by

caregiver3     Implementation of the new rules extending the minimum wage protections to home care employees have been delayed.  Comprised of about two million workers nationwide, this low wage labor group remains marginalized and disenfranchised even as the national debate over fair wage compensation heats up.

As is the case with undocumented labors these “companionship services” workers perform the jobs that few Americans are willing to do.  These are the people who execute invisible and often unpalatable tasks for the home bound, including bathing, transferring, toilet assistance, meal preparation and help eating, toilet assistance and sometime housecleaning.  In most cases, the job requires attention to the personal and private needs of the elderly and infirm.

According to the original rules – which are essentially unchanged since 1975 –  companionship workers were “exempted” from anything like fair labor protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  As applied by the FLSA in this case, “exempted” is an ironic term that normally means one is excused from something undesirable.  Up until the rule change in the fall of 2013, companionship workers were not covered by the Federal minimum wage laws and not required to be paid overtime after 40 hours. This is understandable to a large degree, because the original exemption was intended to cover so called “elder sitters” whose primary function really was to provide companionship. A lot has changed in the health care business since then, and courts have generally interpreted the definition of companionship workers broadly. That means even more workers were exempted from wage protections over the years.

Continue reading

by

Did the Viking Running Back Benefit From a Harsh Upbringing?

StateLibQld_1_113036_Cartoon_of_students_receiving_the_cane,_1888 The Minnesota Vikings reinstated their star running back (and then dumped him again after pressure from their sponsors), and that only stepped up the vilification of the NFL and its many crimes.  From ignoring long term cognitive disabilities to refusing to eliminate suddenly offensive team names, it’s hard to love this $10 billion sports juggernaut at the present time. Except perhaps at game time.

While it is tempting to toss the Peterson case into the same hopper as the Ray Rice domestic abuse drama, a little reflection suggests that the issues are not only fundamentally different, they may be even less clear cut and even more complex.  And yet the fact that they are being played out in what amounts to a celebrity media arena presents the opportunity to have a more meaningful discussion, if we choose to take it.  Even if it’s almost impossible to prevent our lives from being impinged by the actions of the celebrated, we can try to examine the stories honestly and thoroughly, as painful as that may be. In the Peterson case, it’s painful.

It isn’t possible to discuss Adrian Peterson’s discipline of his child without straying into areas that bring out strong emotions in most people.  Child abuse is in a different league than domestic violence, because a child has even less choice whether to remain in an abusive environment.  And while the visual evidence suggests that the level of Peterson’s punishment [of his son] exceeded what most people would consider acceptable, there are related factors that make a deeper conversation worth having.

The most vexing challenge would seem to be distinguishing between child abuse and a strict child rearing philosophy.  That  requires taking Peterson’s intent into consideration.  We can’t ultimately know what his motives were, but there is evidence available which allows for reasonable speculation.   Peterson has described a childhood that included physical punishment from the more violent end of the tough love parenting philosophy. Nevertheless, he attributes his success as an athlete to some degree to his strict upbringing.  He is not the only athlete (or other notable person) to credit tough parenting for his success. How many kids who escaped the gangs of their neighborhood believe they did so because of one or more parents who believed in corporal punishment to some degree? Continue reading

by

Let’s read the entire passage: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  – First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Bellas&Wachowski2The First Amendment to the Constitution, especially in the digital age, is often cited inappropriately.  When a blog writer removes a comment, many a troll has squealed that his First Amendment rights are being violated.  When someone says something wildly stupid in public and reaps a storm of criticism, she, too, may scream about “freedom of speech.”  

All of us do indeed have freedom of speech, but that only means that the government cannot muzzle us.  It does not mean that a web site that accepts comments is obligated to let anyone say anything they wish. And it does not mean that there are no consequences to exercising your rights.  Donald Sterling, the putative owner of the L.A. Clippers basketball team, had every right in the world to give voice to his racist thoughts.  Everyone else had the right to call him a racist dirtbag and demand that the NBA encourage him to sell the team.  But, there are always consequences. 

Continue reading

by

Bellas&Wachowski4After hiring a new employee, Acme Corp. spends months training Louie Duck for the position. He learns how Acme delivers a Rocket-Powered Unicycle only seconds after an order is dropped in a remote mailbox. He learns the secret of making both Earthquake Pills and Dehydrated Boulders. Mr. Duck even learns how the company thrives in the face of what must be a legion of product liability lawsuits.

And just when Acme feels that Mr. Duck is beginning to contribute to its bottom line, he quits. Not only does he quit, but he starts his own company, Ajax Corp., that sells products that are remarkably similar to Acme’s Jet-Propelled Tennis Shoes and Do-It Yourself Tornado Kits. And on his way out, Mr. Duck also convinces Acme’s best customers, one Mr. Coyote, to send all of his future business his way.

