animus as a motivating factor in his termination. Assuming plaintiff makes this showing, his range of remedies is limited because it is necessarily a mixed motive case.

Motion for leave to amend is granted.

Perry v. American Airlines (Ellis, J.) No. 1:05cv1218, Dec. 22, 2005; USDC at Alexandria, Va. VLW 006-3-003, 10 pp.

Discovery Violation - Insurance - Viatical Settlement Act

In this lawsuit involving a challenge to the constitutionality of the Virginia Viatical Settlement Act, Va. Code Sect. 38.6-6000 et seq., the district court will excuse a “technical violation” of Rule 26(a) from defendants’ failure to disclose an affidavit relating to correspondence on the sale of the pertinent life insurance policy; defendants’ failure to disclose the existence of the affidavit and attachments was harmless error pursuant to Rule 37©(1).

A viatical settlement involves the sale of life insurance policies by terminally ill persons to third parties for less than the full amount of the subject coverage. Plaintiff is an agent that represents purchasers in viatical settlement transactions. On April 30, 2004, plaintiff finalized the purchase of a life insurance policy from “Jane Doe,” a terminally ill holder of a term life insurance policy issued by ReliaStar Life Insurance Company. After the sale, Jane Doe discovered that the amount she was paid for her policy was less than the amount required by the Act. After unsuccessfully petitioning plaintiff for additional compensation, Doe filed a complaint with the Virginia Bureau of Insurance, the enforcement arm of the Virginia State Corporation Commission. The SCC ultimately ruled that plaintiff was in violation of the act and issued a Rule to Show Cause as to why plaintiff should not be subject to penalties and an injunction. Plaintiff filed suit in this court claiming the Act violates 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1983 and the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In the present motion to strike, plaintiff requests that the court strike defendants’ exhibit consisting of an affidavit purporting to authenticate two documents, correspondence sent after the sale of Doe’s policy involving a miscommunication between ReliaStar and plaintiff concerning transfer of ownership of the policy.

It is clear to the court that there has been a technical violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). Defendants had a duty to disclose the identity of this affiant and the existence of the attachments. Having failed to make the required disclosures, it is the obligation of the party facing sanctions for belated disclosure to show that it’s either justified or harmless. Defendants claim that its failure to disclose the evidence was harmless error. Defendants argue that because plaintiff was fully aware of the pertinent facts discussed in the attachments, it is not prejudiced by inclusion of the exhibit. Plaintiff counters that defendants’ failure to disclose the existence of the second letter was not harmless because it was unaware of its contents and had the document been properly disclosed, it would have deposed the affiant and inquired about her communications with defendants.

Applying the five-factor test articulated by the 4th Circuit in Southern States Rack & Fixture v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592 (4th Cir. 2003), this court is of the opinion that although plaintiff may not have been aware of the specific content of the second letter,…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Mealey Publications (King of Prussia, MN), a unit of LexisNexis (Dayton, OH) will begin the publication of two new monthly reports in July, including Mealey’s Litigation Report: Employment Law and Mealey’s Privacy Report.

Designed to cover litigation involving employees, employers and the workplace, Litigation Report: Employment Law will cover…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

The list of potential situations an employer faces today in regard to employment practices liability is sobering, particularly since alleged as well as actual acts are included. In today’s environment, employers are wise to consider employment practices liability exposure.

The track record of failing to meet expectations was carefully documented, and the long-time employee was terminated for failing to perform up to standards. A few days after the separation, the employer received a letter from the dismissed employee’s attorney indicating that it was wrongful termination due to age discrimination and that a claim would be filed with the state’s anti-discrimination commission unless certain conditions were met within seven days.

Even though no action was ever taken, the cost to the small company was significant. A lawyer was engaged to prepare the documentation indicating why the company was perfectly justified in dismissing the employee, and there was time, effort and personnel required for the company to answer questions and provide…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

A Rocky Mount manufacturer of Addressograph[R] 2000 Series imprinters, for use in the healthcare industry, can sue a South Carolina manufacturer, Data Systems, in Virginia federal district court for the latter’s alleged trademark violations and unfair competition arising from the South Carolina company’s alleged “reverse engineering” of plaintiff company’s imprinter.

