HR Forum

President Signs War Spending Bill - Increases Federal Minimum Wage

On Friday, President Bush signed the Iraq war spending bill that included language that will increase the federal minimum wage for the first time in a decade.

Title VIII - Fair Minimum Wage and Tax Relief, from the new law, will increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 in three stages over two years. The increases will be done in three phases of 70 cents more an hour. The first increase will bring the minimum wage up to $5.85 an hour, 60 days after signing. The other increases will follow a year apart and will be completed by the summer of 2009.

On Friday, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, released the following statement in response to the President signing the minimum wage increase into law.

"While I know that many Americans are deeply troubled about the bill the President has signed today, there is one thing in this legislation that we can all celebrate – a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage. Minimum wage workers have been waiting for this raise for ten long and difficult years. They have worked more than one job. They have saved every penny they can for the future of their children. They have decided each day what food they can afford to buy and what bills they can afford pay. Today, these hardworking Americans have hope for a brighter future. And we are one step closer to becoming the America we want to be – where anyone who works hard and plays by the rules can build a better life for their family."

Please head over to gneil.com to see what that means for federal labor law posting requirements or read our Federal Minimum Wage Increase Q & A and learn more.

War Bill Signed: Minimum Wage Increase Now Law

President Bush signed the bill which contained the provisions for the increase in the federal minimum wage. We'll be keeping you updated on how this will affect your business, and what you'll need to do to comply with the new law.

But it's Saturday, and it's a three-day weekend, so we'll get back to that on Tuesday.

Enjoy your weekend!

- Helene Kopel, G.Neil Blog Queen

SPECIAL UPDATE: Federal Minimum Wage Passed in Congress

This is it...almost. Last night, Congress approved the first increase in the federal minimum wage, in over a decade. This measure would raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 in three stages over two years. The bill includes $4.84 billion in tax breaks for small businesses. President Bush has already said he's ready to sign it and once that happens, the wage increase will become law.

We'll be keeping you updated on what this means to you, and how you can ensure compliance with the new laws, so sign up for blog updates on the right side of this page to stay informed (or save this page to your "Favorites" and check back soon)!

You can read more about the news here:
Congress Passes Increase in the Minimum Wage

Federal Minimum Wage - Clearing Up Confusion

Recently, an anonymous comment was left on an old post, Federal Minimum Wage Update: House Combines Minimum Wage Increase to War Spending Bill:

"All of this minimum wage stuff is confusing. Has there or has there not been a bill passed that increases the minimum wage? If so, what is the name/number of the bill?"

As expected, President Bush vetoed HR 1591, which attached the federal minimum wage increase to the emergency war spending bill. Democrats have vowed that the minimum wage increase and small business tax package will happen, one way or another. House and Senate leaders met with the President last week to try to work out a compromise bill and are hoping to wrap it up by Memorial Day recess.

So the answer to the question is – No, a bill to increase the federal minimum wage has not yet been passed. However, analysts are predicting that it should happen within the next month or so.

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?

Beware of deceptive claims

As a general rule, I appreciate strong competition. After all, healthy competition is good for our business and for our customers. It keeps us focused on what customers really want and need, and on continually improving our quality and service levels.

But lately we've been hearing about deceptive tactics being used by some labor law poster providers that, frankly, have me incensed. And I'm not alone. This information came to our attention as a result of customers calling us for reassurance and to express their outrage.

One customer received a personal visit to his business from an individual who showed a badge and implied that he was with the worker's compensation department to gain access to the business premises. He proceeded to "audit" the company's postings and then offered posters for purchase.

Another customer was threatened with fines and jail time if she failed to order posters from a caller by 5 p.m. that day. When the customer told the caller that she ordered her posters from G.Neil, she was told that G.Neil was no longer in business.

A corporate manager for one of our larger Poster Guard customers received a call from a branch in another state. A person visited the branch and misrepresented himself as an employee of G.Neil, saying that the branch was not covered by Poster Guard and they were out of compliance.

