Employment Archive

CVS Lawsuit: No Sitting Down on the Job!

June 8th, 2012. By AbiK

Well, if the Eagles were to write a lyric for the decision in the CVS cashier seat lawsuit it might be “you can check out anytime you like, but I can never sit.” Or something like that.

Yes, a judge in California has ruled that CVS cashiers don’t have a right to a seat while they’re working the cash register. If you recall, both Wal-Mart and Home Depot were recently hit with similar labor law class action lawsuits—only in those cases it was over chairs for greeters, not cashiers.

In the Home Depot case, the court ruled in favor of the employees who brought the lawsuit; not so with CVS as the job of cashier does not “reasonably permit the use of a seat”. CVS also argued in its defense that they could not maintain the company’s commitment excellent customer service if cashiers were to be sitting down on the job (gives a whole new meaning to that phrase, huh?). I’m not sure what defines “excellent” customer service, but I guess sitting down might make it harder for CVS cashiers to go grab a pack of smokes for a customer or perhaps quickly bag toiletries.

The ‘sit on the job’ CVS lawsuit alleged violations of California’s 2004 Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (aka the “Sue your Boss” law). The lawsuit was brought by former CVS employee Nykeya Kilby—who, btw, was terminated after working at CVS for eight months. Cause of termination: missing work. But the interesting thing here is that Kilby apparently never requested a chair while employed. Go figure.

So if you’re keeping score, it’s Greeters: 1, Cashiers: 0 —for now.

 

Tags: CVS Cashier, CVS Class Action, CVS Lawsuit, Home Depot, Labor Law, Labor Violation, Wal-Mart
Posted in Class Action, Employment | No Comments »

Publix Unpaid Overtime Class Action: What is Chinese Overtime?

May 1st, 2012. By AbiK

Chinese what? Ok, you’ve probably heard of Chinese water torture. And Chinese New Year. And Chinese take-out (personal fave). But Chinese Overtime?

Yes, Chinese Overtime. If you’re in a job in which the work hours tend to fluctuate each week and you get overtime pay, then you may have heard it referred to as either variable workweek overtime pay or half-time overtime pay.

The department managers and assistment managers who make up the class in the Publix managers unpaid overtime class action lawsuit probably don’t care what the heck it’s called—they just believe they’re getting screwed out of pay. And, if you understand how Chinese overtime works, they’re kind of right.

So here goes: a Chinese overtime primer for those who haven’t had the pleasure of being paid this way…

In some jobs, the hours tend to fluctuate each week. Busier weeks call for longer hours; quiet weeks call for shorter hours. Many times when a job’s hours fluctuate, an employer will pay salaries based on a fixed salary for those fluctuating weeks. So the base salary—the straight-time pay—is the same each week even though the hours may in fact fluctuate.

The upside is that when there isn’t much work, the worker gets paid the set straight-time amount. Sort of a mini-coup for the worker, right?—work less, get paid the same.

The downside, however…well, let’s just say the Publix managers have been living more of the downside (allegedly) than the upside and that’s why they’ve filed the Publix class action lawsuit.

Here’s an example of how it would work–it’s tricky so try to hang with me. Say you’re paid $200 a week as your fixed salary. So regardless of whether you work 22 hours or you work 46 hours that week, you’re getting paid $200 for the week. However, if you worked the 46 hours, you’ve worked overtime and should get overtime pay. And this is where it gets tricky..

See, because you were ALREADY PAID straight time pay for those six hours according to how your pay is calculated (i.e., you get a fixed salary no matter how many hours you work), you won’t get time-and-a-half pay for your overtime hours. Those six hours are paid at only HALF your regular rate–which in management’s eyes is time-and-a-half because they’ve already paid you your fixed salary for those six overtime hours.

Nice deal, eh? Hell yeah for the employers–not so for the employees.

