Denver Worker's Compensation Info: September 2013

Monday, September 30, 2013

How To Use Discipline To Enforce Safety At Work

By ReduceYourWorkersComp 09/26/2013 09:30:00

In the past a client told me about their new safety program. They had some good protocol in place, and they were ready to make an example out of their first violator. It was almost as if they were trying to push their employees into screwing up so that they could then publicly scold them and put them into the safety “Time-out” as if they were a toddler that threw a toy.

I first of all praised the client about starting a program about safety. Most days having anything in place is better than nothing at all, or even worse just ignoring the elephant in the room. But you also have to know how to properly enforce the safety program, without going crazy on people. The crazier you are, the more likely your staff will only be acting safe when you are within eyesight. The next time you go off the floor back to your office they go back to their devilish ways removing guards, stuffing machines beyond capacity, and lifting without proper form.

This is a delicate situation–using discipline to enforce safety. Not everyone responds to the same type of discipline, or even cares for that matter. Everyone has their own issues and qualms, so how do you even implement a safety program if you have no idea how to discipline the safety violators?

• Communicate the program and the associated disciplines

A safety plan is no good if employees do not know about it. You have to communicate across all lines of business, all job titles, all shifts, all management, and everybody else in between. Everyone needs to know not only the safety program, but the associated disciplines that go along with it. They should also know the varying disciplines that coincide with job title or seniority, if applicable. Perhaps you have more harsh discipline for those workers with more seniority because they should know better, and it is not fair to really punish the new guy who maybe didn’t know any better. Effective communication puts everyone on the same page right from the start. Make each employee sign the paperwork stating that they read it, understand it, and will abide by it.

• Progressive discipline is a good idea, but so is zero tolerance

It seems fair that the punishment for first offenses, minor infractions, and inadvertent slip-ups should be easier than someone that completely disregarded safety gear or failed to latch up their backup line. However, in my opinion, if you go easy on the minor stuff, then you might as well not even have it listed in your safety program at all. Some people just do not care about getting dinged for a minor infraction. Case in point, a guy I went to college with used to park in the wrong lot because it was closer to his dorm. The ticket was $5. After he accumulated 4 he would mail in a $20 bill. He did not care at all. Now, had the ticket been $100, per incident, I bet he would have not parked in that lot. The same applies to your minor safety violations. Some people just won’t care about getting a minor infraction. Make the punishment a good one, right from the start. This promotes a zero tolerance atmosphere, and should keep everyone on their toes.

If you fail to heed my advice; at least use the standard art of ramping discipline, which consists of: Oral Warning, Written warning, Suspension, and Termination.

• You have to apply the discipline fairly across the board

Failure to apply fairness to your discipline will result in probable retaliation claims down the road. Retaliation claims are always far worse and more subjective than real claims themselves. They are usually messy, and filed by disgruntled employees with a bone to pick with management for some past injustice. As the employer, you also have to be fair in the equipment you provide. If someone fails to wear their safety gear because it is already broken or fails to properly fit the employee, then you discipline them for said failure, you could be held liable for not providing replacement or proper gear.

• Be consistent!

Discipline for failure to comply with safety programs has to be consistent. Remember that discipline should be used to change behavior that leads to accidents. Work rules have to be consistently enforced at all times. Workers that fail to comply with the safety program despite proper training and guidance should be dealt with in compliance with your discipline program. Failure to ramp up discipline for repeat offenders just leads to repeat infractions and not corrected behavior. If you went to all the trouble to create a safety program and discipline program, it needs to be enforced every time, all the time, by the parameters that you set. You have to lead by example and every violation, every time.

• Document all infractions every single time

A paper record needs to be made each time a violation occurs. Proper management personnel need to be copied in as well. This way everyone knows what is going on throughout the management layers of your company. Everyone has to be on board for a successful program to work.

Breakdowns in communication lead to compliance problems no matter what the setting. The written record of infraction should include the action of violation, the safety rule that was violated, the discipline that was handed down, and the corrections made in order to prevent the infraction from occurring again in the future. The violator should also sign off on the documentation, and they should be given a copy as well. This way everyone involved has a copy of all of the paperwork.

