<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
	<channel>
		<title>Current Issues</title>
		<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/-t1.htm</link>
		<description>Executive orders pending legislation in Congress and State houses effecting Labor,and employment laws. Recent court decisions.</description>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:41:03 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<ttl>10</ttl>
		
		<item>
			<title>Lipnic Nominated for EEOC Commissioner.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/lipnic-nominated-for-eeoc-commissioner-t244.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[President Obama has nominated Republican Victoria Lipnic to the EEOC. Lipnic has an extensive background in employment law, serving as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment Standards in the prior administration.  She was responsible for administration and enforcement of the FMLA and FSLA, among other things, and counsel for the House Committee on Education and Labor. Most recently she was of counsel at Seyfarth Shaw. 
<br />
JoeC (McGruff)]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:41:03 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/lipnic-nominated-for-eeoc-commissioner-t244.htm#1218</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/lipnic-nominated-for-eeoc-commissioner-t244.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The Nazi cbg award of the month goes to this clown!</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/the-nazi-cbg-award-of-the-month-goes-to-this-clown-t242.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Larry Whitten earns the Nazi cbg award for being an asshole. He marched into this northern New Mexico town in late July on a mission: resurrect a failing hotel.



At which point he immediately laid down some new rules. Among them, forbidding the Hispanic workers at the run-down, Southwestern adobe-style hotel from speaking Spanish in his presence (he thought they'd be talking about him), and ordered some to Anglicize their names.



I would suspect that before cowboying on in to New Mexico  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:09:12 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/the-nazi-cbg-award-of-the-month-goes-to-this-clown-t242.htm#1207</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/the-nazi-cbg-award-of-the-month-goes-to-this-clown-t242.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Been away from the board a while.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/been-away-from-the-board-a-while-t237.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[I have not been posting much due to the fact that I am currently studying a pending case before the supreme court.  Regarding a procedural rule of R.L.A and whether the N.R.A.B erred in dismissing the case.  Any one interested in reviewing can read here and follow the links.  Oral arguments were heard October 7Th. <a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-604" target="_blank">http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-604</a>
<br />
JoeC (McGruff)]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:41:44 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/been-away-from-the-board-a-while-t237.htm#1187</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/been-away-from-the-board-a-while-t237.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EEOC Will Hold Town Hall Meetings on new ADAAA Regs.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/eeoc-will-hold-town-hall-meetings-on-new-adaaa-regs-t238.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>http://eeoc.gov/press/10-7-09.html



Each town hall meeting will consist of two sessions, one for disability advocates and one for the employer community, offering opportunities for both the business and disability communities to comment in person. The meetings will take place by Nov. 20 in Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco and New Orleans.



Any member of this forum interested is encouraged to attend and post.

JoeC (McGruff) </description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:12:09 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/eeoc-will-hold-town-hall-meetings-on-new-adaaa-regs-t238.htm#1192</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/eeoc-will-hold-town-hall-meetings-on-new-adaaa-regs-t238.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The employee free choice act.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/the-employee-free-choice-act-t26.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[Here is a video and some information on the pending legislation.
<br />
<a href="http://freechoiceact.org/page/invite/yournewjobtaf" target="_blank">http://freechoiceact.org/page/invite/yournewjobtaf</a>]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:16:58 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/the-employee-free-choice-act-t26.htm#141</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/the-employee-free-choice-act-t26.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Wow this just came across as an E-Mail alert.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/wow-this-just-came-across-as-an-e-mail-alert-t229.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Court, not arbitrator, must decide whether arbitration agreement is unconscionable, 9th Circuit rules.



Anyone read this case? 