Unscrupulous tactics like these give our entire industry a bad name. In fact, the Attorneys General in several states are specifically targeting deceptive labor law marketers. Here at G.Neil, we're joining the fight to clean up our industry and we're asking for your help.

If you have had a similar experience with one of these companies, please consider taking the time to file a complaint with your State Attorney General or Consumer Protection office. Click here for direct links to file a complaint online, download a complaint form, or find instructions on filing a complaint in your state.

And finally, selecting a reliable, trustworthy provider for your labor law posters and labor law poster services is critical to protect your business. Before you make a buying decision, be sure to check the seller's Reliability Report from the Better Business Bureau by visiting search.bbb.org. We also invite you to view G.Neil's Reliability Report.

Where to File a Complaint

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Federal Minimum Wage Bill Gets Nudge from Iraq War Vote

On March 29, 2007, the Senate passed the Iraq war spending bill that included language that will increase the federal minimum wage for the first time in 10 years. The raise in the federal minimum wage, however, is unlikely to pass with this legislation since President Bush has vowed to veto it since the bill calls for a March 2008 pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The addition of the minimum wage issue to the Iraq spending bill, however, allows House and Senate Democrats to begin negotiations on the size of small business tax cuts that have divided House and Senate Democrats. In early March, House Democrats attached the federal minimum wage legislation to the budget bill in order to speed the agreement between chambers on the size of the package of small business tax breaks.

Although the federal minimum wage increase is likely doomed when the bill reaches the White House, minimum wage supporters see value in its inclusion. Once a compromise on the size of the tax breaks is hammered out, a new minimum wage bill can be brought forward later and possibly passed, either as stand alone legislation or as part of a less controversial budget package.

Bill Samuel, of the AFL-CIO, said “This is a step forward but not a final one.” Samuel predicts another minimum wage bill could be produced by mid-to-late April. By then, the tax-breaks would presumably be worked out between the House and Senate.

Stay tuned...

Federal Minimum Wage Update: House Combines Minimum Wage Increase to War Spending Bill

So when will the minimum wage bill finally be passed? The answer unfortunately remains uncertain but the House of Representatives is trying a new approach. This week, the House will discuss an emergency spending bill for the Iraq war. The emergency spending bill would pay for the war until October, but require U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by the end of August, 2008.

What does all this have to do with minimum wage? Well, in an attempt to gather the votes necessary to pass the emergency spending bill, the House has been adding lots of extras to the bill, including an amendment to increase the federal minimum wage. The amendment would increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 over two years and grant $1.3 billion in tax breaks for restaurants and other affected businesses.

This approach has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans, and is not likely to succeed. However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, stated that, regardless of what happens to the Iraq spending bill, Congress would give final approval to the minimum wage increase bill before the spring is out.

Workplace Harassment or Compliment?

A colleague of mine was recently presented with a hypothetical situation on her group message board:

A woman walks into work and a male mid-level manager, from another department, smiles and says "good morning." She later gets a voice mail message from him saying "you know, I hope this doesn't offend you, but i just wanted to say you have a nice smile and it really started my day off on a positive note."

I've always thought that in order for a comment to be considered harassment,
a) the receiver has to say "no" in some way - no response constitutes acceptance of the comment.
b) the commentor must continue to make such comments.
c) as long as the comment is not job-related and commentor has been asked to stop, this could be construed as harassment.

Would this exchange constitute harassment?

The quick response is no, it does not.

The reason is not so quick:

This exchange, alone, does not amount to illegal workplace harassment. For workplace harassment to be illegal under federal law, the person who has been offended must prove three things:

1) The harassment must be based on a characteristic protected by law (e.g., gender, race, color, religion, national origin, age or disability). A comment that is sexual in nature usually satisfies this requirement.

