Tag: Employment Law

ANALYSIS: 'ObamaCare' label is sticking

Posted on September 29, 2011 in the National Law Review an article by Wendell Potter  of Center for Public Integrity regarding backers of the president’s health plan are loosing the public relations battle:

Backers of the president’s health plan are losing the public relations battle

The Kaiser Family Foundation just released the findings of its annual survey of businesses to determine how much the cost of employer-sponsored health coverage has gone up. There were some unexpected findings.

Tea Party members protest President Obama’s health care mandate in Cincinnati. Tom Uhlman/AP

One was that the average cost of annual premiums for family coverage is now more than $15,000. The 9 percent increase in the cost of health insurance over last year caught many people by surprise, because it represented a bigger hike in premiums than in recent years.

What seems clear is that insurers decided last year to charge their customers considerably more than necessary this year to be able to meet Wall Street’s profit expectations; insurance companies are also concerned that such increases will be more difficult once health care reform is fully implemented in 2014.

Here’s another surprise. Kaiser found that 50 percent of small employers are aware that they are now eligible for a tax credit from the federal government—thanks to the Affordable Care Act—if they provide subsidized coverage to their employees. I can hardly believe the awareness of the tax credit is that high.

As I have traveled across the country in recent weeks, speaking to a wide range of audiences, one thing has become abundantly clear: the provisions of the Affordable Care Act already in effect are anything but abundantly clear to people.

That’s because opponents of health care reform have won the public relations battle in defining the Affordable Care Act.

While the most recent Kaiser survey did not seek the views of the general population nor ask employers what they think or know about the Affordable Care Act, other polls show that advocates of the new law have been losing ground in the battle for public support.

This week I have been speaking at Florida churches —  a Catholic church in Winter Park, outside Orlando, Monday night, and a Unitarian Universalist church in Clearwater Tuesday night.  The hosts wanted an overview of what’s in the new law and what’s not—to provide factual, unbiased information and also to dispel many of the myths that have gained traction, starting before the law was even enacted.

What the hosts told me—and what I learned from talking to people who attended the forums—is that the Obama Administration and the national groups that backed  the legislation have essentially been missing in action when it comes to explaining the benefits of the law.

Kaiser’s finding that 50 percent of small businesses were familiar with the tax credit would certainly come as a shock to Dr. Patrick Cannon, advocacy director for Florida CHAIN (Community Health Action Information Network). He has been traveling the state trying to reach small business owners and educate them about the tax credit.

He has found almost no one even knows about it. This undoubtedly helps explain why the number of small businesses offering coverage to their employees dropped significantly in the most recent Kaiser survey.

Cannon believes that one of the reasons is that reform advocates missed an important opportunity to brand the Affordable Care Act in positive terms—starting with the most basic term of all, the name of the law itself.

As Cannon pointed out, opponents of the law  use a single term to describe the law: ObamaCare. The term has so seeped its way into the vernacular that even some of the law’s advocates have started using that pejorative label. The groups that support the law, he notes, use a wide range of terms to describe it.

Cannon is embarking on an effort among supporters to be consistent in calling it the Affordable Care Act.

Because opponents have been able to define the law on their own terms (or term), advocates are finding it increasingly difficult to have civil conversations with people about it—including with independents.

Liz Buckley, executive director of Focus Orlando, told me that, “If you even try to have conversations with people about it, people think you’re just trying to reelect Obama. They just shut down the conversation.”

Why the administration has been so inept or disengaged is baffling. It’s true that people will be skeptical of information about the law that comes straight from the White House, but the folks behind the Obama campaign in 2008 seemed to know how to get third parties motivated and active on behalf of the candidate.

Where are those folks now? If the White House is serious about making sure the law goes forward—and making sure the Obama legacy is a positive one—they better get in gear and turn public awareness and attitudes around. Otherwise, pretty soon,it may be too late.

Reprinted by Permission © 2011, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

Carried Interest Language Narrowed, but Remains Far-Reaching

Recently posted in National Law Review an article by Kevin J. Feeley, Gary C. Karch and Patrick J. McCurry of McDermott Will & Emery regarding Obama administration’s recent carried interest tax provision:

This newsletter summarizes the Obama administration’s recent carried interest tax provision. The provision is not expected to be enacted soon, but the proposal contains drafting changes of interest to those following the discussion.

On September 12, 2011, President Obama submitted to U.S. Congress legislative text for the American Jobs Act, including a revised version of the carried interest tax provision that has been introduced several times since 2007. The latest provision is unlikely to be enacted soon, but gives an indication of the form that ultimately enacted legislation may take. The latest language appears narrower than prior versions, but remains potentially applicable to more taxpayers and transactions than one would expect from the announced purpose to treat the carried interest income of investment fund managers as ordinary income subject to self-employment tax.

General Approach Continues

The latest provision would add a new Section 710 to the Internal Revenue Code. New Section 710 would continue to create a new defined term called anInvestment Services Partnership Interest (ISPI). It also continues to provide thata partner’s income from holding or disposing of an ISPI is ordinary and subject to self-employment tax, even if it would be capital gain and not subject to self-employment tax under general tax rules.

