YOUR STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Don D

Living in perhaps the only state that does not have a State Labor Department, I would like to hear from all of you who do have one. Please list one or two of the strangest policies yours has adopted. Or maybe something that really grates on the nerves of business or Human Resources Departments in your state. Or, if applicable, what ridiculous redundant law have they passed that mirrors or simply makes worse a federal law that already existed. Or tell us something they have force-fed you that you wish you could do away with. Thanks, Don D., The Holdout State.

Rockie

Hey Don: The weirdest thing I have heard about our DOL in South Carolina is they have caller ID on their phone system so you can't ask just a simple anonymous question without maybe triggering something in your own organization for them to investigate. Guess they don't have enough work to do, huh?

Cheryl S SPHR

Hmmmm, as a former HR Manager for our State DOL (in a previous life), I find them to be a valuable resource. Also, living in SD, I find them to be quite employer-friendly. So, I have no horror stories to share (sad, but true!)

Parabeagle

I agree with Cheryl. Our Bureau of Labor and Industries in Oregon is refreshingly employer-oriented, so I have no complaints. However, don't get me started about Washington State!!!

Don D

I would like to have the stories no matter where you got the information. We're not talking here about managing an Employment Security Commission office or claims office. I did that too. I'm trying to get information about the formal umbrella DOL that most if not all the other states have, which oversee multiple agencies, programs and funding mechanisms. Please post whatever you can.

Gillian

With current responsibilies in Ca. and past in lots of different states, I have found them to be reasonable people who are enforcing the law the way it is written. From my experience they are merely asking for our side of the story so that they can make decisions with a knowledge of all of the facts. I did have an interesting encounter a couple of years ago. It was a hearing involving a labor code which prohibits an employer from giving information to another employer with the intent of harming a persons chance at getting another job. The former employee in question didn't show, but the hearings officer took advantage of the audience (the department head and me) to tell us that the employer community is hurting itself by not giving reference information about former employees (so long as it is truthful) and that the employer community is not taking advantage of laws that have been passed to protect the employer, so long as the reference information is truthful of course.

Hunter1

Gillian's post reminded me of a strange decision I got in a work comp case a few years back: Employee injured his knee and applied for short term disability benefits, describing how the injury happened at home. Dr agreed, employee drew STD. Later, employee decided it was work related, but forgot he had applied for STD. We went to hearing, and confronted employee with STD benefit application, whereupon, he clammed up and refused to answer any more questions, regardless of advice from the hearing examiner and his own atty. Employee's attorney asks for a recess and takes employee and ee's wife out into the hall, comes back 5 minutes later and has wife testify to falsifying STD application (insurance fraud). We were dumbfounded, but hearing examiner determines that wife's story is believable and grants WC benefits with offset for disability benefits received!
One of our challenges in WI, although this isn't necessarily the fault of our Department of Workforce Development, is with reconciling our state family leave law with the federal. Different qualifying requirements, varying amounts of leave, etc, but the worst part is the 'substitution' provision of our law which allows employees to substitute any accrued paid time for unpaid family leave. With sick time and other benefits available, especially in the public sector, none of our family leave time is unpaid, and employees tend to take advantage of paid time off for anything that resembles a family medical situation (yes, we do require certification).

Michel from down south

Don D,

I thought you would find this of interest in regards to "quirky" state laws. Here in LA, we have the LA Pregnancy Law which basically requires the employer to grant leave for a reasonable period of time, provided such period of time shall not exceed four months. The catch here is that leave still must be medically necessary and we can still require medical certification. However, you do know that quite a few employees seem to take advantage of this law. Also, under this state law, there is no waiting period; meaning leave must be granted even if the employee has only worked for our organization one day!

Michel from down South

E Wart

The majority of state Labor Dept's I deal with are are reputable and at least try to do a good job. (In fact, I have served on a Employers' Committee with the Labor Dept and learned a lot and made a lot of friends.) As always, CA is a trip to work with. But, during the last year or so, we have an interesting experience with TX. We dismissed and employee for insubordination, refusing to do a reasonable supervisor's request. This was a pattern, and we had write ups and disciplinary action for the same offense during the last year and a half. (If it had been me, I would have let him go the first time, but anyway...) The last time it happened he was warned that if it occurred again, he could be terminated. Well, he did it again and was. The Labor Dept. awarded him benefits because he said one thing (which was totally untrue and had no back up to prove it) and we another. Since there was no witness at the final occurrence (but was at some of the others), they took his word for it, even though we had the 1 1/2 years of supporting disciplinary documents. We appealed up 3 times and finally won. However, I felt like asking the Labor Dept.what we were supposed to do... when he was insubordinate, run get another person and ask the insubordinate employee to repeat his actions so we have a witness?