Business Employment Law –
Business Employment Law
Introduction
The world of business exists within specific legal employment laws. All laws develop because of political demands creating policies requiring business regularly must respond to changes in the employment law framework. Three specific areas of the following scholastic research, analysis, and discussion address law and business and the critical aspects of law affecting employment, the impact of law principles, and the distrust and misconceptions of law by the business world about employment policies. ‘Mallor et al (2010) explains how ‘Legal’’ no matter the industry refers to actions and behaviors governed by policies developed and enforced by recognized authorities.
The 21st century more than any other time in the history of the human race finds the world a shrinking global community (Dean, 2011). In the democratic tenets of equality affecting business labor practices the government changes laws in line with its political policies. As a result businesses are continually having to respond to changes in the legal framework.
Examples of legal changes to employment law include national minimum wages for those working for the federal government, the requirement for businesses assure access for its disabled employees with the appropriate ramps and accommodations for wheel chairs, the laws protecting disabled in discrimination hiring practices (Businesscasestudies.com, 2015). Increasingly nations across the globe continue refining employment laws where democratic ideals exist assuring the equality of all people in hiring practices. Other considerations look at the legal responsibility of business creating a safe place for their employees (Martin & LaVan, 2010) such as recognizing and addressing workplace bullying of individuals and groups.
Impactful Law Principles
Consideration of business employment laws and the type of impactful law principles and collective bargaining practices for employees working for better wages, working conditions, and benefits. Benjamin (2013) offers insights into how the global community – in this case South Africa – show the changes occurring and the growing pains aligned to business employment laws. The South African case in question led to workers’ deaths amid their struggles. It is this type of situation that brings a sobering aspect to those places globally that continue experiencing of conflicts between labor laws and businesses. The issue of a trade union conflicting with businesses recognizing these unions under South African law shows the worst case scenario where the business in question failed recognizing the trade unions seeking arbitration for their employee demands. In the South African situation according to Benjamin (2013), “ (Therefore proved this) law does not prevent employers setting a lower threshold for recognising trade unions and taking on the (often very difficult) task of dealing with several unions that represent its workforce.” The seemingly dual nature of the existing law proves out because, “In addition, trade unions that are not recognised retain the right to raise demands on behalf of their members and refer them to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) (p. 18).” This is a clear example of how ineffective business employment laws create social issues and prove counter to “intention” of business employee laws guiding and protecting the rights and expectations of all stakeholders.
The U.S. unlike South Africa who seek minimizing the legal positions connected to regulating collective bargaining has both state and federal statutory laws, regulations for administrative agencies, as well as individual, and collective judicial decisions. State laws preempt where federal and state laws overlap. In 1935 the US. Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that grants employees the right to join trade unions and collectively bargain with employers (Legal Information Institute, 2015).
Distrust of the Law and Misconceptions
Constangy, Brooks, and Smith, LLP (2011) as a Fortune 500 listed employer’s law firm the existence of the top five employment law misconceptions tripping up hiring practices. First, there is “the right -to-work state.” In a right-to-work state such as Arizona some employers believe they can legally fire employees at any time without just cause. This is wrong. A right-to-work state is a state that cannot force employees to join a union as well as pay union dues as a condition of their being hired. The misconception about the meaning of a right-to-work state being one with no justification for firing an employee is because it is often confused as the same thing as "employment at will." The employment at will is the second misconception.
In an employment at will state, some employers believe they “can” fire anyone at any time but this misconception does hold termination of employment is not allowed for illegal reasons. Numerous grounds for termination even in the work at will states are illegal. Among these are firing an employee refusing to break the law; the employee either fired or expects to file a claim for workers’ compensation; and, because of the employee's race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Further illegal dismissal from employment may be on the grounds the termination violates a state unsafe workplace complaint. These few typify some of the incorrect rationales employers use for illegally terminating employees and the bevy of this federal laws that also protect employees in all 50 states are not covered here.
