Next on Feds’ agenda: Working Families Flexibility Act
August 17, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Employment law, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
There’s good employee-benefit legislation, and there’s bad employee-benefit legislation. You can make the call on this one.
Congress has added the Working Families Flexibility Act to the round of bills on this year’s agenda.
The act would provide a statutory right to employees to ask their employer for a change relating to the employee’s hours of work, time of work, or location of work. Employees would be required to submit an application to the employer requesting the change. Then, employers would be required to hold discussions with the employee about the application. Employers would then be required to provide a written decision to the employee within 14 days of the conclusion of the discussion.
In the case of a rejection, the employer must state the reasons for the decision and “may” propose the company’s own alternative to the employee’s request. Employees will have the right to request reconsideration of a rejected application, and then the process of discussion and 14-day deadline for response kicks in again.
According to the wording in the bill, employers may not “interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise” any right provided under the Act, nor may employers discharge, “or in any other manner discriminate” against any employee because the employee requested the work change or appealed an initial decision.
Employees who felt they’d been subject to discrimination or retaliation could file a complaint with the Department of Labor. The complaint will be investigated and violators would be subject to a penalties of $1,000 to $5,000. In the case of retaliatory demotion or firing, the employee would be entitled to equitable relief including reemployment, reinstatement, promotion, back pay, and a change in the terms and conditions of employment.
The effect: None, if you’re already dealing reasonably with employees who make requests concerning hours or work location. The law is aimed primarily at employers who take a hang-’em-high approach toward any employee who makes a request that’s slightly out of the ordinary.
If passed, however, the bill will add a layer of bureaucracy to what’s probably been a routine and informal process at your workplace.
Go here for a summary, overview and full text of the bill.
HRMorning.com delivers the latest HR news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HR professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HRMorning!
follow us on Twitter
join our group on Facebook
August 24th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Before one judges the quality or good/bad ratio of this bill, it would be good to have all of the information.
“According to the wording in the bill, employers may not “interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise” any right provided under the Act, nor may employers discharge, “or in any other manner discriminate” against any employee because the employee requested the work change or appealed an initial decision.”
What are the rights provided under the Act?
August 24th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Why doesn’t Congress just mandate that workplaces have to unionize and be done with these individual legislative proposals that are obvious quid pro quos for all the financial support that organized labor poured into the last election?
August 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Josh, I disagree that we need more information. Not everything in life is a right that needs to be protected by the government.
This decision should be left up to individual companies. If a company is flexible, then they have that advantage versus competitors. The federal government needs to stop trying to make us cookie cutter organizations and cookie cutter people. Unfortunately, the socialist agenda seems to be ruling the day.
August 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
the bill shows that we really did elect a bunch of brainless wonders.
August 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Seth,
This is about knowing what the issues are. Workers in the US have seen their rights disappear in direct proportion to the decrease in union jobs. If the government is considering granting certain rights/benefits/whateve you want to call then, and informed discussion would help. If not, we wind up inthe current health care travesty – a discussion about fantasy and fear, not one centered on the real issues.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Josh,
I have a question, what planet do you live on? I guess you have never had to manage a work force. Every year employees get more rights and protection and that has made our country the laziest workers in the world, read the data, employees know they can screw up at work because they have the employers scared to do what is right in fear of stupid law suits. If the employee is not receiving a safe and healthful work environment and not getting paid on pay day then they then have a right to reach out.
Sgt. Wilson I do not want to go on patrol tonight I want to change my hours and only work when the sun is shining, that way I can see the enemies and work on my tan. BS son I will tell you when you will work now pick up your gun and get on patrol.
If the employer is paying the wage then they need to make the calls not the government.
You must believe that the mess in Detroit is the auto makers fault and the UAW had nothing to do with it.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:04 am
I guess I just disagree that all of these things are rights. I don’t believe anyone has a right to think their employer is required to be flexible when something comes up. It’s one thing if an employee and employer agree to it prior during the hiring process; however, if something comes up later on the employer can meet that flexibility or not. It’s wonderful if they can be flexible, but if they can’t, frankly – too bad, suck it up and deal with it. If the decision is applied evenly across your work force, then there is no way the government should have any say in that decision.
We don’t need to deal in little issues like this if we understand the larger issue and its implications. The issue here is an ever increasing attempt to socialize and unionize America. A right is basic, fundamental need required for life. Unfortunately we now want to make every human desire a right. Our selfish cravings (our is all-inclusive) to make things as easy for ourselves as we can is killing our country, not just our business sector. This will not bring perfect pleasure; this will not bring utopia; this will bring nothing but another desire that will require another law to protect.