Starting a discipline program like this takes a lot of work, consistency, and follow through. But if you stick to your guns, you will see improvements in safety. Those improvements will lead to fewer injuries, and it will improve your bottom line down the road. You should see immediate improvement, and at the end of the day any improvements are worth the effort and time you put in to get this program off the ground.

Original Source

Let attorney Neil O'Toole or attorney John Sbarbaro
help you with your workers' compensation or Social Security disability case.
Call the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today!

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer

Any content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only.It is not intended to solicit business, provide legal advice from The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. and does not serve as a medium for an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. is not responsible for the information on this blog which may not apply to every reader. Always seek professional counsel if you have any legal matters. Contents within the blog of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C., logos and other related media are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

SSA Replaces “Mental Retardation” with “Intellectual Disability”

Effective September 3, 2013, SSA will replace the term “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability” in the Listing of Impairments and other places in its regulations. 78 Fed. Reg. 46499 (Aug. 1, 2013). “This change reflects the widespread adoption of the term ‘intellectual disability’ by Congress, government agencies, and public and private organizations.” The preface to the final rule acknowledges that the term “mental retardation” has negative connotations and has become offensive to many people, “and often results in misunderstandings about the nature of the disorder and those who have it.” In October 2010, Congress passed “Rosa’s Law,” which changed the term in specified federal laws, but not Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. SSA is responding to the spirit of Rosa’s Law. This final rule was published only about 5 months after comments to the proposed rule were due. See 78 Fed. Reg. 5755 (Jan. 28, 2013). SSA provided a shorter than normal 30-day comment period for the proposed rule. NOSSCR signed on to comments submitted by the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities (CCD) that supported this change.

CCD’s support of the change, along with the support of other national organizations advocating on behalf of people with disabilities, is specifically mentioned in the preface to the final rule. As noted
in the CCD comments: This change in terminology is consistent with the widely expressed desire of people with intellectual disability for the use of modern, respectful language. Adoption of “intellectual
disability” will align SSA’s medical listings and other rules with terminology used by many federal agencies under Rosa’s Law (P.L. 111-256) and by national organizations representing professionals practicing in the field, such as the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD).

The preface makes a point of explaining that an individual with an “intellectual disability” does not mean the individual is “under a disability” for purposes of Titles II or XVI. One commenter suggested that the use of the word “disability” to specify an impairment “could generate
confusion among adjudicators, including possible misinterpretation and misapplication of other listings.” Another commenter was concerned that the use of the term “disability” in a listing could lead some people to assume that a person would be found “disabled” under SSA’s rules. SSA did not adopt these comments, noting that the change in terms “will not affect how we interpret or apply any other listings…The name of any disorder, whether mental or physical, in no way directs our findings
regarding disability.”

Source: Volume 35, Number 8 August, 2013

Let attorney Neil O'Toole or attorney John Sbarbaro
help you with your workers' compensation or Social Security disability case.
Call the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today!

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Biden Recruited To Hand Out Free Joints

By Radley BalkoPosted: 09/23/2013 10:03 am EDT | Updated: 09/23/2013 11:06 am EDT

The Denver Westword reports that a pro-pot group fighting a new proposal to impose a 30 percent tax on the drug -- which is now legal under Colorado law -- wants Joe Biden's help.

Earlier this month, a group opposed to Proposition AA, the measure to establish tax rates on recreational marijuana sales in Colorado, staged a rally at Civic Center Park during which attendees were given free joints.
Now, that same group, No on Proposition AA, is planning a second free-joint event tomorrow on Boulder's Pearl Street Mall. And one organizer, attorney Rob Corry, has written a letter to Vice President Joe Biden inviting him to take part.
Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, are expected in Colorado Monday to survey damage from the floods that have devastated so many Front Range communities.

More at the link, including the letter Corry sent to Biden.

Glorious as it would be to see Biden outdo his Onion alter-ego, Corry's clearly trolling the veep. During his time in Congress, Biden was one of the fiercest drug warriors in Washington. Here's a not-comprehensive list of policies Biden has supported over the years that I put together in 2008 shortly after Obama chose him as his running mate:

Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a "Drug Czar" is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? Thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004′s horrendous RAVE Act.

