ALERT!! NEW CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULING ON OVERTIME–MUST READ!

Overtime pay in California is based on the employee’s “regular rate of pay,” which is not always an employee’s normal hourly wage and must include almost all forms of pay that the employee receives.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that an employer must calculate the regular rate of pay by dividing the employee’s total compensation by the number of non-overtime hours an employee worked during the pay period, rather than the total number of hours the employee worked, including overtime hours (Alvarado v Dart Container Corporation of California).

Many of you may pay your employees a premium for working on a weekend or a night shift and you should be aware of this distinction in the law.   Others may pay a “make up amount” to compensate workers who have changed from a daily or weekly rate to an hourly rate and have a separate line to increase their pay to meet a minimum payment.  It may be subject to increased overtime rates as well.  This may eventually extend to housing or other items that are considered part of the regular compensation package.  It may all need to be included at some point as this ruling evolves.

In the case, Dart Container Corporation of California, allegedly maintained a policy of paying a flat “attendance bonus” of $15 per day to employees who worked Saturday and Sunday shifts, regardless of the number of hours worked on the weekend shift. An employee sued, claiming he was improperly paid overtime during the weeks that he earned the weekend attendance bonus.

The employee argued that overtime pay on any flat sum bonus should be divided only by the “regular” hours he worked that week (the method in the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement [DLSE] manual), not by the “total” hours worked during the week (regular hours plus overtime hours worked, the federal formula). For example, to determine the employee’s regular rate of pay, you would divide only by 40 regular hours instead of 48 total hours (regular hours plus overtime hours). This would result in a higher regular rate of pay and, thus, a higher overtime rate.

The California Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower court and approved the DLSE method of calculating the regular rate of pay when a flat sum bonus is involved: Employers must divide the employee’s total compensation by the employee’s non-overtime hours worked (not by the total hours worked).

The Court reasoned that a flat sum bonus is not tied to the number of hours worked – the $15 will be paid when an employee picks up a weekend shift, regardless of how many hours the employee worked that week. Because the flat sum bonus was payable even if the employee didn’t work overtime, only the non-overtime hours should be considered when calculating the regular rate of pay.

The Court also based its ruling on two other policy factors:

  • California law requires premium overtime pay which is meant to discourage employers from imposing overtime work.
  • California labor laws are interpreted liberally in favor of worker protection.

The Court also decided that this ruling should apply retroactively, not just going forward.

This decision is limited to flat-sum bonuses, but we may see employees argue that it should apply to other types of extra compensation.

We strongly urge employers who want to give “extra pay” to hourly workers should consult legal counsel.

IRS, FBI WARN OF W-2 PHISHING SCAM

We recently recieved this article from CalChamber and wanted to pass along this information as quickly as we could.  Please take necessary steps to avoid problems with these scams.

 March 5, 2018 Gail Cecchettini Whaley, CalChamber Senior Employment Law Counsel

HRWatchdog, HRCalifornia’s Employment Law Blog, © California Chamber of Commerce. (Must have link back to HRWatchdog) http://hrwatchdog.calchamber.com/

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recently warned payroll and human resources professionals of a dangerous Form W-2 phishing scam that victimized hundreds of organizations and thousands of employees during the last two tax seasons—and this season is no different.

The scam goes like this: Cyber-criminals identify your company’s chief operating officer or other high-level executives, pose as the executive and send emails to payroll personnel. In these emails, the fraudsters request copies of employee Forms W-2 or ask for a list of all employees and Social Security numbers (SSNs). Using a technique called business email compromise or business email spoofing, these emails look like they were sent from within your organization.

No Typical Email

According to the IRS, the initial email may be a friendly, “Hi, are you working today?” type of exchange before the fraudster asks for all Form W-2 information. But that isn’t always the case.

Last year, one actual email simply asked payroll, “[S]end me the updated list of employees with full details (Name, Social Security Number, Date of Birth, Home Address, Salary) as of 2/22/2016.”

Criminals then use the stolen personal information and data on the W-2s, such as SSNs, to file fraudulent tax returns for refunds. Or they sell the information on the “Dark Net.”

