3.90 score from hupso.pl for:
calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com



HTML Content


Titlecalifornia public agency labor & employment blog | liebert cassidy whitmore

Length: 79, Words: 10
Description this law blog provides news & commentary on developments in public agency management, labor relations and employment law in california. topics include workplace policies, disability and discrimination in the workplace.

Length: 222, Words: 30
Keywords pusty
Robots noodp
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 8134
Text/HTML 38.98 %
Headings H1 11
H2 1
H3 10
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
california public agency labor & employment blog
“i don’t feel so good” – protecting employees from illness in the workplace during cold and flu season
tips from the table: developing your influencing skills
six statutes for the new year
california’s fair pay protections for employees expand in the new year
california supreme court decides landmark case on mandated rest breaks
update: calpers lowers discount rate, employer contributions to increase
calpers poised to lower discount rate again, increase employer contributions
california’s new minimum wage takes effect on january 1, 2017 – are you ready?
holidays and the workplace: be merry or bah humbug
texas judge orders nationwide halt of the dol’s new overtime rule
H2
useful information for navigating legal challenges
H3
about this blog
stay connected
subscribe to this blog by email
topics
archives
david urban
melanie chaney
lisa s. charbonneau
paul d. knothe
stefanie k. vaudreuil
H4
H5
H6
strong
can i send a visibly sick employee home from work?
am i required to send a sick employee home?
i have a number of employees out with the flu.  are they entitled to fmla/cfra leave?
what else can i do to keep my employees healthy during cold and flu season?
seeing green in twenty-seventeen: minimum wage increases for california employees
stick to the basics! state employers cannot exceed federal law requirements to verify employment eligibility.
voting “no” on sexual harassment: elected officials to receive training to prevent sexual harassment
public records act request? visit us online! – public agencies can now direct individuals to website information responsive to a public records act request
gender-neutral relief! law requires equal access to single occupancy restrooms.
mind the wage-gap: prior salary cannot be used to justify a disparity in compensation
only
this blog post was authored by jeffrey c. freedman.
this post was authored by danny y. yoo
does this new california minimum wage apply to your public agency?
what should our agency do about it?
hours per week
weekly minimum
monthly minimum
yearly minimum
will the dol regulations regarding the threshold salary for exempt employees affect compliance with the california minimum wage?
does this apply to independent contractors or interns? 
religious holiday accommodations
workplace and workspace decorations
holiday gift exchanges
holiday parties
background – the judicial challenge
the november 22, 2016 decision
dol response
what should be done now?
b
can i send a visibly sick employee home from work?
am i required to send a sick employee home?
i have a number of employees out with the flu.  are they entitled to fmla/cfra leave?
what else can i do to keep my employees healthy during cold and flu season?
seeing green in twenty-seventeen: minimum wage increases for california employees
stick to the basics! state employers cannot exceed federal law requirements to verify employment eligibility.
voting “no” on sexual harassment: elected officials to receive training to prevent sexual harassment
public records act request? visit us online! – public agencies can now direct individuals to website information responsive to a public records act request
gender-neutral relief! law requires equal access to single occupancy restrooms.
mind the wage-gap: prior salary cannot be used to justify a disparity in compensation
only
this blog post was authored by jeffrey c. freedman.
this post was authored by danny y. yoo
does this new california minimum wage apply to your public agency?
what should our agency do about it?
hours per week
weekly minimum
monthly minimum
yearly minimum
will the dol regulations regarding the threshold salary for exempt employees affect compliance with the california minimum wage?
does this apply to independent contractors or interns? 
religious holiday accommodations
workplace and workspace decorations
holiday gift exchanges
holiday parties
background – the judicial challenge
the november 22, 2016 decision
dol response
what should be done now?
i
can i send a visibly sick employee home from work?
am i required to send a sick employee home?
i have a number of employees out with the flu.  are they entitled to fmla/cfra leave?
what else can i do to keep my employees healthy during cold and flu season?
seeing green in twenty-seventeen: minimum wage increases for california employees
stick to the basics! state employers cannot exceed federal law requirements to verify employment eligibility.
voting “no” on sexual harassment: elected officials to receive training to prevent sexual harassment
public records act request? visit us online! – public agencies can now direct individuals to website information responsive to a public records act request
gender-neutral relief! law requires equal access to single occupancy restrooms.
mind the wage-gap: prior salary cannot be used to justify a disparity in compensation
only
this blog post was authored by jeffrey c. freedman.
this post was authored by danny y. yoo
does this new california minimum wage apply to your public agency?
what should our agency do about it?
hours per week
weekly minimum
monthly minimum
yearly minimum
will the dol regulations regarding the threshold salary for exempt employees affect compliance with the california minimum wage?
does this apply to independent contractors or interns? 
