Search results

For over thirty years, one of the most overt forms of employer opposition to unionization has been anti-union campaigns conducted by union avoidance consultants. As a result, both union and employer associations have attempted to influence the provisions of the LMRDA that cover consultant activities. This article provides the first comprehensive historical analysis of the LMRDA's reporting and disclosure requirements covering employers and consultants. The first section examines consultant reporting policy from the late 1950s to the late 1970s, a period when unions filed relatively few complaints and the DOL initiated few investigations, but the consultant industry expanded significantly. Section two examines developments in the 1980s – the period of greatest congressional and judicial activity on consultant reporting since the 1950s. The final section looks at post-1980s events and examines why organized labor has persisted with its campaign to reform government policy on consultant reporting, despite its inability to make progress on the issue over the past four decades.

Before sending employees to the US, it is critical for foreign employers to understand the basic requirements of US wage and hour law to avoid unintentional but costly violations of that law. Many foreign companies are surprised to learn that the US workers they employ in the United States as well as their own workers who are sent to the United States for short periods are protected by the US wage and hour laws and must be paid in accordance with US law for workweeks in which the employee performs his or her work in the US or its territories. Unfortunately, many foreign companies do not learn about US wage and hour law until it is too late. This article explains the basic requirements of the US wage and hour law. Because most US wage and hour law requires an individualised case‐by‐case assessment of coverage and requirements, companies considering employing workers in or sending employees to the US are encouraged to consult with US employment law counsel about their specific situations.

Under-reporting of occupational accidents is a common problem in many countries. This is mainly because of the shortfalls in accident reporting and recording systems. Construction industry being a hazardous industry, the rate of accidents is higher compared with other industries and apparently a high rate of under-reporting. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the rate of under-reporting, significant reasons for under-reporting and identify the shortcomings in the existing accident reporting system in Sri Lanka in aiming to recommend efficient mechanisms for occupational accident recording and reporting to construction industry.

Both secondary and primary data were tapped to gather required data. The secondary data were extracted from the records available in year 2014-2015 at the office of the commissioner for workmen’s compensation and the industrial safety division of the Department of Labor (DoL) to analyze the rate of under-reporting. The primary data were obtained through expert interviews to explore the gaps in reporting system and to identify mechanisms to reduce under-reporting.

The findings revealed 80 per cent of construction accidents are under-reported. Eight gaps in the current accident recording and reporting system and key recommendations at organizational and national level for its improvements were identified.

The findings provide an insight of occupational safety and health (OSH) practices in construction industry and it can be used as an eye opening flash for safety law-makers and practitioners to revisit the existing regulations and practices.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (here in after referred to as the FLSA or Act, 1938) requires that most employees in the U.S. be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and receive overtime pay at one and one‐half times the regular rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a work‐week. Defined within the Act are certain types of employees who are exempt from both minimum wage and overtime pay, i.e., if a worker is employed as a bonafide executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, or computer employee. These exempt categories are cumulatively referred to as the white collar exemption and the workers are called white collar employees. To qualify for such exemptions the job description and/or employment contract must meet certain salary and job duties tests. The past thirty years have seen these tests become outdated resulting in uncertainty and ambiguity in their application. On April 24, 2004 the Wage and Hour Division of the U. S. Department of Labor responded to these decades‐old exemption descriptions with new regulations relating to white collar exemptions of the Act called the FairPay Over time Initiative (here in after referred to asFPOI). The purpose of the new FLSA regulations was to modernize, update, and clarify the criteria for these exemptions and to eliminate legal problems that the prior regulations caused.

Since the late 1970s, US employers have increasingly drawn upon legal temporary labor under the H-2 visa to address their labor needs in low-waged sectors. Ever since, what Clark calls migrant labor activism and conflict in the courts has similarly erupted. However, as she argues in this chapter, making “adversarial legalism” the H-2 way of law has also been a story of comparative state formation. For, the litigation largely reflects the structure of labor migration created after the demise of government-run migration. In this regard, activists wrestle with the problems created by the new role of global labor intermediaries in the recruitment process, absolute employer control over hiring and firing, and the coercion produced in the shadow of a now minimally interventionist state. Drawing upon archival research, interviews with legal professionals, and the entire case law docket in this area, this chapter puts “adversarial legalism” under the H-2 visa in its historical and political context.

Recently, the Department of Labour’s Fairpay Overtime Initiative was enacted to revamp the previous Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA) rules governing employee overtime benefits. This legislation is a significant departure from the past regulations in determining overtime eligibility. In an effort to clarify these new FLSA guidelines, the authors have prepared a detailed model, outlining the process necessary to establish an employee’s exempt/non‐exempt status. Particular attention is apid to the process of correctly classifying employees by recommending the use of functional job analysis procedures in order to administer the newly created job duties test. Comments are then made about some shortcomings of the legislation and issues for managers to consider.

Over the past few decades, the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) has become one of the most controversial and politicized divisions of the Department of Labor. Republic and Democratic Administrations have adopted starkly different practices concerning both the allocation of resources and the focus of regulatory activities at the division. These differences have been brought into sharp focus during the Bush II and Obama Administrations. Under the Bush Administration, funding for OLMS increased significantly, and the DOL revised union financial reporting requirements, imposing a more onerous burden on unions in the name of promoting transparency and accountability. Section 1 of this paper provides a summary and analysis of the most significant changes and innovations at the OLMS under the Obama Administration. Section 2 of the paper provides a detailed summary of the Bush era reforms and their fate under the Obama OLMS, and an analysis of the impact of these reforms in the area of increasing union transparency and accountability. It argues that the Bush reforms did little or nothing to achieve greater accountability and may instead have been motivated largely by a desire to impose a more onerous administrative burden on reporting unions.

Identifies fundamental errors, both mathematical and methodological, in the purported $17 billion annual benefit from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Conflict of Interest Rule, commonly known as the Fiduciary Rule.

Examines the methodologies and data used by the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) in calculating the estimated $17 billion benefit of the Fiduciary Rule, and then recalculates the benefit according to the CEA’s stated methodologies and data descriptions. The approach is non-partisan, the review apolitical.

The article concludes that the estimated $17 benefit from the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule was grossly exaggerated and that other data suggests the Rule may not provide meaningful new protections for investors.

From the perspective of staunch fiduciary advocates, the calculation of the benefit to IRA investors from the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule is examined. The current measures that protect individual investors are also noted. The information may provide a turning point in the discussion of the Rule’s delay and potential rescission. It may also provide relevant points for the DOL to consider as it carries out its task of re-evaluating the Rule.

Recognizing the difference of labor laws between the U.S. and China, the U.S. parties need to recognize the differences when negotiating and investing in China, because some of the clauses can be settled when signing contracts or agreements. For China’s part, minimum wages are crucial for them to remember when they do business in the U.S.; the good thing is that they do not have to pay holidays that are different from China. Overall, the benefits are tremendous when the differences are recognized in advance of investments, contracts or agreement negotiations. Recognizing the differences between the two labor acts will avoid unnecessary cost and conflicts.

Although it is more than 60 years old, the Fair Labour Standards Act (FLSA) is showing a new vitality. During the 12‐month period ending June 30, 2002, the number of law suits filed in federal district courts under the FLSA increased dramatically by 75% from 2,009 to 3,529. Current and former employees often file law suits under the FLSA as class actions for unpaid overtime. Frequently, the employees claiming overtime pay were salaried employees who were classified by their employers as exempt executive, professional or administrative personnel. Such law suits by employees or US Department of Labour (DOL) have resulted in multi‐million dollar judgements and settlements. The best way to avoid costly law suits is with careful review of employee classifications.