Last year’s scams affected all types of employers—small and large businesses, public schools and universities, hospitals, tribal governments and charities. In 2017, reports about this scam to phishing@irs.gov from victims and nonvictims jumped to approximately 900, up from 100 the previous year. More than 200 employers were victimized in 2017, which translated into hundreds of thousands of employees who had their identities compromised.

Action Items

Employers need to educate payroll, HR and finance personnel of the W-2 scam. The IRS also urges employers to:

◾Consider limiting the number of employees who have authority to handle Form W-2 requests; and

◾Require additional verification procedures to validate the actual request before emailing sensitive data such as employee Form W-2s.

Employers also should immediately notify the IRS if they are victimized. The IRS can then take steps to help prevent employees from being victims of tax-related identity theft. Unfortunately, because of the nature of these scams, some businesses and organizations don’t realize for days, weeks or months that they were scammed.

The IRS has a special email notification address specifically for employers to report Form W-2 data thefts. Here’s how Form W-2 scam victims can notify the IRS:

◾Email dataloss@irs.gov to notify of the data loss and provide contact information, as listed below.

◾In the subject line, type “W2 Data Loss” so that the email can be routed properly. Do not attach any employee personally identifiable information data.

◾Include the following:

◾Business name;

◾Business employer identification number associated with the data loss;

◾Contact name;

◾Contact phone number;

◾Summary of how the data loss occurred;

◾Volume of employees impacted.

Businesses and organizations that fall victim to the scam and/or organizations that only receive a suspect email but do not fall victim to the scam should send the full email headers to phishing@irs.gov and use “W2 Scam” in the subject line.

Employers can learn more at the IRS webpage on Form W-2/SSN Data Theft: Information for Businesses and Payroll Service Providers.

A February 21 press release from the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center, ic3.gov, provides additional information about how to report the situation to state tax agencies and other law enforcement officials.

 

Staff Contact: Gail Cecchettini Whaley (CalChamber)

Job Killer Bill to Start 2018

Assembly Appropriations Committee to Hear Job Killer Bill

Cal-Chamber sent out the article below.  I am putting it here in hopes that all of you in California will take this very seriously and notify your assembly person.-Jeff Schanbacher, HR Mobile Services, Inc.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee today will consider a California Chamber of Commerce-opposed job killer bill that subjects employers to costly fines and multiple avenues of litigation for technical violations that do not actually result in any harm to the employee, is inconsistent with existing law and will limit job opportunities for unemployed workers.

In addition, AB 5 will limit employers’ ability to effectively manage their workforce to address both consumer and employee requests.

Proposes Unnecessary Burdens on Small Employers

AB 5 mandates small employers with as few as 10 employees to offer all employees who have the skills and experience to perform additional hours of work that become available, prior to hiring a new employee, temporary employee or contractor.  This mandate creates a host of complications and concerns, including:

  1. If an employer has facilities in different parts of the state, AB 5 mandates the employer to offer additional hours of work to employees in facilities where the employee does not work.
  2. AB 5 mandates an employer to contact each employee who has the skills and responsibilities to perform the work required, even though that employee may have explicitly told the employer the employee is not interested in more hours of work, is unavailable at the time of the additional hours, or the additional hours will mean that employee works overtime, thus increasing the employer’s cost.
  3. AB 5 fails to indicate what an employer actually has to do to satisfy the “offer” requirement of additional hours.
  4. After contacting each employee whom the employer reasonably presumes can perform the work, AB 5 requires an employer to use a “transparent and nondiscriminatory process” to pick amongst numerous available employees who will ultimately receive the additional hours of work.  This requirement exposes an employer to threats of litigation, fines, and administrative complaints when one employee is given the additional time over the other.
  5. AB 5 also imposes an unreasonable document retention mandate on employers.  Under AB 5, an employer shall retain documentation regarding offers of additional hours of work, employee work schedules, and employee written statements.  There is no time limit on this document retention and, therefore, an employer essentially has to retain such documents indefinitely.

Imposes Multiple Layers of Enforcement and Lawsuits Against Small Employers

AB 5 additionally exposes small employers to multiple enforcement mechanisms for technical violations that do not even injure the employee. Under AB 5, an employee can either choose to file a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) or civil litigation for any violation of the provisions in the bill.