The latest provision also continues to apply to all partnership interests, not just interests received for services or otherwise disproportionate to capital, unless a Qualified Capital Interest (QCI) exception applies. The QCI exception continues to apply only to a class of equity that is held by persons who do not provide any services to the partnership and are not related to the partner holding the ISPI. There is no exception for completely pro rata partnerships, as there was in the most recent prior version.

ISPIs Defined More Narrowly

Prior versions defined an ISPI as any partnership interest where the holder was expected to provide services regarding the acquisition, financing, management and disposition of securities, real estate and partnership interests, referred to as Specified Assets. The latest proposal limits the ISPI definition to partnerships in which “substantially all” of the assets are Specified Assets; the holder owns the partnership interest in connection with a business that “primarily involves” the acquisition, financing, management and disposition of Specified Assets; and more than half the contributed capital of the partnership is contributed by persons who hold their partnership interests for the production of income. The “production of income” requirement appears intended to imply that the interest is not held as part of a business. This change may exclude partnerships that conduct operating businesses, and partnerships in which more than half the owners are involved in the business.

The ISPI definition attributes a business of one member of a corporate group to all others. This provision may be intended to remove most corporate internal partnerships and external joint ventures from becoming subject to the rules.

The limitation of the ISPI definition to partnerships in which substantially all of the assets are Specified Assets may remove the so-called enterprise value of some investment fund managers from ordinary income treatment. The fund manager’s carried interest from funds it operates would be ordinary, but a gain attributable to the enterprise value of the fund manager itself might qualify as capital gain.

No Loss Deferral

Prior versions of the carried interest legislation deferred all losses from an ISPI. This provision is dropped from the most recent legislation.

Disposition Provisions Narrowed Somewhat

The proposed legislation continues to require recognition of ordinary income in normally tax-free transfers. The proposal continues the exception for contributing an ISPI to another partnership if an election is made to treat the resulting partnership interest as an ISPI. The proposal adds an exception for some gifts and charitable contributions. However, other tax-free transactions including corporate contributions and mergers where ISPIs are among the assets would be taxable to the extent of the gain inherent in the ISPIs.

Publicly Traded Partnership Provisions Deferred 10 Years

The proposed legislation provides that publicly traded partnerships with income from ISPIs could continue to be publicly traded pass-through entities for 10 years after enactment.

Exceptions and Phase-Ins Removed

Unlike some prior versions of the legislation, the latest version would apply to 100 percent of ISPI income beginning January 1, 2013. The legislation does not contain an exception or a reduced rate of recharacterization for the disposition of ISPIs held more than five years.

The proposal does not contain exceptions for pro rata partnerships or family farms. The pro rata partnership exception was thought to exclude family partnerships that could not use the QCI exception because all partners are related. It is unclear whether family partnerships and family farms would avoid the provision due to the narrowing of the ISPI definition described above.

© 2011 McDermott Will & Emery

Recent NLRB Actions: Notice Posting Requirement, Proposed Election Rules and New Case Law Tilt Toward Organized Labor

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by  Irving M. Geslewitz of Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C.  regarding NLRB published proposed rules:

Many recall the push a few years ago to enact a legislative bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, that would have required an employer to recognize and bargain with a union without a secret ballot election if the union could present cards signed by a majority of the employer’s workers indicating their wish to have a union. That bill, strongly favored by organized labor, never got enough traction to get passed into law.

Proponents of the measure turned to non-legislative approaches to alter what they saw as a stacked deck against unions that accounted, in part, for their poor record in union elections. With the advent of a newly constituted National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) appointed by the Obama administration, some of that hope may have been fulfilled. Through its rule-making authority, the NLRB recently has imposed on employers a new notice posting requirement intended to heighten employee awareness of their collective bargaining rights, and is also proposing a new set of election rules that should improve unions’ chances in elections. In addition, through its administrative case adjudication authority, the NLRB has issued three case decisions reversing precedent—one that makes it easier for a union to choose the unit of employees in which an election will be conducted, and two that make it harder for employees to oust an incumbent union.

These developments come on the heels of the controversial legal action by the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel seeking to enjoin Boeing from opening a new non-union manufacturing facility in South Carolina, as well as a flurry of unfair labor practice complaints against employers that discipline employees in connection with the use of social media (see related article on the NLRB’s recent guidance regarding social media in the workplace). Together, these actions have some in the business community complaining of a decidedly pro-union tilt by the NLRB.

The New Posting Rule

The NLRB has issued a final rule requiring most private-sector employers, beginning on November 14, 2011, to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by posting a standard notice. Now available on the NLRB website and from NLRB regional offices, the notice informs employees that they have the following rights:

  • To organize a union to negotiate with their employer concerning their wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment;
  • To form, join or assist a union;
  • To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing for a contract with their employer setting wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions;
  • To discuss their terms and conditions of employment or union organizing with their coworkers or a union; and
  • To strike and picket under certain circumstances.

The notice also advises employees of their right to choose not to engage in any of these activities.

The posting requirement applies to all but the smallest of private-sector employers, but not to agricultural, railroad and airline employers that are excluded from coverage by the NLRA. Posting is required whether or not there is a union in the employer’s workplace. In addition to a physical posting, every covered employer must post the notice on an Internet or Intranet site if personnel rules and policies are customarily available there.