Salaried employees are not exempt from getting paid overtime just because they are not hourly hires and is a common misconception held by employers. Frequently, employers believe their salaried employees are FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) – exempt which is not true. Employers doing this wrong will find out an expensive lesson when a collective of salaried employees file action. Salaried employees under the FLSA “may” have exemptions but nonetheless remains satisfying the specific executive, administrative, or the professional “duties” of their position. Knowing the FICA is the best solution for eliminating any misconceptions about overtime and who and when among employees have a right for payment. Other misconceptions occur with employers misunderstanding the specific of the American Disabilities Act.
Special consideration of assuring reasonable accommodations for disabled employees (briefly discussed above) means special treatment not afforded other employees dispelling the idea everyone is treated the same. Similar criteria affect federal contractors in accordance with the Vietnam-Era Veterans Rehabilitation and Adjustment Act and its amendments as well as the Rehabilitation Act. Under Title VII, the law requires employers providing reasonable accommodations aligned both religious beliefs and practices of employees thus from this context the term "accommodation" interprets as specific to "differential treatment." Understanding the law does require different treatment of specific employees under specific conditions is prudent. Child labor laws continue proving problematic and hold the misconception that society in general understands about the legality of underage employees working in hazardous conditions that still exist in the United States and proves shocking.
Look at America’s tobacco business and there are hundreds of under-aged workers in the fields pulling 12-hour shifts according to Greenhouse (2012). Ongoing work by federal labor officials and public health experts continue to get legislation barring under 16 years of age children from working in the American tobacco fields with little success. The health danger with exposure to chemicals and nicotine, and long hours without breaks clearly make this a legal issue but to no avail as the attempts continue meeting roadblocks
Former labor secretary Solis attempts to declare the work with tractors and the work in the tobacco fields hazardous aligning with existing child labor laws that make this type of work illegal for children under 16 years of age holding how India, Brazil, as well as other tobacco product producing nations have their own prohibitive laws against under 18 years of age workers hired for tobacco farms. Republican lawmakers and farm group lobbyists created intense opposition to the proposal compelling the Obama administration withdrawing the proposed move. Among the opposition rationale is an economic framework holding the ban hurting family tobacco farms making it difficult for young people to learn farming skills.
The fact remains according to public health experts that hundreds of under 16-aged children continue to working in America’s tobacco fields. Experts on tobacco confirm the particular danger to children with the dehydration they experience, exposure to both nicotine poisoning from contact with the tobacco as well as with pesticides. The biological characteristics of these underage workers mean they continue developing neurologically as well as their reproductive systems. Consider they surface are to body mass is greater the implications of the heightened danger with the exposure to the hazards connected to tobacco field work is obvious. Currently, the federal law allows 12 year old and older working on farms without limitations on work hours contingent there exists no conflicts with attending school. Federal law and on-farm related work sets 14 years as the legal age restricting children under 16 working longer than 8-hour shifts (Greenhouse, 2012).
At the same time, tobacco growers as reported by Greenhouse (2012) report they rarely use younger teens and many do refuse employing any under age 16. Conversely, according to Greenhouse (2012) the interviews with numerous teens and health experts report the practice is still alive and prevalent especially with so many of the young teen workers are members of newly immigrant families as well as migrant worker families having minimal employment options. Some if not all of the immigrant workers may have no knowledge of immigration specific labor laws.
According to the U.S. Labor Department the agency has increased its enforcement of the child labor laws advising growers as well as workers about the imminent health risks. There is no eluding the irony, according to Greenhouse (2012) of how the decline in the number of Americans using tobacco products still shows North Carolina as the nation’s top tobacco product producer with nearly 1,800 farms providing 400 million pounds of the tobacco crop using 30,000 employees including hundreds of under aged children. Spokesman for the Tobacco Growers Association acknowledges the hazard to workers in tobacco fields because of the nicotine poisoning along with other stringent conditions and assures few growers have workers under 18. Years of age. (Greenhouse, 2012). At the same time, the parent of the Philip Morris USA -- Altria Group —reported spending $323, 097 in lobbying costs in Washington in 2014 -- more than any other group on lobbying last year (Loftus, 2015).
The misconception about child labor laws in the U.S. in this situation remains a little known issue outside the tobacco grower region of the nation. At present, no government regulations on protecting the believed hundreds of children working tobacco fields show 54 professional groups including the National Consumers League, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the AFL-CIO appealing to the major American tobacco companies to prohibit their farms from employing anyone under 18 years of age (Greenhouse, 2012).