AB 5 provides any employee with the right to sue for these paper violations, even if such document violations do not pertain to that specific employee or actually cause any harm or injury to an employee.

Moreover, due to the inclusion of this proposal under the Labor Code, an employee can also file a Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) lawsuit and receive $100 per employee, per pay period, for these violations, in addition to attorney’s fees.  Piling litigation costs on small employers for violations that do not actually harm or injure an employee is simply unnecessary and unfair, and it limits employers’ ability to expand and create jobs.

Creates a Conflict for Employers Between State and Federal Laws and Punishes Employers for Communicating Truthful Information

AB 5 also includes language regarding retaliation concerning the threat of reporting actual or suspected citizenship or immigration status to a federal, state or local agency that is already addressed in existing law.

Current law balances concern about retaliation against employees with employers’ concerns about complying with federal law. AB 5 does not have that same balance and will place employers in an unnecessary legal predicament between state and federal laws.

AB 5 further seeks to limit an employer’s freedom of speech by deeming any communication to another employer regarding an employee’s exercise of rights under this law as “retaliation.”  This expansive prohibition on the right to free speech is concerning given that it would limit an employer’s ability to communicate about public information such as civil litigation, as well as inform a successor employer of potential liabilities that the successor employer may assume.

It is unnecessary to penalize an employer for communicating truthful information.

Limits Opportunities for Other Workers

AB 5 mandates an employer to offer existing employees additional hours of work, rather than offering those hours to unemployed individuals, favoring one employee over another and potentially prolonging an individual’s unemployment status. Moreover, AB 5 may discourage employers from offering part-time employment opportunities at all due to this mandate and will encourage those employers to simply supplement a full-time workforce with contract employees when needed.

Similar Local Ordinances Are Significantly Narrower than AB 5

AB 5 appears to be modeled after San Jose and San Francisco ordinances requiring larger employers to provide part-time employees with additional hours of work. However, the San Francisco ordinance is applicable only to national employers with multiple locations and San Jose has a specific small employer exemption. Moreover, both ordinances require an employer to offer additional hours of work only to part-time employees, not full-time employees. AB 5 applies to all employers with only 10 employees, and does not limit the requirement to offer additional hours of work to only part-time employees, thereby exposing small employers throughout California to significant scheduling burdens and litigation that they are not capable of implementing or defending.

Action Needed

CalChamber is urging businesses to contact their Assembly representatives and ask them to oppose AB 5.

Staff Contact: Laura Curtis

 

NEW I-9 AND W-2 SCAMS

Beware:

Scammers are getting more sophisticated and posing as Federal officials to steal confidential information.

I-9 Scam

Employers are receiving emails from a sender claiming to be US Citizenship and Immigration Services and requesting information from the I-9 form.  Normally, employers do not share or send this information in to the USCIS.  However, the emails look very authentic even using correct emails with .gov and labels from both the USCIS and the Office of Inspector General.  It will have your company address and other information.

DO NOT CLICK ON ANY OF THE LINKS!!  The USCIS has stated that their agency is not sending out any inquiries for information in this manner.  Instead, forward these emails to the Federal Trade Commission at uscis.webmaster@uscis.dhs.com

W-2 Fraud

Be on the look-out for any emails from executives asking for a list of employees and their w-2 documentation.  Do not click on anything.  These are most likely scams.  Confirm any request directly by phone if possible before ever sending information about employees over the internet.

As with all things concerning the internet, limit access to classified and confidential files and verify before replying or clicking on anything.

 

 

NEW 2018 MINIMUM WAGE RATES STATE BY STATE (includes counties and city specific)

Below is a list of all current minimum wage statutes.  Remember that some counties and cities have their own rate which may be higher than the state or Federal rate.  In all cases, the highest rate for your area is the minimum.  Also, all of these rates are based on information as of November 30, 2017 and could be subject to local changes before the start of the year.  This is a good time to remind everyone that  you are better off using a time clock or other daily recording device for all hours worked and that all employee should be paid based on the hours worked and not some other method.  Employers would be best served if they required even salaried employees to keep a record of their hours worked and in some states, the requirement extends to show that meal breaks are recorded for all employees.  As always, if you have any questions, please call HR Mobile Services, Inc. and we would be happy to help.