The evidence indicates that the application of the long-arm statute to Data Systems is appropriate. The undisputed evidence shows that over the course of four years, Data Systems purchased numerous Addressograph[R] 2000 Series imprinters from NewBold. Data Systems made the purchases by sending purchase orders to NewBold in Virginia. NewBold alleges that these transactions made it possible for Data Systems to reverse engineer its product and produce the Model 585. Data Systems disputes this allegation as mere conjecture. However, even if the purchases were not made for the purpose of reverse engineering, they establish a foundation for NewBold’s complaints of intentional confusion and deception because Data Systems has stated that it purchased them for the purpose of re-sale. Inasmuch as Data Systems’ sales of Addressograph[R] 200 Series imprinters immediately prior to its introduction of the Model 585 may have created confusion, the complaint satisfactorily states that Data Systems transacted business in Virginia.

Further, NewBold contends that the website advertisements and maintenance of a dealer in Virginia impacts the in-state sales of the Addressograph[R] 2000. NewBold also points to the likelihood that Data Systems used at least some of the Addressograph[R] 2000 Series imprinters that it ordered from Virginia between April 2001 and May 2005 to reverse engineer the Model 585 as a consideration in analyzing the propriety of this court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Data Systems. These two factors, as well as the facts that the website is at least partly directed toward Virginia resident and that Data Systems represents itself as having an agent in Virginia, collectively demonstrate the appropriateness of personal jurisdiction in this case.

The actions Data Systems allegedly undertook in maintaining its website, promoting its agent in Virginia and purchasing Addressograph[R] 2000 Series imprinters for the purpose of reverse engineering, are enough to establish jurisdiction, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence at trial. When these alleged actions are considered in conjunction with the claimed impact on sales of Addressograph[R] 2000 Series imprinters within and outside of Virginia, the elements of the Virginia long-arm statute are satisfied. The requirements of due process are similarly satisfied by defendant’s purposeful availment of the forum state.

NewBold Corp. v. Data Systems Co. (Conrad, J.) No. 7:06cv00033, Feb. 28, 2006; USDC at Roanoke, Va. VLW 006-3-093, 8 pp.

Criminal

Habeas - Timely Appeal Notice

Where petitioner mailed a piece of “legal mail” from jail eight days before his notice of appeal was due in the state trial court, and other circumstances support his claim that this item was in fact his notice of appeal, his claim of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel is not procedurally defaulted, under an application of the “substantial compliance” exception to state procedural rules allowed by federal law.

In his motion requesting Virginia Supreme Court reconsideration of the dismissal of his habeas petition, petitioner argued he had indeed filed a timely notice of appeal. As proof, he submitted an institutional record confirming that he had delivered to prison officials an item of legal mail to be sent to Northampton County Circuit Court. This correctional facility record reflects that petitioner had done so on May 4, 2004, well…

More : accessmylibrary.com

Q. I’ve been a full-time, salaried government worker for nearly 20 years. Last year I underwent serious cancer treatment, missing three months of work while using up all my leave under the Family & Medical Leave Act.

I am still not 100 percent physically, and my doctor has recommended I cut back to 35 hours a week. My manager and human resources department have OK’d my request, but there’s a major hitch: They say I will no longer be eligible for health insurance, because the insurance…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Weeks after passing landmark health care reform legislation, Massachusetts legislators soon will consider a proposal that would, if passed, create the nation’s most generous paid family and medical leave program.

Senate President Robert Travaglini, D-Boston, is set to introduce legislation that would guarantee a worker in Massachusetts 12 weeks of full pay-subject to a $750 weekly cap-if he or she needs time off to care for a newborn or adopted child. An employee also could take paid, job-protected leave if he or she or a spouse, child or parent is seriously ill.

An employee, though, would be entitled to paid leave only after a five-day waiting period, during which the worker would have to tap sick leave, vacation time or take leave without pay.

Additionally, an employee would be eligible to take family…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

W&T Offshore, Inc. announced that Stephen A. Landry, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, has resigned effective May 31, 2006. As previously announced, Mr. Landry had taken a leave of absence under the Family & Medical Leave Act as of March 27, 2006….

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Wisconsin has revised its Family and Medical Leave Act notice to include a requirement that employees be allowed to substitute paid or unpaid leave for certain types of family and medical care.

The revised workplace notice, which applies to employers with 50 or more employees, also…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

This month all Americans can celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Family & Medical Leave Act going into effect. In the past decade, more than 40 million U.S. workers have been able to take time off from work to be with their new baby, to care for a seriously ill family member or to recover from their own serious illness without fear of losing their jobs. U.S. families are healthier and stronger because of the FMLA and businesses have found that making the workplace more family-friendly has made workers more dedicated and productive, while reducing costly turnover.

Washington state has much to be proud of. Legislation that passed here in 1988 and 1989 helped