<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>PC Blog &#187; Federal Labor Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/category/federal-labor-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com</link>
	<description>A Look at Trends and Happenings in Labor Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:42:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>DOL to Revisit Its Plan to Redefine Parental Exemption for Family Farms</title>
		<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2012/02/dol-revisit-plan-redefine-parental-exemption-family-farms/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2012/02/dol-revisit-plan-redefine-parental-exemption-family-farms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:52:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary McCarty</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Labor Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/?p=1501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since 1966, family farms enjoyed a broad &#34;parental exemption&#34; so their children could work in the fields, but this past Sept. 2 the Department of Labor (DOL), seeking to redefine that parental exemption, drew a firestorm of criticism from owners of family farms and agricultural associations when its new definition was viewed as too restrictive. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since 1966, family farms enjoyed a broad &quot;parental exemption&quot; so their children could work in the fields, but this past Sept. 2 the Department of Labor (DOL), seeking to redefine that parental exemption, drew a firestorm of criticism from owners of family farms and agricultural associations when its new definition was viewed as too restrictive.</p>
<p>The parental exemption allows children of any age who are employed by their parent, or a person standing in the place of a parent, to perform any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or such person standing in the place of a parent. Congress created the parental exemption in 1966 when it expanded protections for children employed in agriculture and prohibited their employment in jobs the Department of Labor declared particularly hazardous for children under the age of 16 to perform.</p>
<p>The DOL&#39;s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) was driven to update its 40-year-old child labor regulations by studies showing that children are significantly more likely to be killed while performing agricultural work than while working in all other industries combined. The department&#39;s child labor in agriculture statutory authority extends only to children employed in agriculture who are 15 years of age or younger.</p>
<p>As a result of the public commentary it received about the proposed new defintion, however, the DOL announced this past week that it would come up with a revised definition by early summer, at which time it would solicit still further public commentary.</p>
<p>A group of 72 agricultural associations was at the forefront of those groups challenging the new definition, saying it &ldquo;would significantly curtail the employment opportunities available to youth working in U.S. agriculture&hellip;.&rdquo;</p>
<p>NOTE: The details in this blog are provided for informational purposes only. All answers are general in nature and do not constitute legal advice. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. The author specifically disclaims any and all liability arising directly or indirectly from the reliance on or use of this blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2012/02/dol-revisit-plan-redefine-parental-exemption-family-farms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOL Proposal Expands Eligibility of FMLA Leave for Military, Airline Flight Crews</title>
		<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2012/01/dol-proposal-expands-eligibility-fmla-leave-military-airline-flight-crews/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2012/01/dol-proposal-expands-eligibility-fmla-leave-military-airline-flight-crews/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:25:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary McCarty</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Labor Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/?p=1498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued proposed new rules regarding the eligibility of military family members and airline flight crews under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The proposed language would extend the entitlement of military caregiver leave to family members of veterans for up to five years after leaving the military. At [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued proposed new rules regarding the eligibility of military family members and airline flight crews under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).</p>
<p>The proposed language would extend the entitlement of military caregiver leave to family members of veterans for up to five years after leaving the military. At this time, the law covers only family members of &quot;currently serving&quot; service members. Additionally, the proposal expands the military family leave provisions of the FMLA by extending qualifying exigency leave to employees whose family members serve in the regular armed forces. Currently, the law only covers families of National Guard members and reservists.</p>
<p>For airline flight crew employees, the proposed revision makes the benefits of the FMLA more accessible. It would add a special hours of service eligibility requirement for them and specific provisions for calculating the amount of FMLA leave used that better take into account the unique &mdash; and often difficult-to-track &mdash; hours worked by crew members.</p>
<p>NOTE: The details in this blog are provided for informational purposes only. All answers are general in nature and do not constitute legal advice. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. The author specifically disclaims any and all liability arising directly or indirectly from the reliance on or use of this blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2012/01/dol-proposal-expands-eligibility-fmla-leave-military-airline-flight-crews/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Veterans Employment Law Adds Harassment Protection to USERRA</title>
