The Department Of Labor Has Issued New Guidance On Differentiating Between Employees And Independent Contractors Essay

This report will outline and compare existing employee contracts to legislative requirements, and assess where Global could be at risk for not complying with these requirements.

Issue Identification: This memo presents an analysis of the employment classifications for the state employees of New Mexico, specifically an analysis of the discrepancies that have been brought up regarding a position within the Human Services Department and the Department of Labor. Currently, the position of “Employment Counselor” in the State of New Mexico holds two different classifications under the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Human Services Department (HSD). Ms. Rose Paddock, an Employment Counselor for the state of New Mexico under HSD has acquired assistance from her union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local #2839 as they believe that the State of New Mexico has violated the principle of a public sector organization by not grouping the identical positions in the same classification. The issue at hand is whether same job titles can be classified differently by an employer even if the job specifications and qualifications are the same; the only difference is that these state employees are placed in different departments.

The first place an employer would want to start in order to understand which laws affect them as an employer is compliance assistance information and resources. Under the website subheading, Help Navigating Department of Labor Laws and Regulation it gives a general definition of compliance assistance. It states, that compliance assistance is an important part of the Department’s effort to protect the wages, health benefits, retirement security, employment rights, safety, and health of American’s workforce

The Fair Labor Standards Act has been amended many times and is virtually an ever-changing law, however, it does not cover all employees. There are several classes of “exempt” employees, including salaried employees in the executive/managerial, administrative, and professional areas. Outside salespeople are also considered exempt. One of the issues facing companies today is knowing which employees are exempt and which are non-exempt. There are tests to determine if an employee is exempt. In 2004 the tests changed to a standard test, which is whether or not the employee’s salary is $455/week or greater and the duties test, which allows for exempt status if more than 50% of the work performed by an individual is “exempt work.” (Pass and Broadwater) Exempt employees do not receive overtime pay, which can be a substantial cost savings to a company. My previous employer required that an exempt manager close the center each night even though we had non-exempt team leads who acted as managers in most capacities. The reason was to avoid overtime costs.

In this memo I will be providing employment law compliance plan for Marylee Luther, a human resources director who is preparing Clapton Commercial Construction for an expansion. Clapton Commercial Construction is currently located in Michigan with 650 employees and looking to expand to Arizona with an employee growth of 20% in the new location. This memo will provide a complete description about the employment laws and how they are applicable to Clapton Commercial Construction expansion. I will also briefly discuss the possible penalties and consequences for non-compliance with these laws. There are five laws in particular that I believe to be most applicable to Clapton Commercial Construction which I will be address in this memo. The five laws are:

Employees with two or more jobs or with a spouse who also is employed must complete the

The relative nature of the work test is “essentially an economic and functional one, and the determinative Criteria [sic] not the inconclusive details of the arrangement between the parties, but rather the extent of the economic dependence of the worker upon the business he serves and the relationship of the nature of his work to the operation of that business.” Marcus v. E. Agr. Ass'n, Inc., 58 N.J. Super. 584, 603 (App. Div. 1959), rev'd. Marcus v. E. Agric. Ass'n, Inc., 32 N.J. 460 (1960). There are two fundamental questions that have to be explored: (1) is the work an integral part of the regular business, and (2) is the employee economically dependent on the

As previously stated, in 2009 a adjustment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was added. This

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 is a law that requires that employers run an Employment

Most businesses in Houston, Texas, need to hire people to perform essential functions for the company. In some cases, the roles may be filled by either employees or independent contractors. Even though the employer has a certain amount of leeway in deciding which to choose, the Houston Chronicle points out that the federal government is attempting to create more limitations on when a worker can be classified as a contractor.

*64. The DOL replaced their long-standing, bright-line rule with the current rule, which is “vague and impossible to apply.” *65. For example, an employer or attorney would have to choose between following the LMRDA or the New Rule when it comes to applying his or her own understanding of advice based on the plain language of the LMRDA. The employer’s or attorney’s choice to follow the LMRDA instead of the New Rule would constitute a “willful” violation and expose the employer or attorney to criminal prosecution.

The Handbook is an introduction to your employment with a company and gives you written direction and information about benefits and policy that may affect your employment. The information is for all employees without regard to level of position. The Company, at will employment opportunity policy gives you the right to give notice and leave with or without cause. As well the Company may terminate employment at any time with or without cause. Each employee is obligated to read and comply with the policies and the information in the Handbook. Equal-employment opportunity

One of the key provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act is that, in general, the employer is not responsible for the cost of the employee leaving, in terms of pay. While an “employee may elect, or an employer may require the employee to substitute any of the accord paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave” (Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, § 102, 2006), the employer is otherwise not obligated to pay the employee straight pay, as the leave is considered, as stated under sub-section C of Section 102 of the FMLA to be “unpaid leave.” It’s important to distinguish then, in the given situation, if the employee intends to, or if the employer requires, that the employee use any pools of benefit time, such as

In addition to hiring some independent contractors, we propose an increase in the minimum wage. We assume the cost savings from hiring independent contractors would offset this wage increase. The wage increase should initiate and attract authorized alien and average American citizens to seek employment with the company. Employees required to work overtime hours will have the right to time-and-one-half pay for overtime worked; not including limitation on hours, nor providing a statutory right to refuse to work overtime as it’s is stated on the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C.§ 201. Since Agriprocessor faced several legal violations; such as illegal immigrant workers, safety in the workface and employing minor, we recommend our client to strictly

Employment law. S230 (1) of the ERA an Ee as ‘an individual who has entered into work or works under a contract of employment.’ How the court decide: 1) they use control test-Yewens V Noakes [1880] ‘A servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he does his work.’ 2) Walker V Crystal Palace Football Club [1910] Emphasis changes- court looks at does the Er control the background arrangement; where and when work done; holiday arrangements. Held; footballer was employee. 3) Stevenson Jordan & Harrison V Macdonald & Evans [1952] Denning LJ posed- is their work integral; are they part of the business or an accessory to it. Are they part and parcel f the business? 4) Economic reality test, court look