As we have been reporting, March 12 was the deadline for submitting comments regarding the U.S. Labor Department's proposal "to collect information about employment experiences and workers' knowledge of basic employment laws and rules so as to better understand employees' experience with worker misclassification."  Despite our having asked for a copy of the proposed survey in a letter to USDOL dated January 14, we never received one.  Those who responded to our February 20 straw poll said that neither had they received a copy.

We have now submitted a comment (link to reproduction below) taking the position that the proposed collection of information should not be cleared, approved, or undertaken.  As we said to USDOL:

[the] circumstances strongly suggest that the Labor Department has failed to provide an adequate opportunity for public comment on this proposed information collection.  The Labor Department has clearly failed to do so with respect to members of the public who have expressed their interest in commenting by requesting copies but to whom it has provided none.  This state of affairs does not comport with the requirements and purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

If USDOL nevertheless proceeds with its proposal at this point, the design and content of the survey, as well as the results produced by it and the use to which that outcome is put, might well be tainted and subject to challenge in light of the inadequate opportunity afforded for public comment on the proposal.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Worker Classification Survey Comment 03 12 13 .pdf (47.81 kb)

Readers will recall our January post concerning the U.S. Labor Department's announced intention to "to collect information about employment experiences and workers' knowledge of basic employment laws and rules so as to better understand employees' experience with worker misclassification."  As we said then, this is likely to be a precursor to a renewed "Right to Know" initiative.

USDOL did not publish the actual proposed survey along with its January 11 Federal Register entry.  On January 14, we requested a copy from the official to whom USDOL directed that these requests be sent (link to reproduction below).  As of this writing, 38 days later, and after appreciably more than half of the comment period has elapsed, we have received neither a copy nor any other response.

The end of the comment period is March 12, 2013, 21 days from now.  As matters stand, one may reasonably conclude that the public has had no adequate, fully-informed opportunity to evaluate the proposed survey or to formulate and submit substantive comments.

We are led to wonder whether our experience is representative of the public's at-large.  If you requested a copy of the proposed information collection also, please respond to our poll to let us know whether you received one.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Request For Proposed Information Collection.pdf (62.35 kb)

As we speculated in November, the U.S. Labor Department apparently does intend to reinvigorate its so-called "Right to Know" initiative.  This vague and ambiguous proposal first surfaced in 2010 but was eventually shelved.  USDOL has now announced its intention to conduct a survey "to collect information about employment experiences and workers' knowledge of basic employment laws and rules so as to better understand employees' experience with worker misclassification."

"Right to Know" About What?

In 2010, USDOL said that such a rule would require among other things the "notification of workers' status as employees or some other status such as independent contractors, and whether that worker is entitled to the protections of the [federal Fair Labor Standards Act]."  Many wondered at the time whether the provision would extend to disclosures about management's decisions as to which employees are considered to be exempt from the FLSA's pay requirements, and Wage and Hour Division officials seemed to be avoiding the question.  USDOL's recent announcement says, "Worker misclassification can be understood as the practice, intended or unintended, of improperly treating a worker who is an employee under the applicable law as in a work status other than an employee (i.e., an independent contractor)."  For the moment, then, the focus appears to be upon erroneously deeming workers to be independent contractors or incorrectly considering them to be functioning in some other non-employee capacity.

The announcement also provides at least some hint of what a "Right to Know" regulation will entail.  USDOL notes that "federal labor laws" do not require an employer to:

♦   Inform workers of their status as employees or non-employees;

♦   Provide the basis for these status determinations; or

♦   Notify the workers of their hours worked, pay rates, and wages paid.

Presumably, any "Right to Know" rules will obligate employers to provide this information, although to whom, when, in what form, to what extent, and at what level of detail remain unknown.

What Happens Next?

USDOL seeks comments on its proposed information collection by March 12, 2013.  However, it did not publish the actual information request.  Instead, a copy of this document must be obtained separately, raising the question of whether USDOL's announcement complies with the notice requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.  In any event, we have asked for a copy and will post the document when we receive it.

The notice specifies 30 months as the evaluation timeframe but then says in the same sentence that the period ends in March 2014.  Perhaps USDOL will later clarify which of these is its intention.

