An increasing number of countries and organizations offer now flexible working schemes, not only to help employees get balance between work and personal life, but to fight unemployment.
We have a time-out circle in my house, and from time to time, my preschool-age son visits the circle.
The issue of alcohol consumption in the workplace is a common concern for any employer wishing to protect its employees’ health and safety at work.
Earlier this month, I took one for our team. And I survived. I had the privilege of presenting to a number of employers and health care providers at the annual “Impairment Without Disability” conference, an event sponsored by Mayo Clinic which brings physicians and employers together to share their common knowledge, experiences and goals, and work together to improve and eliminate unnecessary disability.
Since Governor Brown signed AB 1897 on September 28, 2014, many businesses are likely wondering whether the new law, California Labor Code § 2810.3, will increase their liability when they subcontract work. The answer depends on whether the work is within the company’s usual course of business.
The Affordable Care Act creates new incentives to promote employer wellness programs. However, employers should not rush to establish such programs without first considering the implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (“VETS”) recently issued a final rule altering the reporting requirements on veteran employment and hiring for federal contractors.
In August 2014, by Memorandum OM 14-77, the National Labor relations Board (NLRB) notified its Regional Offices that NLRB agents should take an active role in notifying employees who file unfair labor practice charges of their rights and potential claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and under the Occupation Safety and Health (OSH) Act.
So, Tibble, Tibble, toil and trouble, to paraphrase (badly) Shakespeare (MacBeth, to be precise). And with that, I am going to launch into what I expect will be a number of posts concerning the Supreme Court’s decision to accept the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Tibble for review, limited to the application of ERISA’s six year statute of limitations.