Failure to post the notice may be treated as an unfair labor practice under the NLRA. In addition, if there are other unfair labor practice allegations against the employer, the NLRB may extend the six-month statute of limitations for the filing of those charges. Also, a failure to post may be considered evidence of unlawful motive in an unfair labor practice case involving other alleged violations of the NLRA.

The NLRB justifies its actions by claiming that many employees are not aware of their rights under the NLRA and that the new rule is in line with other labor laws that impose posting requirements. Opponents argue, however, that such a notice posting (previously required only in limited situations, such as when an election is scheduled) is unnecessary and promotes unionization through its heavy emphasis on the right to unionize and collectively bargain.

Proposed Rule Changes to NLRB Election Procedures

The NLRB has published proposed rules that would significantly accelerate the union election process. While not explicitly stated, the likely combined effect of the rule changes would shorten the time between the filing of an election petition and the election itself by more than half. Under the proposed rules, employers could expect the NLRB to conduct elections within 10 to 21 days after a petition is filed, rather than the current average of 31 days.

Among the more significant changes are the following:

  • Regional NLRB offices typically conduct pre-election hearings within 14 days after a petition is filed. Under the new rules, pre-election hearings would be held within seven days after an election petition is filed.
  • Employers are not currently required to identify every issue prior to the pre-election hearing. Under the new rules, employers would be required to identify all issues regarding unit scope, voter eligibility and supervisory issues before the pre-election hearing, at the risk of waiving issues not raised at the first opportunity.
  • Under current practice, pre-election hearings can involve disputes over whether certain employees are eligible to vote, such as whether an individual is a supervisor. Under the proposed rules, however, disputes over the eligibility or inclusion of less than 20% of the employees in the proposed unit will be deferred to post-election proceedings.
  • Review of pre-election hearing decisions now takes place before the election is conducted. Under the proposed rules, such review would be deferred until after the election.
  • Currently, employers must provide the NLRB with a list of eligible voters and their home addresses (used by the union to communicate with voters) within seven days after the NLRB Regional Director issues an order setting the election. Under the proposed rules, not only would that period be reduced to two days, but also the employer would have to provide the e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of employees eligible to vote in the election.

In effect, the proposed new rules would dramatically alter the landscape in NLRB-conducted union elections. By significantly shortening the pre-election period, the rules would hamper the employer’s ability to contest the scope of the unit of employees selected by the union for inclusion in the election. But of even more importance, the new rules would shorten the timeframe available to employers to communicate with employees on the wide variety of issues that arise in a union organizing campaign, such as the reasons why voting for the union may not be in their best interests. Opponents, who include dissenting NLRB Board Member Brian Hayes, contend that the real objective of the proposed new rules is to make it easier for unions to win elections by handicapping the employer’s ability to oppose them.

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed a new rule that also would negatively affect an employer’s ability to communicate with employees in union elections. The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) already requires reporting of arrangements, receipts and expenditures derived from providing so-called “persuader activity” services. Historically, attorneys providing legal advice regarding lawful employer communications to employees have been exempt from this requirement. The DOL’s proposed rule, however, would severely curtail this exception, rendering such attorney advice as “reportable” under the law.

Recent NLRB Decisions Reversing Case Precedent

In addition to having rule-making authority, the NLRB acts as a review body that establishes case law interpreting the NLRA. In three decisions issued on August 26, 2011, the NLRB set new standards favoring organized labor—each time over a dissent.

Perhaps the most wide-ranging of these decisions is Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83, in which a union sought an election at a non-acute care nursing home limited to certified nursing assistants. The employer argued that the unit was too small and should include cooks, schedulers, recreational staffers and other workers. Reversing case precedent, the NLRB disagreed. But the NLRB also indicated that in any case in which an employer challenges a petitioned-for unit as inappropriate because it does not contain additional employees, the burden is on the employer to demonstrate that the employees excluded by the petition share an overwhelming community of interest with the included employees. This decision may make it significantly easier for unions to organize sub-units of an employer—such as employees of one department—as opposed to an entire facility.

The other recent decisions make it harder for employees to oust incumbent unions. In Lamons Gasket Company, 357 NLRB No. 72, the NLRB ruled that if an employer voluntarily recognizes a union as a collective bargaining representative for a particular unit of the workforce based on a card check, then the NLRB would observe a strict bar of six to 12 months after the union’s first bargaining session during which it would not consider a petition by employees for an election to decertify the union or otherwise attempt to oust the union. This action reversed a 2007 decision holding that employees could ask for such an election within 45 days of management’s recognition of the union. Similarly, in UGL-UNICCO Service Company, 357 NLRB No. 76, the NLRB overruled a prior decision that had created a small window—immediately after the sale or merger of a business—during which the incumbent union’s status could be challenged if 30% of employees showed interest. Now, an incumbent union will have six to 12 months after the parties’ first bargaining session to negotiate with the successor company before such a challenge could be mounted.

© 2011 Much Shelist Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C.

NLRB Permits Micro-Units In Specialty Healthcare Decision

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Mark A. Carter of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding NLRB’s controversial decision to overturn 20 years of precedent:

In one of its most controversial decisions to date, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has overturned 20 years of precedent and will now permit unions to organize a minority share of an employer’s workforce. As a result of this decision, organized labor will be able to establish footholds in businesses where the majority of the employees may not desire to be represented by a union. 