2) The harassment must be "unwelcome." "Unwelcome" means the person regarded the conduct as undesirable and did not solicit or incite the conduct. A person is not required to complain or say anything at all to satisfy this requirement, but the reaction will be examined as evidence of whether it was welcomed or not. (As a separate issue, a company can escape liability for a manager's harassment in some cases if the company has a policy in place encouraging employees to report harassment and an employee fails to do so.)

3) The harassment was sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to create a hostile, intimidating or offensive work environment, to unreasonably interfere with a person’s work performance, or to otherwise adversely affect the terms, conditions or opportunities of a person’s employment.

In this scenario, the conduct is not sufficiently "severe or pervasive" to meet the third part of the test. The EEOC maintains that anti-discrimination statutes are not a "general civility code." Federal law does not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. This type of conduct may be inappropriate and should be discouraged by the employer's zero-tolerance harassment policy, but it is not illegal.

How would you have handled it, if the person had complained to you?

It's Not Me, It's You

Have you ever talked to your employee about performance issues and they decided it was a personal attack?

"My boss just hates me. Joe makes mistakes and he never gets in trouble."

It never crosses their mind that there is an actual problem with their work or their attendance or their attitude. "She just doesn't like me" is the only plausible explanation for why they've been written up. Heaven forbid it may be that they actually made mistakes, broke rules or caused problems.

And somehow, they also know any discipline or lack of discipline that everyone else in the company has had. "Sally screws up all the time but she hasn't gotten any warnings." Our victim must have special supernatural powers - the ability to know everything that goes on in your files, your office and your mind. Pretty impressive. I bet if you knew they had that power, you wouldn't have bothered telling them to stop coming in an hour late and leaving fifteen minutes early. Especially since you let Sally and Joe do it all the time!

Accountability...there are just some employees that just don't have any idea what that is or desire to take it on. The ones that take accountability for their mistakes actually stand a chance. As for the ones that don't, if fear isn't a driver that puts them back on track, then it's only a matter of time before they're gone...or you'll wish they were.

I'm sure there are a few horror stories out there...anybody want to share?

New OSHA Poster Released — Replacement NOT Required

Ashley Kaplan, G.Neil Compliance Attorney

Yesterday, OSHA announced the publication of its new "It's The Law" poster. Since that announcement, we've heard from a number of concerned customers who have received calls from companies promoting sales of their versions of the new poster. Some of these companies have implied that it is mandatory to replace their old poster.

As stated in the news release, issued by the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), "the OSHA poster, also known as the OSHA notice of employee rights, is required to be displayed in every workplace in America. The current edition of the OSHA poster is still valid; employers are not required to replace their existing poster with the new version."

For clarity, the federal OSHA poster was updated with additional language and new graphics. The poster now depicts a variety of employees in various settings – from the medical field to the construction industry – and precisely explains how employees may file a complaint, report an emergency, or seek OSHA advice.

For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov/index.html.

Federal Minimum Wage Update - Back to the House

It's been quite a busy week for our Compliance and Research Attorneys, here at G.Neil. They're working hard to track the Federal Minimum Wage bill and what that will mean for us and for you, so they've asked me to relay the latest update.

With two key developments in the Senate this week, the potential for the federal minimum wage increase in 2007 has strengthened. We mentioned that on Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted to add a package of tax breaks for small businesses to the bill - this was approved on Thursday in a 94-3 vote. The modified bill is now headed back to the House. Analysts are pretty sure that the Senate and House will reach a compromise and that the final bill will go to President Bush to be signed.

President Bush issued a statement regarding the latest developments that shows his support of the bill. You can read it here.

Helene Kopel, G.Neil Blog Guru

Important Federal Minimum Wage Update

Federal Minimum Wage Bill Still Alive as Senate Moves to Add Tax Breaks for Small Businesses

With the latest development in the Senate this week, the federal minimum wage change is one step closer to being passed in 2007.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted to add a package of tax breaks for small businesses to the bill — this move may ultimately lead to its approval and signing by President Bush.

