Today the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released a report showing a decline in worker fatalities.

The rate of worker fatalities has declined by 6% from 2006 to 2007, based on a Bureau of Labor Statistics report released on August 20, 2008. The report released by BLS is using preliminary numbers due to final data for 2007 not being released until April 2009.  Based on the preliminary report, fatal injuries reduced nation wide from 5,840 fatalities to 5,488.

US Labor Secretary Elaine Chao responded to the report stating:

"This is continued evidence that the initiatives and programs to protect workers’ safety and health, designed by and implemented in this administration, are indeed working. In addition to a decline in the overall number of fatalities, the rate for 2007 declined to 3.7 fatalities per 100,000 workers. This is the lowest fatality rate in recorded OSHA history."

StaffScapes review of the devastating labor initiatives on the November Ballot.

Initiative #74 would “hold a business executive criminally responsible for the business’s failure to perform a duty required by law if the official knew of the duty and the failure to perform it.” The term executive extends to partners, officers, directors, managers, proprietors, supervisors and includes executives of non-profits and home owner associations. This initiative would extend criminal accountability to business executives who were aware of their business’s failure to perform a legal duty.

Listed below is the potential impact of initiative #74:

Ø      Current state and federal laws already hold business executives accountable with recent federal laws strengthening criminal and civil penalties for executives who commit fraud.

Ø      Initiative 74 does not require the party bringing the suit to have legal standing, allowing politically-motivated or frivolous charges to be brought against business executives.

Ø      Initiative 74 also allows the plaintiff’s attorney fees to be reimbursed if successful but does not extend that to the executive defending the suit.

Ø      Extending the definition of an executive down to manager level can hinder recruitment of employee talent.

Ø      Community leaders and volunteers may be reluctant to serve on nonprofit boards and home owner associations due to fear of prosecution.

Ø      Initiative 74 creates a way to avoid accountability by creating an immunity loop-hole for executives who report knowledge of their business’s failure to comply with the law.

Should your son or daughter, working as a shift-manager at a local fast food restaurant, face criminal prosecution for a hair on a french fry? Do you think a teenage supervisor at your city’s recreation center should be imprisoned for the pool’s chlorine level being slightly too low? Should you have criminal liability for volunteering on your home owners association? Do you want political organizations to be able to threaten criminal lawsuits against individuals employed by companies that they do not like?

If the organized labor initiatives are successfully passed this November, our state’s economic growth will be dramatically stunted for years to come. Please check future editions of our blog to view the other initiatives that can have a devastating impact to Colorado.

Sources: Tomlinson & Associates; Economic Development Council of Colorado

StaffScapes review of the devastating labor initiatives on the November Ballot.

Initiative #76 would eliminate “at will” employment in Colorado, prohibiting employers from firing or suspending full-time employees except for reasons defined in the amendment as “just cause”.  The term “just cause” includes: incompetence; substandard performance; neglect of job duties; repeated violations of an employer’s written policies and procedures; gross insubordination; employer bankruptcy; and documented adverse economic circumstances. This initiative would allow the terminated employee to sue the employer, challenging the firing or suspension. The court may order the employee to be reinstated and awarded back wages, damages and legal fees.

Listed below is the potential impact of initiative #76:

Ø      Current state and federal laws already limit at-will employment and protect employees from being terminated for reasons for discriminatory reasons such as race, sex, religion and age.

Ø      Imposing constitutional restrictions on businesses will increase administrative and litigation costs, hurting our local businesses and economy

Ø      Initiative 76 will prevent businesses from making basic financial decisions such as reorganization, automating operations and reducing unnecessary employment

Ø      Initiative 76 requires “binding arbitration” making the decision final without ability to appeal

Ø      New business may be reluctant to relocate to Colorado or may force existing businesses to move outside of Colorado

Ø      The estimate of fiscal impact shows an increase of government spending from this initiative of $1.3 million based on roughly 3,750 lawsuits being brought (which this writer believes is underestimated)

Should a business be forced to continue employing someone who has a major personality conflict and brings down the motivation and enjoyment of the entire organization? Do you want to be forced to continue to work with a co-worker such as this? Will you be comfortable working next to this disgruntled co-worker after reinstatement? How would you feel if your employer went out of business due to frivolous lawsuits from this initiative?

If the organized labor initiatives are successfully passed this November, our state’s economic growth will be dramatically stunted for years to come. Please check future editions of our blog to view the other initiatives that can have a devastating impact to Colorado.

Sources: Tomlinson & Associates; Economic Development Council of Colorado

StaffScapes review of the devastating labor initiatives on the November Ballot.

Initiative #92 would “Require every private employer with 20 or more employees to provide health insurance for both employees and their dependents.” The initiative also requires employers to pay at least 80 percent of the employee only premiums and 70 percent of dependent premium coverage. Employers who do not comply with providing the insurance would have to then pay into a newly established state authority.

Listed below is the potential impact of initiative #92:

Ø      Current federal law generally prohibits mandating or requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage.

Ø      The majority of Colorado employers currently offer health insurance to their employees, mandating employer contributions will not improve the uninsured problems.

Ø      Initiative 92 will create a massive government run agency to implement the system and provide coverage for those whose employers do not comply.

Ø      Businesses will be hindered by additional financial burdens, resulting in higher costs to do business, lost jobs and increases in the price for goods and services.

Ø      Puts the responsibility of defining what a “major medical” plan is, and how to fund the new government agency in the hands of the legislature.

Ø      Initiative 92 creates reasons for employers to terminate full time employees and replace them with part-timers; also gives employers reason to discriminate against hiring employees with dependents.

