Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
NewLabor Code section 6401.8requires state government, no later than July 1, 2016, to adopt required standards for acute general care and acute psychiatric hospitals plans to prevent workplace violence.
New Labor Code section 6401.8 requires state government, no later than July 1, 2016, to adopt required standards for acute general care and acute psychiatric hospitals plans to prevent workplace violence.
The new statute is from Senate Bill (SB) 1299, approved by Governor Brown September 29, 2014. According to Senator Alex Padilla, the bill’s sponsor, “violence in health care settings is a continuing national problem, and the risk of workplace violence is a serious occupational hazard for health care workers … In 2007, nearly 60% of all nonfatal assaults and violent acts occurred in the health care and social assistance industry… The fatal injury rate between 2003 and 2007 was twice the average rate for workers in all industries combined.”
The two April 20, 2014 stabbings of nurses in separate UCLA hospitals, Olive View and Harbor, likely gave further impetus to the bill.
Section 6401.8 directs Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board published rules on each affected hospital’s adoption of a workplace violence prevention plan “to protect health care workers and other facility personnel from aggressive and violent behavior.” Those standards are to include among other things:
● Plan Must Cover All Staff: A requirement that the prevention plan “be in effect at all times in all patient care units, including inpatient and outpatient settings and clinics on the hospital’s license”;
● Workplace Violence Definition: A minimum definition of “workplace violence” that includes the “use of physical force against a hospital employee by a patient or a person accompanying a patient that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, injury, psychological trauma, or stress, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury” and any incident involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (emphasis supplied).
● Training: Required violence prevention, procedure and reporting training for all staff, including provision of “critical incident stress debriefing or employee assistance programs”;
● Response: Incident response and investigation protocols;
● Documentation: Required hospital documentation of all violent incidents, to be retained for five years; and
● Reporting: Required hospital reporting to the state of all violent incidents. The report will be required within 24 hours if the incident resulted in injury, involved a firearm or other dangerous weapon or “presents an urgent or emergent threat to the welfare, health, or safety of hospital personnel.”
Web Posting Requirement: Section 6401.8 also requires Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH or Cal OSHA), beginning January 1, 2017, to annually post a report on its Internet Web site containing information regarding violent incidents at hospitals. The Cal OSHA report is to include: ● the total number of reports from covered hospitals; ● which specific hospitals filed them; ● the outcome of any related inspection or investigation; ● the citations levied against a hospital based on a violent incident; and ● recommendations of the division on the prevention of violent incidents at hospitals.
The New Law’s Shortcomings: While the new law commendably emphasizes the importance of building adequate security for workers and will make public the statewide extent of incidents in covered facilities for the first time, it presumes the rate and severity violent attacks will continue. There is no direction to determine the actual sources of such violence in order to address reduction or elimination of these perils altogether.
Section 6401.8 also lacks any initiative to address the prospect of violence from co-workers or from intruders in covered facilities. It also specifically exempts required regulation of state-run hospitals altogether, including psychiatric and prison facilities, arguably the sites of the greatest levels of violent attacks against health care personnel.
Tim Bowles, December 31, 2014
Effective January 1, 2015,California Assembly Bill 1897makes employers that hire workers from staffing agencies automatically liable for wages and workers’ compensation violations by the staffing agencies. Labor unions promoted this new law. The California Chamber of Commerce opposed it.
Effective January 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 1897 makes employers that hire workers from staffing agencies automatically liable for wages and workers’ compensation violations by the staffing agencies. Labor unions promoted this new law. The California Chamber of Commerce opposed it.
AB 1897 makes it easier for a worker who alleges underpayment of wages from a staffing agency to seek payment from the employer utilizing that worker’s services. Previously, that worker would have to file suit to prove the agency and business were true “co-employers” under potentially complicated rules on rights of control of the employee’s labor. Under AB 1897, no such proof will be needed. Indeed, if a staffing agency fails to pay proper wages, including overtime, to a worker, that person can go directly to the employer using the worker’s services to demand payment even without filing suit.