On August 26, 2011 the NLRB released its decision in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011). In Specialty Healthcare, the United Steelworkers petitioned for a representational election in a bargaining unit that was very distinct from the typical “wall to wall” unit. For decades, the NLRB has concluded that where employees share a “community of interest” that the appropriate bargaining unit in a representational election should include all of the employees of the employer who are similarly situated. Typically this type of unit is called a “wall to wall” bargaining unit and its common description includes all “production and maintenance” workers employed by the employer excluding clerical, administrative and security employees. This scope of employees insured that the union would be elected where the majority of the employer’s employees desired to be represented by a union, but that where a majority of the employees did not desire to be represented, their terms and conditions of employment, and their workplace, would not be impacted by the presence of a labor union. Moreover, the “wall to wall” unit insured that there was not a fracturing of the employer’s workforce where several unions represented several small groups of employees making the collective bargaining unmanageable for any of the parties.

This logical and longstanding policy of Democratic and Republican majority labor boards has been scuttled.

In Specialty Healthcare, the employer operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center in Mobile, Alabama. Among the job classifications – or job titles – at this facility is a “CNA”, or, certified nursing assistant. Rather than seeking to represent all of the employer’s employees, the union petitioned for a bargaining unit consisting only of the CNAs. The employer objected on the basis of the NLRB’s decision in Park Manor Care Center, 305 NLRB 872 (1991) and the Board’s longstanding practice of not certifying “fractured” units but insisting that all of the employer’s employees who shared a community of interest comprised an appropriate bargaining unit. The NLRB, through a regional director, initially concluded that this petition was appropriate and directed an election be held amongst only the employer’s full and part time CNAs. The employer appealed this decision, in essence, by asking the NLRB to review the regional director’s decision. The NLRB not only accepted this obligation but requested briefs from interested parties regarding whether its decision inPark Manor and its longstanding practice of certifying only bargaining units of all of the employees with a community of interest should remain the law. Significantly, the NLRB also requested interested parties’ positions regarding whether its decision should have application in all industries rather than just the health care industry which maintains unique standards under the National Labor Relations Act.

After inviting and, presumably, considering this argument, the NLRB reversed the Park Manor decision and will now permit appropriate units to be petitioned-for and certified even when larger and “more appropriate” bargaining units exist in the employer’s workforce.

“Nor is a unit inappropriate simply because it is small. The fact that a proposed unit is small is not alone a relevant consideration, much less a sufficient ground for finding a unit in which employees share a community of interest nevertheless inappropriate.”

To that end, the NLRB wrote that it will focus on the community of interest of the employees, the extent of common supervision, interchange of employees, geographic considerations “etc., any of which may justify the finding of a small unit.” An employer can challenge the determination regarding the composition of the unit, but the Board will now require that the burden to establish that a bargaining unit is not appropriate will be an “overwhelming” community of interest between the employees in the petitioned-for unit and the larger workforce.

“…when employees or a labor organization petition for an election in a unit of employees who are readily identifiable as a group (based on job classifications, departments, functions, work locations, skills, or other similar factors) and the Board finds that the employees in the group share a community of interest after considering the traditional criteria, the Board will find the petitioned-for unit to be an appropriate unit, despite a contention that employees in the unit could be placed in a larger unit which would also be appropriate or even more appropriate, unless the party so contending demonstrates that employees in the larger unit share an overwhelming community of interest with those in the petitioned-for unit…”

The NLRB did agree that cases may exist where the petitioned-for unit inappropriately “fractured” the workforce. For example, had the union petitioned only for CNAs working the night shift vs. all employees, or only CNAs working on the first floor and not the second floor, but it is eminently clear that the Board will direct elections and certify bargaining units of employees simply because they have one job title or job function and permit the union to ignore the other employees with distinct job titles or functions even when that means that the minority of the employees overall support the union. The reality is that all of the employees will have to deal with the union.

Employers should take no stock in some press suggestions that this decision has limited application to the health care industry. There is no holding or assurance that the rule is limited to the health care industry merely because the case arose within the health care industry. Rather, employers will be well served to heed the opening of Member Brian Hayes dissent which is absolutely accurate:

“Make no mistake. Today’s decision fundamentally changes the standard for determining whether a petitioned-for unit is appropriate in any industry subject to the Board’s jurisdiction.”

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

The Truth about Clean Energy Jobs

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by U.S. Department of Energy in response to The Washington Post’s assertions  about the Department of Energy’s loan programs:

The Washington Post’s assertions today about the Department of Energy’s loan programs are both incomplete and inaccurate.

Here are the facts: over the past two years, the Department of Energy’s Loan Program has supported a robust, diverse portfolio of more than 40 projects that are investing in pioneering companies as we work to regain American leadership in the global race for clean energy jobs. These projects include major advances for our renewable power industry including the world’s largest wind farm, several of the world’s largest solar generation facilities, and one of the country’s first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants. Collectively, the projects plan to employ more than 60,000 Americans, create tens of thousands more indirect jobs, provide clean electricity to power three million homes, and save more than 300 million gallons of gasoline a year, all while investing in American competitiveness. What matters to the men and women who have those jobs is that the investments that this Administration is making are helping to keep factories open and running.