religious holiday accommodations
workplace and workspace decorations
holiday gift exchanges
holiday parties
background – the judicial challenge
the november 22, 2016 decision
dol response
what should be done now?
em can i send a visibly sick employee home from work?
am i required to send a sick employee home?
i have a number of employees out with the flu.  are they entitled to fmla/cfra leave?
what else can i do to keep my employees healthy during cold and flu season?
seeing green in twenty-seventeen: minimum wage increases for california employees
stick to the basics! state employers cannot exceed federal law requirements to verify employment eligibility.
voting “no” on sexual harassment: elected officials to receive training to prevent sexual harassment
public records act request? visit us online! – public agencies can now direct individuals to website information responsive to a public records act request
gender-neutral relief! law requires equal access to single occupancy restrooms.
mind the wage-gap: prior salary cannot be used to justify a disparity in compensation
only
this blog post was authored by jeffrey c. freedman.
this post was authored by danny y. yoo
does this new california minimum wage apply to your public agency?
what should our agency do about it?
hours per week
weekly minimum
monthly minimum
yearly minimum
will the dol regulations regarding the threshold salary for exempt employees affect compliance with the california minimum wage?
does this apply to independent contractors or interns? 
religious holiday accommodations
workplace and workspace decorations
holiday gift exchanges
holiday parties
background – the judicial challenge
the november 22, 2016 decision
dol response
what should be done now?
Bolds strong 29
b 29
i 29
em 29
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title exist
twitter:description exist
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 19
Pliki CSS 5
Pliki javascript 14
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 234
Linki wewnętrzne 7
Linki zewnętrzne 227
Linki bez atrybutu Title 211
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

home /
more /services/
more... /author/durban/
more... /author/mchaney/
more... /author/lcharbonneau/
more... /author/pknothe/
more... /author/svaudreuil/

Linki zewnętrzne

california public agency labor & employment blog http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/
about http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/about/
services http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/services/
resources http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/resources/
contact http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/contact/
published by liebert cassidy whitmore http://www.lcwlegal.com/
“i don’t feel so good” – protecting employees from illness in the workplace during cold and flu season http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/i-dont-feel-so-good-protecting-employees-from-illness-in-the-workplace-during-cold-and-flu-season/
megan lewis https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/megan-lewis
employment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/employment/
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/i-dont-feel-so-good-protecting-employees-from-illness-in-the-workplace-during-cold-and-flu-season/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/i-dont-feel-so-good-protecting-employees-from-illness-in-the-workplace-during-cold-and-flu-season/#respond
cfra, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/cfra/
flu, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/flu/
fmla, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/fmla/
illness, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/illness/
sick employee, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/sick-employee/
sick leave http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/sick-leave/
tips from the table: developing your influencing skills http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/labor-relations/tips-from-the-table-developing-your-influencing-skills/
labor relations, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/labor-relations/
negotiations http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/negotiations/
tips from the table http://lcwlegal.com/tips-from-the-table
labor relations and negotiations services http://www.lcwlegal.com/labor-relations-and-negotiation-services
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/labor-relations/tips-from-the-table-developing-your-influencing-skills/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/labor-relations/tips-from-the-table-developing-your-influencing-skills/#respond
labor relations, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/labor-relations/
negotiations, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/negotiations/
tips from the table http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/tips-from-the-table/
six statutes for the new year http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/six-statutes-for-the-new-year/
erin kunze https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/erin-kunze
employment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/employment/
legislative roundup https://www.lcwlegal.com/news?roundups=1
legislative roundup https://www.lcwlegal.com/news?roundups=1
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/six-statutes-for-the-new-year/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/six-statutes-for-the-new-year/#respond
"minimum wage", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/minimum-wage/
"public records act", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/public-records-act/
"sexual harassment", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/sexual-harassment/
elected officials, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/elected-officials/
employment eligibility, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/employment-eligibility/
gender, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/gender/
wage-gap http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/wage-gap/
california’s fair pay protections for employees expand in the new year http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/californias-fair-pay-protections-for-employees-expand-in-the-new-year/
paul d. knothe https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/paul-knothe
wage and hour http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/wage-and-hour-2/
as a previous blog post explained http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/workplace-policies/employers-prepare-for-the-wave-of-unequal-pay-litigation/
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/californias-fair-pay-protections-for-employees-expand-in-the-new-year/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/californias-fair-pay-protections-for-employees-expand-in-the-new-year/#respond
california fair pay act, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/california-fair-pay-act/
equal pay, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/equal-pay/
feha, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/feha/
wage and equality act of 2016 http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/wage-and-equality-act-of-2016/