		<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/veterans-employment-law-adds-harassment-protection-userra/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/veterans-employment-law-adds-harassment-protection-userra/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary McCarty</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Labor Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/?p=1453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As part of the Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act signed Nov. 21 by President Obama, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA) has been amended to provide protection against harassment for service members in their civilian jobs. Prior to VOW, courts had found it unclear if USERRA offered harassment (hostile work environment) protection [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As part of the Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act signed Nov. 21 by President Obama, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA) has been amended to provide protection against harassment for service members in their civilian jobs.</p>
<p>Prior to VOW, courts had found it unclear if USERRA offered harassment (hostile work environment) protection to service members as a protected class. Now this has been clarified and amended by VOW.</p>
<p>All employers must notify past, present, and future members of the uniformed services in writing about their rights and obligations under USERRA. Get your copy of Personnel Concepts&#39; <a href="https://www.personnelconcepts.com/labor-law-posters/userra-compliance-program/">USERRA Military Leave Compliance Program</a> today and display the USERRA Rights poster that comes with it as a first step in compliance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/veterans-employment-law-adds-harassment-protection-userra/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOL Funding Up, but Actually Down from Last Year&#8211;Restrictions Apply</title>
		<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/dol-funding-up-year-restrictions-apply/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/dol-funding-up-year-restrictions-apply/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:04:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary McCarty</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Labor Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NLRB]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/?p=1459</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The House and Senate have both passed a fiscal 2012, $14.5-billion appropriations bill for the Department of Labor (DOL) that represents $145.4 million in additional funding. Since those additional funds derive solely from a provision to fully finance the Job Corps, however, the DOL is actually receiving $545.6 million less than fiscal 2011 and $942.2 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The House and Senate have both passed a fiscal 2012, $14.5-billion appropriations bill for the Department of Labor (DOL) that represents $145.4 million in additional funding.</p>
<p>Since those additional funds derive solely from a provision to fully finance the Job Corps, however, the DOL is actually receiving $545.6 million less than fiscal 2011 and $942.2 million less than requested by the White House.</p>
<p>The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is being funded at $278 million, $4 million less than fiscal 2011 and $8.9 million below the president&#39;s request.</p>
<p>The appropriations bill also comes with a few restrictive provisions that are aimed at preventing implementation of certain initiatives. Among the initiatives being barred by the appropriations bill are an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposal to add a musculoskeletal reporting column to the yearly Log 300 injury and illness report; an NLRB proposal to allow electronic or off-site voting in union organizing elections; and an Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) proposal to redefine &quot;fiduciary&quot; for the purposes of offering investment advice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/dol-funding-up-year-restrictions-apply/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOL Issues NPRM on Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay for Home Health Care Workers</title>
		<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/dol-issues-nprm-minimum-wage-overtime-pay-home-health-care-workers/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/dol-issues-nprm-minimum-wage-overtime-pay-home-health-care-workers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary McCarty</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Labor Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/?p=1457</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A 1974 ruling by the Department of Labor (DOL) grouped adult home health care workers with teenage babysitters as &#34;companions&#34; not entitled to the wage protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In 2007, the Supreme Court upheld that interpretation, saying it was up to Congress or the DOL to change the interpretation. Yesterday [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A 1974 ruling by the Department of Labor (DOL) grouped adult home health care workers with teenage babysitters as &quot;companions&quot; not entitled to the wage protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In 2007, the Supreme Court upheld that interpretation, saying it was up to Congress or the DOL to change the interpretation.</p>
<p>Yesterday (Dec. 15, 2011), the DOL did just that with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will fold home health care workers (but not babysitters) into the wage-and-hour protections of the FLSA. There will be a 60-day public commentary period before the department moves to finalize and publish the rule.</p>
<p>Currently, there are 1.9 million home health care workers in the United States, of whom 1.59 million work for staffing agencies.</p>
<p>Joining in on the announcement, President Obama noted,&ldquo;Today&rsquo;s action will ensure that these men and women get paid fairly for a service that a growing number of older Americans couldn&rsquo;t live without.&rdquo;</p>
