The Department of Labor & Industries re-adjusts the state minimum wage every September, as mandated by the voter-approved Initiative 688.  That initiative went into effect in 1998, and requires the state to adjust its minimum wage according to changes in the federal CPI-W, a national index of the cost of goods and services necessary for daily living. The index increased 4.3% over this past year.

L&I provides employers with poster announcements of the new 2012 minimum wage; these can be printed and displayed as needed. The announcement is offered as a convenience only; neither L&I nor Washington State law requires businesses to display these. However, employers do need to post the “Your Rights as a Worker” poster, which gives general information regarding the minimum wage and other related topics.  These workplace posters are available free of charge from any L&I office, and can be downloaded from the L&I website.

Does the Minimum Wage Increase Unemployment?

Some economic theorists argue that a minimum wage set above a so-called “natural market wage” produces higher unemployment – especially for unskilled workers or others who might be considered a “risk” to employ. However, experts hotly debate this question using a wide variety of data, economic theory, and historical cases.

Seattle Times editorialist Bruce Ramsey cautiously suggests that higher unemployment could result from higher wages. He bases his misgivings about the new minimum wage on comparative state figures for the number of workers experiencing underemployment (defined as officially unemployed — not working and looking for work), workers employed part-time but seeking full-time work, “other marginally attached” workers, and individuals who want a job but are discouraged from looking. In light of these figures, Ramsey offers the following account:

“Combined, these ‘underemployed’ were the biggest problem in Oregon, Alaska, Washington, Michigan and California, in that order. This was not for one year, but was an average of 2003 to 2010, which includes boom years and recession years. Notable was that every one of the five states with the worst underemployment has a state minimum wage higher than the federal minimum of $7.25: Oregon is at $8.80, Alaska $7.75, Washington $9.04, Michigan $7.40 and California $8.00. (The listdoes not include the changes since 2003.) The five states with the lowest underemployment from 2003 to 2010 were Nebraska, Delaware, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Virginia. None has a state minimum higher than $7.25. If you start with the states with the highest minimum and see where they fall, there is less correlation. Still, Washington and Oregon have the highest state minimums, and in the period of 2003-2010 they were third and first, respectively, in rates of underemployment. That is not proof of economic theory–there are lots of reasons why a state will do well or poorly–but it is suggestive.”

However, other experts refute these implications, citing studies that suggest a zero (or near-zero) net job loss resulting from higher minimum wage rates. In an interview with NPR, David Cooper, an analyst with the pro-labor Economic Policy Institute, argues the minimum wage is especially important to America’s struggling workforce now:

“When you have lines of the unemployed around the corner looking for jobs, there’s no real pressure for employers to raise wages,” Cooper says.

And in this age of Occupy Wall Street, Cooper says, pushing up that wage floor is one way to address growing income inequality.

“Increases in the minimum wage are essentially a shift from corporate profits to low-wage employees,” he says. “And we know that low-wage employees spend more of their money. They’re going to spend essentially every penny they get, so that increased demand is going to result in more economic activity and potentially more jobs.”

If you are involved in a wage or hour dispute with your employer, contact a Seattle Employment Attorney or Wage & Hour Violation Attorney to represent your case.

While the conditions of the settlement were not made public, the success of the suit has stirred debate about this health hazard that may be more common than most realize.

Judith Murawski, an industrial hygienist for the Association of Flight Attendants, told msnbc.com, “The issue is really heating up now.”  She added that she handles sometimes twelve new cases a month of flight crew employees reporting exposure to toxic fumes.  In fact, these injuries are often reported as employees are en route to medical care.

Industry officials say that on at least one domestically registered jetliner per day, all aboard are exposed to toxic fumes or even smoke.  However, these are only the documented exposures.  Fumes can include a number of chemical and carcinogenic compounds, including carbon monoxide and tricresyl phosphates (TCPs).

So…how do toxic fumes get into an air conditioning system built for human respiration?

On many jetliners, and on most Boeing commercial jetliners, cabin air is pumped from the engine itself.  Boeing insists that any leaks into this system are rare and such slight exposures ultimately pose no health risk.  Boeing released a statement saying it “still contends that cabin air is safe to breath and studies by independent researchers have consistently shown that existing systems for providing cabin air to passengers and crew meet applicable health and safety standards.”

Airline workers counter that “bleeding” air from engines into air conditioning systems have caused problems going back nearly half a century.  Some argue that it is the very location of intake – the engine – that is the root of the problem and that this antiquated design is ultimately faulty.

Flight Attendant Terry Williams argues a single exposure to toxic fumes led to her disabling symptoms.  Her workplace injuries include memory loss, asthma, tremors, speech impairment and loss of balance.   Workers’ Compensation physicians determined that she was suffering from a neurotoxic disorder due to her workplace environment.

The Airlines themselves are predictably fighting back by claiming that the issue is exaggerated and “emotional” for flight attendants.

If you are the victim of a workplace accident, be sure to first seek medical care.  Next, contact an experienced Seattle Workers’ Compensation Attorney before you initiate the claims process.  The attorneys at Emery Reddy are standing by to help you with your claim.

This incident sheds light on what happens when mandated safety procedures are ignored and the citations reveal a larger government interest in protecting worker safety.

According to media sources, a worker was changing the blades on a saw was killed when another worker, who had disregarded government established procedure, started the saw without warning.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires a “lockout/tagout” procedure whereby workers alert each other that machines have been shut down and power sources have been locked out before maintenance can begin.

The police identified the worker as Thomas O. Pelton.

Not surprisingly, OSHA discovered many other hazardous conditions at the mill.  These violations included hazardous conditions relating to machine guarding, electrical, ladder use, and protective use hazards.  Such common overlooked hazards could lead to a number of injuries including, but not limited to, electrocution, amputation, lacerations, and even being caught in parts of a moving machine. B&B Lumber faces a total of $152,100 in proposed fines for these conditions.

B&B Lumber faces fines totaling over $150,000 due to these conditions.

Key to this incident is the Occupational and Safety and Health Act of 1970, which holds that employers are responsible for providing safe work conditions for their employees.  Workers should look to OSHA to safeguard their welfare if they feel they are laboring in an environment that disregards basic work safety procedures.

If you are a Washington or Seattle worker who suspects that they are working in an unsafe work situation, they should contact OSHA immediately with their concerns.

If you are an injured worker, you should immediately seek out medical assistance.  If you require compensation, you should contact an experienced Washington Workers’ Compensation Lawyer to fight for your rights.  The Washington Workers Compensation Attorneys at Emery Reddy are prepared to advise you.

Clearly, the issue of how to allot medical leave to disabled persons is a sticky issue that sometimes causes anxiety and confusion between employers and employees, and one of the aims of the panel was to clear up ambiguities in application of the law.  Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Councel for the EEOC, acknowledged this confusion then turned to describing in detail the position the EEOC has taken on theses issues.

Mr. Kuczynski noted the EEOC asserts that in some cases the use of accrued paid leave and additional unpaid leave might be a form of “reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Yet, things become sticky when a business applies a uniform “no fault” leave policy that requires automatic termination after a certain period of time.  He noted this does not necessarily represent a violation the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Still, he quoted the EEOC’s official position in literature saying “where an employee needs more leave than is allowed under a ‘no-fault’ leave policy because of a disability, and employer must ‘modify its policy to provide the employee with the additional leave,’ unless there is another effective accommodation or modifying the policy would result in undue hardship.”

John Hendrickson, a Regional EEOC, then described several cases that ended with settlements against major corporations like Sears Roebuck and Jewel Foods.  He used these cases to establish some parameters that businesses and disabled workers should keep in mind:

• Set periods of leave, even if generous, may not be sufficient to meet the employer’s duty of reasonable accommodation.
• Appropriate leave under the ADA must be subject to individual analysis–even if the fixed leave policy is expansive.
• Employers should be weary about separating administration of workers’ compensation benefits or disability benefits from ADA administration.
• Employers need to keep clear lines of communication open between employees, health care providers, and managers.
• Ultimately, the EEOC “occupies a unique role in litigating these case.”

Understandably, witnesses for disabled workers described an issue of bigger dimensions and urgency than the business community would acknowledge.  The everyday challenges encountered by disabled workers form ongoing, tangible obstacles to each work shift.  However, with proper adherence to the ADA, workers are better positioned to gainfully contribute to the workplace.

Businesses are becoming increasingly aware and compliant with workers’ needs, most usually through litigation.  In early June, the EEOC alleged that Target Corporation violated the ADA by denying “reasonable accommodation” to a disabled employee and reducing his work hours. According to the complaint, Target reduced the work hours of an employee with cerebral palsy and suffering from seizures to sometimes one-third the time worked by other employees.  Target payed $160,000 in a settlement.  Still, what is optimistic in this case is that Target agreed to designate an ADA coordinator in its corporate-level human resources department and launch a corporate-wite policy regarding “reasonable accommodation.”

If you are a worker who feels they may not be receiving reasonable accommodation as lawfully spelled out in the Americans with Disabilities Act, you need to immediately contact an experienced Washington Workers’ Compensation Attorney to seek advice.  Emery Reddy has an expert Washington Labor & Industries Lawyer standing by to be your advocate and fight for your rights.

.

We reported in this blog recently on the struggle of former female Wal-Mart workers to form a massive class action law suit against the retailer.  The workers claimed sex bias in management and hiring decisions on an institutional scale, and as such, sought the novel strategy of forming a class based on gender.  The backers of the suit argued that consolidation on this novel scale was the only effective way to confront such a large, powerful corporation as Wal-Mart.  Woman’s Rights activists were hopeful that this suit was a first step to redressing historic wrongs directed toward women in the workplace that continue to effect female workers’ wages and chances of promotion.

This morning, the Supreme Court put a halt to this opportunity to bring a powerful class action suit against the retailer.

The court ruled unanimously that the up to 1.6 million women could not form a class action against Wal-Mart, effectively reversing a lower court decision that said the class could move forward.  The women do have the option to move forward with individual lawsuits.  However, singular suits brought individually have the flavor of David vs. Goliath.  After all, the one of the points of a class action is to leverage group power against large, well-funded institutions that would normally be immune to such claims.

The unanimous decision cited Wal-Mart’s argument that the female employees performed different jobs in thousands of stores with many different supervisors did not have enough in common to form a cohesive class.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, noting “Respondents wish to sue for millions of employment decisions at once. Without some glue holding together the alleged reasons for those decisions, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question.”

The Illinois bill is touted as “reform,” but many critics and labor rights activists see it as a giveaway to Big Business with workers bearing the cost.  Touted by many pro-business Democrats, Senate President John Cullerton argued “This reform package is the single most important thing we can do to improve our business climate and ensure our economic recovery continues.  Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also backed the bill as essentially job-creation legislation.

At the heart of the legislation is a 30 percent reduction in fees that businesses are required to pay doctors who treat injured workers. Proponents of the bill argue this would save Illinois businesses up to $700 million.  Of course, what is not addressed is how this gap in coverage will be addressed.

Other features of the bill include establishing a medical network for workers compensation claims and cutting the duration when a worker can receive payments for carpal tunnel syndrome from 40 weeks to 28 weeks.  Perhaps most troubling, the measure places the burden of proof on workers when proving that drugs or alcohol did not not contribute to a workplace accident.

Predictably, while these features certainly represent major change, Republicans did not feel the Bill went far enough.  Hyperbole and rhetoric abound when state Republicans complain that Bill does not go far enough:

“The person who plays football on Sunday afternoon gets hurt and goes to work on Monday and says he has a workers compensation injury, we don’t address that, the very meat and potatoes of what we need to do,” complained House Minority Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego).

Attorney Michael Helfand notes the dishonesty at the heart of such a statement: “That sounds outrageous and would be if it was true.  But the truth is that any injured worker has to prove that their injury arose out of and in the course of their employment.  In the course of means while they were working or doing something for the benefit of the employer.  So if the scenario that Tom Cross describes happens then the case can and will be fought and in fact the worker can be charged with fraud.”

Helfand is on point when he notes that such statements play into old, dangerous stereotypes of the “scamming” injured worker. As any worker who has been injured on the job can attest, being forced to seek medical care that prevents one from working is not a pleasant experience, and can often be trying and fraught with obstacles.

We will continue to watch this bill and others as they make their way through state legislatures.  Workers’ Compensation law is complex and dynamic, but an attorney who specializes in such cases is an injured workers’ greatest ally.  An expert Washington workers’ compensation lawyer at Emery Reddy is standing by to help with your very important claim.

]]> http://emeryreddy.com/blog/2011/06/illinois-workers-compensation-bill-reform-or-assault-on-workers-rights/feed/ 0 http://emeryreddy.com/blog/2011/04/washington-democrats-present-workers-compensation-plan/ http://emeryreddy.com/blog/2011/04/washington-democrats-present-workers-compensation-plan/#comments Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:39:26 +0000 Jennifer Atkinson http://emeryreddy.com/blog/?p=317 In an attempt to reign in the Washington State Budget, a group of House Democrats put forward a proposal that seeks to make more moderate changes to the State’s Labor & Industries program than a prior proposal unveiled in the State Senate.

As we have reported before here, Washington State’s Workers’ Compensation Program is projected to run into insolvency in whole or in part within the next five to ten years.  KATU.com reports, “The system had about $499 million in reserves as of Dec. 31, the last figure available through the Department of Labor & Industries.  That figure represents the sum of medical fund of the system, which stands at nearly $709 million; the accident liability fund that is in the red for $275 million; and the pension fund that currently stands at $65 million.” Legislators point to these statistics to argue of an impending disaster that only big changes to workers’ compensation can avert.

Beyond the lost revenue stemming from the recession, critics of the Workers’ Comp Program point to one oft-quoted statistic as a major root of the problem: About 85 percent of compensation costs come from only 8 percent of all claims.  How is this possible?  Bert Caldwell of the Spokesman-Review explains that this 8 percent group is characterized by long pay-outs that stretch out into pensions.  He notes that Washington, “unlike most states, does not buy workers out of the program in order to cat its costs. Gregoire’s proposal would make that option available to workers age 55 and older who may not be retrainable and might prefer a reduced stipend that allow them to go their ow way and possibly find new work without worrying that a dollar erned is a dollar out of their pension.”

This “buy out” turns out to be the center of debate in this new round of Workers’ Compensation reform talks.

The Democrats insist their new proposal is more moderate than the one proposed by the Senate.  However, they do retain the option of a voluntary settlement as a central feature to their cost-cutting plain.  The settlement option allows workers to choose a one-time check to cover lost earning power.  Labor Unions reject this option, noting how tempting a one-time “fat check” can be and also arguing that when injured workers run out of settlement money, they are likely to turn to other social service outlets to meet their needs.  However, Rep. Chris Hurst, D-Eunumclaw, casts the settlement provision as an expansion of worker writes: “At the end of the day, it’s the workers’ money and it’s their life, and they should have the right to make this choice, to make this decision on their own and it needs to be a fair process.

Organized Labor counters that settlements rarely fully compensate an injured worker.  Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council recasts this “compromise” between the House and Senate as a shift in cost to injured workers.  He argues, “The only compromise, in any form of compromise and release, is workers compromising the benefits they need to survive.

The Seattle Times Editorial Board supports the measure by arguing that several safeguards, including grace periods before making a decision on a settlement, have been put in place to guard against coercion and split-second decision making that could impact an injured worker for the rest of his or her life.  As such, the momentum seems to be behind this version of the Bill, and Labor & Industries Attorneys and Activists will continue to watch these developments with an eye to protecting worker rights.

If you are injured in workplace setting, immediately seek medical help.  Injured workers should also consult with an expert Washington Labor & Industries Attorney to ensure they are protected as they file their claim.

]]> http://emeryreddy.com/blog/2011/04/washington-democrats-present-workers-compensation-plan/feed/ 0 http://emeryreddy.com/blog/2011/02/tucson-tragedy-highlights-workers%e2%80%99-comp-issues/ http://emeryreddy.com/blog/2011/02/tucson-tragedy-highlights-workers%e2%80%99-comp-issues/#comments Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:11:17 +0000 Jennifer Atkinson http://emeryreddy.com/blog/?p=171 The tragic shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, members of her staff, and several constituents in Tucson last month has highlighted many issues confronting our country today: questions of gun control, the level of vitriol in political discourse, and, interestingly, many questions of public health services and workers’ compensation.

It is well known that the suspect in the shooting, Jared Lee Loughner, suffered from various mental health issues and many sources in the Arizona Mental Health community commented that he might have received help had he sought it.  While this can never be known, his mental illness has prompted several discussions about the many cuts proposed to health care budgets as states tighten their belts across the country.

The flip side of this issue of access to health care is the fact that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was injured while on the job and her closely scrutinized recovery could be the result of Federal workers’ compensation.

According to Rebecca Shafer, President of Amaxx Risks Solutions, “As Congresswoman Giffords and the members of her staff are federal employees, and as they were at an official function for Congresswoman Giffords, she and her staff would be covered for workers compensation by the U.S. Department of Labors Office of Workers Compensation Programs, which administers the Division of Federal Employees Compensation.”  Shafer notes this kind of workers’ compensation is known as FECA – Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.

The next step in Giffords’ recovery will be a lengthy rehabilitation process. On January 21 she was transferred to the Memorial Hermann Medical Center in Houston, Texas and then moved to the Institute for Rehabilitation and Research.   Many experts have assured the public that she is receiving the absolute best care possible for someone with her severe neurological injuries.

The Federal Workers’ Compensation that covers Giffords and her staff is often singled out as a kind of “gold standard” by which other workers’ compensation programs are measured. Still, even Federal workers’ compensation benefits are under greater scrutiny in the current fiscal climate.

Joe Davidson writes in the Washington Post that Senator Susan M. Collins wants “the Government Accountability Office to study the program that provides income to injured federal workers.” Collins argues elderly workers who have no intention of returning to work continue to collect workers’ compensation benefits at taxpayer’s expense.

As Representative Giffords continues to recover under the best medical care available and with the well wishes of the Nation, it seems important to reflect on how her recovery stands in relation to the thousands of other injured workers who struggle to receive the same benefits guaranteed to them under the law.  As states continue to slash entitlement budgets, workers injured in preventable workplace incidents will need to find workers’ compensation attorneys who are abreast of the rapidly changing landscape of workers’ compensation law.  Injured workers should consult a Washington Worker’s Compensation Lawyer at Emery Reddy.

According to the Globe and Mail, the lawsuit is being filed by Dilshod Marupov, a 22-year-old worker from Uzbekistan who was repairing balconies on a Toronto apartment building when the scaffolding he was using snapped in half, causing him to fall 13 stories to the ground. Both of Marupov’s legs were crushed and his spine was broken, forcing him to stay in the hospital for several months. All other workers who fell from the scaffolding were killed.

Charges filed against Metron Construction of Toronto and Swing N Scaff of Ottawa include failure to ensure that workers were provided with proper devices to protect them from falling, and failure to make certain that the work platform was not overloaded.  “We are suing them because we think they have a duty that they didn’t exercise properly,” said Marupov’s lawyer, William Friedman.

Unfortunately, such workplace accidents are common in Washington as well.  While OSHA reports a declining trend in deaths from workplace accidents, workplace injuries remain at unacceptably high levels.  If you have been seriously injured in a workplace accident, contact a Washington workers’ compensation attorney to help you recover damages including medical costs, lost wages and compensation for pain and suffering.

Companies that cut costs by misclassifying regular employees as “independent contractors” will face tighter regulations and stricter penalties in 2010. The Obama administration has already begun to crack down on companies that misrepresent worker status, recently hiring one hundred additional enforcement agents to effect compliance with the law. Meanwhile, auditors at the IRS have launched an intensified campaign to determine if over 6,000 major companies are using misclassification as a way to cheat on taxes.

Business experts have shown that a growing number of companies wrongfully classify regular workers as “independent contractors” to avoid paying unemployment insurance premiums and Social Security and Medicare taxes on the wages of their employees. Since taxes are not generally paid on the compensation of independent contractors, employers reduce business costs by improperly applying this designation to individuals who should be regarded as regular employees (some of these “contractors” even have company office space and work the same hours as employees).

In a recent New York Times article, Steven Greenhouse indicated that companies wrongfully classify about 3.4 million workers as contractors; the Department of Labor largely corroborates these figures, and estimates that up to 30% of U.S. companies participate in worker misclassification at some level.

The practice has enormous economic repercussions. In Ohio, for example, close to 100,000 misclassified workers have cost the state an estimated $35 million a year in unemployment insurance taxes, and over $100 million in worker’s compensation premiums. With federal and state governments currently struggling under record deficits, businesses can expect a significant increase in penalties for misclassification in the near future. Steven Greenhouse reports that the attorney general of California is currently seeking $4.3 million from a single construction company accused of misclassifying its workers. When implemented on a comprehensive, nation-wide scale, these measures could yield significant results. According to the Obama administration’s 2010 budget estimates, tightened enforcement could translate into $7 billion in revenue over 10 years.

Yet wrongful classification of workers is not merely a matter of concern for government officials; the practice has implications on a more personal level as well, denying basic employment rights to workers. Employers often misrepresent regular W-2 employees as contractors to circumvent minimum wage, overtime and antidiscrimination laws. If workers are designated as contractors and then laid off, they are ineligible for unemployment insurance. Those who are injured on the job cannot receive workers’ compensation benefits.

Prominent members of the business community have responded to the impending crackdown with alarm. When the IRS or state tax authorities identify instances of wrongfully misclassifying workers, companies often face fines and penalties, and can be liable for back-taxes on the reclassified employee. Most employers maintain that worker misclassification is unintentional, resulting from confusion and ambiguity in the legal distinctions between independent contractors and regular employees.

While current developments demonstrate a growing political will to enforce compliance with the law, cases of misclassifying workers have repeatedly emerged in the national spotlight in recent years. Last year the attorneys general of several states threatened to sue FedEx Ground for wrongfully classifying its drivers.  According to allegations by the Teamsters, FedEx has used misclassification to prevent drivers from unionizing (since independent contractors, unlike traditional employees, cannot form unions).

Yet perhaps the most prominent case of misclassification surfaced in 2007, when the private security firm Blackwater USA came under investigation for evading payment of millions of dollars in taxes by classifying workers in Iraq as “independent contractors.” Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, accused Blackwater of engaging in an “illegal tax scheme” that allowed it to avoid an estimated $31 million in employment-related taxes in the last year of its contract alone. The company also attempted to prevent one of its guards from contacting members of Congress after the worker discovered this illegal practice. In a letter to Blackwater’s CEO, Waxman wrote that “it is deplorable that a company that depends on federal tax dollars for over 90 percent of its business would even contemplate forbidding an employee to report corporate wrongdoing to Congress and federal law enforcement officials.” Despite the fact that it routinely misclassifies workers as contractors, Blackwater has been awarded more than $1 billion in government contracts since 2001.

According to guidelines established by the IRS, an employee is defined as anyone who works for an employer when that employer controls what will be done on the job and how those services will be performed. Independent contractors, on the other hand, are defined in a such as way that the payer or employer can only control the result of the work performed, but not the means of accomplishing that result. This distinction is codified in revenue ruling 87-41 (generally referred to as “the twenty factor test”). For a more extensive discussion on properly classifying employees and contractors, see the official guidelines as detailed on the IRS website.