President signs equal pay for equal work bill

This morning, President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, an equal-pay bill that will make it easier for employees to sue for pay discrimination.

As Obama signed his first piece of legislation as President, he ended a 2007 Supreme Court decision that said workers must file a pay-discrimination lawsuit within 180 days of a company’s initial decision to pay them less than another worker performing the same job.

Throughout his campaign, Obama promised to sign the bill, which became a focal point for labor and women’s groups.

From President Obama’s statement on the law this morning:

It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign - the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act - we are upholding one of this nation's first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness.

... So in signing this bill today, I intend to send a clear message: That making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone. That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it's not just unfair and illegal - but bad for business - to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability. And that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory, or footnote in a casebook - it's about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives: their ability to make a living and care for their families and achieve their goals.

It is estimated that women are still paid about 78 cents for every dollar that men are paid for doing equal work, according to 2008 Census Bureau statistics.

The Act is named after a former Goodyear employee who didn’t become aware of a pay discrepancy until the end of her career. She sued, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that she missed her chance.

The Ledbetter Act will amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to reach farther than gender to include pay discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, national origin, disability or age.

President signs equal pay for equal work bill

House passes Paycheck Fairness Act

As expected, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Paycheck Fairness Act on July 31, 2008. The new act would help close the gap between women’s and men’s pay differences by “adding some teeth” to the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

If approved, the bill would enhance remedies in cases where women and men are not paid equal wages for doing equal work.

Among other enhancements, the bill would allow women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages in Equal Pay Act cases, require the Department of Labor to strengthen training and outreach efforts that help employers eliminate pay disparities, and create a new grant program to help women develop stronger negotiation skills.

The bill now moves on to the Senate, where we’ll continue watching its progress. Check back for updates on the bill and how it may affect your business.

House passes Paycheck Fairness Act

Digital dilemma: Paying employees to check BlackBerrys?

Should employees receive overtime compensation for checking company email, checking messages or posting a work-related blog from home?

The question recently became a hot topic at ABC, over whether the company should pay writers to check their BlackBerry outside of work.

The writers’ union challenged a longstanding contract waiver stating that writers who occasionally checked their BlackBerry after hours did not receive time-and-a-half overtime pay.

ABC argued that paying employees time-and-a-half overtime for using their BlackBerry for minutes at a time would turn into a nightmare of a paperwork and payroll issue.

The Writers’ Guild’s wanted to make a point that while technology makes it easy to work from anywhere, but we must avoid creating a 24/7 workplace.

In the end, ABC still will not pay overtime for employees who check email away from the office, holding true to their practices before the argument started.

As technology makes it easier to work from home, blurring the lines between work and play, issues like this will only continue to crop up.

Do you think this is a workplace issue we should be worried about? What’s the right thing to do?

Digital dilemma: Paying employees to check BlackBerrys?

'Bring your guns to work' bill passes Florida senate

To follow up on a topic we reported on last month, the Florida senate approved a bill on April 9, that would allow employees and customers with concealed weapons permits to bring a firearm onto company property. The bill, familiarly known as the “bring your guns to work” bill allows firearms to be kept in locked vehicles in company parking lots.

The bill now goes on to the governor, who will likely sign it into law, according to a recent SHRM article.

The bill prohibits employers from asking if an employee or customer is carrying a gun and from searching that person’s vehicle for a firearm. In addition, the bill will make it illegal to deny employment because the applicant has a concealed weapons permit. Also, employers may not fire an individual for keeping a licensed weapon in their vehicle.


Against the bill - The Florida Chamber of Commerce

The Florida Chamber of Commerce is against the bill, claiming that it would “undermine the property rights of Florida businesses and could endanger workers.” Whether an employee is able to bring their gun to work was previously determined by the property owner. Passage of the bill will deny employers of that right.

They also claim the bill could lead to increased workplace violence. Additionally, the chamber is against the bill because it would give gun owners the same discrimination rights as victims of sexual harassment and racism.


For the bill - The National Rifle Association

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is pushing for the governor’s signature on the bill, under the belief that it will help protect employees as they travel to and from work.

They also claim that businesses violate constitutional rights of individuals by having the power to search private vehicles and by banning an individual’s right to legally carry a gun.


We would like to hear your opinion. How do you feel about a coworker or customer being legally able to possess a firearm on company property? What’s your stance on the bill?

'Bring your guns to work' bill passes Florida senate

Do English-only workplaces discriminate?

Are English-only workplace policies discrimination? An article on SHRM today examines the issue.

Many U.S. employers support English-only rules as a way to ensure good employee relations and a safe work environment. But recently such rules have become a political lightning rod.

Some employee advocates have accused employers of enacting English-only policies to discriminate against immigrants.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces federal rules associated with this issue. The Commission allows U.S. employers to require English in the workplace, but the policy can not be in response to a certain group and must be for a specific business-related reason.

“Prohibiting people from speaking their primary language at all times can create an atmosphere of intimidation and inferiority,” according to an EEOC spokesman.

The article points out situations that would justify an English-only rule:

• Communications with customers, co-workers or supervisors who speak only English.
• Emergencies or other situations in which workers must speak a common language to promote safety.
  
• Cooperative work assignments in which the English-only rule is needed to promote efficiency.
  
• To enable a supervisor who speaks only English to monitor the performance of an employee whose job duties require communication with co-workers or customers.
  

The EEOC recommends that before employers adopt an English-only rule, weigh business justifications against all possible discriminatory effects of the rule.

Does your company have a workplace language policy? Do you think English-only policies are discriminatory or unfair?

Do English-only workplaces discriminate?

Can The "I Know It When I See It" Test Be Applied to The Dress Code?

In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...but I know it when I see it..."

Now, you're asking, what does porn have to do with my office?

Ever come across an employee that seems to dress just a little too sexy, or has a few too many holes on their face to be dealing with the customers, or is dressed for a day at the ballpark instead of the office park? You review your company dress code and discover that, technically, there are no rules being broken. You've added a general catch-all for "inappropriate attire" to your formal policy, but how do you define it? Return to Justice Stewart..."I know it when I see it."

One of your employees keeps walking back and forth to the copier in her form-fitting dress and spiked heels, causing raised eyebrows from some and lascivious leers from others. In the same department, another employee wears a similar outfit - yet with a different fit and figure, doesn't cause a stir. There is nothing in either case that would technically violate the dress code, item by item - and only one of the ladies is creating a distraction and making people feel uncomfortable. And there is nothing in your policy that specifically spells out what constitutes "inappropriate attire." Does "I know it when I see it" allow you to address the one employee?

Bigger question: can you or should you address only the one causing the stir; or does it create a fairness issue with regards to the other employee not being addressed?

Can The "I Know It When I See It" Test Be Applied to The Dress Code?