If the bill passes the vote in the Senate, which is expected to happen this week, it will go back to the House for "discussions." When the House passed the minimum wage bill earlier this month, it was without any tax breaks, so it's got to go back for agreement. Then, if the House and Senate agree on a final version of the bill, it will head to the President.

Leading analysts predict that with the addition of those tax breaks for small businesses, the President is much more likely to sign the bill.

Keep coming back, we'll keep you posted.

Federal Minimum Wage Bill Still in the Senate

Many of you have read that the Senate did not pass the bill to raise the federal minimum wage, this week. (Tax breaks sidetrack minimum wage bill - Yahoo! News) I've gotten a few questions here at the office about what exactly that means, so I imagine some of you are wondering the same.

The bill is still alive. Yesterday, the Senate voted on a motion to end debates on the House's clean minimum wage bill. The House's minimum wage bill only contained an increase to the federal minimum wage (clean increase) and did not include any tax breaks for small businesses. The Senate voted yesterday on whether to end debates (meaning no amendments could be added to the bill like a tax break) and whether to keep the bill as a clean increase.

Unfortunately, the Senate voted against the motion to end debates. This means that now debates will begin to either add an amendment to the House bill that includes a tax break for small businesses or the Senate may introduce their own minimum wage bill. (You can already read about the first failed amendment here: Senators Kill Minimum Wage Amendment)

The Senate's goal was to pass the minimum wage bill this week but now the issue will be debated; it is going to take a bit longer to pass.

Hot Topic: Federal Minimum Wage Increase Passed in the House

There have been talks of a possible federal minimum wage increase for years now and it looks like it may actually come true. On January 10, 2007, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill to increase the federal minimum wage. The last time the federal minimum wage was increased was in 1997.

The bill, which now goes to the Senate, would raise the federal minimum wage by $2.10 from its current $5.15 an hour in three steps over 26 months. It would go to $5.85 an hour 60 days after signed into law by the President, to $6.55 a year later, and to $7.25 a year after that. It is expected that additional minimum wage increases will follow on a state level. There are currently about 15 state minimum wage increase bills pending. If a state raises its minimum wage to a rate higher than the federal minimum wage (as is the case in most states), employers are required to pay the higher rate.

President Bush recently announced he supports a minimum-wage increase if Congress offers tax and regulatory incentives for small businesses. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill by the end of next week. We are closely monitoring the minimum wage developments on a state and federal level, and will post updates here as new information arises.

EEO-1 Report Revised for 2007

The Employer Information Report (EEO-1) changed last year and covered employers should now be using the revised EEO-1 Report format for 2007. Our New Hire EEO-1 Data Sheet complies with the new requirements and was updated to include the new race, ethnicity and job categories for 2007.

Earlier last year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced the implementation of the first major changes to the EEO-1 Report. The EEO-1 Report must be filed annually by employers with 100 or more employees, or employers with federal government contracts of $50,000 or more and 50 or more employees.

You can learn more about the EEO-1 reporting requirements on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Web site.

New Final HIPAA Regulations Released

New HIPAA regulations were issued yesterday. The new rules clarify HIPAA's non-discrimination provisions and provide new guidelines on wellness plans (e.g., sponsoring employee memberships at fitness clubs, offering incentives for quitting smoking, etc.). While the effective date of the HIPAA regulations is February 12, 2007, employers have until July 1, 2007 to comply (the "first day of the company's plan year beginning on or after July 1, 2007").

If you have an existing G.Neil HIPAA product, you are still in compliance. The new HIPAA regulations add and clarify information that's addressed in our HIPAA Portability Guide so we’ll be working on updates along with some other ideas we have for products to help you stay in HIPAA compliance. Stay tuned...you’ll hear about it first, right here.

And, as always, if you’ve got any specific suggestions for products you’d like to see, please feel free to share your ideas with us here.

The New E-discovery Regulations...who, me?

As the eCommerce Manager, I get every newsletter ever created that has to do with the Internet. Typically, I do a quick scan and move on...but this article caught my eye: New Rules Force Firms to Track E-Mails, IMs. The article talks about the new amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) relating to e-discovery regulations that went into effect on Friday, December 1.

