Minnesota Supreme Court to Decide Who Makes the Call on a $15/hour Minimum Wage Rate for the City of Minneapolis

August 2016

Following a trend of cities such as Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco, Minneapolis is considering creating a $15/hour minimum wage for employees working in the city.  Who gets to decide the issue, however, is the subject of considerable debate that has gone all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court. 

Advocates for a higher minimum wage collected the signatures required to place the question on the November ballot, as an amendment to the city charter, but the Minneapolis City Council opposed the measure, instead wanting the discretion to decide the issue as an ordinance passed by the Council.  A state trial court judge sided with the advocates, and ruled that the question should be included on the ballot to be voted on by the residents of Minneapolis.  Given the obvious time constraints, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide the issue on appeal directly from the trial court.

The Court’s decision in this case could have far reaching effects, for Minneapolis and other Minnesota cities.  If the Court rules that the city charter can be amended for this sort of issue, advocacy groups may be encouraged to take further measures to establish other terms of employment that apply only locally, through the referendum process.  Some Council members (and no doubt many business owners) have expressed concerns about the economic impact of addressing the minimum wage at the city-level, including that establishing a much higher minimum wage rate of $15 in Minneapolis, when the state minimum wage is $9.50 for large employers, could potentially make the city less competitive with surrounding communities.  If the Supreme Court decides to leave this decision to the voters, hopefully they will become fully informed of all sides of the issue before deciding on such an important issue.

Wisconsin Legislative Update

June 2014

By: Alan E. Seneczko, Esq.

The Wisconsin legislature recently enacted two laws that affect Wisconsin employers. The laws, which took effect in April 2014, are not particularly “earth-shattering,” but they are nonetheless worth noting.

Recordkeeping, Exempt Employees – One of the weird anomalies of Wisconsin wage and hour law has always been its requirement that employers keep records of the hours worked by exempt, salaried employees. I am sure that many of you are now saying “it did,” but have no fear. It no longer does. 2013 Wis. Act 286 amended the Wisconsin minimum wage law to expressly provide that employers are not required to keep records of the hours of employment of employees who are exempt from the requirement to be paid overtime and not paid on an hourly basis.

Social Media Account Access – By now, employers should know that they cannot access an employee’s Facebook page, personal email account, etc., without the employee’s authorization, given that such conduct is prohibited by the federal Stored Communications Act. As a result, 2013 Wis. Act 208, “Internet Privacy Protection,” should be old news.

Effective April 10, 2014, the law prohibits a Wisconsin employer from requesting or requiring an employee or applicant to disclose access information for, grant access to, or allow observation of a personal internet account (an account “created and used by an individual exclusively for purposes of personal communications”) as a condition of employment; and from discharging, refusing to hire or otherwise discriminating against a person who refuses such a request or opposes such practices. An employer may, however:

• Discharge or discipline an employee for transferring confidential information or financial data to the employee’s personal internet account without authorization.
• Conduct an investigation of misconduct, if the employer has reasonable cause to believe that activity in the employee’s personal internet account relating to the misconduct has occurred. Examples include alleged unauthorized transfer of proprietary information; job-related misconduct; violations of the law or the employer’s work rules as specified in an employee handbook. In such circumstances, an employer may require an employee to grant access to or allow observation of a personal internet account, but may not require the employee to disclose access information for that account.
• Restrict or prohibit a person’s access to certain internet sites while using a device or network supplied or paid for by the employer.
• Request or require access to a device, account or service supplied or paid for by the employer, which is provided by virtue of the employment relationship or is used for the employer’s business purposes.
• View, access, or use information about an employee or applicant that is available in the public domain or that can be viewed without access information.
• Request or require disclosure of an employee’s personal email address.

An employer that inadvertently obtains access information through use of an electronic device or program that monitors the employer’s network, or through an electronic communications device supplied or paid for by the employer is not liable for possessing that information as long as the employer does not use that information to access the employee’s personal internet account.

Simple rule of thumb:  If it is personal and you need the employee’s password to see it; you cannot look. If you can see it in the public domain without a password, no problem.  

Questions? Please contact WS Attorney Alan E. Seneczko at (262) 560-9696, or email alseneczko@wesselssherman.com .

 

SEIU Brings $15.00/hour Wage Fight to Home Care Agencies; Rumored Plans Multi-City Walkout in March

March 2015

By: James B. Sherman, Esq.

Over the past year, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has made headlines for its attempts at organizing fast food workers.  The union’s rallying cry has been to advocate for a $15.00 per hour wage rate.  A typical tactic used by the SEIU and other unions, most notably in the retail, services and fast food industries, is to stage walkouts where employees leave their posts and assemble outside of the employer’s business to protest wages and other terms of their employment. Recently, however, the SEIU has turned its attention to the home healthcare industry.  Rumors of a planned walkout event in the coming weeks in a number of cities around the country, including Chicago and Milwaukee, could have serious consequences for the clients who depend on home health agencies for their care.

Employers who may be impacted by these tactics are well advised to have a plan in place before being hit by a walkout or picketing, etc.  However, these situations are governed by complex labor laws that must be taken into account.  For example, where employees protest together, “in concert,” their activities may be protected by the National Labor Relations Act.  This protection is not dependent on union involvement, so even non-unionized employees may be protected from being discharged or disciplined for walking out on their jobs or going “on strike.”  At the same time employees engaging in these sorts of activities may go beyond the protections of the law, for example by engaging in acts of violence or in some rare cases that arguably may be applicable to the home healthcare industry, endangering clients by walking off the job.  While in most instances employers may not discharge or terminate striking union or non-union employees, employers do retain the right to stay open for business, hiring temporary replacement workers or even in some cases, “permanent replacements,” but the striking workers retain the right to come back to work if and when any appropriate jobs become available.  Because the options available to employers are varied and highly regulated by federal law, it is highly recommended that employers consult with experienced labor lawyers for advice on best practices in these scenarios.