Under AB 1897, a California employer must also now pay for work comp coverage in the event that its staffing agency fails to do so.
The law does not apply to companies with fewer than 25 employees (including those hired from staffing agencies) nor to employers using five or fewer temporary workers from a staffing agency. It also does not apply to legitimately exempt-from-overtime workers, to government employers or to certain industries, including specific motor carriers, cable, telephone and satellite providers. Also excluded are certain organizations or programs covered by collective bargaining agreements, bona fide non-profit community programs servicing workers, and motion picture payroll services companies.
This new law of course requires business’s greater diligence in hiring a known and reputable staffing company that maintains the required workers compensation and that complies fully with all California compensation laws, including proper wage documentation and overtime calculations. Such due diligence could include:
● Request and review of the staffing agency’s documented financial solvency and ability to pay its workers;
● Requiring the agency’s standard provision to the business of the payroll records sufficient to confirm compliance with applicable laws on paystub information and compensation calculations;
● Request and review of the staffing agency’s applicable workers’ compensation policy;
● Written agreement the agency’s carrier will promptly deliver notice to the business of any impending or actual change in coverage; and
● Regular confirmation with the affected workers that the agency is paying them properly.
An employer’s higher accountability standards also increase the necessity to include sound indemnification provisions in staffing agency contracts, committing the agency to reimburse the business for any expense incurred (including attorney fees) by that agency’s failure to meet its payroll or work comp coverage obligations.
A worker must give an employer 30 days’ notice if it intends to file a civil lawsuit against the employer under this statute. Such civil suit may include “class actions,” in which one or more workers may carry the similar claims of multiple co-workers, or “representative actions,” which also seek to include multiple co-workers under special procedures and criteria. For more on class actions in California, see “Contractor Missclassification . . . Class Action?”
If you have any questions about the new law, Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth and Helena Kobrin of our firm would all be pleased to answer your questions.
Helena Kobrin, December 30, 2014
Effective January 1, 2015,California Assembly Bill 1897makes employers that hire workers from staffing agencies automatically liable for wages and workers’ compensation violations by the staffing agencies. Labor unions promoted this new law. The California Chamber of Commerce opposed it.
Effective January 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 1897 makes employers that hire workers from staffing agencies automatically liable for wages and workers’ compensation violations by the staffing agencies. Labor unions promoted this new law. The California Chamber of Commerce opposed it.
AB 1897 makes it easier for a worker who alleges underpayment of wages from a staffing agency to seek payment from the employer utilizing that worker’s services. Previously, that worker would have to file suit to prove the agency and business were true “co-employers” under potentially complicated rules on rights of control of the employee’s labor. Under AB 1897, no such proof will be needed. Indeed, if a staffing agency fails to pay proper wages, including overtime, to a worker, that person can go directly to the employer using the worker’s services to demand payment even without filing suit.
Under AB 1897, a California employer must also now pay for work comp coverage in the event that its staffing agency fails to do so.
The law does not apply to companies with fewer than 25 employees (including those hired from staffing agencies) nor to employers using five or fewer temporary workers from a staffing agency. It also does not apply to legitimately exempt-from-overtime workers, to government employers or to certain industries, including specific motor carriers, cable, telephone and satellite providers. Also excluded are certain organizations or programs covered by collective bargaining agreements, bona fide non-profit community programs servicing workers, and motion picture payroll services companies.
This new law of course requires business’s greater diligence in hiring a known and reputable staffing company that maintains the required workers compensation and that complies fully with all California compensation laws, including proper wage documentation and overtime calculations. Such due diligence could include:
● Request and review of the staffing agency’s documented financial solvency and ability to pay its workers;
● Requiring the agency’s standard provision to the business of the payroll records sufficient to confirm compliance with applicable laws on paystub information and compensation calculations;
● Request and review of the staffing agency’s applicable workers’ compensation policy;
● Written agreement the agency’s carrier will promptly deliver notice to the business of any impending or actual change in coverage; and
● Regular confirmation with the affected workers that the agency is paying them properly.