Lucky for Acme, Mr. Duck signed a noncompete agreement when he was hired. The agreement barred him from working in a similar company or from starting a similar business for a minimum of five years. Acme thinks it should have no trouble in shutting down its new competitor. But if Acme takes the case to court, it may find that the agreement is not worth the paper it was written on, depending on where the case is heard.

Continue reading

by

Who Gets To Keep The Ring When A Betrothal Goes South?


Bellas&WachowskiproposalIn these modern times, it is not enough for a young man to get down on one knee and ask the woman of his dreams for her hand in marriage. The expectation today seems to require an over the top public spectacle, perhaps involving a giant screen at a ballpark or a Harry Potter themed set piece posted to social media. A massive waste of money or time is always considered an appropriate supplementary feature for this sort of enterprise.

While public displays of narcissism may be consistent with the modern Zeitgeist, the one thing they don’t accomplish is ensuring that the engaged parties remain engaged. Indeed, the marriage proposal experience may turn out to be the high point of the relationship. Those who keep track of such statistics claim that anywhere from 15% to 25% of twenty-first century engagements are broken before the wedding. While no one knows the statistics for sure, the numbers are high enough to keep websites such as www.idonowidont.com. The site not only provides an online aftermarket for reselling disrupted nuptial jewelry, it also includes the founder’s sad tale of his own broken engagement as inspiration for his business model.

Which segues nicely into today’s topic: what happens to the engagement ring when the big day is called off? Does the woman get to keep and possibly sell it if the man backs out of the agreement? Does she need to return it to the man if she decides to forego the walk down the aisle? And are there circumstances which would complicate the matter further, such as terminating the engagement for cause?

In simpler times, it was generally understood that the woman would return the engagement ring. In 1922, the estimable Emily Post* decreed that the prospective bride should return the ring regardless of the circumstances of the breakup. It was and to some degree still is considered the proper thing to do.

But while custom and tradition may deem returning the ring to be the correct standard of behavior, the legal landscape has changed with the changing times. In a society that seems at once both more acquisitive and more litigious, the legal standard for ring returns has become more complex. Today, the protocol for who gets the ring is determined by state law, and there is some variation in how individual state courts perceive the topic.

Courts generally treat an engagement ring as a gift from the donor (normally the male) to the donee (normally the female). To be considered a legal gift, three provisions must be fulfilled: the donor must intend to give the ring as a gift, the donor must deliver it the donee, and the donee must accept the item. If the person to whom the ring was given can demonstrate all three elements, the court will consider the ring to be a gift. The crucial question is whether or not the gift is conditional, that is, is it a form of contract contingent upon the marriage taking place. In most states around the country, the answer is yes. With one exception, state courts find that the gift of an engagement ring incorporates an implied condition of marriage. The mere acceptance of the gift is not part of the contract.

Illinois is a relatively straightforward state when it comes to this question. An engagement ring is viewed as a gift in contemplation of marriage:

“…a gift given in contemplation of marriage is deemed to be conditional on the subsequent marriage of the parties, and the party who fails to perform on the condition of the gift has no right to property acquired under such pretenses.”

Because the gift is conditional on the eventual marriage of the parties, the party who fails to perform has no right to the property in Illinois. If the bride-to-be breaks off the engagement, the ring is returned to the man. However, if the man breaks off the relationship, the woman may keep the ring because it was not her fault that the condition was not met. In cases in which the engagement is broken off by mutual agreement, the ring is to be returned to the donor…the erstwhile groom.

Continue reading

by

DCF 1.0Since February, GM has recalled over 3,000,000 cars because of a problems with air bags, wiring, and faulty ignition switches that could shut off when the car was being driven. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) received more than 260 complaints about the problem, which has been linked to at least 12 deaths. In a classic understatement, GM’s CEO Mary Barra said, “Something went wrong with our process in this instance, and terrible things happened.”

Terrible? But did Barra mean this was terrible for the driving public, or terrible for GM? After all, the largest U.S. automaker has known about the problem since 2004. So for 10 years, GM has known that some of its vehicles were prone to shut off at high speeds, disabling the power steering and the air bags. And the company said nothing. The silence of GM is being investigated by NHTSA, Congress and the Justice Department because the longer GM kept its mouth closed, the more people died. Kind of like what happened with the detreading of the Firestone Tires on Ford Explorers in 2000 that resulted in over 200 deaths and countless injuries.

For a full time line of events, go to the Safety Research & Strategies website.

Even after GM issued the recall notice, it has refused to release the names of the 13 people killed in defect related accidents. Not to the public and not to the families of those who were killed. “To date they’re guarding (the list of names) extremely carefully,” said Lance Cooper, a personal injury attorney who represented the family of a woman killed in a 2010 crash. “They continue to hold it as protected information. I don’t believe there’s any legal obligation to release the names.” Maybe GM doesn’t have a legal obligation to release the names, but as Cooper said, there are moral and ethical obligations to consider.