2018 MINIMUM WAGE

Federal $7.25

State City/County Amount

Alabama $7.25

Alaska*

$9.84 Arizona* — all cities/counties except …  $10.50 Flagstaff* $11.00

Arkansas $8.50

California* — all cities/counties except …  small employer (25 or less) $10.50 large employer (26 or more) $11.00

Berkeley $13.75

Cupertino* $13.50

El Cerrito* $13.60

Emeryville small employer (55 or less) $14.00 large employer (56 or more) $15.20

Los Altos* $13.50

Los Angeles small employer (25 or less) $10.50 large employer (26 or more) $12.00

Malibu small employer (25 or less) $10.50 large employer (26 or more) $12.00

Milpitas* $12.00

Mountain View* $15.00 Oakland $12.86

Palo Alto* $13.50

Pasadena small employer (25 or less) $10.50 large employer (26 or more) $12.00

Richmond* employer PAYS $1.50/hr towards medical benefits $11.91 employer does NOT pay               $1.50/hr towards medical benefits $13.41

Sacramento* small employer (100 or less) $10.50 large employer (101 or more) $11.00

San Diego $11.50

San Francisco $14.00

San Jose* $13.50

San Leandro $13.00

San Mateo* For-profit organizations $13.50 Non-profit organizations $12.00

Santa Clara* $13.00

Santa Monica small employer (25 or less) $10.50 large employer (26 or more) $12.00 Sunnyvale* $15.00

Los Angeles County small employer (25 or less) unincorporated areas large employer (26 or more) $10.50 $12.00

 

Colorado* $10.20

Connecticut $10.10

Delaware $8.25

Florida* $8.25

Georgia $7.25

Hawaii* $10.10

Idaho $7.25

Illinois — all cities/counties except … $8.25 Chicago $11.00 Cook County (except for the Village of Barrington) $10.00

Indiana $7.25

Iowa  $7.25

Kansas $7.25

Kentucky  $7.25

Louisiana $7.25

Maine* — all cities/counties except … $10.00 Portland $10.68

Maryland — all cities/counties except … $9.25 Montgomery County $11.50 Prince George’s County $11.50

Massachusetts $11.00 Michigan* $9.25

Minnesota* “small employers” (employers with an annual sales volume of less than $500,000) $7.87 “large employers” (employers with an annual sales volume of $500,000+) $9.65

Mississippi $7.25

Missouri $7.70

Montana* $8.30

Nebraska $9.00

Nevada $8.25

New Hampshire $7.25

New Jersey* $8.60

New Mexico — all cities/counties except … $7.50 Albuquerque* employer provides benefits $7.95 employer does NOT provide benefits $8.95 Las Cruces* $9.45 Santa Fe $11.09 Bernalillo County*  employer provides benefits $7.85 (unincorporated areas)  employer does NOT provide benefits $8.85 Santa Fe County (unincorporated areas) $11.09

New York**

“Upstate” employers (excluding fast food employees) $10.40 “Downstate” employers (excluding fast food employees) $11.00 “Small” NYC employers (excluding fast food employees $12.00 Fast food employees outside NYC $11.75 “Large” NYC employers (excluding fast food employees) $13.00 Fast food employees inside NYC $13.50 North Carolina $7.25 North Dakota $7.25 Ohio* $8.30

Oklahoma $7.25

Oregon — all cities/counties except … $10.25 Portland $11.25 Nonurban Counties  (Baker, Coos, Crook, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa Wheeler counties) $10.00

Pennsylvania $7.25

Rhode Island* $10.10

South Carolina $7.25

South Dakota* $8.85

Tennessee $7.25

Texas $7.25

Utah $7.25

Vermont* $10.50

Virginia $7.25

Washington* — all cities/counties except … $11.50 City of SeaTac* (hospitality and transportation workers) $15.64 Seattle* $14.00 small employer who does not pay towards medical benefits

(500 or less) small employer who does pay towards medical benefits  (500 or less) $11.50 large employer who does not pay towards medical benefits  (501 or more) $15.00 large employer who does pay towards medical benefits  (501 or more) $15.45 Tacoma* $12.00

