Labor laws got you lost? (Look at what Obama has done for ALL workers in 6 months!)

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=32183

By: Monica Ginsburg July 13, 2009
President Barack Obama has been in office for only seven months, but already his administration has ushered in a slew of rules and regulations that affect the way employers deal with their employees — from a new law that makes it easier for people to pursue pay-discrimination cases to a broader reading of who's covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

More change is on the way — a lot more. In fact, even before Election Day last year, Chicago labor law firm Franczek Radelet P.C. began tracking then-candidate Obama's speeches and platform positions and tallied more than 30 workplace-related initiatives he likely would push if he won.

Now Franczek Radelet, like employment lawyers and human resources executives all over the country, is scrambling to adjust to the new rules emanating from Washington, D.C.

"It's a paradigm shift from what we saw in the Bush administration," partner David Radelet says. "There's a new team in place and a new political agenda. It really is staggering what might be coming."

Among the changes that already have come down:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This was the first piece of legislation Mr. Obama signed into law. Enacted in January, it expands a worker's right to sue in pay-discrimination cases by relaxing the statute of limitations. (See story on Page 20.)

Cobra subsidies. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law in February, qualified employees laid off between Sept. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2009, pay 35% of their Cobra health care coverage for up to nine months while the government picks up the rest. But that doesn't mean this is a cost-free move for employers: They're required to notify employees of their rights under this new law and are responsible for implementing the new system.

Paycheck Fairness Act. This one isn't law yet; it has passed the U.S. House and is awaiting action in the Senate. The act takes aim at gender discrimination in pay. (See accompanying article.)

'Card check' bill. Known officially as the Employee Free Choice Act, this legislation would make it easier for unions to organize employees, though the particulars are still being hammered out on Capitol Hill. (See story on Page 20.)

FULL story at link.

[TexasObserver]

1. K&R

[leftstreet]

2. If jobs ever materialize in the US, this will be awesome!

:thumbsup:

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

3. F*ck, just like Bush...when will learn.

[HughMoran]

4. 7 - 1 = 7?

Funny math there - good points though.

[lindisfarne]

5. In the time it took you to read & unrec, someone else hit Rec. n/t

[HughMoran]

6. I read AND recommended the post. If YOU READ the post, you'd have seen the bad math I'm describing

You just pwned yourself with that reactionary comment.

Classic fail.

[lindisfarne]

7. I did read.The only thing I can guess you're referring to - and it's far from obvious, is the first

sentence.

When you cannot make clear the intent of your post, you have no right to be so offensive when it is misunderstood. Your lack of clarity, combined with your offensive reply, is far worse than what ,apparently, caused you to comment in the first place.

[HughMoran]

8. You made a classic fail mistake, then blame me for it

Unfucking believable, yet absolutely classic DU.

Why not just admit you made a mistake?

You said it,

IT WAS IN THE FIRST SENTENCE!!!!!

Clearly

YOU

hadn't read the post before attacking me.

Classic.

FAIL!

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[lindisfarne]

9. I'm very concerned about your reaction, given my first reply-it's completely disproportionate.Best

of luck to you, in spite of your lack of civility.

[HughMoran]

14. lol - you can dare talk about incivility

You started this shit based on an obvious bad assumption on your part.

Show me one word in my post that you criticized that was negative or otherwise not stating the content of the article was "good"?

[BlooInBloo]

11. Are you sick or something? That amount of apeshittery is kind of weird.

I thought you were talking about rec/unrecs too. And I also read the article...

[HughMoran]

13. "He's been in office 7 months" - what is one of the biggest issues here?

Yep, how long Obama's been in office.

July - January = 6 months - when the first sentence has such an obvious error in it, how can people not notice it?

Oh yeah, the latest "Palin/MJ/unrec" phenomenon controls the thoughts of everybody and they don't even think that when I said the content was "good" that I clearly wasn't unreccing it and was pointing out something "wrong" in the post.

[BlooInBloo]

15. All of which explains your uber emo apeshit ejaculation how?

[HughMoran]

16. ...by pointing out that it was directed at someone who criticized me

...and has nothing to do with your decision to jump in and apply a personal attack against me.

[lindisfarne]

17. There was no criticism in #5. I hope this isn't indicative of the way you react in real life. But

maybe you think it works. Best to you.

[HughMoran]

18. Same to you

(how's that for keeping it vague ;) )

[arikara]

20. 6.39 months to be exact

Possibly some people might want to round it up to 7 which may cause confusion especially when recs are what is on everyone's mind these days.

LOVE and PEACE

:grouphug:

[blondeatlast]

10. This is heartening. I very much believe the EFCA WILL pass.

I wanna see my President sign that bill, yes, indeed!

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Pshaw...this is REAL policy

DUers prefer to shake their fist at the sky over the last thing on MSNBC, not actual policy. You came to the wrong place with this post.

:rofl:

[varelse]

19. K&R

thank you

[Omaha Steve]

21. Lets get back to the topic

I understand some feelings have been hurt. We are all D's here. It was just a misunderstanding.

I rejoice in the great things OUR President Obama has done in a short time.

OS

[Omaha Steve]

22. Ad this

Obama Picks Much-Needed Third Member for NLRB

http://ohsonline.com/articles/2009/07/10/obama-picks-third-member-for-nlrb.aspx

If Brian Hayes is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the five-member board will again have a quorum. The issue of whether hundreds of decisions issued by the two-member board are valid has been heated since the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on May 1 that one such order was invalid.

* Jul 10, 2009

President Obama on Thursday announced he intends to nominate Brian Hayes, currently Republican Labor Policy Director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, as a member of the National Labor Relations Board. If Hayes wins U.S. Senate confirmation, it would be a victory for the five-member NLRB, which decides unfair labor practice and union representation cases.

NLRB currently has only two members, Chairman Wilma B. Liebman and member Peter Carey Schaumber. Board members serve five-year terms, being nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Vacancies have been a persistent problem, one that became acute on May 1 when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier Inc. v. NLRB, No. 08-1162. The case was a South Carolina health care company's appeal of an NLRB unfair labor practice ruling against it. Rather than allege any error in the ruling, the employer instead argued the NLRB order was invalid because the board had only two members. The D.C. Circuit panel agreed, and the NLRB soon filed a petition for rehearing by the full court.

The case has been followed closely in employment law circles because there has been a split among circuit courts of appeals that have ruled on the question, and also because as many as 400 NLRB decisions issued with just two members could be in jeopardy. The board claims it has the authority to decide cases with just two members. Coverage of the case is available here and here.

According to the White House news release, Hayes worked as a lawyer in private practice for more than 25 years, mainly representing management clients in labor and employment matters. He has represented employers before the NLRB, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and various state agencies and in arbitrations, mediations, and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. His experience includes clerking for the chief judge of the NLRB and serving as counsel to the chairman of the NLRB.

[Omaha Steve]

23. Kick

To the day crowd.

[SoCalDem]

24. My unemployed son (in Seattle) is eternally grateful

for the unemployment extension that was passed. He's not desperate, as he would have been if that had not been passed.