<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<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/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>HRLegalNews.com &#187; Pending Legislation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hrlegalnews.com/category/pending-legislation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hrlegalnews.com</link>
	<description>Up-to-the-minute cases and law impacting HR</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:17:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Will Obama make paid sick days mandatory?</title>
		<link>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/will-obama-make-sick-days-mandatory/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/will-obama-make-sick-days-mandatory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:24:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Narisi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Benefits Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Healthy Families Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HFA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory paid sick leave]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrlegalnews.com/?p=1263</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this month, the House of Representatives held a hearing on a bill that would make offering paid sick leave mandatory for employers. If passed, the Healthy Families Act (HFA) would require any company with 15 or more employees to offer full-time workers seven paid sick days a year. Part-time employees would get a prorated [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-122" title="medical-chart" src="http://www.hrlegalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/medical-chart.jpg" alt="medical-chart" width="360" height="240" /></p>
<p>Earlier this month, the House of Representatives held a hearing on a bill that would make offering paid sick leave mandatory for employers. <span id="more-1263"></span></p>
<p>If passed, the Healthy Families Act (HFA) would require any company with 15 or more employees to offer full-time workers seven paid sick days a year. Part-time employees would get a prorated amount based on how much they work.</p>
<p>Like the FMLA, the HFA would let employees take time to care for themselves or a family member. The leave would be legally protected &#8212; meaning employees could sue if they feel they&#8217;ve been retaliated against for using it.</p>
<p>The HFA is less strict than the FMLA, however. &#8220;Family member&#8221; includes any blood relative and anyone whose relationship with the employee is &#8220;the equivalent of a family relationship.&#8221; Any physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition could result in a protected absence.</p>
<p><strong>What about current paid leave policies?</strong></p>
<p>The bill says employers won&#8217;t need to change anything if they already give employees sick leave that&#8217;s at least equivalent to what&#8217;s required by HFA. But employers would be prohibited from eliminating leave they already offer in an attempt to offset the mandatory sick days.</p>
<p>That means companies won&#8217;t be able to reduce vacation time to offset the costs of additional sick time. And some experts interpet the provision to mean companies offering a general PTO bank would need to add seven sick days in addition to what&#8217;s already available.</p>
<p><strong>What to expect</strong></p>
<p>Attorney Mike Aitken, speaking at a recent Society for Human Resources Management conference in Washington, D.C., said he expects Congress to take a vote on the bill this spring.</p>
<p>The HFA was introduced in the Senate a few years ago and failed to move. But that was before President Obama &#8212; a vocal supporter of the bill &#8212; and an increased Congressional Democrat majority arrived in Washington.</p>
<p>So far, no states have made sick leave mandatory &#8212; measures have failed in California, Ohio, New Jersey and Washington. Three cities &#8212; San Francisco, Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. &#8212; have passed mandatory sick leave laws.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ll keep you posted on the HFA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/will-obama-make-sick-days-mandatory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>273</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employee Free Choice debate heats up</title>
		<link>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/employee-free-choice-debate-heats-up/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/employee-free-choice-debate-heats-up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Narisi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In this week's e-newsletter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latest News & Views]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Free Choice Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secret Ballot Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrlegalnews.com/?p=1162</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As businesses continue voicing concern about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), Congressional Republicans have introduced a new bill they hope will stop the union-friendly proposal in its tracks. Before Democrats had the chance to formally introduce the EFCA during this Congressional term, the Secret Ballot Protection Act (SBPA) was introduced in both the Senate [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As businesses continue voicing concern about the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), Congressional Republicans have introduced a new bill they hope will stop the union-friendly proposal in its tracks. <span id="more-1162"></span></p>
<p>Before Democrats had the chance to formally introduce the EFCA during this Congressional term, the Secret Ballot Protection Act (SBPA) was introduced in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>If passed, the SBPA will guarantee employers the right to ask for a secret ballot election when workers are deciding whether to unionize.</p>
<p>Currently, elections are held if 30% of employees sign cards saying they want to unionize. The EFCA would let unions take power as long as a majority of employees sign those cards.</p>
