{"title":"Pepper Commission misses policy opportunity.","authors":"P T Shultz, R M Kerns","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"16 1","pages":"107-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1990-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"20984567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The future role of the \"bona fide plan\" exemption in ADEA benefits discrimination litigation.","authors":"E M Kneisel","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For more than twenty years, administrative agencies have concluded that the ADEA prohibited employers from reducing the level of fringe benefits provided to older employees without proving that the cost of funding the reduced benefits was essentially the same as the cost of the benefits provided to younger workers. In Public Employees Retirement System v. Betts, 109 S.Ct. 2854 (1989), the Supreme Court invalidated this \"cost-justification\" requirement. Almost immediately, Senator John Heinz (R-Pa.) introduced legislation to overturn the Betts ruling. This article addresses the question of whether, as suggested by Senator Heinz, Betts sanctions \"baseless\" benefits discrimination, or whether employers should be somewhat more cautious before deciding to eliminate or reduce the fringe benefits provided to their older employees.</p>","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"15 3","pages":"387-402"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21167129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Providing service--or aiding and abetting discrimination?","authors":"B B Levine","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Even though federal antidiscrimination laws do not include third-party liability, a number of states now have statutes containing aiding-and-abetting provisions that may provide a basis for causes of action. For instance, in a recent decision, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a third-party insurance company will be held liable along with the employer for providing health insurance coverage that does not cover normal pregnancy expenses. Similarly, cases involving newspapers have shown that newspaper classifieds may occasion liability solely to the newspaper, and not the advertiser, even absent intent. The author provides a full discussion of such issues as standard of proof and exactly who is liable and offers solutions to these new liability problems.</p>","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"14 4","pages":"607-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21166086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Current developments in employee benefits. Amending qualified plans for tax reform.","authors":"P T Schultz, J P Klein","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"14 4","pages":"643-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21166089","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"NLRB proposed rules for determining health care bargaining units.","authors":"R A Campbell","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"14 4","pages":"627-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21166088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Current developments in employee benefits. The IRS issues proposed Section 89 and cafeteria plan regulations.","authors":"P T Shultz, M J Langan","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"15 1","pages":"135-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21169626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"AIDS: the first decade.","authors":"H N Turk","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>AIDS has had a profound effect on society and the workplace and has raised legal and social problems for which society was not prepared. This article will chronicle the evolution of federal, state and local law concerning AIDS and the workplace. Although there are some clear-cut answers and guidelines that address the relationship of employer and employee to the AIDS epidemic, current legislation and enforcement of those laws does not adequately address the AIDS victim as a handicapped individual. Emphasis is also placed on the problems peculiar to the health care industry, the constitutionality of present legislation, and the AIDS victim's right to privacy versus the employer's need to know. Finally, some practical solutions and guidelines will be presented that will help the employer deal with the AIDS victim and his or her co-worker.</p>","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"14 4","pages":"531-47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21166085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 and its impact on employer-sponsored retiree medical plans.","authors":"M S Melbinger, T O'Donnell","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MECCA) significantly enlarges the scope of federally funded health care benefits for elderly Americans. Since Medicare's inception in 1965, several inadequacies have become apparent, especially the absence of coverage for catastrophic illnesses. Now MECCA inhibits the potential financial ruin of elderly Americans faced with overwhelming, extended medical costs. The Act is budget-neutral and can reduce employers' Social Security payroll tax costs. However, the costs and complications of the maintenance-of-effort provision refunds and potential employee resistance to raised Medicare premiums, which could force some beneficiaries to cancel Part B participation and increase reliance on employer-sponsored plans, do pose problems for employers. Options and alternatives to these new opportunities and concerns are detailed herein.</p>","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"14 3","pages":"399-406"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21172427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"COBRA's draconian penalties.","authors":"J B Brescher","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In June 1987 the Internal Revenue Service issued proposed regulations clarifying the penalties to be imposed for noncompliance with the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). These regulations met with ardent objections from employers because of the scope of the sanctions. Not only does a noncomplying employer lose its tax deduction for health plan contributions, for example, but so does any successor employer or member of a multiemployer plan to which the offending employer belongs. The IRS has also been criticized for neglecting to differentiate in the regulations between significant and minor violations and for neglecting to define what it means when it refers to a violation being corrected. In the following article the author explores these problems and their effect on employers as well as Congress's recent efforts to ease the COBRA penalty burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"41-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21156295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"When hospitals limit organizing activity.","authors":"C B Gilmore","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since 1974, when the NLRA was extended to cover nonprofit medical institutions, hospitals have been faced with the challenge of accommodating their employees' right to engage in organizing and concerted activities while preventing such activities from disrupting patient care. Some hospitals have sought to protect the interests of patients by prohibiting solicitation and distribution in all areas to which patients and visitors have access. The Board and the courts have generally found such rules overly broad and violative of employee rights under the NLRA. In the following survey of cases involving solicitation/distribution rules, the author points out that the courts have consistently evaluated these rules on the basis of the special nature of the hospital setting. Accordingly, advises the author, hospital administrators who are promulgating distributions and solicitation rules covering a given location must consider the individual characteristics of that location, namely, its physical layout, the type of work performed there, and the availability of alternate space.</p>","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"14 1","pages":"95-106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1988-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"21156297","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}