Biden has also been a champion of the Byrne Grant and COPS programs, which as I've pointed out here, have helped proliferate the SWAT teams and other paramilitary police units that are today primarily used to serve drug warrants.

Biden has softened up in a couple areas. In 2008, he said he opposed the federal raids on medical marijuana clinics, though he still opposed legalizing the drug for medicinal purposes. (And he's part of an administration that has actually conductedmore such raids than the three before it.) Just before he ran in 2008, he also sponsored a bill to remedy the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity.

But I imagine it will be a while before we see a U.S. vice president handing out joints at a pot rally.

Original Source

Do you have a workers' compensation or Social Security disability case?
Contact the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today!

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer

Monday, September 23, 2013

Automated Adjudication = Automatic Waste

By ReduceYourWorkersComp 09/19/2013 09:30:00

I look at all of my bills. Not just during work for business matters, but my personal bills as well. I do not catch many errors. In fact I think I have only caught maybe a handful of issues my entire life. These weren’t big issues, sometimes they were just duplicate charges, service fees that were supposed to be waived, or deposits on hotels that were supposed to be waived because I rescheduled within the allotted time frame without penalty.

Of course I know of people that just pay their bills online automatically every month. They don’t review the itemized statements, nor do they even read the automated email notifications saying their bills were due and automatically paid per their own permission. For obvious reasons this drives me crazy. Humans sometimes fail. Systems sometimes fail. Mistakes happen. No matter how insignificant the duty may be, these risks of errors are always out there every day. Not just in billing matters, but in everything. My coffee order gets prepared incorrectly. My salad came with the dressing on the salad instead of on the side. Don’t even get me started about other issues involving flights being “on-time,” The point is to err is human, and last time I checked we were all human at least to some degree, especially in this industry.

Claims Industry Working To Become More Efficient

The latest craze is the argument over automated adjudication of minor claims and of lifetime claims that have steadied out as far as invasive treatment goes. Adjusters are busy, and insurers/TPAs are trying to do more with less. They want to become more efficient. They want to spend less and less time on what they deem to be “trivial” claims and spend more time on the more important claims that carry a higher exposure.

This makes sense. Adjusters should be spending more and more time focusing on the matters that are more important than Jim Worker who cut his finger and had to go to the doctor for a few stitches. Minor medical-only claims constitute a lot of the pending file counts on certain levels of adjusters, and those adjusters are also the ones that are just starting out in the claims world. This is where they should be learning the process, and how important it is to review every bill for relatedness.

But to introduce automatic claim handling by a computer worries me. I worry about leakage all the time, because wasting money is one of my many pet-peeves. The marketers of automated claim technology say that they protect against error, because of the data that has to be input into the system for a person. Date timeframes need to be in place. Body injury codes are input so the injury body part can be correctly identified. CPT codes and billing coding is also entered into the system to prevent certain treatments from being automatically paid. Maximum bill amount parameters can be placed so any big bill they may come in would be flagged and not paid so the adjuster can review and authorize the payment.

These are all well and good. In fact, it looks great! If this system works according to plan, then how could anything ever be paid in error? On paper, these automated systems appear to be the next greatest thing since the computer so adjusters can do more and become more proactive at their desks. So what could the problem possibly be with implementing an automated adjudication process?

I can tell you one problem right now—it would only be as good as the person inputting the information. Like I said above—to err is human.

Automated Adjudication on Lifetime Claims = Large Medical Leakage

Let’s say automated adjudication is used for lifetime claims. After all, you have accepted the left knee as being compensable for life. You owe it, and you owe treatment on it, depending on your jurisdiction. But for ease of an example, we will just say you owe it no matter what. So it makes sense to just automate the medical bill payment on it, right?

No it does not. And I will tell you why: What if the doctor this person treats with just has their left knee as the primary diagnosis? This injured worker treats with their primary care doc. In the doctor’s system, they have the injured worker down as the left knee being most important and primary diagnosis. But if he comes in for a non-work related back strain, I doubt the primary diagnosis will change. The CPT code would probably just be for an office visit, so the system has no idea that the person treated for their back because it just sees the diagnosis code, and the CPT code. Nobody is there to view the medical report, so this bill gets paid. Along with bills for the flu, arm pain, lab results, medication of various types for various elements, and so on. Now you have paid the medical bills for who knows what, for who knows how many years. That is a leakage emergency!!