<p>Who&#8217;s more likely to win the fight? Experts say the EFCA has a better shot of passing, given the Democrats&#8217; majority in Congress and the fact that President Obama has made the bill one of his priorities.</p>
<p>However, the presence of the SBPA could convince the EFCA&#8217;s supporters to compromise.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ll keep you posted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/employee-free-choice-debate-heats-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OSHA won&#8217;t halt &#8216;guns at work&#8217; law</title>
		<link>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/osha-wont-halt-guns-at-work-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/osha-wont-halt-guns-at-work-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Narisi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In this week's e-newsletter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latest News & Views]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State and local law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSHA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safety]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrlegalnews.com/?p=1100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A state law granting employees the right keep guns in their cars at work was recently given the thumbs-up by a federal court. In 2004, Oklahoma passed a law forbidding employers from disciplining employees who keep firearms locked in cars parked on company property. A group of businesses sued, claiming the law threatened workplace safety. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A state law granting employees the right keep guns in their cars at work was recently given the thumbs-up by a federal court. <span id="more-1100"></span></p>
<p>In 2004, Oklahoma passed a law forbidding employers from disciplining employees who keep firearms locked in cars parked on company property.</p>
<p>A group of businesses sued, claiming the law threatened workplace safety. A court agreed and overturned the law, ruling it violated the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, which gives employers a &#8220;general duty&#8221; to keep workplaces safe.</p>
<p>But that decision was overturned on appeal. The appeals court ruled that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has never claimed that allowing firearms on company property would violate the OSH Act. Therefore, there is no conflict between the state and federal law.</p>
<p>So-called &#8220;guns at work&#8221; laws are one of the latest trends in state employment legislation. Florida and Georgia have already passed similar legislation, and bills are being considered in Tennessee, Arizona and Texas. We&#8217;ll keep you posted.</p>
<p><strong>Cite: </strong><em>Ramsey Winch, Inc. v. Henry</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/osha-wont-halt-guns-at-work-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EFCA one step closer to becoming law</title>
		<link>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/employee-free-choice-act-introduced-to-congress/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/employee-free-choice-act-introduced-to-congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Narisi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In this week's e-newsletter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latest News & Views]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Free Choice Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrlegalnews.com/?p=1224</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s official: The much-anticipated (and much-feared by many employers) Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has been introduced to both houses of Congress. If passed, the EFCA will increase the power of unions in the workplace. Here&#8217;s a rundown of its main provisions: Card check authorization &#8211; Under the EFCA, unions can be approved as long [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s official: The much-anticipated (and much-feared by many employers) Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) has been introduced to both houses of Congress. <span id="more-1224"></span></p>
<p>If passed, the EFCA will increase the power of unions in the workplace. Here&#8217;s a rundown of its main provisions:</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Card check authorization </strong>&#8211; Under the EFCA, unions can be approved as long as more than 50% of employees sign authorization cards. In other words, no more secret ballots &#8212; some say that might allow employees to be bullied by union representatives.</li>
<li><strong>Mandatory arbitration </strong>&#8211; If a union is certified through a card check, employers will have 10 days to start bargaining with the union. If an agreement isn&#8217;t reached in 120 days, the negotiation will be referred to a federal arbitrator who&#8217;ll decide any contract issues that still aren&#8217;t agreed on &#8212; such as pay, benefits, hours, etc. Negotiations often take more than 120 days &#8212; therefore, arbitrators will likely have greater influence under the EFCA than they currently do.</li>
<li><strong>Increased penalties </strong>&#8211; Currently, employers are only held liable for back pay if they&#8217;re found to have unlawfully fired pro-union employees. The EFCA would add liquidated damages up to two times an employee&#8217;s back pay, as well as a $20,000 penalty if a court finds a violation was willful or repetitive.</li>
</ol>
<p>Supporters of the EFCA are confident the bill will be successful.</p>
<p>Last year, the EFCA passed the House, but failed to gather 60 supporters to block the filibuster in the Senate. Some experts say the increased Democrat majority and President Obama&#8217;s influence make the bill likely to pass.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ll keep you posted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/employee-free-choice-act-introduced-to-congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>4 HR issues hidden in Obama&#8217;s stimulus package</title>