california supreme court decides landmark case on mandated rest breaks http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/california-supreme-court-decides-landmark-case-on-mandated-rest-breaks/
guest author http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/author/lcwguestauthor/
employment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/employment/
jeffrey c. freedman https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/jeffrey-freedman
augustus v. abm security services http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/s224853.pdf
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/california-supreme-court-decides-landmark-case-on-mandated-rest-breaks/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/california-supreme-court-decides-landmark-case-on-mandated-rest-breaks/#respond
"california supreme court", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/california-supreme-court/
"wage and hour", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/wage-and-hour/
meal break, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/meal-break/
meal period, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/meal-period/
rest break, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/rest-break/
rest period http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/rest-period/
update: calpers lowers discount rate, employer contributions to increase http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/update-calpers-lowers-discount-rate-employer-contributions-to-increase/
frances rogers https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/frances-rogers
retirement http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/retirement/
we reported http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/calpers-poised-to-lower-discount-rate-again-increase-employer-contributions/
7.75% to 7.5% http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/calpers-approves-lowering-the-discount-rate-to-75-calpers-employers-will-be-paying-higher-contributi/
study https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/about/board/board-meetings/financeadmin-201611
surveyed https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/board-agendas/201611/financeadmin/item-7a-03.pdf
calpers board of administration https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/about/board/board-meetings/financeadmin-201612
indicated https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/board-agendas/201612/financeadmin/item-09-00.pdf
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/update-calpers-lowers-discount-rate-employer-contributions-to-increase/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/update-calpers-lowers-discount-rate-employer-contributions-to-increase/#respond
"discount rate", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/discount-rate/
budgets, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/budgets/
calpers, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/calpers/
employer contribution, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/employer-contribution/
retirement http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/retirement/
calpers poised to lower discount rate again, increase employer contributions http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/calpers-poised-to-lower-discount-rate-again-increase-employer-contributions/
frances rogers https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/frances-rogers
retirement http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/retirement/
7.75% to 7.5% http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/calpers-approves-lowering-the-discount-rate-to-75-calpers-employers-will-be-paying-higher-contributi/
study https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/about/board/board-meetings/financeadmin-201611
surveyed https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/board-agendas/201611/financeadmin/item-7a-03.pdf
calpers board of administration https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/about/board/board-meetings/financeadmin-201612
agenda report https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/board-agendas/201612/financeadmin/item-09-00.pdf
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/calpers-poised-to-lower-discount-rate-again-increase-employer-contributions/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/calpers-poised-to-lower-discount-rate-again-increase-employer-contributions/#respond
"discount rate", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/discount-rate/
budgets, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/budgets/
calpers, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/calpers/
employer contribution, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/employer-contribution/
retirement http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/retirement/
california’s new minimum wage takes effect on january 1, 2017 – are you ready? http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/californias-new-minimum-wage-takes-effect-on-january-1-2017-are-you-ready/
wage & hour blogger http://www.lcwlegal.com/wage-and-hour
wage and hour http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/wage-and-hour-2/
danny y. yoo http://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/danny-yoo
here http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/flsa/the-ninth-circuit-holds-that-cash-payments-made-to-employees-in-lieu-of-health-benefits-must-be-included-in-the-regular-rate-for-overtime-purposes-under-the-flsa/
here http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/ninth-circuit-denies-en-banc-review-of-flores-v-city-of-san-gabriel-a-landmark-case-on-flsa-regular-rate-and-health-benefits-plans-remains-the-law-are-you-really-ready-now/
the regulations http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/flsa/the-anticipation-and-wait-is-over-the-new-flsa-salary-basis-test-regulations-are-here/
the injunction http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/texas-judge-orders-nationwide-halt-of-the-dols-new-overtime-rule/
senate bill 3 http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/californias-new-schedule-for-minimum-wage-increases-what-it-means-for-public-vs-private-employers/
labor code section 1182.12 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billnavclient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160sb3
$11.10 per hour http://santaclaraca.gov/government/departments/city-manager/minimum-wage-ordinance
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/californias-new-minimum-wage-takes-effect-on-january-1-2017-are-you-ready/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/californias-new-minimum-wage-takes-effect-on-january-1-2017-are-you-ready/#respond
holidays and the workplace: be merry or bah humbug http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/holidays-and-the-workplace-be-merry-or-bah-humbug-2016/
elizabeth arce https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/elizabeth-arce
employment, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/employment/
workplace policies http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/workplace-policies/
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/holidays-and-the-workplace-be-merry-or-bah-humbug-2016/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/holidays-and-the-workplace-be-merry-or-bah-humbug-2016/#respond
