I took this picture on Friday of a window washer at the Hilton across the street.
Late last week, the NLRB issued its new joint employer rule. I’ve listed three takeways below. Don’t be left hanging. Click here for the full Alert.
1) The National Labor Relations Board has issued a Final Rule that changes the test for determining who is a joint employer.
2) The Final Rule rescinds the Rule enacted in 2020 and adopts a test that will vastly expand the circumstances under which a company is a joint employer of the employees of another company.
3) The new rule may cause absurd results, including creating joint employment from the application of worksite safety rules to everyone onsite, including a vendor’s employees. The new rule requires joint employers to participate in the collective bargaining process.
The full Alert explains in more detail. If you are not subscribed to BakerHostetler employment law alerts, let me know and I’ll add you to the distribution list.
In 1995, a man robbed two Pittsburgh banks during the day. He wore no disguise and was easily identified by surveillance cameras and arrested. This surprised the man.
The man was surprised because he had covered himself in lemon juice, and he believed that lemon juice made him invisible to video cameras. Obviously, it doesn’t and it didn’t. Lemon juice does not prevent a person from being seen.
Now let’s talk about staffing agency temps and being seen. If your temps are integrated into your workforce, there is a high likelihood you are a joint employer.
If your staffing agency temp improperly pays your temp, and the temp files a wage and hour claim, you can’t just drench yourself in lemon juice and hope not to be seen. Chances are, you’ll be sued too.
If you are a joint employer, you are likely liable for wage and hour violations by the staffing agency, even though you had no control over the staffing agency‘s pay practices. For liability purposes, their mistake is your mistake.
One of the best ways to avoid getting drawn into a class action filed by an agency temp is to require, in your staffing agency agreements, that all temps sign an individual arbitration agreement. All temps should be required, as a condition of being placed at your company, to agree that any claims they have against your company will be resolved in arbitration, on an individual basis, not through a class action.
How do you do this? In three parts.
First, insert in your staffing agency agreement a clause requiring that all temps placed at your facility must first signed an arbitration agreement, a copy of which will be attached to the staffing agency agreement.
Second, draft the individual arbitration agreement exactly the way you want it, and attach it to the staffing agency agreement as an exhibit. Include a class waiver. Consider allowing small claims to be carved out and resolved in small claims court. Consider omitting AAA or JAMS as a designated arbitration administrator, to reduce the risk of mass arbitration filings. You can require arbitration without designating any agency to administer it. The agencies charge high fees, which creates the leverage that makes mass arbitration an effective tool of the plaintiffs’ bar. No arbitration agency = no administrative fees = probably no mass arbitration.
Third, require the agency to maintain copies of these agreements. You want the ability to audit compliance. You can also require the agency to show you a copy of each signed agreement before each temp begins an assignment.
It is frustrating to think that your business could be jointly liable for wage and hour violations by a staffing agency when you have no control over how they pay their employees. But with joint employment, that risk is a reality. You need to prepare for that possibility well in advance.
The staffing agency agreement provides you an ideal opportunity to plan ahead and protect yourself against this possibility.
Lemon juice might be a nice addition to iced tea, but it does not provide any protection against security cameras or class action lawsuits. You’ll need arbitration agreements for that.
Click here for more tips about what should be in your staffing agency agreements.
Because of gravitational pull, topography, and geology, people apparently weigh a bit more when in Southern Illinois than in Ohio or Indiana.
For an adult human, the difference is only about .02 pounds, so relocation is probably not a viable weight loss strategy. But still. Who knew?
Meanwhile, in Rhode Island a new wage theft law is going to weigh heavily on some buysinesses, no matter what the gravitational pull might be in Providence.
Amendments to the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act, effective 1.1.2024, drastically increase the penalties for independent contractor misclassification.
Outside of the construction industry, penalties for misclassification will include fines between $1,500 and $5,000 per misclassified employee. Complaints will result in an investigation and, if a violation is found, a lengthy new administrative process ensues that may result in referral to the state attorney general for criminal prosecution.
In the construction industry, independent contractor misclassification will now be a felony, punishable by up to three years in prison, if the violation (a) is knowing and willful, (b) is a second violation of the Rhode Island law, and (c) is valued at $1,500 or more. First violations, if knowing and willful, are misdemeanors punishable by up to one year of imprisonment, for violations valued at $1,500 or less. Violations may also result in a fine of up to $1,000, instead of or in addition to imprisonment.
The amendment contains a possible drafting error (using “and” instead of “or), creating ambiguity as to whether a first violation in the construction industry may be punishable as a felony if the offense is knowing and willful and results in an underpayment of more than $1,500. The questionably drafted section is 28-14-19.1(i)(2)(i).
“Construction industry” is defined broadly and includes remodeling, repairing, improving, and maintaining any building.
“Employer” is also defined broadly and includes “any agent” of the employing entity.
The standard for determining misclassification will be the same standard that applies to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). That means an Economic Realities Test.
The amendments also impose criminal felony penalties for other selected wage and hour violations, if knowing and willful, including (a) failure to follow payday requirements, (b) failure to timely pay wages or accrued unused vacation upon termination, and (c) failure to timely pay an employee’s family wages due upon an employee’s death. Penalties for violations of these provisions include imprisonment for up to three years.
According to this article on SHRM.org, the Rhode Island Attorney General supported the amendments as providing enhanced tools and penalties for wage theft violations. The Attorney General seems particularly focused on going after independent contractor misclassification in the construction industry.
Businesses with employees and contractors in Rhode Island should review their current practices and double check for misclassification risks. The penalties for wage and hour violations in Rhode Island will be heavier than ever, starting in 2024.
Invented by Virgil A. Gates of West Virginia, the Guard is intended for “holding the moustache out of the way of food or liquid while eating or drinking.” As you may have already guessed, Virgil filed for a patent in 1876. Why would you have guessed that? Because 1876 was the last time anyone was named Virgil.
Moustaches, while certainly worth guarding (especially those of the handlebar variety), aren’t the only thing in need of protection. Solo independent business owners in the delivery and rideshare industries have been under attack, as class action lawsuits and government agency activity increasingly seek to take away their independence by declaring them employees.
In 2020, California enacted Prop 22, which preserved independent contractor status for these drivers so long as the app companies provided a list of preset benefits and guaranteed pay. In a statewide vote, Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly with 59% of the vote.
Massachusetts may soon follow suit. A similar ballot measure is likely to be considered by voters in the Bay State about a year from now.
The ballot measure, if successful, would create a system like Prop 22 in Massachusetts. Delivery and rideshare drivers would be granted independent contractor status, so long as the app company they were using provided them with a litany of worker benefits. The required benefits would include:
Guaranteed pay at 120% of state minimum wage for time spent completing delivery or rideshare requests;
Additional per mile pay for each mile driven in a personal vehicle;
A healthcare stipend for drivers who average 25 or more hours per week;
One hour of paid sick time per 30 hours worked;
Accident insurance; and
Prohibitions on discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics.
Click here for the official summary of the proposed law.
If the ballot initiative receives enough signatures, it may appear on the ballot for a statewide vote in November 2024. Alternatively, the legislature may choose to consider the issue on its own, before the 2024 general election.
Initiatives like this one and California’s successful Prop 22 provide a reasonable, common sense third alternative to what is usually a binary choice between classification as an independent contractor (with no employee rights) and an employee. Rideshare and delivery drivers generally value their independence and the ability to operate their own business. Laws like this one allow them to do so as contractors while receiving certain benefits and guarantees.
Who Is My Employee? 