Washington DC $12.50

West Virginia $8.75

Wisconsin $7.25

Wyoming $7.25  * = increase in minimum wage effective January 1, 2018 ** = increase in  minimum wage effective December 31, 2017

NEW TRANSGENDER POSTING REQUIRED FOR 2018 FOR ALL EMPLOYERS

We have a copy of the new required posting for Transgender issues.  Below is the posting from the DFEH.  You can obtain a copy by clicking here: https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2017/11/DFEH_E04P-ENG-2017Nov.pdf

We will also be sending a copy to our customers with the next newsletter and we will be distributing and posting when we are at your location for a safety meeting.  However, since it is out now (Spanish is not available yet) we encourage you to post it on your clipboards now and not wait until January 1.  If you have any questions, please call our office at 559-625-2322 and ask for the legal department.

___________________________________________________________________

STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency GOVERNOR EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING DIRECTOR KEVIN KISH

2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758

800-884-1684 (voice) I 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711

www.dfeh.ca.gov | email: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov

November 16, 2017 Contact: Fahizah Alim

For Immediate Release

(916) 585-7076 Fahizah.Alim@dfeh.ca.gov

DFEH ISSUES NEW MANDATORY POSTER ON TRANSGENDER RIGHTS FOR CALIFORNIA WORKPLACES Employers must post in a prominent and accessible location in the workplace by January 1, 2018 Sacramento – The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has issued a poster that California employers must post along with other mandatory workplace notices by January 1, 2018. Governor Brown signed into law SB 396 (Lara), which requires employers to post a poster about transgender rights in a prominent and accessible location in the workplace. The poster addresses key topics such as the right of employees to use restrooms, locker rooms, and other similar facilities corresponding to their gender identity and to dress in accord with their gender identity and expression. “We expect this posting requirement to increase understanding of the law and assist California employers in providing safe and inclusive work environments,” said Kevin Kish, Director of DFEH. The poster follows regulations developed by the Fair Employment and Housing Council that went into effect in July 2017. SB 396 also requires mandatory sexual harassment prevention to include a component regarding gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. DFEH is the state agency charged with enforcing California’s civil rights laws. The mission of DFEH is to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations, and from hate violence and human trafficking. For more information, visit www.dfeh.ca.gov.

Second Article Printed in Progressive Dairyman Magazine – Marijuana Laws and You

We were again privileged to be asked to submit an article covering the new Marijuana Laws for Progressive Dairyman magazine.  You can read the article here: https://www.progressivedairy.com/topics/management/cutting-through-the-smoke-marijuana-and-the-workplace or  you can read the article in the October 18 issue.

Please feel free to leave a comment or ask questions regarding this or any HR issue.   You can always call our office at 559-625-2322 if you are a customer or would like more information.

 

IT’S A GOOD TIME TO REVIEW YOUR EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN

With all of the wild fires, shootings, hurricanes and earthquakes going on right now, we must remember that these events go on all of the time and it is not always in a cluster as it seems right now.  That being said, it is a great reminder that employers have a responsibility to their employees as well as to the business, to have a plan in place for such emergency situations.

Practice Your Emergency Plan

First on the list, do you have an emergency action plan.  If you are an employer in California,  you should have an IIPP (Injury Illness Prevention Program) and as a part of that program, you should have an Emergency Action Plan in place.  OSHA requires this and most states require a similar safety program.  It makes great sense and many insurance companies will ask for it as well.

But it is not enough to have an plan, you have to actually practice it.  When was the last time you had a fire drill?  Do your employees know how to give directions to your building?  How do you notify your neighbors if there is an emergency?  What happens if YOU are not there?  Where do your employees meet and who checks to make sure everyone is accounted for?  All of these questions and others should be addressed and practiced.

California employers must also have a Fire Prevention Plan (FPP) that details the fire hazards your employees may face and how to handle a fire should the situation arise.

Paying Employees

(these are California rules and may be different in your state)

Even in an emergency, employers must be mindful of obligations under state employment laws and consider pay issues for exempt and nonexempt employees related to office closures.

Employers must pay exempt employees a full weekly salary for any week in which any work is performed. If the business is closed for the whole week, however, employers don’t need to pay exempt employees.

