Georgia, Florida Workplace Weapons Laws Take Effect July 1st If you are an HR professional for an organization in Georgia or Florida, you need to be aware of changes in state law impacting an individual's right to store a gun in their vehicle while parked on company property. These two laws, which are set to become effective on July 1, 2008, severely limit an employer's right to enforce no-weapons policies within their property limits. In Florida, the "Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008" was signed into law on April 15th by Governor Charlie Crist. This law, HB 503, prohibits most employers and business owners from restricting concealed-permit holders from storing firearms in their locked, parked vehicles.  The law stipulates the parking area provided by the place of employment must be accessible to the general public. Employers exempt from this law include schools, correctional institutions, nuclear power plants or government agencies such as national defense, aerospace or homeland security.
On May 14th, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed into law, HB 89, a bill that prohibits most public and private employers in the state from enforcing a "no weapons" policy in their workplaces by searching a private vehicle of an employee unless that employee grants permission to do so or if it is determined that a serious threat to human life exists. In addition, the new law prohibits an employer from conditioning employment on an individual's agreement not to bring weapons onto company property - including publically-accessed parking areas. The law does include language that could hold employers harmless of any liability resulting from a civil or criminal act involving such a weapon. The legality of the Florida statute has been challenged in Federal court by the Florida Chamber of Commerce and the Retail Federation. Pending the outcome of this challenge, the court may block the implementation of HB 503. No similar challenge has been filed against the Georgia statute.  | |
AFL-CIO Criticizes WARN Act's Protection of Layoffs, Closings Only one-third of the plants covered by the nation's 20-year-old plant-closing "Warn Act," obey that law, and workers are hurt nationwide as a result, the AFL-CIO states. The law orders medium-sized and large companies to tell their workers 60 days before a shutdown, federation Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told senators on May 20. But it's widely flouted and it covers only a quarter of U.S. firms. The surprising data became the top topic of discussion at a Senate Labor Committee hearing called to review the law's performance and see if it needs improvement. Trumka emphatically said it did as did all other witnesses, except for the GOP's management-side labor lawyer. "The WARN Act was built out of the cataclysmic loss of manufacturing jobs in the 1980s," Trumka said. "Since then, the wave of plant closings and off-shoring buffeting our economy has only gotten worse...Since 2000, more than 40,000 manufacturing establishments have closed their doors and now the plague of mass layoff has spread to the service sector. Layoffs continue at a pace of 1.5 million impacted workers every year and almost half a million workers have been idled by mass layoffs in the first three months (of 2008)." The WARN Act covers mass layoffs as well as plant closings, but the WARN Act has big problems and "hasn't lived up to the hopes" unions had when they pushed it through 20 years ago, Trumka said: - It covers too few workplaces – only those with at least 100 workers.
- Only one-third of the employers it covers obey it when the time comes.
- If the employer gets caught flouting it, the only fine is back pay and benefits the workers are owed. There have been only 226 cases of employer violations in 20 years, and half were thrown out because of the law's exceptions.
- Workers get only 60 days notice of a plant closing, and the notice is required if at least 50 workers are laid off by the closing or mass layoffs of shifts of workers.
- It lacks aid to workers facing the plant closing and needing to train for and find other jobs.
That's in contrast not just to other nations, but even to several states, Trumka said. Several states have adopted better laws, eliminating exceptions in the federal law for special circumstances. California, Illinois and two other states have cut the minimum number of people in a plant for it to be covered by the WARN Act and they've lengthened the notice the employers must give of plant closings and layoffs. To review this article, please visit the International Labor Communications Association.
. Disaster Planning Crucial for Large, Small Businesses Business owners should try to make their companies as prepared as possible for potential disasters - or at least be sure their employees and data are protected - especially since disaster planning tends to get pushed lower and lower on owners' to-do lists due to more pressing day-to-day demands or they are overwhelmed by the prospect of putting a plan together.
"Small-business owners have an inflated idea of what the cost is going to be, or the complexity," said disaster recovery expert John Toigo, chief executive of Toigo Partners International, based in Tampa, Fla. He noted small companies usually have an easier task than their larger counterparts when it comes to disaster prep. "It doesn't have to cost very much money or [take] very much time."