An employer’s higher accountability standards also increase the necessity to include sound indemnification provisions in staffing agency contracts, committing the agency to reimburse the business for any expense incurred (including attorney fees) by that agency’s failure to meet its payroll or work comp coverage obligations.
A worker must give an employer 30 days’ notice if it intends to file a civil lawsuit against the employer under this statute. Such civil suit may include “class actions,” in which one or more workers may carry the similar claims of multiple co-workers, or “representative actions,” which also seek to include multiple co-workers under special procedures and criteria. For more on class actions in California, see “Contractor Missclassification . . . Class Action?”
If you have any questions about the new law, Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth and Helena Kobrin of our firm would all be pleased to answer your questions.
Helena Kobrin, December 30, 2014
Starting January 1, 2015, employers (regardless of where located) must pay wages of at least $11.05 per hour to each employee who performs work in San Francisco (including temporary and part-time employees). The minimum wage requirement, set forth in the November 4, 2014San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, applies to adult and minor employees who work two or more hours per week.
Starting January 1, 2015, employers (regardless of where located) must pay wages of at least $11.05 per hour to each employee who performs work in San Francisco (including temporary and part-time employees). The minimum wage requirement, set forth in the November 4, 2014 San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, applies to adult and minor employees who work two or more hours per week.
Employees who assert their rights to receive the City’s minimum wage are protected from retaliation and may file a civil lawsuit against their employers for any violation of this ordinance. The City can investigate possible violations, shall have access to payroll records, and can enforce minimum wage requirements by ordering reinstatement, payment of back wages, and penalties.
Affected employers must also post an updated San Francisco Minimum Wage notice where employees can read it easily.
For further information, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Cindy Bamforth, December 24, 2014
As covered inMandatory Paid Sick Leave for California Employees, AB 1522 requires each California employer, regardless of size (and except for those with collective bargaining agreements and other very limited exemptions), to provide paid sick leave benefits to any temporary, part-time and full-time employee once he or she has worked for that company in California for 90 or more days.
As covered in Mandatory Paid Sick Leave for California Employees, AB 1522 requires each California employer, regardless of size (and except for those with collective bargaining agreements and other very limited exemptions), to provide paid sick leave benefits to any temporary, part-time and full-time employee once he or she has worked for that company in California for 90 or more days.
The California Labor Commissioner’s office recently published its anticipated set of frequently-asked questions (“FAQs”) (and answers) on employer AB 1522 obligations. Among other aspects of the law, the material addresses:
● eligibility for paid sick leave;
● how qualifying employees accrue and take paid sick leave;
● whether employer policies can provide more paid sick leave than the law requires;
● for what purposes an employee can take paid sick leave;
● how to pay and track earned and taken sick leave; and
● what other related information companies must provide to their employees.
For additional assistance understanding and implementing AB 1522, please contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Cindy Bamforth, December 24, 2014
Starting January 1, 2015, employers (regardless of where located) must pay wages of at least $11.05 per hour to each employee who performs work in San Francisco (including temporary and part-time employees). The minimum wage requirement, set forth in the November 4, 2014San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, applies to adult and minor employees who work two or more hours per week.
Starting January 1, 2015, employers (regardless of where located) must pay wages of at least $11.05 per hour to each employee who performs work in San Francisco (including temporary and part-time employees). The minimum wage requirement, set forth in the November 4, 2014 San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance, applies to adult and minor employees who work two or more hours per week.
Employees who assert their rights to receive the City’s minimum wage are protected from retaliation and may file a civil lawsuit against their employers for any violation of this ordinance. The City can investigate possible violations, shall have access to payroll records, and can enforce minimum wage requirements by ordering reinstatement, payment of back wages, and penalties.