The case arose after Antonio Jackson sued his employer, Rent-A-Center West Inc. (Rent-A-Center), for race discrimination and retaliation. Rent-A-Center asked the lower court to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement Jackson signed, which stated &quot;the Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:47:11 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/wow-this-just-came-across-as-an-e-mail-alert-t229.htm#1153</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/wow-this-just-came-across-as-an-e-mail-alert-t229.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Norma Rae dead at 68.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/norma-rae-dead-at-68-t225.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/us/15sutton.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/us/15sutton.html</a>
<br />
JoeC (McGruff)]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:07:08 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/norma-rae-dead-at-68-t225.htm#1137</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/norma-rae-dead-at-68-t225.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Brinker Restaurant Corp. Case - California</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/brinker-restaurant-corp-case-california-t227.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>mcarson</dc:creator>
			<description>Has there been any developments in the review by the supreme court? Any information I've found is almost a year old. Has anyone followed this case?</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 05:49:27 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/brinker-restaurant-corp-case-california-t227.htm#1143</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/brinker-restaurant-corp-case-california-t227.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Should Michael Vick be allowed to return to pro football?</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/should-michael-vick-be-allowed-to-return-to-pro-football-t199.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[McGruff dont think so.
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHBN8TCdFBU" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHBN8TCdFBU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHBN8TCdFBU</a></a>
<br />
JoeC (McGruff)]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:06:19 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/should-michael-vick-be-allowed-to-return-to-pro-football-t199.htm#985</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/should-michael-vick-be-allowed-to-return-to-pro-football-t199.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>E-Verify for Federal Contractors Goes into Effect Sept. 8 - Clears Court Hurdle.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/e-verify-for-federal-contractors-goes-into-effect-sept-8-clears-court-hurdle-t222.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[Via Ross Runkel comes news that the Federal Agency Acquisition Council's new rule that requires federal contractors to use the E-Verify program to confirm that new and existing employees are eligible to work in the United States has survived a federal challenge. 
<br />

<br />
<a href="http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2009/08/court_approves.html" target="_blank">http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2009/08/court_approves.html</a>]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:44:43 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/e-verify-for-federal-contractors-goes-into-effect-sept-8-clears-court-hurdle-t222.htm#1114</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/e-verify-for-federal-contractors-goes-into-effect-sept-8-clears-court-hurdle-t222.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>White CT Firefighters prevail</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/white-ct-firefighters-prevail-t179.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>Eng&amp;amp;SafetyMgr</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[Bravo F'in Zulu, about time this case got settled.
<br />

<br />
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31609275/ns/politics-white_house" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31609275/ns/politics-white_house</a>
<br />

<br />
Hopefully this will start to interject some damn common sense into todays &quot;modern&quot; Fire Service.]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:49:57 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/white-ct-firefighters-prevail-t179.htm#881</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/white-ct-firefighters-prevail-t179.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Job seekers beware!</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/job-seekers-beware-t219.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>The New York Times has an article on the low life practices taking advantage of the unemployed. Some job search firms that charge high fees, promise access to &quot;hidden&quot; or &quot;unpublished&quot; jobs, and deliver little in return. From the article:



“Career management” or “career marketing” companies . . . which charge large up-front fees, are easy to stumble upon on employment Web sites. Often . . . they contact job seekers after they post their résumés. They usually focus on professionals  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:41:47 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/job-seekers-beware-t219.htm#1084</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/job-seekers-beware-t219.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>A three year old opinon that caught my eye.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/a-three-year-old-opinon-that-caught-my-eye-t215.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Once and a while you come across an opinion where a Judge relies on dicta and comes to a sound conclusion. Such is the case in this opinion handed down where the Judges draws his conclusion from historical text (Colorado Fuel &amp; Iron Company) finds in favor of the striking union and reasons:

[I]n the Ludlow Massacre, the employers asked the government by way of the National Guard to keep the union in line with bullets. [H]ere, the Railroads are asking the government to cripple unions with  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:56:10 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/a-three-year-old-opinon-that-caught-my-eye-t215.htm#1051</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/a-three-year-old-opinon-that-caught-my-eye-t215.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>A four day work week?</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/a-four-day-work-week-t208.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/07/in_praise_of_the_four-day_workweek.php" target="_blank"><a href="http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/07/in_praise_of_the_four-day_workweek.php" target="_blank">http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/07/in_praise_of_the_four-day_workweek.php</a></a>
<br />
(Write later)]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:23:25 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/a-four-day-work-week-t208.htm#1026</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/a-four-day-work-week-t208.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Court Overturns Bankruptcy Order Allowing Airline to Reject CBA</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/court-overturns-bankruptcy-order-allowing-airline-to-reject-cba-t206.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>The recent Teamsters v. Frontier Airlines, No. 09-343, in which the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York found that a bankruptcy court had improperly applied Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code in permitting Frontier to walk away from its collective bargaining agreements with its technicians and other workers.  That section of the Bankruptcy Code permits a bankruptcy court to allow a debtor to reject CBAs, but only if rejection is necessary to successful reorganization  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:02:57 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/court-overturns-bankruptcy-order-allowing-airline-to-reject-cba-t206.htm#1021</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/court-overturns-bankruptcy-order-allowing-airline-to-reject-cba-t206.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Unionized auto workers making $73. an hour?  McGruff here taking a bite out of bogus numbers.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/unionized-auto-workers-making-73-an-hour-mcgruff-here-taking-a-bite-out-of-bogus-numbers-t105.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Really?! NOT. Big Three workers aren’t making anything close to $73 an hour (which would translate to about $150,000 a year) General Motors, Ford and Chrysler workers make significantly more than their counterparts at Toyota, Honda and Nissan plants in this country.  Detroit’s unionized work force: roughly $55 an hour. It’s a little more than twice as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included. The more relevant comparison, though, is probably to Honda’s or Toyota’s (non unionized)  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:38:10 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/unionized-auto-workers-making-73-an-hour-mcgruff-here-taking-a-bite-out-of-bogus-numbers-t105.htm#557</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/unionized-auto-workers-making-73-an-hour-mcgruff-here-taking-a-bite-out-of-bogus-numbers-t105.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Finally we may have a full NLRB.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/finally-we-may-have-a-full-nlrb-t192.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Obama has nominated Craig Becker and Mark Pearce to fill vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board:

 

Craig Becker currently serves as Associate General Counsel to both the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Labor &amp; Congress of Industrial Organizations.  He graduated summa cum laude from Yale College in 1978 and received his J.D. in 1981 from Yale Law School where he was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal. After law school he clerked for the Honorable  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:45:37 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/finally-we-may-have-a-full-nlrb-t192.htm#942</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/finally-we-may-have-a-full-nlrb-t192.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ward Churchill  One Dollar &amp;quot;Remedy&amp;quot; Upheld</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/ward-churchill-one-dollar-remedy-upheld-t190.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Earlier this year, Ward Churchill won his claim that his termination violated the First Amendment--but he received only &#36;1 in damages. Today, a judge upheld that award. According to the New York Times. Case: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/download/2009/0707/19981675.pdf



Chief Judge Larry J. Naves of Denver District Court ruled that the university’s regents were effectively acting as judicial officers when they voted to dismiss Mr. Churchill in 2007 after a faculty committee concluded  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:24:23 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/ward-churchill-one-dollar-remedy-upheld-t190.htm#922</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/ward-churchill-one-dollar-remedy-upheld-t190.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Targeting Employers Instead of Employees.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/targeting-employers-instead-of-employees-t188.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0907/090701washington.htm



The Obama administration has begun moving away from the well-publicized Bush administration criminal raids of undocumented workers. The enforcement emphasis is shifting instead to going after the employers who hire these workers--through civil sanctions, not criminal charges--in an acknowledgment that as long as employers are seeking out undocumented labor, the supply will be there.



This is long overdue for several reasons for the numbers  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:14:50 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/targeting-employers-instead-of-employees-t188.htm#920</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/targeting-employers-instead-of-employees-t188.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bush employee protection for health care workers to stay in effect.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/bush-employee-protection-for-health-care-workers-to-stay-in-effect-t180.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Despite some earlier claims that the Obama administration may implement a substantial roll-back of the &quot;conscious rule&quot; for health care workers, recent comments by the President suggest a more limited retreat from the recent Bush expansion of the right to refuse to perform procedures workers object to. As even the earlier reports noted may be the case, Obama appears to be heading for a move to keep a conscious objection for abortion and some other services--which had existed for a while--but  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:58:53 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/bush-employee-protection-for-health-care-workers-to-stay-in-effect-t180.htm#884</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/bush-employee-protection-for-health-care-workers-to-stay-in-effect-t180.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dynamite! State legislation baring a favorite tool of union busters.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/dynamite-state-legislation-baring-a-favorite-tool-of-union-busters-t177.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Oregon legislature has passed a bill that would prohibit captive audience speeches.  The bill still must be signed by the governor, and it is quite likely that courts would find the bill preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. 