		<link>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/4-hr-issues-hidden-in-obamas-stimulus-package/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/4-hr-issues-hidden-in-obamas-stimulus-package/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:54:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Narisi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Benefits Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bail-out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COBRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HIPAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stimulus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrlegalnews.com/?p=1143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Legal experts are still trying to comb their way through the 1,079-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act President Obama signed into law last month. And deep in the document, they&#8217;re finding several provisions that will have a big impact on HR. 1. Tax breaks One change that could affect companies&#8217; hiring plans: a tax incentive [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-243" title="man-entering-maze" src="http://www.hrlegalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/man-entering-maze.jpg" alt="man-entering-maze" width="360" height="270" /></p>
<p>Legal experts are still trying to comb their way through the 1,079-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act President Obama signed into law last month. And deep in the document, they&#8217;re finding several provisions that will have a big impact on HR. <span id="more-1143"></span></p>
<p><strong>1. Tax breaks</strong></p>
<p>One change that could affect companies&#8217; hiring plans: a tax incentive to boost the employment of certain disadvantaged groups.</p>
<p>Under the new law, businesses can claim a 40% credit on the first $6,000 of wages paid to:</p>
<ul>
<li> unemployed veterans (people discharged from military duty within the past five years who&#8217;ve received at least four weeks of unemployment benefits within the previous 12 months), and</li>
<li>&#8220;disconnected youths&#8221; (individuals between the ages of 16 and 25 who haven&#8217;t worked or attended school in the past six months).</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>2. New HIPAA regs</strong></p>
<p>The stimulus package expands the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to give businesses more responsibility in keeping health records confidential.</p>
<p>Under the new provision, in the event of a breach of health data, any business covered by HIPAA must notify affected individuals within 60 days after they discover the information has been compromised.</p>
<p><strong>3. COBRA subsidy</strong></p>
<p>Under the stimulus plan, the government will subsidize COBRA health insurance premiums for employees who have lost or will lose their jobs between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009. Here&#8217;s how it&#8217;ll work:</p>
<p>Employees are responsible for paying 35% of the premiums. Employers pay the rest, then claim their share as an offset against payroll tax liability.</p>
<p>Any workers who were terminated after Sept. 1 but didn&#8217;t take COBRA will get a second chance. Employers must send those employees a new notice before April 15.</p>
<p><strong>4. Increased unemployment benefits</strong></p>
<p>The plan gives states more money for unemployment benefits, extending a program that offers benefits for an additional seven weeks. Also, the law expands eligibility to employees who lose their jobs due to certain family reasons, such as a spouse&#8217;s relocation or the need for time to take care of a sick family member.</p>
<p>As a result, experts say, employers could end up paying higher unemployment insurance taxes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/4-hr-issues-hidden-in-obamas-stimulus-package/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>80</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama speaks out on Employee Free Choice Act</title>
		<link>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/obama-speaks-out-on-employee-free-choice-act/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/obama-speaks-out-on-employee-free-choice-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sam Narisi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[In this week's e-newsletter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latest News & Views]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pending Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employee Free Choice Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrlegalnews.com/?p=987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Depending on who you ask, the Employee Free Choice Act will either become law soon or, it&#8217;s a long shot to pass in its current form. Here&#8217;s what the President has to say about it. Barrack Obama recently discussed the EFCA in an interview with the Washington Post. Here&#8217;s the gist: Obama said he&#8217;d like [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Depending on who you ask, the Employee Free Choice Act will either become law soon or, it&#8217;s a long shot to pass in its current form. Here&#8217;s what the President has to say about it. <span id="more-987"></span></p>
<p>Barrack Obama recently discussed the EFCA in an interview with the <em>Washington Post</em>. Here&#8217;s the gist:</p>
<p>Obama said he&#8217;d like to make it easier for employees to join unions and that &#8220;the basic outlines of the [EFCA] are ones I agree with.&#8221; However, he also said he&#8217;ll listen to all sides and is willing to help them reach a compromise. &#8220;There are steps that we can take other than the [EFCA],&#8221; he said, &#8220;that will make a difference there.&#8221;</p>
<p>When asked if the act would a priority for his first year in office, Obama answered: &#8220;Let’s see what the legislative docket looks like.&#8221;</p>
<p>What does it mean?</p>
<p>Though it&#8217;s still one of Obama&#8217;s priorities, some members of the business community now feel the EFCA will be put on hold while more pressing economic issues are dealt with. Other experts expect some of the more union-friendly provisions will be eliminated through compromise.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ll keep you posted.</p>
<p>You can read a transcript of the interview <a href="http://manpowerblogs.com/toth/2009/01/22/president-obama-on-efca/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p>What are your thoughts on the EFCA? Share your views in the comments section below.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hrlegalnews.com/obama-speaks-out-on-employee-free-choice-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