<p>To understand all the requirements and regulations of the FLSA, please procure a copy of Personnel Concepts&#39; informative but easy-to-use <a href="http://www.personnelconcepts.com/human-resource-tools/flsa-program/"><strong>FLSA Compliance Program</strong></a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/dol-issues-nprm-minimum-wage-overtime-pay-home-health-care-workers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OFCCP Publishes Final Rule on Affirmative Action for Contractors</title>
		<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/ofccp-publishes-final-rule-affirmative-action-contractors/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/ofccp-publishes-final-rule-affirmative-action-contractors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary McCarty</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Labor Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/?p=1450</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is publishing a final rule today on its long-awaited regulations regarding affirmative action for the disabled by federal contractors and subcontractors. Specifically, the rule being published in the Federal Register updates and strengthens the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that require federal contractors and subcontractors [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is publishing a final rule today on its long-awaited regulations regarding affirmative action for the disabled by federal contractors and subcontractors. Specifically, the rule being published in the <em>Federal Register</em> updates and strengthens the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that require federal contractors and subcontractors to affirmatively consider for hiring and promotion qualified disabled individuals.</p>
<p>The proposed regulations aim to describe specific actions the employers must take to achieve affirmative hiring and promoting, increase the contractor&#39;s data collection obligations, and establish specific utilization benchmarks to help measure the effectiveness of the contractor&#39;s affirmative actions.</p>
<p>If you&#39;re a federal contractor or subcontractor, you should obtain a copy of Personnel Concepts&#39; <a href="http://208.69.127.5/personnelconcepts/public/workplace-policy-programs/federal-contracts-poster/">All-On-One Federal Contracts Poster</a> and display it prominently. The poster will communicate &nbsp;your commitment to affirmative action in all your employment practices.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/ofccp-publishes-final-rule-affirmative-action-contractors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EEOC Letter Suggests Requiring a HS Diploma for a Job May Be Discriminatory</title>
		<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/eeoc-letter-suggests-requiring-hs-diploma-job-discriminatory/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/eeoc-letter-suggests-requiring-hs-diploma-job-discriminatory/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:46:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary McCarty</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Labor Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/?p=1449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Businesses often and routinely require job applicants to possess a high school diploma for certain positions, but a Dec. 2 opinion letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicates that this requirement may be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The reasoning behind this, according to the author, EEOC attorney-advisor Aaron [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Businesses often and routinely require job applicants to possess a high school diploma for certain positions, but a Dec. 2 opinion letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicates that this requirement may be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).</p>
<p>The reasoning behind this, according to the author, EEOC attorney-advisor Aaron Konopasky, is that some individuals are unable to obtain high school diplomas because of learning disabilities.</p>
<p>The author opines:&nbsp;&ldquo;Even if the diploma requirement is job-related and consistent with business necessity, the employer may still have to determine whether a particular applicant whose learning disability prevents him from meeting it can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Though such informal letters do not carry the weight of &nbsp;law, this one could indicate that the EEOC is moving in the direction of saying that requiring a high school diploma could have a disparate impact on a certain class of individuals.</p>
<p>Employers and HR professionals should avail themselves of Personnel Concepts <a href="https://www.personnelconcepts.com/harassment-discrimination/eeo-compliance-program/"><strong>EEO Compliance Program</strong></a> to ensure they&#39;re observing all job applicants&#39; and employees&#39; rights under federal law. Get yours today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/12/eeoc-letter-suggests-requiring-hs-diploma-job-discriminatory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court to Decide Issue of Pharma Reps&#8217; Overtime Status</title>
		<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/11/supreme-court-decide-issue-pharma-reps-overtime-status/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/11/supreme-court-decide-issue-pharma-reps-overtime-status/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:48:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary McCarty</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Labor Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minimum Wage Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/?p=1441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal appeals courts have ruled differently on the issue of whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are or are not exempt from the overtime pay provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), so today the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue. The case in question is Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. Christopher and other [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Federal appeals courts have ruled differently on the issue of whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are or are not exempt from the overtime pay provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), so today the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue.</p>