When the Washington Post claims that the program has created 3,500 jobs, here is what the reporters are excluding:

  • 33,000 American auto jobs saved at Ford. The Post article does acknowledge that the program enabled Ford to modernize its factories to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, which a Ford spokeswoman credits for “helping retain the 33,000 jobs by ensuring our employees can build the fuel-efficient cars people want to drive.”
  • More than 7,300 construction jobs. Many of the projects funded by the program are wind and solar power plants, which create significant numbers of construction jobs but once built can be operated inexpensively without a large workforce. But the Washington Post chose to ignore all of those jobs. If a community built a new highway or a bridge that employed 200 workers directly during construction – and many more in the supply chain — and that also strengthened the local economy by making it faster to transport goods, would anyone say that the project created zero jobs?
  • Supply chain jobs. While these jobs aren’t reflected in official government estimates because of the difficulty in obtaining a precisely accurate count, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. When a company spends $100 million or $200 million building a wind farm or a solar power plant, most of that economic value actually goes into the supply chain – creating huge manufacturing opportunities for the United States.

In fact, when you look at the Washington Post’s graphic, you can see that the program has already created or saved roughly 44,000 jobs.  Many of the projects it has funded are just getting going, and many of the loans won’t even go out the door until the next few weeks. Others have not ramped fully up to scale. But we are on pace to achieve more than 60,000 direct jobs – and many more in the supply chain.

Here’s a simple example:

Last year, the Department awarded a loan guarantee to build the Kahuku wind farm in Hawaii. It employed 200 workers during construction. Those wind turbines were built in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The project also features a state of the art energy storage system supplied by a company in Texas. The supply chain reached 104 U.S. businesses in 21 states. But by the Washington Post’s count, none of those jobs – not even the 200 direct construction jobs – should count.

What’s critically important and completely ignored by the Washington Post, is that the value of this program can’t be measured in operating jobs alone. The investments are helping to build a new clean energy industry here in America. We are now on pace to double renewable energy generation from wind and solar from the time the President took office. Yet we are still in danger of falling behind China and other nations that are competing aggressively for leadership in these technologies. This is a race we can and will win, but only if we make these investments today. These investments will pay dividends not just in today’s jobs but in entire industries and supply chains – and in cleaner air and water for our children and grandchildren.

One of the goals of the program is to create projects that will encourage the private sector to take the financing risk on other, similar projects on its own. If we can show, for example, that a commercial scale cellulosic biofuel plant in Iowa can succeed, the private sector will likely finance many more of them around the country.

America’s economic strength has been built on technological leadership. The next great technological revolution is the clean energy revolution, and this Administration is committed to making sure that America will continue to lead the world.

Department of Energy – © Copyright 2011

Department of State Releases October 2011 Visa Bulletin

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Eleanor Pelta, Eric S. Bord and A. James Vázquez-Azpiri of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP regarding the DOS October 2011 Visa Bulletin:

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its October 2011 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their status to that of permanent resident, or to obtain approval of an immigrant visa application at an American embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the October 2011 Bulletin Say?

EB-1: All EB-1 categories remain current.

EB-2: Priority dates remain current for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from all countries except China and India.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for Indian and Chinese nationals are as follows:

China: July 15, 2007 (forward movement of three months)

India: July 15, 2007 (forward movement of three months)

EB-3: There is continued backlog in the EB-3 category.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: August 8, 2004 (forward movement of three weeks)

India: July 15, 2002 (forward movement of one week)

Mexico: December 8, 2005 (forward movement of two weeks)

Philippines: December 8, 2005 (forward movement of two weeks)

Rest of the World: December 8, 2005 (forward movement of two weeks)

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward, or remain static and unchanged. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning, and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the October 2011 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website at http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5560.html.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Ninth Circuit Finds Grocers’ Revenue-Sharing Agreement Must Go Through Full Rule of Reason Check-Out

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by attorney  Scott Martin of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding Sitting en banc and affirming a district court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held:

Sitting en banc and affirming a district court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held in California ex rel. Harris v. Safeway, Inc.,[1]that an agreement among four large competing Southern California supermarket (“chains”) to share revenues during a labor dispute was neither protected from antitrust scrutiny under the non-statutory labor exemption nor so inherently anticompetitive as to be condemned per se or evaluated under a truncated “quick look” test. Rather, the agreement — which reimbursed to a chain targeted by a strike an estimation of the incremental profits, for a limited period of time, on sales that flowed to the other chains in the arrangement as a consequence of the strike — was subject to traditional rule of reason analysis, balancing any legitimate justifications against any substantial anticompetitive impacts.

Dissenting in part, Chief Judge Kozinski (joined by Judges Tallman and Rawlinson) stated that the majority’s “groundbreaking” ruling on the inapplicability of the non-statutory labor exemption was “very likely an advisory opinion,” and had “no basis in the record, common sense or precedent.”