"religious accommodation", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/religious-accommodation/
gift exchanges, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/gift-exchanges/
holidays, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/holidays/
office decorations, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/office-decorations/
party http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/party/
texas judge orders nationwide halt of the dol’s new overtime rule http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/texas-judge-orders-nationwide-halt-of-the-dols-new-overtime-rule/
lisa s. charbonneau https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/lisa-charbonneau
wage and hour http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/wage-and-hour-2/
prior blog posts https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/the-new-flsa-salary-basis-test-regulations-are-here-everything-california-public-education-employers-need-to-know
garcia v. san antonio metro. transit authority http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/the-federal-legislative-power/garcia-v-san-antonio-metropolitan-transit-authority/
available here https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/overtime_-_pi_grant_(11-22-16).pdf?cachebuster%3a93=&utm_content=&utm_name=&utm_term=
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/texas-judge-orders-nationwide-halt-of-the-dols-new-overtime-rule/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/texas-judge-orders-nationwide-halt-of-the-dols-new-overtime-rule/#respond
dol, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/dol/
duties test, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/duties-test/
final rule, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/final-rule/
flsa, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/flsa/
overtime http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/overtime/
older posts http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/page/2/
subscribe to this blog via rss http://feeds.lexblog.com/californiapublicagencylaborandemploymentblog
view our linkedin profile http://www.linkedin.com/company/liebert-cassidy-whitmore
follow us on twitter http://www.twitter.com/lcwlegal
appeals http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/appeals/
bankruptcy http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/bankruptcy/
brown act http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/brown-act-2/
cfra http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/cfra/
class/collective action http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/classcollective-action/
conferences http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/conferences/
constitutional rights http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/constitutional-rights/
disability http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/disability/
discrimination http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/discrimination/
e-discovery http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/e-discovery/
education http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/education/
employment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/employment/
ethics http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/ethics/
first amendment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/first-amendment/
flsa http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/flsa/
fmla http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/fmla/
harassment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/harassment/
healthcare http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/healthcare/
hiring http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/hiring/
labor relations http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/labor-relations/
layoffs http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/layoffs/
lcw seminars http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/lcw-seminars/
legislation http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/legislation/
lessons learned http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/lessons-learned/
liebert cassidy whitmore http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/liebert-cassidy-whitmore-2/
litigation http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/litigation/
military discrimination http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/military-discrimination/
military leave http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/military-leave/
negotiations http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/negotiations/
pension http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/pension/
perb http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/perb/
personnel issues http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/personnel-issues/
privacy http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/privacy/
public safety issues http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/public-safety-issues/
public sector http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/public-sector-2/
retaliation http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/retaliation/
retirement http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/retirement/
safety http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/safety/
social media http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/social-media/
tips from the table http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/tips-from-the-table/
travel time http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/travel-time/
uncategorized http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/uncategorized/
userra http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/userra/
wage and hour http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/wage-and-hour-2/
workplace policies http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/workplace-policies/
@lcwlegal http://www.twitter.com/lcwlegal
follow lcwlegal on twitter >> http://www.twitter.com/lcwlegal
liebert cassidy whitmore http://www.lcwlegal.com/
privacy policy http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/privacy-policy/
terms of use http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/terms-of-use/
strategy, design, marketing & support by lexblog http://lexblog.com

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 15
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 1
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 15