Affected employers must also post an updated San Francisco Minimum Wage notice where employees can read it easily.
For further information, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Cindy Bamforth, December 24, 2014
As covered inMandatory Paid Sick Leave for California Employees, AB 1522 requires each California employer, regardless of size (and except for those with collective bargaining agreements and other very limited exemptions), to provide paid sick leave benefits to any temporary, part-time and full-time employee once he or she has worked for that company in California for 90 or more days.
As covered in Mandatory Paid Sick Leave for California Employees, AB 1522 requires each California employer, regardless of size (and except for those with collective bargaining agreements and other very limited exemptions), to provide paid sick leave benefits to any temporary, part-time and full-time employee once he or she has worked for that company in California for 90 or more days.
The California Labor Commissioner’s office recently published its anticipated set of frequently-asked questions (“FAQs”) (and answers) on employer AB 1522 obligations. Among other aspects of the law, the material addresses:
● eligibility for paid sick leave;
● how qualifying employees accrue and take paid sick leave;
● whether employer policies can provide more paid sick leave than the law requires;
● for what purposes an employee can take paid sick leave;
● how to pay and track earned and taken sick leave; and
● what other related information companies must provide to their employees.
For additional assistance understanding and implementing AB 1522, please contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
Cindy Bamforth, December 24, 2014
In aDecember 10, 2014 directive, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased its optional standard mileage reimbursement rate for an employee’s business use of his or her vehicle from 56 cents in 2014 to 57.5 cents in 2015.
In a December 10, 2014 directive, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased its optional standard mileage reimbursement rate for an employee’s business use of his or her vehicle from 56 cents in 2014 to 57.5 cents in 2015.
The government calculates the mileage rate by an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile, including insurance, repairs, maintenance, gas and oil.
Under California Labor Code section 2802, employers must reimburse employees for all actual work-related expenses necessarily incurred. Many employers choose to use the IRS mileage reimbursement rate to satisfy their reimbursement obligation.
According to California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, using the IRS mileage reimbursement rate will generally satisfy an employer’s reimbursement obligation absent evidence demonstrating otherwise. For example, if the employee can show the IRS reimbursement rate does not cover all of his/her actual and necessary business-related vehicle expenses, the employer must pay the difference.
For further information and assistance, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See our related blogs:
New 2010 IRS Mileage Rate
IRS Announces New Standard Mileage Rates
Mileage Reimbursements for 2013
IRS Mileage Reimbursement Rates for 2014
Cindy Bamforth, December 19, 2014
In aDecember 10, 2014 directive, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased its optional standard mileage reimbursement rate for an employee’s business use of his or her vehicle from 56 cents in 2014 to 57.5 cents in 2015.
In a December 10, 2014 directive, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased its optional standard mileage reimbursement rate for an employee’s business use of his or her vehicle from 56 cents in 2014 to 57.5 cents in 2015.
The government calculates the mileage rate by an annual study of the fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile, including insurance, repairs, maintenance, gas and oil.
Under California Labor Code section 2802, employers must reimburse employees for all actual work-related expenses necessarily incurred. Many employers choose to use the IRS mileage reimbursement rate to satisfy their reimbursement obligation.
According to California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, using the IRS mileage reimbursement rate will generally satisfy an employer’s reimbursement obligation absent evidence demonstrating otherwise. For example, if the employee can show the IRS reimbursement rate does not cover all of his/her actual and necessary business-related vehicle expenses, the employer must pay the difference.
For further information and assistance, contact one of our attorneys Tim Bowles, Cindy Bamforth or Helena Kobrin.
See our related blogs:
New 2010 IRS Mileage Rate
IRS Announces New Standard Mileage Rates
Mileage Reimbursements for 2013
IRS Mileage Reimbursement Rates for 2014
Cindy Bamforth, December 19, 2014