The case arose from circumstances surrounding 2003 labor negotiations between local chapters of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union and three of the supermarket chains that, with the union’s consent near the expiration of the labor contract, formed a multi-employer bargaining unit to negotiate. Along with the fourth chain (which also had a labor agreement that expired within months), the supermarket chains entered into a Mutual Strike Assistance Agreement (MSAA). The MSAA provided that if one of the chains was targeted for a selective strike or picketing (a so-called “whipsaw” tactic by which unions increase pressure on one employer within a bargaining unit), the other chains[2] would lock out all of their employees within 48 hours. As part of the MSAA, the chains also entered into a revenue-sharing provision (RSP), under which any of them that earned revenues during a strike or lockout above their historical shares relative to the other chains would pay 15 percent of those excess revenues to the other chains in order to restore their pre-strike shares.[3]

After negotiations with the UFCW broke down, a strike ensued. Picketing was focused on only two of the chains in the bargaining unit, and lasted for approximately four-and-a-half months. The two picketed chains ultimately were reimbursed under the RSP to the tune of approximately $146 million.

While the strike was underway, the State of California filed suit, claiming that the RSP was an unlawful restraint of trade under Section One of the Sherman Act.The grocers sought summary judgment on the ground that the RSP was immune from Sherman Act scrutiny pursuant to the non-statutory labor exemption, which shield certain restraints from Sherman Act challenge in order to allow for meaningful collective bargaining. The State also sought summary judgment on the grounds that the provision was unlawful per se, or should have been analyzed under an abbreviated (“quick look”) analysis. The district court denied both motions, and the parties pursued a streamlined appeal, after agreeing to a stipulated final judgment for defendants under which the State would not pursue the theory that the RSP was unlawful under a full rule of reason analysis, and the grocers would not pursue their affirmative defenses other than the non-statutory labor exemption.

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the original panel (in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt, who dissented in part[4]from the later en banc opinion that requires a full rule of reason analysis) considered the history of profit-sharing arrangements and the circumstances and details of the chains’ arrangement, applying a “quick look” analysis of sorts, and concluded that the RSP was likely to have an anticompetitive effect. The Ninth Circuit panel rejected the application of the non-statutory labor exemption, and also found that “driving down compensation to workers” as a consequence of the agreement did not constitute “a benefit to consumers cognizable under our laws as a ‘pro-competitive’ benefit.”[5]The Circuit then agreed to hear the case en banc.

In the en banc decision, the majority declared that “novel circumstances and uncertain economic effects” of the RSP required “open discovery and fair consideration of all factors relevant under the traditional rule of reason test,” thus approving the district court’s original determination of the proper standard. The Ninth Circuit majority acknowledged that application of the full test was “not a simple matter,” but concluded that “[g]iven the limited judicial experience with revenue sharing for several months pending a labor dispute, [it could not be said] that the restraint’s anticompetitive effects are ‘obvious’ under a per se or quick look approach.” The court distinguished the RSP from other profit-pooling arrangements subject to stricter scrutiny on the grounds that, by its terms, the RSP (i) was effective only for a limited and unknown duration, thus arguably preserving incentives to compete during the revenue-sharing period; and (ii) did not include all participants in the relevant markets, leaving other competitors in the market who could discipline pricing.

However, the majority then opined that the RSP was not entitled to protection from antitrust analysis under the non-statutory labor exemption. In so doing, the court distinguished the supermarket chains’ RSP from the agreement among a group of NFL teams to unilaterally impose terms and conditions from a lapsed collective bargaining agreement that was considered in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) (holding that the non-statutory labor exemption may extend to an agreement solely among employers). The Ninth Circuit majority determined that revenue-sharing is not an accepted practice in labor negotiations with a history of regulation; does not play a significant role in collective bargaining; is not necessary to permit meaningful collective bargaining; does not relate to the “core subject matter of bargaining” (wages, hours and working conditions); and restricts a business or “product” market, not a labor market.

Because the State of California had stipulated to a dismissal in the event that it did not prevail on a categorical basis under a per se or quick look analysis (which it did not), Chief Judge Kozinski wrote in dissent that the majority had in effect written an impermissible advisory opinion, and had gone “out of its way to rule on thenon-statutory labor exemption.” Chief Judge Kozinski went even further, however, In his view, “all of the relevant Brown factors weigh heavily in favor of exempting the RSP from antitrust review.” This was not a case of employers using a labor dispute as a pretext for price-fixing, but rather one of employers responding to union strike tactics, and then only to the degree that the tactics were effectively deployed. According to Chief Judge Kozinski, adding to strikes “the additional threat of antitrust liability — with its protracted litigation, unpredictable rule of reason analysis and treble damages — will no doubt force employers to think twice before entering into a revenue-sharing agreement in the future” and, contrary to precedent and policy, force employers “to choose their collective-bargaining responses in light of what they predict or fear antitrust courts, not labor law administrators, will eventually decide.”[6]

With the Ninth Circuit having effectively elevated the antitrust laws over the labor laws, one might postulate a fair chance of a petition for certiorari being accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court in this case implicating significant questions of both law and public policy. Unfortunately, in light of the stipulated dismissal, such review may have to wait, as the grocery chains may lack standing, let alone incentive, to seek it here.

[1]Nos. 08-55671, 08-55708 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011).