When will this be corrected? Who is in charge of making sure the treatment is for the compensable knee? The answer is probably nobody. Plus this can happen on a number of claims. Add all of that up, and now you have a substantial number of medical leakage. One that should have never occurred in the first place if you had a real person reviewing medical notes that go with the bill before they paid it.

I saw a fantastic statistic from Acrometis in an article on their website entitled “How much is your auto-adjudication costing you?” (http://www.acrometis.com/strength/0123.htm) In this article, Acrometis states that “…auto-approving all submissions under $250 results in overpaying $8,000,000 if you only look at submissions that were returned but not resubmitted. Applying the same approach to all the submissions analyzed results in overpayment of more than $133,000,000.”

Now I could stand a bill here and there being paid in error. But you have to look at the total from a macroeconomic view. Look at the entire scope of a carrier/TPA, not just on the one claim itself.

Auto Accepting Bills May Accept Large and Unrelated Medical Services

Lastly and yet another great point in that article shows that auto-accepting some bills may loop you into also accepting much larger and potentially unrelated medical services. This could include costly prescriptions, DME bills, unwarranted exploratory surgical procedures, and so on. This would depend on your jurisdiction, but the end result is the nightmare that every adjuster has, which is being forced to accept treatment on an unrelated non-compensable body part due to adjuster error. This is going to land the adjuster in some hot water, and probable disciplinary action I would hope. This type of error is inexcusable!

All of these errors do not need to happen, and should not happen at all. They should not happen because adjusting claims should be done by a real person, not some automated service. Before we jump on the ship of automatic adjudicating, we had better take a step back and look at the consequences of error, both from a human standpoint and from a systems standpoint.

Original Source

The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. can help you with your workers' compensation or Social Security disability case.

http://www.otoole-sbarbaro.com

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer

Friday, September 20, 2013

New Zealand Employer Fined Following Worker Injury -

By ReduceYourWorkersComp 09/18/2013 08:30:00
Companies that fail to enforce workplace safety measures oftentimes end up paying for it in more ways than one. Along with some negative PR, the financial penalties can be substantial. In a recent New Zealand case, a worker who was seriously injured in a grain silo accident in October of 2012 was recently awarded $26,000 in emotional harm reparations and his employer, NZ Starch Ltd of Onehunga, fined $35,000. The company had already paid nearly $20,000 to the victim.

NZ Starch had previously pleaded guilty to one charge (Section 6) under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and was sentenced at the Manukau District Court today. The victim was asked by his supervisor to sweep remaining grain from a silo before a new delivery. The silo contains a sweep auger which operates when gravity no longer forces the grain out of the silo, but which leaves a 10 centimetre residue of grain that has to be swept out by hand.

The victim knew he was supposed to turn off the auger before entering the silo, but had been shown by a supervisor how to slow the auger and sweep out the silo when it was operating at slow speed. This method was not authorised by NZ Starch.

Worker Suffered Major Injuries Following Fall

As an investigation discovered, the worker fell into the moving auger blades suffering a head injury, fractures to his right arm, right lower leg, right eye socket and jaw as well as broken tendons in one leg and extensive bruising. “The victim did not comply with company procedures, but the company had not isolated the hazard by installing an interlock which would have locked the silo access door while the auger was still active,” Chief Inspector Investigations for the Health and Safety group Keith Stewart said.

“This would have ensured workers could not override company instructions by slowing the auger and working in a dangerous environment,” Stewart added.

Original Source

The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. can help you with your workers' compensation or Social Security disability case.

http://www.otoole-sbarbaro.com

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Senior Nurse Review Can Be Cure For Chronic Pain Cases

Disclaimer: The article below does not necessarily represent the views of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C.

By ReduceYourWorkersComp 09/17/2013 09:30:00

Treatment for pain is the overall largest component of medical treatment in workers’ compensation claims yet often adjusters do not know how to use nurses effectively in the pain control scenario. Pain often presents the biggest challenge to medical providers who repair torn ligaments or fractured bones with ease but struggle to provide proper pain management for injured employees.

Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain as: “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage.”

No Tests Can Measure the Level of Pain Experienced

Pain is unique to each individual. No tests can measure the level or the intensity of pain an injured employee experiences. Unfortunately, an injured employee prone to malingering, now has an easy avenue to avoid returning to work.

The level of pain cannot be tested by the treating physician. Common practice is to ask the injured employee to rate the pain on a level of zero to ten on a 10-point scale. A zero rating indicates no pain and 10 rating indicates pain preventing any body movement or function. Injured employees who do not want to return to work normally rate their pain higher on the 10-point scale than actually being experienced.

A medical provider determines the location of pain by various neurological tests involving touching and pressing key points on the limb or body and by requesting the injured employee to make various movements. This type of examination allows the physician to test reflexes, sensation, coordination, movement, and balance. Based on these tests plus the observations of the employee’s facial expressions, total body movements, and gait, the medical provider pinpoints the spot within the limb or body where the pain is originating.

The medical provider uses various technologies to identify the cause of pain. The most common ways include electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction studies. The EMG gives the medical provider guidance in identifying which nerves or muscles are impacted by weakness or pain. Nerve conduction studies measure a nerve’s electrical system and allow the medical provider to determine if there is nerve damage.

Pain is most often described as either acute or chronic. Acute pain is sudden pain an employee feels immediately when a laceration, burn, or other occurrence causes damage to the skin, internal tissue, or bones. Chronic pain is on-going pain an injured employee feels over an extended period of time. Some medical providers define chronic pain as pain lasting more than six months from the date of injury. Others define chronic pain as pain lasting longer than the expected healing time for the injury.

Chronic pain is often described as ‘burning,’ ‘shooting,’ ‘aching,’ ‘stabbing,’ or like an ‘electrical shock.’ Chronic pain is also described in terms of stiffness, soreness, and tightness. Chronic pain can be at any level on the 10-point pain scale. Other medical issues are experienced by those suffering from chronic pain including the inability to sleep, depression, anxiety, and fatigue. The severity level of chronic pain is influenced by psychological and environmental factors.

Original Source

The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. can help you with your workers' compensation or Social Security disability case.

http://www.otoole-sbarbaro.com

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Have there been any Criminal Code convictions for health and safety violations?

By Terry Bogyo 47 minutes ago

Two events separated by 17 years came to mind when I was asked the above question recently. The two events may seem unrelated: 26 miners killed in a 1992 Westray mine explosion in Nova Scotia and four construction workers falling to their death on Christmas Eve 2009 in Toronto. Connecting them is Bill C-45 amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada passed in 2004.

The investigation into WestRay revealed the limits of sanctions the law would allow. The commission of inquiry found that the explosion and resulting deaths were predictable. The operation put economic considerations ahead of worker safety. Commissioner K. Peter Richard concluded the story leading up to the explosion was

“…of incompetence, of mismanagement, of bureaucratic bungling, of deceit, of ruthlessness, of cover-up, of apathy, of expediency, and of cynical indifference.”

Despite the strength of this finding, no one was found criminally responsible.

In response to the significant public outrage, Bill C-45 was introduced and eventually passed into law amending Canada’s Criminal Code. The main amendment makes a clear statement. Section 217 now reads

Duty of persons undertaking acts217. Every one who undertakes to do an act is under a legal duty to do it if an omission to do the act is or may be dangerous to life.

Duty of persons directing work217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task.

Since these sections became law, I am aware of only two applications of this new section. The first was in Quebec and is known as Transpave where the employer plead guilty and a fine $100.000 was imposed. The case involved a young worker being killed by a malfunctioning machine. The employer knew the machine malfunctioned but did not take it out of service or properly train the worker in appropriate procedures. The employer was remorseful and invested heavily in safety measures to ensure a similar event would never happen.

Then, in 2009, six construction workers were on a swing stage at the 14^th floor. The usual number of workers on the swing stage was just 2. There were only two lifelines and only one was properly engaged. Two workers survived but one was severely and permanently injured; four were killed. The employer, Metron Construction Corporation, plead guilty and was fined $200,000. The Crown appealed and the Ontario Court of Appeal raised that fine to $ 750,000. The OCA ruling is available on line. As of this writing, the ruling has not been appealed further.

