Friday, February 22, 2008

Who's Responsible?

I came across this article and it instantly reminded me of a previous class discussion regarding how one knows their legal rights when they're employed. Should the managers be teaching their employees? Should these topics and the like be integrated into a mandatory undergraduate curriculum?

Vicki Wilmarth, a lawyer specializing in employment law, attempts to keep everyone informed on the latest updates by publishing articles. She notes employment law is constantly being revised and updated. In this specific column she describes a change in employment compensation to military families, a new I-9 form, and a recent case in which an employer sued their employees for breaches of contract.

I would personally like to see topics relating to employment law tied into a college curriculum. Many of the topics we have discussed in class have come as a complete surprise to me, which is scary considering I will be entering the workforce next year. I think these topics would be very relevant in career development courses which many majors and programs require. Also, I believe employers do have a responsibility to inform their employees on major, applicable changes in the law. Does anyone else have a suggestion on how everyone can get on the same page? Who's responsible for keeping everyone up date?

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I personally think that it is the individual worker’s responsibility to understand and be informed on the most recent employment laws that concern them; the employee. However, I believe that it is the responsibility of the employers to initially supply all of the firm’s current laws in an employee handbook along with important federal laws central to that particular industry. Nevertheless, the act of teaching and being fully conscious of the laws, in my opinion, falls upon the individual worker and her responsibility to become aware of the laws that are specific to her and the industry that she works.

On the contrary, I feel it is the company’s responsibility to be well informed of laws that refer to the employee as well as the firm. As for learning on the collegiate level, I believe that teaching the laws in classes are very beneficial and should be offered on a consistent basis. Despite the availability of this information, I do not think it should be mandatory for ALL students to enroll in an employment law course to obtain their university degree. If students or employees personally want to be informed and possess a thirst for that particular knowledge, they should be able to quench it.

4:19 PM  
Blogger M. Stopper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:54 PM  
Blogger M. Stopper said...

It is interesting that this topic has been brought up. This past weekend I had a conversation with a person who is currently battling some issues with the FMLA, along with many other legal protections. I, as I presume many other soon-to-be entry level employees, truly had no previous knowledge as to what protections employees receive concerning employment law in terms of medical leave and disabilities.

This particular person had undergone an organ transplant a couple of months ago. Besides the initial doctor appointments and pre-operation procedures before the actual surgery, almost all of the employee’s sick and vacation days were used up in order to combat their condition. The emotional strain, on top of the stress of missing work, quickly began to trouble this employee.

Putting myself in this position, I honestly would not even know where to begin concerning my legal protections. In the conversation, I asked the person if there were any available references as to what specifically the employer was held accountable for and what was expected of an employee in this type of situation. In general, it is assumed that this information is readily accessible in the employee handbook and manual. Majority of the time it is the employer’s obligation to supply ample information on what procedures will take place. The stability of the employee’s job usually rests upon the company’s policies. For this person, the company followed the strict FMLA’s policy of twelve weeks unpaid leave. This policy seemed reasonable on all accounts. Unfortunately for this person, twelve weeks was not enough. With many complications and the longer than expected recovery time, this employee was unable to make it back to work after those twelve weeks. Once those twelve weeks passed, this employee was forced to resign from a company that she had given more than eighteen years of her experience and skills to.

I have quite a few issues with this process, but mainly I’m concerned with the fact that an employee loses their job after those twelve weeks regardless of the uncontrollable circumstances that they are unfortunately given. This person has found, from talking with other organ transplant recipients, that her employment situation is more an exception than a rule compared to other transplant recipients. Many companies make exceptions for employees who have undergone specific organ transplant surgery. And many employers take the stance that organ transplant leave of absences from work are usually life and death situations. The twelve week period is extended for many employees depending upon how long the employee needs for recovery.

My question is should the twelve week period be just a guideline or a mandatory stipulation? Is it fair to give employees a deadline for recovery? For employees who rely on their employment for monetary and insurance reasons, this can become a major concern. In a world where the individual employee is deemed crucial to the company’s existence, employees’ well-being should be the employer’s number one concern.

5:58 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home