The bill prohibits: 

An employer or the employer's agent, representative or designee may not discharge, discipline or otherwise penalize or threaten to discharge, discipline or otherwise penalize or take any adverse employment action against an employee:  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:57:33 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/dynamite-state-legislation-baring-a-favorite-tool-of-union-busters-t177.htm#878</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/dynamite-state-legislation-baring-a-favorite-tool-of-union-busters-t177.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>CSEA Local 1000 v. NLRB, (2nd Circuit, June 19, 2009)</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/csea-local-1000-v-nlrb-2nd-circuit-june-19-2009-t176.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a health care employer committed an unfair labor practice when it discharged five employees who had participated in peaceful picketing in front of its main entrance, even though the picket line violated NLRA Section 8(g)’s ten-day notice requirement.   Vacating the NLRB’s 2-1 decision, the Court found the labor board’s construction of the Act was “not defensible” and granted the union’s petition to vacate the board’s ruling. 



 



  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:42:32 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/csea-local-1000-v-nlrb-2nd-circuit-june-19-2009-t176.htm#877</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/csea-local-1000-v-nlrb-2nd-circuit-june-19-2009-t176.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Judge Sonia Sotomayor</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/judge-sonia-sotomayor-t163.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[President Obmama has just announced that he will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, currently on the Second Circuit, to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court.  Given the excess of info we're going to be seeing about Judge Sotomayor, Michael Fox at Jottings by an Employer's Lawyer has posted an extensive list (with links) of Judge Sotomayor's labor/employment  opinions:
<br />

<br />
<a href="http://employerslawyer.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://employerslawyer.blogspot.com/</a>]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 13:09:15 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/judge-sonia-sotomayor-t163.htm#810</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/judge-sonia-sotomayor-t163.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>DOL wage and hours receives failing grade.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/dol-wage-and-hours-receives-failing-grade-t158.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Check out this PDF from the GAO it’s an eye opener the GAO found that the agency, the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, had mishandled 9 of the 10 cases brought by a team of undercover agents posing as aggrieved workers. 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20090325_GAOTestimony.pdf



The report further states that the Wage and Hour Division had mishandled more serious cases 19 percent of the time. In such cases, the accountability office said, the division did not  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 05:34:07 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/dol-wage-and-hours-receives-failing-grade-t158.htm#792</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/dol-wage-and-hours-receives-failing-grade-t158.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Solis Labor Dept. Puts New Union Officer &amp;amp; Employee Report (LM-30) On Hold</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/solis-labor-dept-puts-new-union-officer-employee-report-lm-30-on-hold-t149.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>



On Thursday March 19, 2009, the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) announced it would review the law and policy surrounding the 2007 revised LM-30 (Labor Organization Officer and Employee Annual Report).  The &quot;new&quot; LM-30, developed under former Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, substantially overhauled and expanded the 40 year old reporting requirements.    



Under the new Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, OLMS announced a policy of &quot;non-enforcement,&quot; meaning  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:44:24 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/solis-labor-dept-puts-new-union-officer-employee-report-lm-30-on-hold-t149.htm#770</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/solis-labor-dept-puts-new-union-officer-employee-report-lm-30-on-hold-t149.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Obama Nominates Craig Becker &amp;amp; Mark Pearce to NLRB.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/obama-nominates-craig-becker-mark-pearce-to-nlrb-t155.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Craig Becker, Nominee for Board Member, National Labor Relations Board

Craig Becker currently serves as Associate General Counsel to both the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Labor &amp; Congress of Industrial Organizations.  He graduated summa cum laude from Yale College in 1978 and received his J.D. in 1981 from Yale Law School where he was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal. After law school he clerked for the Honorable Donald P. Lay, Chief Judge of the  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:29:53 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/obama-nominates-craig-becker-mark-pearce-to-nlrb-t155.htm#784</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/obama-nominates-craig-becker-mark-pearce-to-nlrb-t155.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>COBRA Change</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/cobra-change-t153.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 (ARRA).  Section 3001 of the ARRA provides that qualified employees can obtain continuing COBRA coverage by paying only 35% of the premium for such coverage.  In other words, under the new law, the employer providing continuing COBRA coverage will only be able to recoup 35% of the total premium cost from the employee (prior law allowed recovery of up to 102% of the premium amount).  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:06:25 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/cobra-change-t153.htm#782</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/cobra-change-t153.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>401K dismal</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/401k-dismal-t152.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[Anyone with a 401K knows they took it hard this quarter, here is a chart chart just released.
<br />