Businesses and other organizations (particularly those whose operational models include the use of non-employee workers) would be wise to take the opportunity to weigh-in on this proposed survey, to participate in the survey when it occurs, and otherwise to follow these developments closely.  It is foreseeable that the actual information collection might be orchestrated so as to provide a predicate for unprecedented new requirements.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

The U.S. Labor Department's most-recent regulatory agenda now targets April 2011 for the release of a proposed rule that DOL says is intended to, among other things, "update [federal Fair Labor Standards Act] recordkeeping requirements to foster more openness and transparency in demonstrating employers' compliance with applicable requirements to their workers, to better ensure compliance by regulated entities, and to assist in enforcement."  Elsewhere, DOL has stated that this forthcoming "Right To Know Under The Fair Labor Standards Act" would address "notification of workers' status as employees or some other status such as independent contractors, and whether that worker is entitled to the protections of the FLSA."  The proposal would "also explore requiring employers to provide a wage statement each pay period to their employees," apparently so as to convey to employees "how their pay is computed."

These current notifications include even fewer specifics than their predecessors, about which we reported in May.  At that time, DOL expressed an intention to require employers to notify workers of their FLSA rights in some unidentified way and to provide unspecified "information" about hours worked and wage computations.
 
DOL also said earlier that employers would be required to prepare some sort of "classification analysis" for a worker whom the employer will "exclude . . . from the FLSA's coverage," to disclose this analysis to the worker, and to provide the analysis to a DOL investigator upon "request."  Judging from the latest notices, this is still on the table.  It is less than transparent whether such an analysis would be restricted to situations in which a worker is categorized as being or not being an employee for FLSA purposes.  For example, there is concern that it will also extend to an employer's decisions about which employees it will treat as being exempt from the FLSA's pay requirements.  At a May "Stakeholder Forum" in Washington, D.C., DOL officials declined to address this question.

We continue to recommend that employers remain on the alert for this proposed rule.  When it is published, employers should evaluate each provision in detail, should carefully consider all potential ramifications, and should be prepared to submit suggestions, comments, and any objections.  In light of the recent "Bridge to Justice" initiative, there is every reason to anticipate that information compiled under the requirements of any final regulation will wind up in the hands of claimants and their lawyers.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

The U.S. Labor Department has now provided additional, disquieting insight into its "Plan, Prevent, Protect" program that we first reported on in our April 30 post.  Part of DOL's Spring Regulatory Agenda 2010 announces an intention to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") proposing significant amendments to the FLSA recordkeeping regulations.

There are as yet no details.  But DOL says that its new rules will, among other things, seek to require employers:

•    To notify workers of their FLSA rights (apparently, the longstanding requirement to display DOL's prescribed poster somehow does not accomplish this);

•   To provide currently-unspecified "information" about hours worked and wage computation; and

•    To perform and document some kind of "classification analysis" for a worker whom the employer will "exclude . . . from the FLSA's coverage", to disclose this analysis to the worker, and to provide the analysis to a DOL investigator upon "request".

DOL's amendments will also undertake to "address burdens of proof when employers fail to comply with record and notice requirements."  It will be interesting to see whether and to what extent DOL will presume to instruct the courts as to what proof burdens they must apply and how and when to apply them.

These proposals are likely to raise a host of substantial and troubling questions.    For instance, must a "classification analysis" be done for each worker, rather than simply for a group of similarly-classified ones?  What level of detail will be necessary?  Must the analysis directly or indirectly reflect the advice of in-house or outside counsel so as to implicate the attorney/client privilege?  Must it contain confidential business information where this might be linked to a decision to treat an employee as being exempt from the FLSA's minimum-wage, overtime, and timekeeping requirements?  What assurance will DOL give (indeed, what assurance can it give) that a written analysis turned over in response to an investigator's demand will not be disclosed outside of DOL?

We recommend that employers remain on the alert for this NPRM.  Once the document is published, each proposed amendment and its potential ramifications should be closely scrutinized and carefully considered.  We strongly suspect that there will be provisions as to which comments, and perhaps even strenuous objections, will be advisable before any revisions are adopted.

Keep in mind also that, as we have noted earlier, pending legislation would attach potentially burdensome penalties to an employer's being found not to have complied with whatever any final recordkeeping amendments turn out to be.