To improve the reinstatement rights of returning war veterans, and to add more enforcement teeth to the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey reintroduced the Servicemembers Access to Justice Act (SAJA) last week.
Details on SAJA and what it could mean for employers follow after the jump…
Well, that didn’t take long.
Late last month, I reported on a bill that had been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, known as the Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA), that would prohibit employers, schools, and universities from requiring someone to provide a username, password or other access to online content.
Now, it’s the U.S. Senate’s turn to get in on the act with its own password bill. Plus, after the jump, I’ll have an update on similar legislation winding its way to Governor Christie in New Jersey…
Yesterday, I gave my social media in the workplace spiel to a great crowd in Hershey, PA, at the Banyan Consulting 12th Annual Conference. Not surprisingly, the majority of questions posed involved the attention that the National Labor Relations Board has paid to social-media-related employee discipline. And that reminded me that a case I discussed earlier this week, the one involving overly-broad handbooks policies that restricted employee discussions of wages, had a second component worth discussing; namely, an unlawful Facebook firing. More after the jump…
* * *
If only I had a nickel for every time someone asked me, “How do you have time to blog every day?” The answer is simple: Jolt Cola Juleps and rogue Keebler Elves I just enjoy writing. But even so, it can get tiring sometimes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZdjJdOzN5QI was discussing this with a few HR blogger friends over dinner a few Fridays ago. They empathized. And then, I smiled, as whatever the opposite of writer’s block is overtook me faster than a fat kid at a cake buffet:
I’ll just do a post called “That’s what she said.”
Boom! Plagiarism! Double entendre + less work for me = one happy blogger dork.
I’ve struck gold…after the jump…
* * *
Two quick updates for you today; one labor, one employment.
Word has trickled in that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held a conference call with lawyers from the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, and informed them that the Court would rule by May 15 on a pending challenge to the NLRB “quickie” election rule changes. You can view those rule changes in this post I did last week.
And in case you missed yesterday’s post on new federal legislation that would bar employer demands for online passwords, be sure to check it out. Late in the day, I scored a copy of the bill, known as Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA), and added a link. We know now that employers that violate the law will be subject to civil fines of up to $10K. The Secretary of Labor may also seek injunctive relief. However, the federal law does not mention a private cause of action for individuals.
But, if you think they do — maybe you read this article last week — then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, sucker.
Come on! The sky isn’t falling. Demanding social media access from employees and potential hires and is most definitely the exception and not the rule. And I’ll set the record straight on this bad business practice after the jump…
Early in my legal career, a colleague taught me the expression: pigs get fed; hogs get slaughtered. Essentially, be agressive. But push too hard, and you may lose it all.
Some PA companies require their new hires to sign an agreement requiring them to arbitrate any claims that arise out of the employment relationship. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that agreements requiring employees to arbitrate employment-related claims are ok. However, in Pennsylvania (as in other states), when those agreements are too one-sided, courts deem them unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.
So remember, pigs get fed; hogs get slaughtered. And thanks to a decision the Third Circuit Court of Appeals handed down yesterday, PA employers now have a better blueprint as to how to avoid unconscionable arbitration agreements. Details after the jump…
Over the weekend, I read this story by Laura Hibbard at the Huffington Post about a phony job flyer handed out by two men in red blazers posing as Chick-Fil-A employees [link to video] on the campus of New York University. The phony flyer states:
Remember Chick-Fil-A is a Christian company. We strive to have our values reflected in our employees. Please be prepared to discuss your religion, family history, personal relationships etc. upon interviewing. Chick-Fil-A reserves the right to question, in detail, your sexual relationship history. The Bible and Chick-Fil-A, define a traditional relationship as consisting of a man and woman. Anyone living a life of sin need not apply. The Chick-Fil-A Foundation. God, Family, Tradition.
The flyer and video have since gone viral. However, Chick-Fil-A, which has a stated corporate purpose to “glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us,” responded by posting on the wall of its Facebook Fan page (incidentally, 4,960,921 people “like” Chick-fil-A) that the flyer and video were BS. Given the company’s religious leanings, the comments beneath Chick-Fil-A’s status update are rather polarizing.
The Employer Handbook Blog