We now have two cases testing the Criminal Code amendments flowing from Westray. Has a company official been sentenced to prison for criminal negligence? No, not yet. Will we see more cases? Unfortunately, yes. I say unfortunately because the cases so far involve completely avoidable deaths and, sadly, the potential for more deaths exist elsewhere. On the other hand, perhaps the successful convictions will be a wake up call to manages, supervisors, directors, and owners to review their own practices or lack of safety practices. At a minimum, financial risk analysts will now have new data to consider when weighing the risks of failing to train, keep equipment in good repair and put the safety of workers first.

Original Source

The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. can help you with your workers' compensation or Social Security disability case.

http://www.otoole-sbarbaro.com

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer

Monday, September 16, 2013

New Federal Requirements Imposing Hiring Goals for Veterans and People with Disabilities to Affect Approximately 171,000 Companies

By Laurie A. Petersen and Samantha J. Wood 09/13/2013 10:44:00

On August 27, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced a Final Rule that makes changes to the regulations implementing the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These changes are intended to improve hiring of veterans and people with disabilities.

The Final Rule will make the following changes to the regulations affecting VEVRAA:

It will completely rescind 41 C.F.R. 60-250 and replace it with the revised 41 C.F.R. 60-300. Veterans who were formerly protected only under 41 C.F.R. 60-250 will be protected from discrimination under 41 C.F.R. 60-300.
It will require federal contractors and subcontractors to establish annual hiring benchmarks. It will require federal contractors to either:

A. Adopt a hiring benchmark equal to the national percentage of veterans in the civilian labor force (currently 8 percent); or

B. Establish their own benchmark by taking into account (i) the average percentage of veterans in the civilian labor force in the state where the contractor is located over the preceding three years; (ii) the number of veterans, over the previous four quarters, who participated in the employment service delivery system in the state where the contractor is located; (iii) the applicant and hiring ratios for the previous year; (iv) the contractor’s recent assessments of the effectiveness of its outreach and recruitment efforts; and (v) any other factors, such as the nature of the job and its location, that would affect the availability of qualified protected veterans.
It will require federal contractors to annually document and update, and maintain for three years the following quantitative comparisons regarding applicants and employees:

A. The number of protected veteran applicants;

B. The total number of job openings and number of jobs filled;

C. The total number of applicants for all jobs;

D. The total number of protected veterans applicants hired; and

E. The total number of applicants hired.
Beyond records comparing applicants, employees, and the hiring benchmark requirement, it will require records to contain an evaluation of outreach and recruitment efforts. Companies must be able to provide documentation to show that they have tried to meet the benchmark otherwise they risk having their federal contracts revoked.
It will require federal contractors to make the following adjustments to its hiring process:

A. Contractors must invite applicants to self-identify as protected veterans at both the pre-offer and post-offer phases of the application process.

B. When listing a job opening, contractors must provide information in a manner and format permitted by the appropriate State or local job service.
It will require federal contractors to use specific language when incorporating the equal opportunity clause into a subcontract by reference to alert subcontractors to their responsibilities as Federal contractors.
It will require contractors to provide OFCCP all records upon request and allow OFCCP to complete a compliance check either on or off-site.

The Final Rule will make the following changes to the regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 at 41 C.F.R. 60-741:

It will implement changes necessitated by the passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 by revising the definition of “disability” and certain nondiscrimination provisions.
It will require federal contractors to adopt a hiring goal of 7 percent to each of their job groups or to their entire workforce if the contractor has 100 or fewer employees.
It will require federal contractors to annually document and update, and maintain for three years the following quantitative comparisons regarding applicants and employees:

A. The number of applicants disabilities;

B. The total number of job openings and number of jobs filled;

C. The total number of applicants for all jobs;

D. The total number of applicants with disabilities hired; and

E. The total number of applicants hired.
It will require federal contractors to conduct annual assessments of problem areas and establish specific action-oriented programs to address the problems.
It will require federal contractors to make the following adjustments to its hiring process:

A. Contractors must invite applicants to self-identify as individuals with disabilities at both the pre-offer and post-offer phases of the application process.