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/themes/b0001106-calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog/images/print-header.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/01/sick-human-4-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/01/2017-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/01/cash-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2016/08/istock_000020495039_large-300x200.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2016/12/retirement-sign-300x199.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2014/02/retirement_graphic.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2016/12/payday-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2016/12/happy-holidays-message-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2013/10/breaking-news1.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.wp.lexblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/3012.thumbnail.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.wp.lexblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/3051.thumbnail.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.ignite.lexblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/8713.thumbnail.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.ignite.lexblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/8342.thumbnail.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/themes/lxb-parent-theme-1.2/images/lexblog.png

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2016/08/istock_000020495039_large-300x200.jpg

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

california public agency labor & employment blog useful information for navigating legal challenges home about services resources contact published by liebert cassidy whitmore “i don’t feel so good” – protecting employees from illness in the workplace during cold and flu season by megan lewis on january 17, 2017 posted in employment the holiday season is behind us, but we are still in the thick of cold and flu season.  it seems like everyone you pass on the street or stand next to on the bus is sneezing, coughing, or blowing their nose.  with so many people sick, it’s not surprising that many people have also encountered the same sneezing and coughing from a colleague who is sick but came to work anyway. when sick employees come to work, it can have a significant and detrimental impact on the employer because the sick employee is likely to be less productive than normal and, more critically, he or she risks spreading the illness to other employees, thereby reducing their productivity and/or requiring them to miss work to recover. below are answers to common questions that employers must navigate, particularly during the winter months. can i send a visibly sick employee home from work? yes, an employer can require an employee to go home if the employee is showing signs of a contagious illness (such as sneezing, runny nose, coughing, and/or vomiting).  this applies even if the employee does not want to leave work.  employers should consider including in an employee handbook or relevant personnel policies or procedures language confirming the right to remove sick employees from the work environment. of course, particularly during cold and flu season when many employees may be exhibiting signs of lingering illness, employers will likely only choose to send employees home in extreme cases.  therefore, employers must ensure they are acting in a non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory manner in sending an employee home, and be consistent in what level of severity is required before the employer takes action. finally, where an employee has a more serious illness than a common cold or stomach bug, employers should confer with an attorney or their human resources department before sending the employee home, because such employees may have rights under, for example, the family medical leave act (“fmla”), the california family rights act (“cfra”), the americans with disabilities act (“ada”), and/or the california fair employment and housing act (“feha”). am i required to send a sick employee home? possibly, under certain circumstances.  under the california occupational safety and health act, employers are required to maintain safe and healthful working conditions for employees.  it is highly unlikely that exposure to a colleague with a cold or flu would violate this law, but it is possible that allowing an employee to be exposed to a more serious communicable disease by a allowing a sick employee to remain at work could be a violation. similarly, it is unlikely that a cold or flu contracted at work would be serious enough to be covered by workers’ compensation laws, but employees who contract more serious communicable diseases may be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits as a result. i have a number of employees out with the flu.  are they entitled to fmla/cfra leave? possibly.  if the flu constitutes a “serious health condition” under the fmla/cfra for a particular employee, he or she would be entitled to take fmla/cfra-protected leave (assuming all of the other prerequisite conditions were met).  the flu may be a “serious health condition” if: the employee is unable to work or perform other regular daily activities for three consecutive calendar days; and the employee requires treatment from a healthcare provider twice within 30 days and/or requires continuing treatment under the supervision of a health care provider. though the flu alone is unlikely to constitute a “serious health condition” for most employees, certain populations (i.e., people over the age of 65, pregnant women, people with compromised immune systems) are at a higher risk of experiencing complications that could become serious. what else can i do to keep my employees healthy during cold and flu season? it is critical that employees know that they are expected to utilize their sick leave when necessary, to go home if they fall ill at work, and to stay home when they are sick.  managers can encourage compliance with these expectations by setting a good example.  some employees may fear that taking sick leave will be construed as laziness or a lack of commitment to their duties.  seeing that managers take leave to recuperate when they are sick should help alleviate those fears.   conversely, if employees see that their managers come to work when they are sick, employees will believe that they are expected to do the same, regardless of the guidance they have been given. and when all else fails, turn to the wisdom that is repeated every year in effort to prevent illness from spreading:  get your flu shot, wash your hands often, and cover your mouth! tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: cfra, flu, fmla, illness, sick employee, sick leave tips from the table: developing your influencing skills by tips from the table on january 11, 2017 posted in labor relations, negotiations we are excited to continue our video series – tips from the table. in these monthly videos, members of lcw’s labor relations and negotiations services practice group will provide various tips that can be implemented at your bargaining tables. we hope that you will find these clips informative and helpful in your negotiations. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: labor relations, negotiations, tips from the table six statutes for the new year by erin kunze on january 10, 2017 posted in employment as 2017 kicks off, employers should be aware that a number of new state-wide laws and local ordinances begin taking effect.  