I don’t know why, but cases which raise the issue around the employee/independent contractor distinction often have the most colourful facts.
This one, from the superior court in Massachusetts, involved an argument about the employment status that should have been applied (for tax purposes) to strippers in a club called the King Arthur. Have a look here on the Gruntled Employees blog for a report on the case.
If you can get past the (often humourous) background facts, the legal issues are quite similar to those in the leading New Zealand cases (like the model maker in Three Foot Six, for example). And in that light, the decision - that the strippers were employees, not contractors - is an interesting one for us in Godzone.
You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2009.
Here’s an interesting question : if co-workers (of the same gender) are travelling together for a work purpose (think conference or work project) is it legitimate and/or sensible for the employer to ask them to share a hotel room?
The economic reasons are obvious. The rooms have two beds, and getting two rooms seems excessive in times of hardship.
But to the contrary, as this article from the About.com Human Resources blog ponders, there is the unfortunate reality of otherwise arms-length workmates being required to smell each other’s dirty socks and snore in the same room together!
Is there a right answer to this question?
The law of defamation recognises the value that is validly given to a person’s reputation.
Something which is said, or published, which causes reasonable people to think less of you can have the effect of damaging your good name. And in an employment context, that might be significant in jeopardising your future job prospects.
Perhaps surprisingly, however, defamation claims around employment situations are comparatively rare. It may simply be that, under New Zealand law, the employment relations legislation offers an employee a more prompt, and practical, method for addressing this type of issue.
But that does not mean that defamation claims are not actionable under New Zealand law. And a recent case from the United States perhaps gives some food for thought about how they might arise.
It appears that the way that job candidates dress can dramatically influence their prospects at an interview – particularly in the present economic times.
An interesting blog post this week about a survey of 500 employers, and their preferences for sartorial elegance in interviewees.
Some of the results are intuitive (you probably shouldn’t wear jeans and a t-shirt to your interview – unless it is for a job at a cafe). But others are a little more difficult to pick (stains and dirty marks on clothing seem to be a real death knell – and, for women, “dangling jewellery” is a no-no).
Turning to the positive side of things, it appears that being largely conservative will advance your interview prospects. Dark navy suit and generally conservative clothing and accompaniments seem to be the way to go!
Here’s an interesting question for you.
Let’s say you own an upmarket clothing store, and you are trying to create an “image” which is consistent with a youthful “hip” clientele. You’d probably try and get good looking young people to work in the front of your store, wouldn’t you? And, by implication, wouldn’t mean that the less attractive members of staff would probably be consigned to the store room?
Interestingly, under New Zealand law there is probably little that an employee could do to take issue with a decision on this basis. There is no law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of good looks (often referred to as “facial discrimination”).
But if there is some other reason for the discrimination – such as disability – then the employer can get into some serious trouble.
The Wall Street Journal reported this week on a case where a student with a prosthetic arm was required to work in the store room of the clothing store Abercrombie in Fitch. She took issue with her employer, and succeeded in getting about NZ$25,000 in compensation.
The Employment Court recently issued an important issue around the way in which “sleepover” workers should be treated for the purpose of minimum wage legislation.
Interestingly, a similar issue has recently been raised in the United States around waged workers’ rights to claim additional income for time spent responding to work calls or emails outside of normal working hours.
An article in the Wall Street Journal reports on employees at two different organisations who have brought similar claims against their employers – asking the fundamental question “what is work”?. This is the same question that the Employment Court was caused to consider in its recent decision (although in slightly different circumstances).
This is a developing area of law, and one which is worth watching closely.
About the Blogger
Proudly supported by
