The materials linked on this page are an interesting read.

The best thing about this initiative is that it focuses on employer compliance, which is simultaneously most effective for employers and least effective for attorney billings.  Littler correctly sees the potential for its own earnings, and the truth of compliance being the best approach, as a big part of the way forward.

Also interesting is Appendix D, which is part of a questionaire Littler uses when doing audits.  Over the years we all develop our line of questions, but having it carefully systematized like that helps a lot.

Since I’ve started looking at potential cases on the Plaintiffs side, I’ve noticed that I focus on a few things a little bit differently.  One of those agrees with this statement in Littler’s materials: namely, that in any intake situation involving an employee, the attorneys quickly turn to wage and hour topics, no matter what the conversation starts with.

Ignoring potential sweeping reforms for a minute, what is to be done?  As things stand right now (in California) arbitration is basically becoming less effective by the day, and does not prevent class actions.  No one seems to think that the DLSE is an option, and bills trying to make it so fail. This situation puts plaintiffs in court and making class action allegations based on the “micro-technical” violations.

Littler’s white paper gets the answer right as far as I’m concerned: “total compliance” on the inside.  It’s really the best option under every employer’s own power.

Tags: wage/hour

Trackback URI | Comments RSS