Should state laws restrict business growth and mandate benefit offerings, removing the ability to balance needs of employees while meeting financial budgeting? Should employees be laid off and replaced with part-time employees? Do you want employers to focus on how many dependents and applicant has instead of experience and education? Do you want a new government super-agency deciding medical plan designs and funding? Has government run medical care ever been successful?

If the organized labor initiatives are successfully passed this November, our state’s economic growth will be dramatically stunted for years to come. Please check past and future editions of our blog to view the other initiatives that can have a devastating impact to Colorado.

Sources: Tomlinson & Associates; Economic Development Council of Colorado

StaffScapes review of the devastating labor initiatives on the November Ballot.

Initiative #93 would “allow an injured employee to bring an action in District Court for compensatory and punitive damages, if the employer fails to provide a safe and healthy workplace.” The term “safe and healthy workplace” is not defined in the initiative. This new action is available in addition to the rights that the employee has under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act. This initiative would apply to every employer in the state with 10 of more employees.

Listed below is the potential impact of initiative #93:

Ø      Current state and federal laws exist to ensure safe and healthy working conditions for employees.

Ø      Colorado employers already have motivation to provide a safe workplace based on their workers compensation insurance costs being directly related to work injury severity and number of claims.

Ø      Initiative 93 will allow injured employees to “double-dip”, collecting benefits from the Workers’ Compensation Act and then filing a lawsuit against the employer for unlimited damages in district court.

Ø      Businesses will be hindered by additional financial burdens due to higher insurance costs, resulting in lost jobs and increases in the price for goods and services.

Ø      Puts the responsibility of defining what a “safe and healthy workplace” is in the hands of the district courts.

Ø      With the current backlog of court cases, Initiative 93 will result in trial lawyers looking for the “quick buck” through settlements.

Should trial lawyers be rewarded with an additional state law to allow them to threaten businesses who already have to meet state and federal safe workplace standards? Should Colorado business growth and employment be restricted in order to enact an unnecessary and superfluous law? Should employees be able to double-dip and receive full benefits from the Workers Compensation Act then sue the employer for unlimited damages? Do you want employers to pay more for insurance and defense against frivolous lawsuits or increase wages and employee benefits? Do you want individual district court judges deciding what is “safe” and “healthy” and what the “workplace” is?

If the organized labor initiatives are successfully passed this November, our state’s economic growth will be dramatically stunted for years to come. Please check past editions of our blog to view the other initiatives that can have a devastating impact to Colorado.

Sources: Tomlinson & Associates; Economic Development Council of Colorado

The Bureau of Labor Statistics releases October 2008 employment numbers.

With unemployment on the rise and volatility in the economy, U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao issued a statement concerning the recent October employment situation report:

“Today’s report underscores the importance of restoring the health of our banking system and credit markets so that employers can rebound and create jobs. It will take time for the impact of the economic rescue package to be felt on the broader economy and the labor market.”

As posted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on November 7, 2008, employment fell by 240,000 jobs.  This equates to an increase in the unemployment rate to 6.5 percent. It is reported that in October the job losses continued in manufacturing, construction and service provider industries. For more detail information view the October Employment Situation release at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm.

Pro-Union advisors and laws are becoming more prevalent under the new administration.

There has been a lot of activity occurring during the first few months of the Obama administration, including a significant amount of pro-union steps. Listed below are a few of the changes that have occurred as of late:

• Assigning Hilda Solis as the labor secretary for the Department of Labor.  Solis is a four-term member of Congress with a long history of support for unions. She has made it clear that she believes that unions are mandatory and has continuously pushed for more organizing powers for unions.

• Support of the EFCA. President Obama has made several statements stating that he would gladly sign the Employee Free Choice Act (or The Card Check bill) into law once the House and Senate get it on his desk. This bill will take away the secret balloting for unions and enforce a binding arbitration for contracts that can not be agreed upon with in 90 days.

• Signed several pro-labor executive orders, including one signed on February 6^th, which makes large-scale federal construction projects agree to use exclusively union labor. This results in a monetary windfall to unions due to the amount of federal construction projects rising exponentially due to the Stimulus Package. On April 21^st, two more executive orders were signed delaying the effective date of new union financial reporting rules published during the Bush Administration, and the other proposing discontinuing the reporting rule altogether.

• Most recently, Mary Beth Maxwell was brought on as a senior adviser to secretary Hilda Solis.  Maxwell is the founding executive director of American Rights at Work, which is a pro-union advocacy group that is backed by organized labor. (Solis was also a board member of American Rights at Work, prior to her confirmation to Labor Secretary)

Recent judgment confirming final arbitration award issued in Los Angeles County, becomes largest award on record.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court filed on May 28, 2009, a final judgment agreeing with the final arbitration award against a company in a wage and labor dispute with its former employee.  The employee was acting as the chief marketing officer for the company. The final arbitration award is calculated to be $4.1 billion. Yes, I said billion, that is a “b” and it is not a typo. Damages included unpaid salaries, commissions (including estimated commissions for up to 7 years after termination), stock, unreimbursed expenses, interest, and penalties. On top of this the company had punitive damages charged to them calculated as three times the damages. The defending company refused to participate in the arbitration hearing which obviously allowed such a large award. With no effort to defend itself, the company was found by the arbitrator to have been “engaged in a pattern of despicable conduct that constitutes oppression, fraud and malice”.

See Also

• Link to Judgement
  Case # BC353567, Paul Thomas Chester v. iFreedom Communications Inc; Timothy Ringgenberg