Tags: Chinese Overtime, Employment, Fluctuating Work Week, Overtime Pay, Publix Lawsuit, Publix Overtime Class Action, Unpaid Overtime, Wage and Hour
Posted in Class Action, Emerging Issues, Employment | 22 Comments »

Would you Hand Over your Facebook Password on a Job Interview?

March 21st, 2012. By AbiK

You’ve made it to the interview stage—congratulations! Now fork over your Facebook login and password.

Would you do it?

If you really wanted the job, chances are you would. But is it right? Or is it an invasion of privacy? Many would say it’s cause for a Facebook privacy lawsuit.

Being asked for your Facebook password is becoming more commonplace as part of the job interview process. Apparently, for the recruiters, it’s the modern day version of a background check, work history and reference check all wrapped up in one. Unfortunately, even innocent posts—or those times you’ve been tagged in friends’ photos—are up for interpretation by the hiring manager or HR person. Beer in hand? Maybe you party too much. And let’s not even talk about those more ‘viewer discretion advised’ posts—or worse.

For job applicants, however, it’s sort of like finding bed bugs in your hotel bed—completely uninvited and unwanted, but you need the darn bed to get some sleep. What to do? Chances are, you ask for another room or find another hotel–but in this job market, other jobs aren’t as easy to come by as a new hotel room.

If ever there were a doubt that employment recruiters and HR professionals are trolling online for dirt on prospective hires, just listen to this:

A recent survey done by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) found that 56 percent of HR pros admit to using social media sites for recruiting; 95 percent say they use LinkedIn; and 58 percent use Facebook.

And while most web-savvier folks correlate LinkedIn with “job search mecca”, many job seekers don’t even know LinkedIn exists. But they know Facebook does. And recruiters know this. So, particularly when targeting non-executive positions, Facebook becomes a go-to source for a wealth of information—supplemental information that otherwise may not bubble up in the interview or reference check process.

But, if a Facebook account is private, well, that little ol’ login and password are needed. And who better to ask for it than the person who created it? And, what better time to ask them for it than when they’re sitting anxiously across the desk from you during their job interview?

In any other setting, most people would withhold such information; after all, isn’t Facebook for connecting with ‘friends’? And for most, it’ll be a cold day in h#ll before they include their HR manager in their circle of FB friends. (Notwithstanding that recent article about Facebook narcissism based on the number of friends you have.)

So handing over a Facebook password would appear to be something you’d only do under duress; you’d only be compelled (coerced?) to provide such information if you felt you HAD to do so—as would be the case if you thought a possible job were on the line.

A recent Associated Press article quotes George Washington University law professor, Orin Kerr, as likening the situation to “requiring someone’s house keys” for the interview. Kerr goes on to call it an “egregious privacy violation”.

And it is. After all, when you consider that an interviewer is not supposed to ask questions about age, marital status, children or health concerns, how is it that the same interviewer should potentially have access to all such information by asking for your Facebook password? Something isn’t right there.

Undoubtedly, we’ll be seeing more Facebook privacy lawsuits sprouting up. But in the meantime, here’s a tip: if you’re job hunting, get a LinkedIn profile. Anything and everything a prospective employer should want or need to know about you can be housed there. Even the professional ‘company you keep’—and linking in with an HR rep is surely less creepy on LinkedIn than on Facebook. Any other information about you can be found via the less intrusive methods: background check, reference checks, drug testing…the usual suspects.

Tags: Facebook, Facebook Password, Facebook Privacy, Internet Privacy, Job Interview, Job Search, LinkedIn
Posted in Emerging Issues, Employment, Internet/E-commerce | 2 Comments »

Metallica Drummer Accused of Stiffing P.A. Settles Lawsuit

November 17th, 2011. By AbiK

Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich recently settled a wage and hour lawsuit that had been filed by a former personal assistant, Steven Wiig. Wiig claimed a whole bunch of labor law violations: years of unpaid overtime (years!) along with alleged state and federal labor violations, breach of oral contract and continuing wages.