In emergencies, special pay rules apply for nonexempt employees.

If your business shuts down for any of the following reasons, you must only pay nonexempt employees for the hours they worked prior to being sent home:

  • Operations can’t start or continue due to threats to you or property or when recommended by civil authority;
  • Public utilities such as water, gas, electricity or sewer fail; or
  • Work is interrupted by an “Act of God” or other causes not within the employer’s control.

However, if you shut down your business at your discretion (and not for one of the above reasons), reporting time pay may be owed. When a nonexempt employee shows up for work as scheduled and is not put to work or is given less than half of his/her scheduled hours, the employee would be eligible for reporting time pay: pay for one half of the scheduled shift, no less than two hours and no more than four hours.

Of course, employers are always free to pay employees or let them use vacation or other personal time. Many employers may choose to provide some paid time during emergency situations. Just remember to be consistent!

Leave of Absence

You may be required to provide various leaves of absence for your employees after an emergency including sick leave, medical leave and leave due to closed schools, loss of housing, etc.  So, be ready to aid your employees with these measures as well.  The state requires the employer by statute to follow certain guidelines and imposes fines for failure to comply.  In all cases, error on the side of helping the employee during stressful situations.

As always, if you need any help or have questions, HR Mobile Services, Inc is here to help.  You may contact our office at (559) 625-2322 and direct your questions to the Loss Prevention Department or the Legal Department (depending on your situation).  We are here to help!

A Short Explanation of the 7-day Work Week Penalty In California

The article below was originally  emailed to many of our customers and we felt we should share this information with all.  We  hope it is helpful.

 

The state of California says that an employee should not be forced to work 7 days in a week and has attached a penalty for doing this.  This is not new, but recently, there was some misunderstanding of the rule.  I will try to explain.

When we first meet with you to discuss your employee packet, we ask all of you to define your workweek.  This is NOT your pay period and it does not change.  Your work week is permanently listed as a 7-day period that has an exact starting and stopping time.  As an example, your work week may run from 12am Monday morning to 11:59 pm Sunday night.  Let’s use this example:

If an employee works on Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat and Sunday, then they worked all 7 days in the SAME workweek.  In this case, the employee would be entitled to be paid regular pay through Saturday, but the first 8 hours that they work on Sunday are paid and 1 ½ times their normal hourly rate.  All hours worked on that 7th day after 8 hours is at double-time pay.  Everything resets on Monday morning.  You cannot pick a different day to pay this “penalty pay” and you also may owe for daily or weekly overtime as usual for the week.

Using this same example of Monday-Sunday as the workweek, if the employee had Monday off, but worked every day for the rest of the week and continued working Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of the next week before getting a day off on Thursday (9 days in a row), there is no penalty or 7-day rule pay because the employee had Monday off in one defined work week and Thursday off in the next work week.

The 2 places where we see the most use of the 7-day rule are in harvesting and when an employee switches shifts with another employee.   There are also some issues when milkers change from day to night shifts.

Most harvesters work a shorter day on Sunday and this reduces the cost of the 7th day pay.

In your handbook we give notice to employees that they must obtain consent from the supervisor before making any changes to their work with another employee.  This is so you have a chance to check and avoid having an employee work all 7 days in the same work week.

Finally, if you are going to have situations when employees work all 7 days, it may be a good idea to include the release form in your employee packet so you have advance notice of your employee’s wishes.

As always, if you have any questions regarding these issues, please contact us at our office number (559) 625-2322 and ask for the client services department or legal department.

You may also obtain more information on our other blog posting “work weeks upheld by California Supreme Court” from May 9, 2017  https://www.hrmobileservices.com/work-weeks-upheld-by-california-supreme-court/

 

OUR ARTICLE IN PROGRESSIVE DAIRYMAN (not just for Ag)

We were recently honored to be asked to contribute to one of the most widely circulated magazines in the dairy industry.  This is the first of 2 articles we have written for them.  This information is universal and not just for Agriculture employers.  We hope it is useful to you.

You may use this link to go to the article:

http://canada.progressivedairy.com/topics/management/new-osha-rules-emphasize-injury-reporting-discourage-retaliation

Please let us know what you think.  There is a comment section at the bottom of the article.

Thank you