[2]The fourth chain, which was not in the original multi-employer bargaining unit, was not required by the MSAA to engage in the lockout.

[3]The RSP would be in effect until two weeks following the end of a strike or lockout, and it required the chains to submit weekly sales data for an eight-week period prior to the strike or lockout to a third-party accountant.

[4]Judges Schroeder and Graber joined in Judge Reihardt’s partial dissent.

[5]California ex rel. Brown v. Safeway, Inc., 615 F.3d 1171, 1192 (9th Cir. 2010).

[6]Quoting Brown, 518 U.S. at 247.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

 

Coming Home: Service Members Bring Value, Benefits to Workplace

Posted in the National Law Review an article by Drew B. Millar of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding a significant number of returning servicemen and women are out of work:

Among the millions of Americans who are out of work are a significant number of returning servicemen and women. Many employers are distracted by the host of employment issues that can arise in employing these individuals and, to some extent, their families. Among the applicable laws are the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

While an understanding of the rights afforded to servicemembers by these statutes is essential, employing these individuals provides much more than a sense of patriotism for employers. Specific tax incentives exist (and more have been proposed) to get these individuals back to work. Many possess unique skills and abilities that would be an asset to any workforce. This article provides simple guidance about the laws that employers need to be aware of that impact the hiring of veterans and provide incentives for doing so.

USERRA mandates that employees be given a leave of absence to serve in the uniformed services and prohibits discrimination against employees because of their service. USERRA applies to all public and private employers regardless of size. This leave of absence can be as long as five (5) years and there are specific pronouncements on how the leave can be treated and what benefits the employee is entitled to while on qualifying leave. After the employee’s period of service has ended, the employer has an obligation to re-employ the individual in the same or similar position depending on the length of the leave period.

The FMLA also has a leave provision specifically designed to protect injured servicemembers and their families. While employees must have worked at least 1,250 hours during the preceding twelve-month period, under USERRA, an employee returning from fulfilling his or her National Guard or Reserve Military obligation shall be credited with the hours of service that he or she would have performed (based on pre-service work schedule) but for the period of military service to meet this requirement.

Military Caregiver leave or Covered Servicemember leave permits a “spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin” to take up to 26 workweeks of unpaid leave during a rolling twelve-month period to care for a injured member of the Armed Forces, National Guard, or Reserves. A covered servicemember also includes a veteran “who is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy for a serious injury or illness” if the veteran was a member of the armed services at any time in the five years preceding the medical treatment. The 12-month period to be used for purposes of tracking this leave entitlement begins when the employee starts using his or her leave. Therefore, it is possible that the 12-month period utilized for tracking other forms of FMLA leave may not be the same as what is being utilized for tracking this entitlement.

Importantly, an employee is not entitled to more than 26 total weeks of FMLA leave including Military Caregiver leave, during the 12-month period that commences with the need for leave. Therefore, an employee is not entitled to 26 weeks of leave to care for a family member under this provision, plus an additional 12 weeks of leave for other FMLA-qualifying reasons. Employees may utilize the 26-week entitlement for each servicemember and for each illness or injury incurred. An employee may take 26 weeks of leave in consecutive 12-month periods for family members covered by this provision.

While these laws may seem to discourage the hiring of our returning servicemembers, employers who wisely elect to recruit such individuals can make a significant dent in their federal taxes. Currently, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) Program provides up to a $2,400 credit if the hired veteran is 1) a member of a family that has received Food Stamps for at least 3 consecutive months in the 15 months prior to the date of hire; or 2) a person with a disability who is participating in a vocational rehabilitation program through US Veteran’s Administration. The aforementioned credit increases to $4800 for disabled veterans who were 1) hired within one year of having been discharged, or released from active duty, or 2) unemployed for any six of the last 12 months. In addition, a majority of states offer partial, or total exclusions, from state-level taxes for combat and/or other military compensation paid to troops/reserves. President Barack Obama also recently proposed a $2,400 tax credit for hiring an unemployed veteran and $4,800 for hiring a veteran who has been unemployed for six months or longer. The existing tax credit for hiring veterans with a service-connected disability would also be raised to $9,600.

Many federal and state programs are also available for these men and women to receive training and be reintegrated into the workforce. Several resources, including Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (www.esgr.org) and the Department of Labor’s VETS Program (http://www.dol.gov/vets/), provide services to servicemembers and employers to assist in these efforts. The Kentucky Office of Employment and Training also has Veterans Employment Representatives and Disabled Veteran Outreach Specialists specifically assigned to assist veterans with their employment and training needs (http://oet.ky.gov/des/veteran/veteran.asp).

In short, an employer in today’s job market would be wise to actively recruit individuals who have returned from active duty in the military or have the prospect of being called to active duty at some point during their employment. These employees bring valuable skills and hiring them should be a serious consideration of any employer in this economic climate.

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Diversity and Its Impact on the Legal Profession

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Jon Minners of Vault Inc. regarding the importance of diversity in law firms:

“Diversity is a very critical element of our society,” said Robert J. Grey, Jr.—a partner at law firm Hunton & Williams—during a keynote speech at the 6th Annual Vault/MCCA Legal Diversity Career Fair, held on Friday, July 29, 2011 in Washington, D.C.