Continue reading

by

file0001718693091Computer users would be well advised to remember TANSTAAFL when they’re online. TANSTAAFL, an acronym popularized by Robert A. Heinlein in his 1966 novel, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, translates to: “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”

A fairly common “free lunch” on the Internet is a popup that warns you that your computer is infested with all sorts of nasty programs that are doing all sorts of nasty things, from slowing down your machine to giving criminals all the information they need to clean out your bank account. But the popup offers a FREE solution to your problems – a FREE scan that will find and eradicate all of the bad stuff hiding out in your machine. That FREE scan invariably finds scores of problems with your computer. And now all you need to do to get rid of those problems is to “register” the software. The FREE solution ends up costing you $40 to $60. But it was worth it, wasn’t it, to get rid of malware and adware and spyware?

The problem is, the WinFixer® or WinAntiVirus® you downloaded didn’t actually find anything on your computer. In fact the software never even looks. And if there were any malicious software on your computer, neither program would do anything about it. In fact, the software would “find” malware on a computer that had never before been connected to the Internet. But WinFixer® and others of its ilk were not actually designed to fight malware. The programs were written to frighten you into parting with some of your money.

Continue reading

by

Crowd Funding. Wordcloud Concept.Your startup needs an infusion of capital.  You’ve tapped your savings and retirement account, the bank’s loan officer begins to shake his head as soon as you walk in the door and your family and friends send your calls to voicemail.

So you hear about this new thing called crowdfunding.  You go to Kickstarter™ or RocketHub™, web sites that allow a person or business to turn to the public to raise money.  Your campaign is successful and you have $100,000 to keep the party rolling. 

Sounds like you’re a winner, right?   Wrong!  Leave it to the SEC – that’s the government agency that monitors securities and investments – to put a damper on things for you.  As authorized under the JOBS Act passed in 2012, the SEC has proposed new reporting requirements for companies that use crowdfunding.  The proposed rules, which will allow a company to raise up to $1 million a year, are not as stringent as those for a public offering, but they may make crowdfunding much less attractive for small businesses looking to raise capital.

Continue reading

by

CNN reported recently that Jonathan Martin will not return to the NFL this season. Martin was a tackle for the Miami Dolphins who left the team because of what he alleges was, in a word, bullying.

lockerroomMartin is an unlikely victim. He’s about six and half feet tall and weighs more than 300 pounds. He was a starter on the Stanford football team and was an honorable-mention All-Pac-10 selection and second-team freshman All-American. The Dolphins selected Martin in the second round of the 2012 NFL draft. Getting on Martin’s wrong side is not something most of us would consider to be a survival trait.

Enter Richie Incognito. In reports published in the sports press, Martin alleged that Incognito subjected him to severe verbal abuse, among other things. The particulars of the case have played out over the past couple of weeks, but among the more interesting tidbits is that Incognito’s conduct may have been the result of taking orders from Dolphin coaches to “toughen up” Martin were taken too far.

boardroomBullying, of course, is not limited to the locker room. People who get a kick out of tormenting another human don’t magically disappear after leaving high school. They grow up and get jobs. And your office may not be immune.

There are a multitude of laws banning discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace, but there are no laws that say workers have to be nice to each other. Left unchecked, though, workplace bullying can lead to a substantial hit to your bottom line.

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute—and yes, there is such a thing—up to a third of workers report being the target of bullies while on the job. The targets report higher levels of anxiety and stress and lower levels of productivity. A bully can lead to higher levels of absenteeism and turnover. A WBI team at Griffith University in Australia estimate that bullying costs companies between $6 billion and $13 billion annually. Continue reading

by

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAEMPLOYEES – CHECK YOUR WEAPONS AT THE DOOR!

 

Illinois became the last state to pass legislation authorizing the concealed  carrying of firearms by enacting the Firearm Concealed Carry Act.  What does this mean for employers and what is the rule for having guns in the workplace?  

 The Act allows a concealed carry license holder to carry a loaded or unloaded firearm fully concealed or partially concealed on or about his person or his vehicle.  In order to obtain a concealed carry license, the individual must be at least 21 years old; have a current Firearm Owner’s Identification card (“FOID”); not have been found guilty of a misdemeanor involving physical force or violence or two or more DUI violations in the preceding 5 years; not be subject to an arrest warrant; not having been in a residential or court ordered treatment program for drugs or alcohol in the last 5 years; and complete 16 hours of firearm training and education.

Regardless of the right to carry a concealed weapon, there are certain places where it is still illegal to have such a concealed weapon. Prohibited areas include:

·      Pre-school, daycare, elementary school, secondary school, college or university;

·      Any government building or court;

·      Any hospital, mental health or nursing home

·      Any establishment where more than 50% of the gross receipts are from the sale of alcohol (bars)

·      Public playgrounds or parks

·      Casinos

·      Sports stadiums

·      Airports

·      Amusement parks or zoos

 

Before employers start running for the doors believing their places of business will become a haven for gun toting employees, there are a few items that need to be addressed.

Continue reading