By John E. Thompson
Now that the election is behind us, employers should consider what they might anticipate in the field of wage-hour law, which is already one of the largest sources of employment-law claims.
While the nature and number of the possible developments are practically unlimited, some of the foreseeable ones include these:
This will probably include proposals to increase the FLSA’s cash-wage requirement for tipped employees for whom employers take that law’s tip-credit. The public-relations approach will be that this increases “the minimum wage for tipped workers,” despite the fact that the FLSA minimum wage for tipped employees is already the same as it is for everyone else.
Another possible measure might involve an attempt to raise the FLSA overtime-pay multiple from its current 1.5 times the regular rate to 2.0 times that rate. This might be joined with reducing the threshold number of hours for FLSA overtime from 40 hours in a workweek to, say, 35 hours.
Similar FLSA amendments were proposed in the late 70s and early 80s during another period of high unemployment and persistent economic stagnation. A further impetus this time around might be the already-burgeoning rates of part-time employment, taken in conjunction with what could be a further trend toward part-time work driven by looming Affordable Care Act requirements.
These initiatives will include (among others) those directed at what the U.S. Labor Department has called “low wage” sectors, such as hospitality businesses and food retailing, retailing in general, some health care segments, landscaping, some construction segments, temporary-help agencies, daycare/homecare, agriculture, janitorial services, garment manufacturing, and guard services.
Another distinct possibility is the revival of the so-called “Right to Know” regulations, which the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) said would require “notification of workers’ status as employees or some other status such as independent contractors, and whether that worker is entitled to the protections of the FLSA.” Further, the Labor Department said that the proposal would “also explore requiring employers to provide a wage statement each pay period to their employees,” apparently so as to convey to employees “how their pay is computed.” The reach of these provisions would likely be even broader than DOL has so far disclosed.
For proponents of these measures, wage-law violations are unrelated to the multi-jurisdiction, patchwork nature of differing, obscure, sometimes-conflicting, ambiguous and ill-defined, rapidly-changing requirements that are proliferating across the nation. No, as this publication illustrates, in their eyes employers are instead “dishonest,” unscrupulous scofflaws who are “stealing” money from workers. Employers who remain disengaged on this front and who acquiesce in these pejorative campaigns do so at their peril.
It has never been more important for employers to remain vigilant, informed, and assertive about all of these matters. It is also essential that each employer ensure right now that it is in compliance with all applicable wage-hour requirements.
This was originally published on Fisher & Phillips’ Wage and Hour Laws blog.