Immediate panic disorder sets in - do I just confess that I emailed an "I love you" to my sweetie, downloaded a coupon for free Wendy's french fries and bookmarked the Broward County Schools website, this morning alone?

So what now? Do I call the IT or Legal Department to see if they're aware of this and taking steps to make sure we're in compliance with the law? Does this even apply to my company? I know what you were thinking...they don't mean me. I'm not a big public company. Sheesh, I don't even have an IT or Legal Department.

Right now, I couldn't tell you the answer. But don't worry, I've already forwarded it on to IT and Legal to find out. And I also sent it to the Product Development Legal Research team...I figured if I'm unclear whether it applies to me or not, then you might need some help, too.

In the meantime, what the heck do you do when you hear about some new law that may or may not be related to your business? How often do you blow it off thinking it's for the Enrons of the world or jump on the phone to your lawyer to make sure he's got you covered?

- Helene Kopel, eCommerce Manager

Criminal History — A Hiring Deal Breaker?

Has this ever happened to you? You think you've found the perfect candidate for an open position — but when you settle down to take a better look at the application you discover that the criminal conviction question has been checked “yes.”

OR you get deeper into the process, run a background check and a prior conviction shows up. What do you do when you discover a candidate has a criminal history? Pass over this person automatically? Hire them and hope for the best?

We all know that our justice system deems us "innocent until proven guilty." That is why we base decisions on conviction records rather than arrest records. Also...and here's where it gets sticky...it's a sad but true fact that minorities are arrested at a higher rate than non-minorities. So, not hiring a candidate based on arrest record alone could prove to be discriminatory.

In my case, half the time I've hired the person and the other half, I haven't. I take into consideration whether or not the applicant was truthful on the application (I personally don't hire if he/she is not), the nature of the crime (peace protest or murder conviction) and how recently it was committed. I also consider whether or not the offender might be a risk in my particular workplace.

Of course, the final decision is yours. Just keep in mind you'll need to comply with "pesky little issues" such as negligent hiring, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and any applicable state laws regarding background checks and permissible questions on applications.

- Maurice Rosenberg, Human Resources Manager

Confronting Poor Performers

Bob, your accounting manager, comes rushing into your office to tell you he's got to fire Joe, the accounts receivable clerk, immediately. Apparently, Joe can't get anything right and if something isn't done, the whole company is going to go down the drain.

UGH!! Sound familiar?

After presenting Bob with the Oscar for "Best Actor in a Workplace Drama," you ask him if he's written up Joe for any specific incidences, or if he's shared Joe's performance issues in his last annual review. Bob gives you a blank stare and tells you he's got too much paperwork to handle as it is. Translation: No. And when you pull Joe's previous performance appraisals from your files, you get every indication that Joe's work has been nothing short of glowing.

Can you terminate Joe? Yes. Should you terminate Joe? Maybe. Is it a good idea to terminate Joe today? A resounding NO.

I've seen it time and time again — managers who are afraid they won't be liked if they give any negative feedback. But if you don't tell employees what's wrong, how can they do anything to improve? I've found that most employees would rather get honest feedback — for the benefit of their own career development — than be left in the dark. Plus, you want to inform them of the next steps should they not improve, so they're not in complete shock if/when you escort them out the door.

Here's more inspiration for you: This could save your company from a lawsuit if Joe decides to sue for discrimination. Although most states let you fire employees "at-will" with no reason or paperwork, it's not a smart move. Joe may claim Bob discriminated against him — even if he knows it's not true. And without the proper paperwork (counseling or warning forms and/or performance reviews with specific expectations), your company may not have any proof to defend itself in court.

My suggestion? Do yourself, your company AND your employees a big favor and deal with the performance issues as they occur — and document, document, document. It shows you are a great manager who not only cares about your company, but also your employees.

- Maurice Rosenberg, Human Resources Manager

Pages

More Resources