 Obviously, a comprehensive disaster plan contains many situational procedures, such as planning for an evacuation, or stocking up with food, water and other necessities in case you need to remain on your premises.
Ed Schipul's Internet marketing company held a day-long drill last month to practice dealing with a disaster that would render the company's Houston headquarters unusable.
Schipul acknowledged he wasn't happy with the results. First, some staffers froze and weren't able to perform the tasks expected of them. One staffer forgot her cell phone and no one could reach her. There was an emergency plan detailed in binders, but no one had any of the binders off-site.
"The things that failed aren't the things you expect," Schipul said. "But that's why you do a simulation."
The federal government also has guidelines on a website, www.ready.gov/business, and the U.S. Small Business Administration has its own site, http://www.sba.gov/beawareand%20prepare/business.html. Huffmaster also offers complete disaster planning and recovery services, which you can review on our website. We also offer a free Disaster Readiness Tool to evaluate your preparedness. | |
U.S. Employers Concerned Over Security Breaches Via E-Mail Leg According to a recent survey by Proofpoint Inc., over 40 percent of U.S. companies with more than 20,000 employees employ staff who read or analyze employees' e-mail messages - and over half of those companies said they had some staff members whose primary job function was to read or analyze employees' e-mail. Proofpoint's report, "Outbound Data and Loss Prevention in Today's Enterprise," showed outbound e-mail messages remain a significant source of risk for large companies in the United States. The survey by the electronic messaging security company was based on responses from 301 U.S. companies with 1,000 or more employees. Around 44 percent of U.S. companies surveyed reported that they had investigated an e-mail leak of confidential information in the previous 12 months. But e-mail was far from the only risk drawing the concerned attention of large companies. Respondents indicated they had investigated leaks occurring in several other ways including through message-board and blog postings, via video or audio posted to media-sharing sites, through postings to social-networking sites, and through loss or theft of laptops, smart phones, and storage devices. Areas of concern cited by respondents included protecting personal identity information and financial information of consumers, ensuring compliance with financial-disclosure requirements or corporate-governance regulations, and protection of intellectual property. Around 23 percent of U.S. companies said their business was affected by the exposure of sensitive or embarrassing information in the past 12 months, including exposure of customer information and intellectual property. Some 51 percent of the respondents said they had disciplined an employee for violating the company's e-mail policy, with another 26 percent reporting having fired an employee for such a violation. You can receive a copy of the survey by registering at the Proofpoint website. Reduce Exposure to Workplace Violence Threats Workplace violence affects millions of American workers every year. But it is more than just the threat of someone walking into an establishment with a gun, although obviously that is one of the most frightening. As defined by the National Institute for the Prevention of Workplace Violence, "workplace violence" is anything considered as "acts of aggression or violence including assaults, threats, disruptive, aggressive, hostile, or verbal or emotionally abusive behaviors that generate anxiety that occurs in, or are related to the workplace and entail a real or perceived risk of physical, emotional and/or psychological harm to individuals, or damage to an organization's resources or capabilities." Threats of workplace violence can come from internal or external sources. The best ways companies can work to prevent the possibility of such things occurring is by taking proactive steps on policy and procedures to identify their overall level of risk. Although workplace violence is a concern for everyone, there are a number of industries and certain environments that are at a higher risk. Studies conducted by The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health concluded that the highest numbers of occupational homicides were found at working environments that included taxicab establishments, liquor stores, gas stations, security and detective services, and justice and public entities such as courts and law enforcement offices. Grocery stores, jewelry stores, hotels/motels and eating/drinking establishments also topped the list. Basically, any situation where workers exchange money with the public, work alone or in small groups, deliver passengers or work late hours or early morning shifts are included. In-home related services, social work, health care and other types of community-based positions also are included in the high-risk category. Risks are even greater for companies with locations in high crime areas and/or for those that have positions that require them to possess a weapon as part of their daily job function. |
