Workers Rights
THE BIG BUSINESS BLAME GAME MUST END
Posted by: William Gentile
December 05, 2008
Joe's Union Review does a great job de-bunking the myth being bandied about on UAW pay as the cause of the US auto industries problems. There have been tons of headlines expressing shock that some UAW workers are alleged to make, hold your breath, $79,000 a year. In a world where hedge fund managers have been making billions of dollars a year and only paying capital gains taxes on this windfall, why does this number for hardworking people cause outrage?
Just like union workers, plaintiffs in lawsuits have been the media bad guy as espoused by corporate America. For far too long the conventional wisdom in this country has been let Big Business be and it will act for society's benefit. It is time for this attitude to change.
WAS TRAGIC WALMART WORKER DEATH PREVENTABLE?
Posted by: William Gentile
November 30, 2008
(photo from yahoo news)
According to Union Review, Nassau County police are of the opinion that there was inadequate security:
The head of a retail workers' union says the Black Friday trampling death of a temporary Wal-Mart worker in New York was preventable. CNN cites United Food and Commercial Workers Union leader Bruce Both as charging a "blatant level of irresponsibility" by the retailer in the death of a man who was trampled by the crowd rushing into a Long Island store.
It is well-known that because of rock-bottom prices available only to a limited number of early shoppers on "Black Friday", retail stores often have huge crowds waiting to storm their aisles the moment the doors open. The stores deliberately attract these crowds with their super-low discounts, and they are responsible for providing adequate security. The death of this Walmart worker is especially tragic because this situation should have been anticipated and avoided.
The law is clear that if a customer were injured in this kind of stampede, he or she would have a viable lawsuit against Walmart for negligence. Here, however, there is a possibility that Walmart is protected by the Workers' Compensation Law. If the worker was a Walmart employee, his family may only be entitled to receive Workers' Compensation benefits. If, on the other hand, he was a temporary worker who obtained the job through an employment agency, the Workers' Compensation Board or a court could find that the agency was the employer. Under those circumstances, Walmart would not be able to avail itself of the protections of the Workers' Compensation Law unless the worker was Walmart's "special employee". That determination would be based primarily on how much supervision and control Walmart exercised over the worker.
NEW YORK COURTS GRANT LOST WAGES TO UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS
Posted by: William Gentile
November 18, 2008
Recently, the Second and Third Departments of the Appellate Division have issued decisions which narrow the application of Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. National Labor Relations Bd., 535 US 137 [2002], a 2002 United States Supreme Court decision which held that an undocumented worker who had been wrongfully terminated for participating in union activities could not recover back pay because he had used fraudulent documents to obtain his employment.
Last month, in Matter of Amoah v. Mallah Mgt., LLC, 2008 NY Slip Op 08228, the Third Department held that an injured illegal immigrant who used an acquaintance's documents to obtain work was nonetheless entitled to receive lost wages under New York's Workers' Compensation Law. And last week, in Coque v. Wildflower Estates Developers, Inc., 2008 Slip Op 08698, the Second Department held that an injured illegal immigrant could recover lost wages under New York's Labor Law even though he had presented fraudulent documentation in securing employment.
The two courts relied on different reasoning in reaching their decisions. In Coque, the Second Department held that the worker was entitled to lost wages because the employer was not induced to hire the worker based on the fraudulent documentation and also had not fulfilled its duties. In Amoah, however, the Third Department argued that Hoffman did not apply because the worker in that case was not physically injured. Of the two decisions, Amoah is broader and grants more rights to illegal workers.
The New York Law Journal heralds these decisions as clarifying illegal workers' rights to lost wages, but it should be remembered that they are intended to encourage employers to perform "due diligence" before hiring workers and to verify that they have legal documentation.