In discussing his path to Washington and Lee University School of Law, Grey engaged the audience with a story about his first meeting with the then-dean of the law school.  While his story was filled with humor, Grey conveyed an important message: rather than judging a book by its cover, the dean gave Grey the opportunity to fulfill his dream of becoming a lawyer.  Grey—who formerly served as president of the American Bar Association—has been an influential voice in the legal profession through his work and his commitments to pro bono and diversity.  He was nominated by President Obama to serve as a Board Member of the Legal Services Corporation—a post he now fills—and also currently serves as the Executive Director of the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity.

“Recognizing talent and giving it a chance – that’s what diversity is about,” said Grey.

Grey’s speech formed a fitting backdrop for the day as hundreds of minority, female, LGBT candidates and candidates with disabilities gathered at the Renaissance Hotel in downtown D.C. to speak with recruiters and hiring partners from law firms, as well as corporate and government employers.  Earlier in the week, candidates and legal employers on the West Coast participated in the career fair at the Westin Bonaventure in downtown Los Angeles.

Vault kicked off the career fair in D.C. by honoring the Top 25 Law Firms for Overall Diversity, Top 3 Law Firms for Diversity for LGBT, Top 3 Law Firms forDiversity for Women and Top 3 Law Firms for Diversity for Minorities. While recognizing that diversity is important throughout all careers, Vault.com‘s Law Firm Diversity Rankings focus on the legal profession. These rankings are the result of a survey taken by close to 16,000 law firm associates throughout the country.  This year, and for the third consecutive year, Carlton Fields was ranked the No. 1 Firm for Overall Diversity.

“This represents how far we have come as a nation and an industry,” said Gary Sasso, President and CEO of Carlton Fields, during the award ceremony.  “We have a very long-standing tradition of diversity.  We like to say we celebrate diversity in all things at all times.  It’s in our DNA.”

And it is fast becoming part of the DNA of many organizations who truly see the potential of a more diverse office makeup.  During a panel discussion moderated by Vault.com law editor Mary Kate Sheridan, various professionals in the legal industry weighed in on the subject and discussed ways to make sure that diversity is not just an idea, but a part of the everyday practice.

“Diversity wasn’t really something on top of anyone’s discussion list in the 80s,” said Jackie Stone, a partner at the law firm McGuireWoods.  “But it is an important discussion today.”

Thomas E. Zutic, a partner at the law firm DLA Piper, stated that because of its importance today, “diversity is not about window dressing.  It’s not a one time, show off to the client aspect of business.”

Stone added: “Clients are watching very closely.  They want to see that diversity continues in terms of who actually gets to do the work.”

Lori L. Garrett, vice president and managing director of the southeast region of theMinority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA), said that once you recruit diverse talent, the best way to keep them is to make them feel like they are part of the team.  “Mentoring is one of the most important ways anyone can connect to supervisors,” she said.  “They understand what it takes to reach the next level, but diverse employees should not just speak to supervisors.  They need to create relationships everywhere.”

Zutic also noted that diverse candidates need to make sure they take ownership of their careers by making themselves desirable candidates.  “Grades are still important,” he said, noting that students should approach law school as their jobs and perform as well there as they would in their careers.  “It’s so basic, but it’s so important,” he said.  “We can talk diversity, but in the end, if you are not bringing the right skill set and the right credentials, it’s not going to work.”

© 2011 Vault.com Inc.

Connecticut Prohibits Discrimination Based on Gender Identity

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Alan M. Koral, Michelle D. Velásquez, Laura Sack, Laura Sack, Lyle S. Zuckerman and Roy P. Salins of Vedder Price P.C. regarding Connecticut employers with three or more employees will be prohibited from discriminating against an employee or applicant based on gender identity or expression.

Effective October 1, 2011, Connecticut employers with three or more employees will be prohibited from discriminating against an employee or applicant based on gender identity or expression. Connecticut lawmakers defined “Gender identity or expression” as “a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity, appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.” Evidence that may establish gender-related identity includes assertion of the gender-related identity by the individual, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, evidence that the gender-related identity is not being asserted for an improper purpose, medical history, or other evidence that the gender-related identity is a sincerely held element of a person’s core identity. It is clear that the law protects transgendered people who are not undergoing gender reassignment surgery, and who do not intend to do so, as well as those who have completed such surgery or who are in the process of doing so.

The new law adds gender identity or expression—a status also commonly referred to as “transgendered”—as a protected class, affording that class similar rights and remedies as other classes such as race and gender protected under Connecticut law. By doing so, Connecticut joins New Jersey and New York City, both of which prohibit gender identity discrimination.

The one notable exception to the new law’s prohibition of discrimination based on gender identity or expression is the exemption of religious corporations or entities “with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation . . . of its activities, or with respect to matters of discipline, faith, internal organization or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law” established by the religious entity.

Connecticut-based employers are advised to add gender identity to their EEO policies and literature and to be sure to include gender identity issues in their EEO training, especially training for managers and supervisors. Other employers who have employees in Connecticut (or New Jersey or New York City) should consider revising their policies companywide to include nondiscrimination based on gender identity and to include the new law’s requirements in their training.

© 2011 Vedder Price P.C.