<p>The case in question is <em>Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp</em>. Christopher and other such plaintiffs argue that their positions do not entail sales but merely the representation of the pharmaceutical companies in a function similar to public relations. Thus they are due overtime pay as non-exempt employees and are not exempt from FLSA time-and-a-half provisions as outside sales representatives.</p>
<p>An interconnected issue is whether the courts are obliged to follow interpretations of the FLSA by the Department of Labor (DOL). Before 2009, the DOL maintained that pharmaceutical representatives do indeed fall under the FLSA&#39;s definition of outside sales representatives, who are exempt employees and not subject to federal overtime rules, but the department shifted its position when the Obama administration was sworn in.</p>
<p>As for deferring to the DOL&#39;s interpretation, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it had no such obligation while the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court did so defer.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Now it is in the Supreme Court&#39;s hands to rule on who or what rules.</p>
<p>To help employers and human resource professionals to better and more correctly classify employees as exempt and non-exempt, Personnel Concepts has developed a comprehensive <a href="http://www.personnelconcepts.com/5776/6/"><strong>FLSA Compliance Program</strong></a>. Get yours today and protect yourself against charges of past-due overtime pay and other FLSA-related issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/11/supreme-court-decide-issue-pharma-reps-overtime-status/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Veterans Job Bill Passes Congress, Obama to Sign Soon</title>
		<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/11/veterans-job-bill-passes-congress-obama-sign/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/11/veterans-job-bill-passes-congress-obama-sign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:19:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary McCarty</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Labor Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/?p=1435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The VOW to Hire Heroes Act has &#160;passed the House unanimously after the Senate earlier amended it. President Obama intends to sign it soon. Originally part of the failed American Jobs Act, the bill establishes tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed veterans and was included as an amendment to tax legislation that passed earlier [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The VOW to Hire Heroes Act has &nbsp;passed the House unanimously after the Senate earlier amended it. President Obama intends to sign it soon.</p>
<p>Originally part of the failed American Jobs Act, the bill establishes tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed veterans and was included as an amendment to tax legislation that passed earlier this fall.</p>
<p>The measure provides up to a $5,600 tax credit for employers that hire veterans who have been unemployed for six months or more. For veterans unemployed for at least four weeks but for less than six months, the credit is $2,400. The bill also increases the amount under the Wounded Warriors Tax Credit to $9,600 for employers who hire veterans with service-related disabilities who have been unemployed for six months or longer.</p>
<p>Employers should also be cognizant of servicemembers&#39; rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which guarantees job protection and reinstatement rights to employees who are called to active duty. Toward this end, Personnel Concepts recommends acquiring a copy of our <a href="http://www.personnelconcepts.com/labor-law-posters/userra-compliance-program/"><strong>USERRA Leave Rights Compliance Program</strong></a> and putting it into effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/11/veterans-job-bill-passes-congress-obama-sign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOL Extends Commentary Period on New Child Labor Regulations</title>
		<link>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/11/dol-extends-commentary-period-child-labor-regulations/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/11/dol-extends-commentary-period-child-labor-regulations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 11:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gary McCarty</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[DOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Labor Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/?p=1422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The public commentary period on new child labor regulations for youths working on and around farms proposed by the Department of Labor (DOL) in early September has been extended a full month to Dec. 1, 2011. The extension was granted by the Obama administration after U.S. Sens. Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts of Kansas and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The public commentary period on new child labor regulations for youths working on and around farms proposed by the Department of Labor (DOL) in early September has been extended a full month to Dec. 1, 2011.</p>
<p>The extension was granted by the Obama administration after U.S. Sens. Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts of Kansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, along with others, asked the administration to extend the comment period.</p>
<p>Language in the proposed regulation would further limit the places, times and activities where children can work on and around farming operations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which first placed restrictions on child labor and continues to be the basis for such regulations.</p>
<p>To help employers stay in full compliance with the FLSA, Personnel Concepts has developed a <a href="http://www.personnelconcepts.com/5776/6/">FLSA Compliance Kit</a>, which comes with both printed manual and CD-ROM versions. Get yours today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.personnelconcepts.com/2011/11/dol-extends-commentary-period-child-labor-regulations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

