HRSmartPractice Articles
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “FFCRA”) was signed into law by President Trump on March 18 and became effective on April 1. Among its many provisions, the FFCRA included two new laws – the “Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act” (the “EFMLEA”) and the “Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act” (the “EPSLA”) – that have a direct and material impact on all employers with fewer than 500 employees.
While the ink on the 800+ page Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) is still drying, businesses are left to decipher what it means for their ongoing operations.
The Department of Labor published on Wednesday, March 25th the required poster for employers under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ("FFCRA").
Today, Governor Evers signed Emergency Order #12 - Safer at Home Order.
On Wednesday evening, March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act ("the Act"). The Act is one part of the larger strategy by the federal government to help Americans deal with COVID-19.
As federal, state and local governments continue to develop their responses to the COVID-19 outbreak, employers may find themselves in uncharted territory as to how to deal with emerging employee issues.
Wisconsin employers received good news on June 26 when the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that employers may adopt stricter attendance policies than the attendance standards contained in the state unemployment law, and may avoid paying unemployment benefits to employees who violate such stricter policies.
Employers often declare that, “Employees are our most valuable asset.” The time and expense of locating, recruiting, training, and assimilating new employees into the workforce (particularly during periods of labor shortages) and the vital connection of key employees to profitability certainly supports that principle.
Not according to the Seventh Circuit! Human Resource professionals are well aware of the challenges presented when an employee’s medical condition requires more time off than available to the employee under standard company leave or Family and Medical Leave Act policies. The critical questions in those situations are: 1) Does the employee’s condition qualify as a disability? 2) If so, must additional leave be provided as a “reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act? 3) What if the need for additional leave involves extensive time off?
Not according to the Seventh Circuit! Human Resource professionals are well aware of the challenges presented when an employee’s medical condition requires more time off than available to the employee under standard company leave or Family and Medical Leave Act policies. The critical questions in those situations are: 1) Does the employee’s condition qualify as a disability? 2) If so, must additional leave be provided as a “reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act? 3) What if the need for additional leave involves extensive time off?
Whether as a self-proprietor or as an employee, you have probably spent a good portion of your adult life dedicating your time and energy to growing your business. You have made many sacrifices in order to focus on developing that one product or process that will provide a competitive advantage for years to come, or devoted countless hours to landing that key customer that will take your business to new heights. But now that you have developed the proprietary process or significant customer account, how do you safeguard them?
Human Resources professionals occasionally receive requests for FMLA leave when an employee is unable to arrange for day care services for their child. While in many cases FMLA leave is not available for routine “babysitting,” a full evaluation of all the facts must be performed before the request is denied. A Wisconsin company recently learned this lesson the hard way - its misunderstanding of FMLA family care provisions resulted in a jury award of significant damages to its employee.
Several major amendments to the Wisconsin unemployment law were enacted in January of 2014. The changes were intended to tighten eligibility standards for receipt of unemployment, thus providing relief to employers’ unemployment accounts and the state unemployment fund, which was experiencing a significant shortfall.
Among the key changes were modifications of eligibility standards for employees who are terminated for “misconduct.” Employers were optimistic that the new changes would add clarity to the definition of “misconduct,” and would make it more difficult for employees who fail to comply with workplace rules or expectations to successfully pursue unemployment claims.
As many Human Resource professionals know, union organizing has been picking up steam, following the recent implementation of “Quickie-Election” rules, “Mini-Bargaining Units” and other pro-union rulings by the National Labor Relations Board. Although unions have adopted modern methods of communicating their marketing pitches (such as Facebook campaigns, Twitter messages, text messaging, e-mail blasts), as well as more traditional methods (such as public rallies and mass postal mailings), the most efficient method of convincing workers to unionize remains the face-to-face conversation. And union organizers understand that the best way to initiate a face-to-face conversation is at work.
The Greek philosopher Heraclitus once said, “The only constant is change.” HR professionals are only too aware of the truth of that statement, as evidenced by the tidal wave of changes in workplace regulations over the past few years. The summer of 2015 will continue that trend. Multiple federal and state laws and regulations are in the final stages of passage, and other rules and recent court decisions have already set new changes in motion.
If the National Labor Relations Board has its way, workplaces of the 21st century will be markedly different from those at the end of the 20th century – and the details of this future “vision” will come as a severe shock to businesses.
It is no secret that the goal of the current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is to increase unionization and stop the steep decline of unions. A majority of the five Board members are appointed by the President and support his platform on labor issues. They have the ability to fashion laws that affect nearly all employers across the country.
On September 16, 2014, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision establishing new rules governing pay equity in Wisconsin workplaces.