in this blog, we highlight just a few that california’s public employers should now be implementing. seeing green in twenty-seventeen: minimum wage increases for california employees regardless of potential changes to federal wage and hour requirements in the wake of a new presidential administration, california employers are now required to follow the state’s new minimum wage.  as of january 1, 2017, the minimum wage for california employees increased to $10.50 per hour.  this new wage will apply to all california employers, including the state, political subdivisions of the state, and municipalities, with the following exceptions: employers with 25 or fewer employees. these employers will have until january 1, 2018, to raise wages to $10.50 per hour; when increase is temporarily delayed by the governor for certain specified economic or state budgetary reasons, as certified by the director of finance; and potentially counties and charter cities. legal authority provides strong arguments to counties and charter cities that they are not covered by state minimum wage. this is based on those agencies’ constitutional authority to set employee compensation.  (in some limited instances, a matter of statewide concern can potentially supersede a county’s or charter city’s ability to set compensation for its employees.) as reported in our 2016 legislative roundup, the state minimum wage will continue to increase every year, until it reaches $15.00 per hour.  after that, the state minimum wage will be adjusted annually based on a consumer pricing index. stick to the basics! state employers cannot exceed federal law requirements to verify employment eligibility. federal law requires employers to verify the employment eligibility of their employees through the use of a federal i-9 form.  as part of that process, employees are required to present documentation affirming their identity and employment authorization.  however, employees must only present either a document listed as acceptable under “list a” of the form, or by presenting one document from “list b” and one document from “list c.”  employees have the discretion to choose which combination of documents to provide. new state legislation, codified at labor code section 1019.1, prohibits california employers from requesting more or different immigration status documents than those required by federal law.  employers are also prohibited from refusing to honor documents that on their face reasonably appear to be genuine.  moreover, they cannot refuse to honor documents or work authorization based upon the specific status or term of status that accompanies the authorization to work.  for example, a person could be authorized to work, even temporarily, based on a pending application for asylum, student status, a familial relationship, or for many other reasons. under the law, employers cannot give preference to hiring a person because that person is authorized to work based on a familial relationship rather than a pending asylum application.  in short, if an employee is authorized to work, employers must consider the authorization sufficient. employers are also prohibited from attempting to reinvestigate or re-verify an incumbent employee’s authorization to work.  an employer who violates these new prohibitions may be assessed a $10,000 penalty – per violation – and may be liable for equitable relief (e.g. back pay). violating labor code section 1019.1 may additionally constitute, and/or support, claims of unlawful discrimination. voting “no” on sexual harassment: elected officials to receive training to prevent sexual harassment ab 1825, meet ab 1661.  when perpetrated by an appointed official, elected mayor, or local agency commissioner, sexual harassment is not only offensive and unwelcome, but often also results in humiliation and bad press for everyone involved, including the target/victims of the conduct.  moreover, when the member of a legislative body engages in sexually harassing conduct, such conduct appears “tolerated,” if not encouraged by the agency at large. effective january 1, 2017, all members of local agency legislative bodies and elected local agency officials (collectively referred to as “local agency officials”) must receive sexual harassment prevention and education training if the agency provides “any type of compensation, salary, or stipend” to any of its officials.  like agency supervisors subject to ab 1825, local agency officials are required to receive the training within the first six months of taking office and, at least, every two years thereafter.  even before local officials assume their new positions, agencies are required to provide them with written recommendations as to courses that will meet the training requirements. agencies must also retain records of the dates local officials satisfy training requirements and of the entity that provided the training.  they must keep such records for at least five years following the training.  these records will be subject to disclosure under the public records act. if your agency already requires appointed and elected officials to complete ab 1825 training (within six months of taking office and every two years thereafter), the agency should already be well on the way to compliance with ab 1661. public records act request? visit us online! – public agencies can now direct individuals to website information responsive to a public records act request effective january 1, 2017, public agencies are allowed to direct individuals who request public documents to such records posted on the agency’s website.  if the documents are not posted to the agency’s website, it may add them in response to the request, and direct the responder to the site.  an agency will only then be required to provide the requestor with a copy of the records if the requestor is unable to access or reproduce the records from the website directly.  in such cases, public agencies will be allowed to request payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee, if applicable. as a number of public agencies have been in the practice of maintaining public documents online, this updated provision should provide some relief in time and resources spent responding to pra requests. gender-neutral relief! law requires equal access to single occupancy restrooms. gone (i hope) are the days of long lines outside of the single-occupancy, female-designated restroom, while a male-designated restroom remains empty.  the “should we, or shouldn’t we?” question of those who have considered defying gender-based bathroom signage in years past is now answered by law – yes, you should!  while gender-based bathroom wars wage on in other states, california further ensures that restrooms be made available for all people, regardless of gender.  starting march 1, 2017, any “single-user” toilet facilities maintained by a business establishment, place of public accommodation, state or local government agency, must be identified as “all-gender” toilet facilities, with compliant signage.  such facilities must be designated for use by no more than one occupant at a time or for family or assisted use. in addition to complying with state law, be sure to consult local ordinances for appropriate restroom designations.  some cities, such as san francisco, also have gender-neutral restroom requirements, which may include additional direction or recommendations for appropriate signage. mind the wage-gap: prior salary cannot be used to justify a disparity in compensation as of 2016, california labor code section 1197.5 was amended to prohibit employers from paying an employee wage rates less than rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for “substantially similar work.”  (previously, the statute referred to “equal work.”)  this amendment meant a mere title differential was not sufficient reason to pay a female employee less than a male colleague or predecessor, if, in fact, the work she performs is substantially similar in nature. continuing its efforts to reduce discriminatory wage gaps, the california legislature has again amended section 1197.5.  effective january 1, 2017, labor code section 1197.5 codifies existing law and specifies that a person’s prior salary cannot, by itself, justify a disparity in compensation based upon sex, ethnicity, or race.   the legislature enacted this change, finding that pay based on prior salary to set pay rates contributes to gender, race, and ethnicity-based wage gaps by perpetuating wage inequalities. accordingly, california employers should immediately scrutinize practices in which they ask employees what they were paid in prior positions. for more about new laws effective this new year, check out lcw’s 2016 legislative roundup. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "minimum wage", "public records act", "sexual harassment", elected officials, employment eligibility, gender, wage-gap california’s fair pay protections for employees expand in the new year by paul d. knothe on january 3, 2017 posted in wage and hour california has statutorily prohibited unequal pay on the basis of sex since 1949.  as a previous blog post explained, that law was amended in 2016 to formally change the standard for equal pay claims based on sex.  instead of requiring equal pay for “equal” work, the statute now requires equal pay for “substantially similar work when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, performed under similar working conditions.” effective january 1, 2017, the protection of the california fair pay act also applies to race and ethnicity, following governor jerry brown’s signing of s.b. 1063, titled the “wage and equality act of 2016.”  this statute provides another avenue for employees to bring pay fairness claims, but is not a massive change to the employer’s obligations, as discrimination in pay is already prohibited under the feha. while disparities in pay based on sex, race, or ethnicity are prohibited, the fair pay act specifically allows employees to be paid differently based on: a seniority system a merit system a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production a bona fide factor other than sex, race, or ethnicity; such as education, training, or experience. this factor shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that the factor is not based on or derived from a sex, race, or ethnicity-based differential in compensation, is job related with respect to the position in question, and is consistent with a business necessity.  for purposes of this provision, “business necessity” means an overriding business purpose such that the factor relied upon effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve.  this defense does not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative business practice exists that would serve the same business purposes without producing the wage differential. another amendment to the fair pay act, a.b. 1676, also effective january 1, 2017, prohibits employers from relying solely on an employee’s prior salary to justify a disparity between the salaries of similarly situated employees.  employers routinely consider a new hire’s previous salary as part of crafting a competitive package to attract the employee; however, as the legislature noted, “when employers make salary decisions during the hiring process based on prospective employees’ prior salaries or require women to disclose their prior salaries during salary negotiations, women often end up at a sharp disadvantage and historical patterns of gender bias and discrimination repeat themselves, causing women to continue earning less than their male counterparts.” employers may continue to consider a new hire’s previous salary; however, it may not be the only justification for compensating that employee differently than an employee of a different sex, race, or ethnicity performing the same or substantially similar work.  this factor may be taken into consideration along with frequently related factors such as differences in experience, skill, or qualifications.  (see green v. par pools, inc. (2003) 111 cal.app.4th 620, 629-30.) finally, the california fair pay act may not be applicable to public agency employers.  the fair pay act is part of the labor code, and courts have held that provisions of the labor code that are not made expressly applicable to public agencies do not apply.  (johnson v. arvin-edison water storage dist. (2009) 174 cal.app.4th 729, 736; division of labor law enforcement v. el camino hospital dist. (1970) 8. cal.app.3d supp.30, 34.)  as noted above, other statutes that are clearly applicable to public agency employers prohibit discrimination in pay. employers can protect themselves against claims under the fair pay act by auditing their pay practices, reviewing and revising job descriptions, and ensuring that articulable justifications exist for any disparities between employees performing similar work. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: california fair pay act, equal pay, feha, wage and equality act of 2016 california supreme court decides landmark case on mandated rest breaks by guest author on december 29, 2016 posted in employment this blog post was authored by jeffrey c. freedman. california law requires employers in most private businesses to allow employees to take breaks, or rest periods, of at least ten minutes for roughly each four hours of work.  can an employer require employees during their breaks to keep their pagers and radio phones on, and remain vigilant and responsive to calls when need arises?  according to a five-member majority of the california supreme court in augustus v. abm security services decided on december 22, 2016, the answer is no.  (this decision will have limited impact on public agency employers. see the comments at the end of this article.) abm security services provides security guards at residential, retail, office, and industrial sites across california.  the number of guards it employs statewide is in the thousands.  the primary duty of the guards is to provide “an immediate and correct response to emergency/life safety situations” and “physical security for the building, its tenants and their employees. . . by observing and reporting all unusual activities.”  this includes patrolling the premises where assigned, responding to emergencies, identifying and reporting safety issues, etc. several class actions were filed on behalf of the security guards alleging that abm had failed to provide true rest periods because the company required the guards to remain on call during their breaks, and in essence on duty, because they were obligated to keep their radios and pagers on in case an incident arose and they were required to interrupt their break and respond to a need for service.  