Radical Changes of Employee Free Choice Act of 2009

The Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 is yet another controversial bill passed under the Obama Administration. This Act, when signed into law, would mean another victorious milestone for the employees.

The Act, otherwise known as the “card check”, would affect the employers in three major ways.

First, the Act eliminated voting by private balloting when organizing a union. The Act provides that if the majority of the employees authorized union organization, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization.

Second, the Act also touched on how negotiations are undertaken between the employer and a newly organized union. It required a binding arbitration in case of disagreement. The arbitration panel shall decide the case for not more than 2 years. No appeal is recognized.

Third, the Act provided greater penalty in case of discrimination. Currently, the National Labor Relations Act provides that employees who are terminated for unionism would be entitled to back pay and reinstatement.

However, under the proposed bill, the employee would be entitled to damages or an amount triple the back pay and the employer would be subject to civil penalties up to $20, 000.

With the provisions of the bill, employers certainly would not take it sitting down. Employers, however, are urged to be prepared for the potential passage and effect of this bill.

Discrimination Suits Hit Record High

Among the most common work issues is discrimination. It has been a societal dilemma since time immemorial.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has reported a 15% increase or 15,000 more cases involving workplace discrimination.

EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru, in its statement, revealed that he has not seen such an increase in magnitude. He could not however say if it signified a trend although he admitted that employment discrimination remained a persistent problem.

Recession has even fueled the increasing number of discrimination cases. Older workers had been badly hit by this. Eileen Applebaum, visiting scholar at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said that laying off an older worker means more savings on the company than laying off a younger worker.

Racial discrimination has been the most frequently filed discrimination case with 35.6% or an 11% increase from 2007.

Retaliation ranked second increasing by 22.6% from 2007 while cases on sex discrimination increased by 14%.

EEOC, however, admitted that recession could not only be the factors for the increasing complaints on discrimination. Factors such as diversity in the workforce, awareness on employment laws and systematic litigation are contributory to these alarming numbers.

The recent data relayed to by the EOCC covered only up to September 2008. Hence, a more alarming data is yet to come.

Basic Tenets for Employers

Employees and workers may have been at the bottom of the work pyramid but are the main source of services. Companies function well mainly because of them. Consequently, they must be taken cared of.

One way of taking care of them is by giving them benefits, paying for any and all expenses which they may have been incurred in connection with their work or for the advantage of the employer.

As the state regulates the employee-employers relationship, laws are enacted to build harmonious relationship between them. Compensation laws are implemented to prevent any abuses and safeguard the relationship.

For instance, workers compensation laws provide that employers should compensate employees for expenses in case of accident while employees waived their right to sue them for damages.

Medical benefits should be given promptly, afford speedy litigation for personal injury cases, shield employees from unreasonable delays or costs and promote open study of accidents and human anguish.

Employers are obliged to observe these laws under pain for suits or claims for damages. Employers should remind themselves of their worker’s compensation obligations and find ways to control costs.

Avoiding Accidents: Are We Safe at Home?

Accidents happen virtually everywhere, even at our own homes.

Normally, we feel safe when we are in the comforts of our home, believing that we are protected from any terrible incidents that might happen. However, almost every place and every corner we go to, there is danger just lurking around.

Like the fire accident that happened in Santa Ana. There was a report of fire at the Aspen Apartments in the 3300 block of South Bear Street last Thursday afternoon. This fire, which is so massive that the heavy smoke from it could be seen from miles away, has resulted in the death of one. Homicide and arson investigators are still looking into the case and the cause has not yet been determined.

Even if insurance companies or some other responsible party will pay for damages, the horrible death of someone cannot be paid by any amount of money. It is of utmost importance to always make sure that are surroundings are safe, even at our homes, to prevent such accidents from happening and avoid experiencing such life-changing difficulties.

Pro-Employee Steps of the Obama Administration

Obama is starting to make his presence felt by everyone. First, the stimulus plans now, the signing of Ledbetter Bill into law.

Ledbetter Bill was drafted to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire and Rubber. In this case, the court ruled that lawsuits over race or gender discrimination could no longer be filed if claims were based on a previous decisions made by them 180 days ago or more.

The Supreme Court rejected the continuing violations doctrine pursued by Ledbetter.

In this new law, employees could now file a discrimination claim regardless if the incident happened 180 days ago or more. The law removed the time limit and the case can now be filed notwithstanding the staleness of evidence or death of witnesses.

Certainly, this new law would trigger more litigation against employers as the passage of it is retroactive. This also serves as a wakeup call for employers to be fair and impartial to all their employees.

After the Ledbetter Bill comes the Paycheck Fairness Act. Under this Act, employers were asked to meet certain standards on wage structures. Such that wage disparities were due not to sex or race but solely job related.

We’ll just wait and see how employers react to this another pro-employee law.

Lead Law under Scrutiny

With the ever-growing complaints and incidents of lead poisoning and lead related cases, Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a federal law regulating lead use, was enacted.

The law would require all products sold for children 12 years old and below be tested for lead and phthalates. It aimed at protecting consumers especially children from lead poisoning and other related risks.

Consequently, dirt bikes and other recreational vehicles tailored for kids were pulled from the market fearing that they may be a violation.

According to the lead law’s advocate, this law is what we need. On the other hand, critics said the law is too broad.

The recent lead law has made many sellers fearing for their businesses. It is because products not tested for lead would be considered hazardous. Consequently, a hazardous product would not be on the buyer’s list. It would mean fewer earnings on their part. In today’s financial set up, lesser buyers means suicide.

Rep. Michael Burgess, D-Texas, wrote Consumer Product Safety Commission to provide exemptions. Unfailingly, the commission exempted product made from natural materials, electronics or those, which are by nature inaccessible to children.

With the public clamor for regulation on lead use, it was a relief to know that the government is listening and is taking steps.

The law may have some flaws or loopholes which may be cured in time but for starter its best to have it than none at all.

Cell phone’s Life Taking Effect

Pedestrian accidents are due to several factors. Negligent crossing, negligent drivers, lack or improper use of cross walk, lack or deficient stop lights are only some factors of the prevalence of pedestrian accidents.

In recent studies though, phone use is as much dangerous to pedestrians as to the drivers. Peter D. Loeb, Economics Professor of Rutgers University, Newark, found that cell phone use was the main reason for the continuing increase in pedestrian accidents.

Loeb revealed that back in mid-80s, cell phones had “life-saving effect” as users were able to call 911 immediately after a crash or emergency. Consequently, it prevented deaths and further injuries to victims.

However, when the number of cell phone users attained a “critical mass” of about 100 million, its “life saving effect” became a “life taking effect”.

Loeb and his fellow authors recommended that government should take aggressive steps against cell phone use especially when driving or crossing the streets.