Yep, your run-of-the-mill California overtime lawsuit… NOT! We’re talking METALLICA!

Now, “Metallica” tends to conjure up headbanging images—think Beavis and Butthead (heh-heh)—and a lot of what some folks would call noise. Case in point, their live “Enter Sandman” video showcases some of those whiplash-inducing moves the band is famous for—and famous they are with that video alone having over 52,000,000 views on youtube. They’re the stuff of (hard) rock legend…off to never-never land! (In fairness, they’ve got some memorable ballads in their repertoire as well—like “Nothing Else Matters” (see video above)).

Ok. So they’re rock stars. And unless much has changed in the last oh, fifty plus years, rock stars tend to be magnets when it comes to wannabes wanting coveted jobs like “personal assistant”. Hell, it’s a twenty year old’s fantasy…screw getting a desk job after 4 years of hitting the books. Hit drop/add with the emphasis on “drop” and hit the road. Yeah, you’re down with the roadies, groupies, parties and perks. The all-access pass to backstage glam and prestige…you’re with the band now, man…(& you can advertise that fact with the t-shirt at right, at zazzle.com).

Oh wait—you expected to be paid on an hourly basis as well? And given a bonus each year? Ahh, but see—as with any situation where supply exceeds demand, prices get driven down. Lots of available labor? Labor gets cheap, right? And maybe that’s when labor starts to get—or at least feel—abused.

Hey, you wanted to be with the band…

So here we are with Lars Ulrich getting sued by his personal assistant. It’s an interesting case—similar to the PR hacks complaining not long ago about their compensation—because clearly this guy, Wiig, put up with the deal for “years” (2001-2009).  A decade. Why hang so long in a gig that you think is screwing you over?

According to the Marin Independent Journal, Wiig acted as Ulrich’s chauffeur, managed his art collection, handled his scheduling and “other tasks and errands” upon request. That translated to around 70 hours a week, which was upped to 80 hours a week when Metallica was on tour.

Wiig claimed he performed those duties for $45,000 a year. He also claims to have had a verbal agreement (red flag!) for annual bonuses. Of course, according to marinij.com, Ulrich’s side claims Wiig received $110,000 a year before bonuses, free rent and a free car. I suppose only the tax man knows for sure (wink-wink).

At any rate, the two sides have settled (terms not disclosed). My guess is that Wiig came out ahead on this one—but what to do now? Oh yeah, write a memoir “Snared: My Life with Lars Ulrich and Metallica”.

Tags: California labor law, Lars Ulrich, Metallica, Metallica Drummer, overtime lawsuit, Overtime Pay, Unpaid Overtime, Wage and Hour
Posted in Celebrity, Emerging Issues, Employment, lawsuits | No Comments »

Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination Class Action: Slice, Dice and Onward Ho

October 27th, 2011. By AbiK

Close to 80% of you who voted in our poll that asked, “Did the Wal-Mart women have a case?” responded in the affirmative. Clearly, you disagreed with the US Supreme Court after it determined that the original class action lacked a cohesive enough group of plaintiffs (i.e., a “class”) with similar circumstances.

Well, as the saying goes, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned—and sure as shootin’ there are still some mighty ticked off former female Wal-Mart employees who aren’t wanting to just let it ride. Their attorneys aren’t backing down either. They’re just moving on to plan B.

Plan B in this case is to slice and dice the original class action lawsuit—which was nationwide–into smaller regional sex discrimination cases. The first case has just been filed in California—so a heads up to the estimated 45,000 or so current and former California Wal-Mart workers: this is one to watch.

The new smaller lawsuits still allege Wal-Mart discriminated against female employees by paying them less than their male counterparts, and by promoting women less often.

Stay tuned.

Tags: California, Class Action, Wal-Mart Class Action, Wal-Mart Gender Discrimination, Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination
Posted in Class Action, Discrimination, Employment | No Comments »