While the intention of growers like Philip Morris report opposing the illegal use of child labor and does not allow its farms hiring under 18 year olds, labor contractors continue flouting the law using underage workers for picking and other field work. Due to the fact federal law as well as regulations fail defining tobacco field work as hazardous, the use of under age of 18 workers prevails as a legal loophole used by American tobacco companies and organizations condoning the use of child labor in what is assumed illegal activity by anyone aware of the situation (Greenhouse, 2012). McKitterick (2014) reports tobacco as the third-most intensive lobbying in Washington in the nation. The tobacco industry spends millions every year defending their livelihood against any limiting legislation. The fact remains the tobacco industry contributes only 0.1 percent of value added to the American U.S. economy. Until regional American citizens demand changes to defining work in tobacco fields as hazardous employment, misconceptions continue that children are safe. This proves one of the most disturbing misconceptions Americans assume about employment laws in the business world.
Conclusion
The above research, analysis, and discourse about business employment law in America as well as examples around the world shows the actions and behaviors governed by policies developed and enforced by recognized authorities indeed have different characteristics according to specific areas. The above discourse successfully provided examples of critical aspects of law affecting employment, the impact of law principles, as well as the distrust and misconceptions about employment law as outlined in the introduction. The above discussion revealed how some of the information of business exists within specific employment laws particular to the accommodations for disabled employees and are not equal by design to the other employees. As discussed above, the misconceptions of employment laws proves there still exist in America absurdities endangering children because of a particular industry caring more about their livelihood than the safety of the children they continue hiring. Such an example looks again, as already stated above of how all laws develop because of political demands creating policies requiring business regularly must respond to changes in the employment law framework. The profound wrongness of the lack of concern for the safety of children in the example listed above of the illegal use of under aged workers in a hazardous environment shows the need for more awareness to this behavior and for assertive political action to change the employment laws so this particular industry as described above are indeed held accountable. The saying ignorance of the law is no excuse takes a particular perspective when the ignorance of child labor laws intentions go the wrong way as exemplified above. The business employment laws must work for everyone and only through diligence to understand and respect the law is this possible.
References
Benjamin, P. (2013). Labour Law Is Not at the Root of Collective Bargaining Woes Improving Relations. (2013, October 31). p. 18. Cape Times (South Africa). © 2009 Independent News & Media PLC. COPYRIGHT 2013 Gale Group
Businesscasestudies.co. (2015). External Environment Theory: How Businesses are affected by Government Policy. Retrieved from http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/
Constangy, Brooks, & Smith, LLP. (2011). Employment Law Misconceptions That Trip Up Employers. Retrieved from
http://documents.jdsupra.com/4b6ab1b2-3b40-4c5e-bab0-3771f1301a49.pdf
Davy, A. (2012). How to Manage Business Better; Workshop Acts as Meeting of Mackay Minds. (2012, April 17). The Daily Mercury (Mackay, Australia).
Dean, E. (2011). Global issues that affect business. Retrieved from
http://ezinearticles.com/?Global-Issues-That-Effect-Business&id=1642222
Greenhouse, S. (2014). Just 13, and Working Risky 12-Hour Shifts in the Tobacco Fields. NY Times.com./Business. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/business/just-13-and-working-risky-12-hour-shifts-in-the-tobacco-fields.html?ref=topics&_r=0
Legal Information Institute. (2015). Collective Bargaining. Retrieved from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collective_bargaining
Loftus, T. (2015). Record $18M Spent Lobbying Legislature. Cincinnati.com. Retrieved from
Lovretovich, J. M. (2013). 10 Misconceptions of Employment Law. Retrieved from
http://www.jmllaw.com/Articles/10-Misconceptions-of-Employment-Law.shtml
Mallor, J. P., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, T., & Langvardt, A. W. (2010). Business Law (14th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Martin, W. & LaVan, H. (2010). Workplace bullying: a Review of litigated cases. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, Sep, Vol. 22(3), pp. 175-194
McKitterick, W. (2014). Value for money: How Important is Lobbying to the Industry. Retrieved from http://media.ibisworld.com/2014/11/03/value-money-important-lobbying-industry/