B. When listing a job opening, contractors must provide information in a manner and format permitted by the appropriate State or local job service.
It will require federal contractors to invite employees to self-identify as individuals with disabilities every five years.
It will require federal contractors to use specific language when incorporating the equal opportunity clause into a subcontract by reference to alert subcontractors to their responsibilities as Federal contractors.
It will require contractors to allow OFCCP to request and review documents related to a compliance check either on or off-site.

According to the director of OFCCP, such new rules are expected to affect approximately 171,000 companies doing business with the federal government. Although these rules will not become effective for 180 days after publication in the Federal Register, contractors are encouraged to begin updating their employment practices as soon as possible.

Original Source

The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. can help you with your workers' compensation or Social Security disability case.

http://www.otoole-sbarbaro.com

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer

Friday, September 13, 2013

Fast Food Strippers Will Solve Our Labor Strife - The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. - Workers Compensation Denver, Colorado

By Robert Wilson 2 hours 36 minutes ago

My God, I am freaking brilliant. In the blink of an eye, I took two major labor stories that have been in the news of late, combined them, and simultaneously solved two controversial labor issues. This is yet another idea for which I’ll probably be awarded a Nobel Prize. Or a Pulitzer. Maybe a Booby – whatever organization gives out awards for solving labor issues no one else wants to address.

The last few weeks there has been a chorus of protest that fast food and Walmart workers in this country need to be paid a “livable” wage, instead of the paltry minimum wage this country mandates. This cacophonous disruption is coming from groups around the nation including academics, intellectuals, union workers, fast food workers, national media, and other people who do not understand what an entry level job is. The amount most often cited as a “livable wage” is $15 per hour. Let me assure you, that is about what I make, and it is livable so long as you work over 90 hours a week.

Also in the news this week is a group of strippers that successfully won a class action suit against an adult entertainment company, entitling them to be classified as employees, and thereby requiring them to be paid, get this, minimum wage. This despite the fact that some of them in court proceedings admitted to earning up to $1,000 a night in tips. I’m wondering if that is the same thing they told the IRS…

Anyway, we now find ourselves in the untenable position of recognizing that fast food and Walmart workers are entitled to $15 an hour, but strippers are only going to get minimum wage.

I don’t think that is fair. Strippers are willing to give their all, or bare it, anyway, in the goal of total customer satisfaction. They are willing to go to the mat, literally in some cases, to see their customer leaves with an infectious smile, or at least something that is infectious. This may seem like a victory for them, but it is truly a step backwards.

Enter my simplistic yet brilliant solution. We simply combine the job codes. We make fast food and Walmart workers strippers. Think of it; they would make at least $15 an hour, and the required offset in prices would be much more palatable. Many customers in this scenario wouldn’t mind shelling out $8 for a Big Mac or Whopper. Come to think of it, Big Mac and Whopper could take on different meanings in this environment, so we had best be careful. Other phrases with potentially significant changes in fast food lexicon would be “supersize me”, “special sauce” and “would you like fries with that”. It should also go without saying that the position of Walmart greeter would quickly become the most popular one in the store.

The Happy Meal would become the Happy Ending Meal. And it would cost $200. This would probably even change the type of little toy that is included with the box.

Other impacts - There would be required some fairly significant safety modifications, particularly around the deep fryers and grill area. Workers’ comp would be a definitive concern, especially if the wrong buns end up getting toasted. Finding a place to clip those unwieldy Walmart name badges would be a challenge. Over time we could see an improvement in the health of customers, since virtually no one would use the drive thru anymore. Everyone would, for reasons not completely misunderstood, park their cars and walk inside. Fathers would spend more time with their children, or at least be nearby while their kids toiled in the play area or parking lot for hours on end.

Overall, this is a win-win for workers, business and consumerism in general. No need to thank me. For me it is just all in a day’s work. Although I would like a Nobel or Pulitzer on my desk. I need something substantive to keep all the papers from sliding around. Probably just end up with a Booby, but if my fast food stripper plan works out they will be much easier to come by.

Original Source

The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. can help you with your workers' compensation or Social Security disability case.

http://www.otoole-sbarbaro.com

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer