By Ruth Binger
Have you ever caught your employees publicly griping about your company, or maybe even about you personally, on Facebook? If you have, your first instinct might have been to discipline or even fire them.
But according to several recent decisions from the National Labor Relations Board, if colleagues discuss compensation, working conditions or other issues related to their employment over Facebook, their conduct may be protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Continue reading »
09/2/11 1:12 PM
Business Law, Employment Law | Comments Off on Your Employees Are Griping About You on Facebook: Can You Fire Them? |
Permalink
Your Employees Are Griping About You on Facebook: Can You Fire Them?
By Ruth Binger
While establishing and maintaining an organizational presence on popular media websites and blogs (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.), businesses need to be aware of the legend of Troy and its supposed downfall due to a Trojan Horse. Greek mythology states that Greek warriors concocted a scheme whereby they built a wooden horse and offered it as a gift to the Trojans. The Trojans, in their greed and arrogance, accepted the gift and brought it within their gates. Then, at night as the Trojans slept, the Greek warriors emerged from the belly of the Trojan horse and defeated the Trojans changing the course of a ten-year siege.
Today, a Trojan Horse is more often thought of as a destructive software program that disguises itself as a helpful application. Similarly, although social media may be helpful for your business, be aware what could be lying in the belly of that Trojan Horse.
Line Between Private vs. Public Blurred
According to the Socialnomics web site, Generation Y will outnumber baby boomers sometime this year and 90% of them have already joined an online social network. For many young people, and even 50 year-olds, the line between private and public has disappeared as they tweet, blog, text and share the minutiae of both their personal lives and everyone around them – including their employer. Social media users are under the mistaken assumption that they own the web content they are generating and can retrieve it and delete it if needed.
They are also under the mistaken impression that what they say is protected by some cocoon and that the content they generate is private. This is not true, as evidenced by a Detroit hospital worker who was terminated after she posted a comment on Facebook about a man she treated who was accused of killing a police officer. She was fired for violating strict patient privacy rules under the federal HIPAA law. A Massachusetts 54 year old high school teacher also learned this lesson when posting negative comments about her school community, students, and parents even though she had set the privacy setting on her Facebook account. Moreover, cases are clear that locking a profile from public access does not prevent discovery in litigation either.
Disclosure of Company Information at Risk
Given the fact that technology is moving so fast and disclosure is instantaneous, worldwide and permanent, companies need to train their employees on the dangers of purposeful or inadvertent disclosure of company information. What is at stake for the employer is the loss of confidential information and trade secrets, disclosure of protectable third party information or medical information, suits from other companies for disclosure of secrets, and discrimination suits. For instance, companies recruiting and hiring managers often use social media in order to obtain more information on a candidate than they otherwise could. Continue reading »
11/10/10 1:00 PM
Business Law, Employment Law, Intellectual Property | Comments Off on Beware the Trojan Horse that is Social Media |
Permalink
Beware the Trojan Horse that is Social Media
By Brian Weinstock
There are some unfortunate unintended consequences of the August 28, 2005 Missouri Workers Compensation Reform.
I wrote Workers Can Now Sue Each Other for Negligent Acts (just published by Associated Industries of Missouri) because I believe the case (mentioned within) sets a terrible precedent from a public policy standpoint.
Do we really want employees suing each over simple negligence when there is a remedy for the injured worker via workers compensation?
Employees probably have no insurance to protect themselves over these types of issues. This could have a devastating effect on small and medium size businesses so I believe it needs to be overruled by the Missouri Supreme Court or the legislature and the Governor need to fix this issue quickly.
09/3/10 6:00 AM
Employment Law, Litigation | Comments Off on Workers Can Now Sue Each Other for Negligent Acts Committed Against Each Other |
Permalink
Workers Can Now Sue Each Other for Negligent Acts Committed Against Each Other
By Ruth Binger
Who Owns the Salesperson’s LinkedIn Account?
Owners/shareholders own businesses for many reasons, including selling the business at a value higher than the investment cost. However, when a business owner goes to sell his or her business and attempts to obtain the highest price available, it is important to understand where the value of that business lies and how to maximize that value to any potential buyer.
In many instances, a significant part of the business’s value is found in the intellectual property possessed by the employees.
Part of that intellectual property is found in the trade secrets and confidential information that the company develops to provide its services and products faster, cheaper, and better over time. A very critical component is the customer networks that its sales/marketing people developed over time.
Who owns those networks, especially LinkedIn, and the data associated with them? Continue reading »
09/1/10 6:00 AM
Business Law, Employment Law, Intellectual Property | Comments Off on Mergers and Sales – Trade Secrets & Confidential Information |
Permalink
Mergers and Sales – Trade Secrets & Confidential Information
By Ruth Binger
Your competition is hurt and bleeding and your industry is down. You own a business and you are in the enviable position of having extra cash. However, barriers to entry are low in your industry and buying your competition’s business may not be a good investment.
An easier strategy, a bit predatory of course, is to hire the salesperson from the failing businesses.
You have searched the internet as to the wisdom of the idea, and you are a bit confused. As fate would have it, the decision is made somewhat easy for you and you are approached by the salesperson in question who lets you know he can bring a substantial book of business given that he is fairly sure his employer’s ship is sinking.
You are aware of the duties that an employee owes an employer, and you intend to stay squarely within the law. The competitor is savvy and you know there has to be a non-competition/non solicitation agreement. You quickly arrange a meeting with the salesperson and you ask her to bring a copy of her non compete/non solicitation for legal review.
So, what are the key questions you should be asking in Missouri during these hard economic times:
- Has your compensation arrangement been recently unilaterally changed?
- Has the business changed hands (Roeder v. Ferrell-Duncan, Clinic, Inc.)?
- Is the employer in the process of being downsized and will you be asked to sign a severance agreement (Carboline v. Lebeck and PPG Industries)?
- What are the events leading up to the decision to seek new employment-material breach issues (McKnight v. Midwest Eye Institute of Kansas City, Inc.)?
The answers to these questions will help you and your counsel determine whether you need to buy the business, hire the employee or pursue other strategies.
05/19/10 6:15 AM
Business Law, Employment Law | Comments Off on Raiding Your Competitors’ Salespeople in Missouri: What are Owners’ Key Questions? |
Permalink
Raiding Your Competitors’ Salespeople in Missouri: What are Owners’ Key Questions?
By Brian Weinstock
Whether you are a plaintiff or defendant with regard to a personal injury claim, it is important to determine whether there are any issues with respect to ERISA, FEHBA and Medicare.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)is federal law which establishes minimum standards for pension plans in private industry and includes extensive rules with regard to federal income tax effects of transactions associated with employee benefit plans. Congress established this law with the intent to protect the interests of participants in employee benefits plans and their beneficiaries by requiring financial disclosure to them, establishing fiduciary duties with respect to the plans and allowing access to federal courts to obtain remedies. ERISA addresses pension plans in detail but also effects health care plans. Thus, ERISA applies to all employee welfare benefit plans offered by private sector employers or unions whether offered through insurance or a self-funded arrangement. ERISA’s preemption clause states that ERISA “shall supersede any and all state laws insofar as they relate to any employee benefit plan” which would include a health care plan.
Under an ERISA plan such as a self-funded health and welfare fund, i.e. union health insurance, a plaintiff can recover benefits due under the terms of the plan, enforce rights under the plan and receive a clarification of rights to future benefits under a plan. These health care plans outline when a participant must repay them. These plans typically include language such as when “you or your Dependent achieve any recovery whatsoever, through a legal action or settlement in connection with any sickness or injury alleged to have been caused by a third-party, regardless of whether or not some or all of the amount recovered was specifically for medicalor dental expenses for which Plan benefits were paid.” Moreover, it is not uncommon for the ERISA plan fiduciaries to require a beneficiary to sign additional documents before making any payment to a health care provider with respect to medical care for alleged injuries from a personal injury claim. These additional documents typically contain language which includes “I understand that the Fund must be reimbursed for medical benefits or for any benefits paid as a result of an injury or illness if any recovery is made for that injury or illness.” For example, a plaintiff in a state claim may have health insurance through a self-funded health and welfare fund. Continue reading »
03/2/10 9:00 AM
Employment Law, Insurance, Litigation, Workers' Compensation | Comments Off on ERISA, FEHBA, Medicare (CMS) and Personal Injury claims |
Permalink
ERISA, FEHBA, Medicare (CMS) and Personal Injury claims
By Ruth Binger
A Unique Opportunity to Reduce Employee Hours While Still Qualifying Them for Unemployment
In a struggling economy, employers have to make difficult decisions pertaining to their businesses and employees. Faced with “hopefully” temporary losses in business, many employers are forced to terminate employees losing their experience and knowledge. On the other hand, if the employer elects to reduce hours, the employees receive lesser pay and are ineligible to collect unemployment benefits.
Fortunately, employers do have a unique alternative under the Missouri Employment Security Law whereby they can retain their hourly workforce and reduce hours while at the same time allowing their employees to receive a proportional supplement of unemployment benefits. This article applies only to such programs that involve hourly-paid employees.
Continue reading »
09/1/09 9:24 AM
Business Law, Employment Law | Comments Off on Missouri Shared Work Program |
Permalink
Missouri Shared Work Program
By Ruth Binger
The Fair Labor Standards Act was passed in response to the Great Depression. An important piece of New Deal legislation, the Act was concerned primarily with providing a minimum subsistence wage and protection against oppressive working hours. Congress passed overtime legislation to advance three goals: a shorter work week, compensation for overworked employees, and work spreading (sharing). The white collar exemptions essentially served as a line drawing tool between those workers in need of statutory protection and those whose skills, pay and position offered them sufficient bargaining power to protect themselves.
In the agrarian and manufacturing-oriented economy of the 1930’s and 1940’s, white collar workers had clearly defined decision-making responsibilities, were closer to management and were paid better than today. In such an economy, white collar workers were middle class in income, outlook, attitude and life.
Continue reading »
10/1/08 9:40 AM
Business Law, Employment Law | Comments Off on Department of Labor Exempt Regulations—What 2004 Favorable Changes Are You Still Not Using? |
Permalink
Department of Labor Exempt Regulations—What 2004 Favorable Changes Are You Still Not Using?
By David R. Bohm
Within the last several days, President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which included amendments which expanded the coverage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). These changes provide job-protected unpaid leave to covered workers to care for family members who are injured or become ill while serving in the armed forces, and when reservists are called to active duty in a “qualifying exigency” (a term which is likely to be defined under future regulations to be issued by the Department of Labor, but which clearly includes service in Iraq and Afghanistan). Because the law did not have a specific effective date, it is effective immediately.
Wounded Service Members
Under the FMLA amendments, an eligible employee who is the spouse, child, parent or next of kin of a service man or woman is entitled to a total of up to 26 weeks of unpaid leave to care for the servicemember if he or she is receiving medical care for, or recuperating from, a serious injury or illness suffered while serving in the military. The term “next of kin” has not previously been used in FMLA and is undefined by the statute. Exactly who qualifies as a “next of kin” is likely to be defined under new regulations to be issued by the Department of Labor (“DOL”). A serious injury or illness is one that renders a servicemember medically unfit to perform his or her military duties. The 26 weeks of leave can only be taken during a single 12-month period (i.e., can not be taken in successive years due to the same injury or illness). Leave may be taken intermittently. The employer must allow the employee to take leave in increments as small as the shortest period of time that the employer regularly tracks in its payroll system (e.g., if a time clock is utilized by an employer, the increment can be measured in minutes). If a husband and wife are employed by the same employer, they may be limited to taking a total of 26 weeks of unpaid leave between them.
Continue reading »
02/1/08 3:58 PM
Business Law, Employment Law | Comments Off on Amendments to FMLA Extend New Leave Rights to Family Members of Military Personnel |
Permalink
Amendments to FMLA Extend New Leave Rights to Family Members of Military Personnel
By Health Care Law Practice Group
Employee costs are the bottom line
The fact is that employee costs, and curbing those costs, are the “bottom line” for most employers. For years, employers have been struggling to control and minimize the rising costs of health care for their employees. Employers are increasingly forced to transfer health care costs to their employees through higher premiums, copayments and deductibles. Only in the past few years have employers realized that they can assist their employees in improving their overall wellness, while at the same time potentially reducing the employers’ health care costs. The methods that employers have begun experimenting with include implementing wellness programs, offering health risk assessments, and education.
Hard, Cruel Facts
Since 2000 U.S. healthcare cost increases have exceeded the overall inflation rate by a factor of two to five times. (National Coalition on Healthcare, Economic Cost Fact Sheets.)
Continue reading »
02/1/08 2:21 PM
Business Law, Employment Law, Health Care, HIPAA | Comments Off on Kicking the Habit and Getting Fit Helps Employers’ Bottom Lines |
Permalink
Kicking the Habit and Getting Fit Helps Employers’ Bottom Lines