As of August 1, companies doing business in Mexico can anticipate that unions will move quickly to legitimize existing collective agreements under a new government-issued protocol. Among other steps, the process includes a vote by covered employees to determine whether they approve the terms of the agreement. Collective agreements must be legitimized by May 1,
On May 14, the European Court of Justice ruled that Member States are required to impose an obligation on employers to establish an objective, reliable and accessible system that keeps a daily record of the hours worked. However, Member States have some discretion as to the system that is used to record working time, which…
Hiring Entity: When are gig workers employees?
Four Government Agencies & Courts: It depends!
Trying to track the employment status of gig workers will make your head spin. Contractors? Employees? Super heroes?
In the last few weeks, four federal and California state agencies and courts — the US Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Labor Commissioner — have all weighed in on the debate. And, the answer is — it depends.
Follow our script below to help make sense of the patchy legal landscape.
Once again, Baker McKenzie attorneys, industry thought leaders and key clients from around the world convened (this time in New York) to answer this essential question: What is the future of work?
One consistent theme that permeated many of our discussions can be summed up as: Inclusion or Bust.
What does this mean?
It means that as global employers, we’re moving beyond a singular focus on diversity. As guest speaker Vernā Myers says,
Diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance.”
To truly reap the rich rewards of a diverse workplace, companies must invest generously and continuously in inclusion. Many senior business leaders predict that companies that don’t will be left behind and may actually cease to exist entirely in the not too distant future.
Less than two weeks ago we reported that all employers with 100 or more workers in the US would have until September 30 to provide the EEOC with pay data (read more here).
Then, just days later, on May 3rd, the Justice Department appealed the two rulings resurrecting the Obama-era mandate. Ironically, the appeal…
Only one thing is certain: Nothing is certain. The global transactions market remained robust in 2018 and still into 2019, despite well publicized macro-economic uncertainty, stemming from Brexit concerns, among other developments. Real threats to free trade and investment flows remain, with the potential for a much more serious outbreak of protectionism and isolation on…
All employers with 100 or more workers in the US have until September 30 to provide the EEOC with pay data as part of the annual workforce data report known as the EEO-1.
On April 25, US District Judge Tanya Chutkan accepted the EEOC’s proposal (more here) to make employers submit their 2018 pay data this fall. She also ordered the EEOC to collect a second year of pay data, giving it a choice between collecting employers’ 2017 data or making it collect 2019 data down the road. Her ruling is expected to impact more than 60,000 employers.
With IPOs blooming in Silicon Valley this spring, it’s hard to imagine the possibility of an economic downturn in the near future.
And yet, the best counsel will always be prepared for everything, including business change. Accordingly, we’ve designed this seminar for in-house employment counsel managing an international workforce and wondering how they can best…
In the wake of the #HeForShe movement, California recently became the first US state to require companies to put female directors on their corporate boards.
Supporters of the law make a convincing business case for gender diversity, citing rigorous research findings showing companies where women are represented at board or top-management levels are also the
As employment lawyers based in California are well aware that post-employment non-compete agreements are generally void as a matter of law in this state. Further, there is precedent for awarding punitive damages and disgorgement of profits where employers have knowingly required employees to enter into invalid agreements. Also, the DOL has actively pursued California-based companies engaging in anti-competitive practices when it comes to talent.
Against that backdrop, however, employers need not “throw in the towel” completely when it comes to post-termination restrictive covenants as there are a few narrow scenarios that allow for enforceable post-termination non-competes in California in the right circumstances, and a potential new take on an old strategy to consider.