<br />
<a href="http://ebri.org/pdf/april%2010,%202009%20update%20full%20universe.pdf" target="_blank">http://ebri.org/pdf/april%2010,%202009%20update%20full%20universe.pdf</a>
<br />

<br />
JoeC (McGruff)]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:52:06 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/401k-dismal-t152.htm#781</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/401k-dismal-t152.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pyett Arbitration Case.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/pyett-arbitration-case-t97.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>U.S Supreme Court heard oral argument today in 14 Penn Plaza, Inc. v. Pyett, which poses the question whether the 2nd Circuit was correct that a union cannot waive the right of unionized employees to have their employment discrimination claims heard in a judicial forum in favor of arbitration.



http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-581.pdf



This is an interesting issue, but of course does nothing on the broader issue of non union employers insisting on the  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:31:19 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/pyett-arbitration-case-t97.htm#514</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/pyett-arbitration-case-t97.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>NLRB, Racetrack Food Services, Inc., 353 NLRB No. 76 (2008)</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/nlrb-racetrack-food-services-inc-353-nlrb-no-76-2008-t147.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>This recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board, Racetrack Food Services, Inc., 353 NLRB No. 76 (2008), upheld the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the employer violated the Act by closing its fifth floor dining room and bar on Wednesday and Thursday nights, without giving the union an opportunity to bargain over that decision and its effects. 



Held: ..even though the operational change itself did not directly relate to the terms and conditions of employment,  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:57:16 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/nlrb-racetrack-food-services-inc-353-nlrb-no-76-2008-t147.htm#747</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/nlrb-racetrack-food-services-inc-353-nlrb-no-76-2008-t147.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Loser pays (A.K.A The British system) the ultimate sham.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/loser-pays-aka-the-british-system-the-ultimate-sham-t145.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>One of the saddest things in McGruffs travels, are employees who have cases that merit litigation, however the cost to litigate against the employer,and the remedies provided, prohibit the cost of litigation.  For example an employee who holds a minimum wage job for any number of reasons (Uneducated, foreign born, ex-felon, etc, etc)  Is fired because he/she is old and can not say wash as many dishes or cars, flip hamburgers as fast, as a younger person or may not follow instructions as well  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:05:51 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/loser-pays-aka-the-british-system-the-ultimate-sham-t145.htm#736</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/loser-pays-aka-the-british-system-the-ultimate-sham-t145.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Strengthening Whistle Blower protection.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/strengthening-whistle-blower-protection-t143.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>The combination of a whistle blower friendly Obama Administration and the worst breakdown of financial regulation in decades is sure to result in a major expansion of whistle blower protection laws, and the legal press is taking notice.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202429014627&amp;rss=nlj



Congress as well has taken notice and proposing new legislation,since DOL has failed to vigorously enforce the whistle blower statutes and instead has radically narrowed the protection for  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:27:34 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/strengthening-whistle-blower-protection-t143.htm#734</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/strengthening-whistle-blower-protection-t143.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Hilda Solis confirmation.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/hilda-solis-confirmation-t131.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Why hasn’t  Hilda Solis been confirmed as Labor Secretary yet, and why haven’t we heard from the unions or from the Obama administration about it?



Bad Ju-Ju's efforts to hold up Solis could be a first shot in the larger coming war over the Employee Free Choice Act, a top labor priority. I hope  that the Obama administration’s refusal to make an issue of the hold-up on Solis is not a sign that the Obama team won’t act aggressively on Employee Free Choice.

JoeC (McGruff) </description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:58:05 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/hilda-solis-confirmation-t131.htm#687</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/hilda-solis-confirmation-t131.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The problem with self reporting and DOL/OSHA</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/the-problem-with-self-reporting-and-dol-osha-t138.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>Extensive evidence from academic studies, media reports and worker testimony

shows that work-related injuries and illnesses in the United States are chronically and

even grossly underreported. As much as 69 percent of injuries and illnesses may never

make it into the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), the nation’s annual

workplace safety and health “report card” generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics

(BLS). If these estimates are accurate, the nation’s workers  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:18:03 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/the-problem-with-self-reporting-and-dol-osha-t138.htm#707</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/the-problem-with-self-reporting-and-dol-osha-t138.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pro-labor executive order signed.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/pro-labor-executive-order-signed-t137.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>President Obama signs a pro-labor executive order which reestablishes a Clinton-era order that Bush rescinded.  It encourages federal agencies to require project labor agreements on major ($25 million or more) federal construction projects.  These agreements essentially require all contractors on a project to sign on to an agreement negotiated with relevant unions (the equivalent of an 8(f) agreement under the NLRA.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EXECUTIVEORDERUSEOFPROJECTLABORAGREEMENTSFORFEDERALCONSTRUCTIONPROJECTS/

JoeC  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:26:37 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/pro-labor-executive-order-signed-t137.htm#704</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/pro-labor-executive-order-signed-t137.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/kennedy-v-plan-administrator-for-dupont-savings-and-investment-plan-t135.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[Good Erisa download on some problems in the upcoming Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan,497 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 1291 (U.S. Feb. 19, 2008)
<br />
<a href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/files/workplace_prof_blog_dupont_summary082208.pdf" target="_blank">http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/files/workplace_prof_blog_dupont_summary082208.pdf</a>]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:34:08 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/kennedy-v-plan-administrator-for-dupont-savings-and-investment-plan-t135.htm#697</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/kennedy-v-plan-administrator-for-dupont-savings-and-investment-plan-t135.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Union Membership rises 2008 according to B.L.S.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/union-membership-rises-2008-according-to-bls-t132.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>In 2008, union members accounted for 12.4 percent of employed wage

and salary workers, up from 12.1 percent a year earlier, the U.S.

Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.  The

number of workers belonging to a union rose by 428,000 to 16.1 million.

In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available,

the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million

union workers.



Government workers were nearly five times more  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:49:26 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/union-membership-rises-2008-according-to-bls-t132.htm#693</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/union-membership-rises-2008-according-to-bls-t132.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Is the Ledbetter law at hand?</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/is-the-ledbetter-law-at-hand-t123.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>The Supreme Court decision in the Ledbetter case concerning the statute of limitations for pay discrimination cases.  Recall that the Court ruled that pay discrimination cases are treated as discrete act of discrimination cases and that a claim must be filed within the 180/300 day statute of limitations from the day the employee receives their paycheck.  This is an absurd situation as many times employees do not know of a discriminatory pattern until there has been numerous pay periods with discriminatory  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:41:43 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/is-the-ledbetter-law-at-hand-t123.htm#656</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/is-the-ledbetter-law-at-hand-t123.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Reporting discrimination to an employer now gives retaliation protection under Title VII.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/reporting-discrimination-to-an-employer-now-gives-retaliation-protection-under-title-vii-t128.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>The Supreme Court unanimously (7 joining the principal opinion, and Alito and Thomas concurring) reversed the Sixth Circuit today in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.  ( Click here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/06-1595.pdf )The issue in Crawford was the extent to which retaliation protections under Title VII extended into an employer's internal investigation. The plaintiff in Crawford told the employer about sexually harassing conduct  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:05:18 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/reporting-discrimination-to-an-employer-now-gives-retaliation-protection-under-title-vii-t128.htm#672</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/reporting-discrimination-to-an-employer-now-gives-retaliation-protection-under-title-vii-t128.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Liebman Chair of the N.L.R.B.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/liebman-chair-of-the-nlrb-t127.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description><![CDATA[The NLRB received this afternoon an order designating Wilma Liebman Chair of the National Labor Relations Board.
<br />

<br />
Liebman has served as a Member of the NLRB since November 14, 1997. She was first appointed by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term that expired on December 16, 2002.  She was reappointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate to a second term that expired on August 27, 2006 and to a third term that will expire on August 27, 2011.]]></description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:35:41 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/liebman-chair-of-the-nlrb-t127.htm#668</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/liebman-chair-of-the-nlrb-t127.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Free riders are going to have to trump up when litagation is involved.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/free-riders-are-going-to-have-to-trump-up-when-litagation-is-involved-t126.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>The Supreme Court has just issued its decision in Locke v. Karass .  This is a unanimous win, with an added concurrence by three justices Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, had a brief concurrence that stressed that the meaning of &quot;reciprocal in nature&quot; is still an open question.  I haven't had time to read the full decision but here are some of the relevant portions of the Court's syllabus:



Under this Court’s precedent, the First Amendment permits  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:15:07 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/free-riders-are-going-to-have-to-trump-up-when-litagation-is-involved-t126.htm#667</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/free-riders-are-going-to-have-to-trump-up-when-litagation-is-involved-t126.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Expanding public policy wronful termination (California)</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/expanding-public-policy-wronful-termination-california-t125.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>In Edwards v Arthur Andersen, LLP, (August 7, 2008), Case No. S147190, the California Supreme Court adopted an expansive interpretation of Business &amp; Professions Code § 16600 (&quot;§ 16600&quot;) and its prohibition against non-competition agreements. The Court held that § 16600 prohibits employee non-competition agreements unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception. The Court specifically rejected the &quot;narrow restraint&quot; exception adopted by the Ninth Circuit Court  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:05:15 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/expanding-public-policy-wronful-termination-california-t125.htm#666</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/expanding-public-policy-wronful-termination-california-t125.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>California Assembly Bill 2716.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/california-assembly-bill-2716-t3.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>California Assembly Bill 2716, which would require employers to provide workers with paid sick days isn't going to pass in 2008; however, the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO will likely reintroduce the bill in 2009. The legislation would have required California employers to give employees paid leave due to personal illness, to care for a sick family member, or due to recovery or treatment related to a sexual assault or domestic violence-related incident. While the leave would be required  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:47:15 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/california-assembly-bill-2716-t3.htm#3</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/california-assembly-bill-2716-t3.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Wal-Mart slammed in a class action $54.25 million.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/wal-mart-slammed-in-a-class-action-5425-million-t106.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>We don't do much wage and hour stuff on this site, which is to bad since we have ArmyRetCW3 who is heads up on the topic.  This came off of BNA Daily Labor Report

According to the BNA Daily Labor Report:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. . . . announced that it has agreed to pay up to &#36;54.25 million to settle a class action lawsuit that had alleged that it had violated Minnesota's labor laws by requiring employees to work off the clock during training (Braun v. Wal-Mart Inc., Minn. Dist. Ct., No.  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:33:48 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/wal-mart-slammed-in-a-class-action-5425-million-t106.htm#561</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/wal-mart-slammed-in-a-class-action-5425-million-t106.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>So many violations I am not sure where to put this one.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/so-many-violations-i-am-not-sure-where-to-put-this-one-t103.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>In McGruffs travels I found restaurant operators to be abominable managers in general: uniformed,unsophisticated,and often brutish in their treatment of employees. The pay stinks benefits are minimal ,and hiring fireing is arbitrary.



Management training if there is any,is rudimentary decision making is autocratic. I have seen plenty of poorly run business,but no where is the misery,and anxiety of the workers more intense then a badly run restaurant.  They are almost as horrible as cbg the  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:40:38 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/so-many-violations-i-am-not-sure-where-to-put-this-one-t103.htm#548</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/so-many-violations-i-am-not-sure-where-to-put-this-one-t103.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Drug Testing Act</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/drug-testing-act-t73.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>THE BUSINESS OF LAW</dc:creator>
			<description>Especially in the field of labor law. At-will employees in particular need a few good lawyers on their side.



An opinion and question. Through, Reagan's Omnibus Drug Testing Act, government agencies began conducting mandated drug and alcohol testing of federal employees. The mandate spread and now covers employees, whether or not they work for the government, who perform safety-sensitive work, like pilots and truckers. The FMCSA, FAA, USCG and other agencies established specific, mandatory  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:41:41 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/drug-testing-act-t73.htm#146</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/drug-testing-act-t73.htm</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pending in the supreme court.</title>
			<link>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/pending-in-the-supreme-court-t68.htm</link>
			<dc:creator>JoeC (McGruff)</dc:creator>
			<description>McGruff is optimistic because the Roberts Court has a surprisingly good record on employee retaliation claims in such cases as Burlington Northern, CBOCS, and Gomez-Perez. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to open its 2008-2009 term Oct. 6 with six labor and employment law cases awaiting oral argument. 



The two First Amendment cases raise questions about whether public employee unions can require nonmembers to pay for extra-unit litigation costs as part of their agency fees and whether  ...</description>
			<category>Current Issues</category>
			<pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:21:26 GMT</pubDate>
			<comments>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/pending-in-the-supreme-court-t68.htm#339</comments>
			<guid>http://joeslegalforum.forumotion.net/current-issues-f21/pending-in-the-supreme-court-t68.htm</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>