Are there are any “predictive scheduling” requirements under California law? Can California employers change schedules for employees without notice? These are some of the questions I’ve dealt with lately about scheduling requirements in California. This Friday’s Five reviews five issues California employers should understand about regulations pertaining to setting and changing schedules under California law:
Are there are any “predictive scheduling” requirements under California law? Can California employers change schedules for employees without notice? These are some of the questions I’ve dealt with lately about scheduling requirements in California. This Friday’s Five reviews five issues California employers should understand about regulations pertaining to setting and changing schedules under California law:
With the fires effecting large portions of Southern California and Los Angeles this week, it is a good time to review some of the obligations employers have in regards to pay and leave issues during times of natural disasters. The picture above is one I took showing the smoke covering the northern part of
California employers cannot forget about detailed employment provisions such as reporting time pay. Given the natural disasters facing California recently, I was interviewed on public radio about employer’s obligations during times of emergencies and natural disasters. So I thought this Friday’s Five would be a good reminder about when employers need to pay reporting time
Califo
rnia employers cannot forget about detailed employment provisions such as reporting time pay. This Friday’s Five provide a list of five things California employers should understand about reporting time pay:
1. What is reporting time pay?
California law requires an employer to pay “reporting time pay” under the applicable Wage Order. This requires that
Employees of AirTouch who worked for the cellular provider filed a putative class action alleging that the AirTouch employees were entitled to additional wages under California’s “reporting time pay” requirements. The plaintiffs alleged that they were owed reporting time pay for days on which they were required to attend store meetings, which lasted only a