the trial court granted summary judgment for the guards and awarded a judgment totaling about $90 million. the court of appeal reversed, but the supreme court sided with the guards and reinstated the trial court’s decision. the california labor code (§ 226.7) reads in part: “an employer shall not require an employee to work during a meal or rest or recovery period mandated pursuant to an applicable statute, or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the industrial welfare commission.” wage order 4, applicable to the security guards, in section 12, includes: “every employer shall authorize and permit all employees to take rest periods, which insofar as practicable shall be in the middle of each work period.  the authorized rest period time shall be based on the total hours worked daily at the rate of ten (10) minutes net rest time per four (4) hours or major fraction thereof. however, a rest period need not be authorized for employees whose total daily work time is less than three and one-half (3 1/2) hours.  authorized rest period time shall be counted as hours worked for which there shall be no deduction from wages.”  both the labor code and wage order provide for daily penalties against employers who fail to provide the required rest periods. the security guards alleged, and the supreme court majority ruled, that abm’s requirement that the employees remain vigilant during their breaks, by having to leave their pagers and radios in service, and end the break early and respond to needs for service, meant they were not relieved of all duty during the breaks and were in essence still working.  the court noted the requirement in the labor code section that the employer “shall not require an employee to work” during a rest period.  the court held that, because a guard was required to remain on call during breaks, and be vigilant to what might come over their pager or radio phone, they were still working and did not have full use of their break time for personal use.  the court distinguished break time (i.e., rest period time), which must be “on the clock”, from meal periods, which can be unpaid if the employee is relieved of all duty.  if an employee is called back to work during a lunch break, the time thereby becomes compensable.  rest breaks, however, are by definition always paid time anyhow.  therefore, if an employee has to work during a break, the employer gets that work for free. in reaching its decision the court several times referenced the shibboleths that labor code and wage order provisions are liberally construed to favor the protection of employees and that interpretations articulated by the state agency that enforces wage orders are granted “considerable judicial deference.”  the two dissenters argued that the “bare requirement” of carrying a radio, phone or pager in case of emergency did not constitute “work” and did not render abm in violation of its obligation to provide the guards with a rest period relieved of all work. the court majority responded to the understandable employer concern that the ruling prohibited the company from ever recalling employees to work from a rest period when the need arises. the court replied that the company could reschedule the break for a later time in the same shift to replace the one that was interrupted.  alternatively, the employer could apply to the state agency for an exemption from the requirement. apparently abm had twice received one year exemptions.  finally, the company could simply pay the employees the one hour penalty pay called for in both the labor code and wage order for each day the required break was not provided. most of the wage orders by their own terms are specifically made inapplicable to public agencies, and it is generally the rule that labor code provisions are also not applicable to public employers unless they contain language providing that public employers must comply.   public agencies should check with legal counsel, however, to see if any wage order provision on meal and rest periods does apply to them.  for example, the wage order 9 provisions on meal and rest breaks do apply to public agency bus drivers. there is no provision of federal law requiring meal or rest periods for local public agency employees.  however, if an agency provides unpaid meal or rest periods for its employees, and were to impose restrictions on employee free use of those breaks, a court considering a lawsuit brought by employees under the fair labor standards act could look to the decision in augustus v. abm security services for guidance and apply it by analogy.  accordingly, any such agency should check its current procedures to ensure it is not at risk of incurring liability. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "california supreme court", "wage and hour", meal break, meal period, rest break, rest period update: calpers lowers discount rate, employer contributions to increase by frances rogers on december 21, 2016 posted in retirement on december 20, 2016, we reported that calpers was poised to decrease the assumed rate of return following the study and recommendations of the calpers’ finance and administration committee.  on december 21st, calpers reported that it adopted a decrease in the assumed rate of return from 7.5% to 7.0%, which will result in higher employer contributions. simply put, the discount rate, or assumed rate of return, is the percentage of expected returns on investments made by calpers.  generally, the higher expected return, the lower employer contributions tend to be. the problem arises, though, that if calpers’ investments do not meet the expected return rate, this creates risk and greater unfunded liabilities because the employer contribution rates are based on that expected return. in 2012, calpers reduced the discount rate from 7.75% to 7.5% which resulted in a considerable increase in employer contribution rates.  recently, calpers’ finance and administration committee undertook a study of decreasing the discount rate.  as a part of this, the committee surveyed and received information from over 600 contracting agencies, as well as public school districts, in addition to receiving feedback from employee, employer and retiree organizations. of those surveyed, 76% of contracting agencies and 52% of school districts, are keeping track of calpers’ return on investments.  29%  are prefunding pension liabilities while 61% are planning for a reduction in the discount rate through budget forecasting out three and five years.  employers were also asked what would be the level of impact to the agency if there was another drop in the discount rate.  72% indicated that the impact will be high to extremely high. on december 20, 2016, the calpers board of administration heard the committee’s findings and recommendations.  the committee indicated that “achieving the current 7.5% expected rate of return over the next 10 years will be a significant challenge.”  the calpers board voted and adopted a reduction in the discount rate to 7.0%, phased-in over two years for contracting agencies and public schools, including community college districts.  the phase-in will begin in the 2018/2019 fiscal year with a reduction to 7.25% and a reduction to 7.0% effective 2019/2020. calpers estimates that with a reduction in the rate of return to 7.0%, most employers could expect a 1% to 3% increase in the normal cost for miscellaneous plans and up 2% to 5% for safety plans. bottom line: employer contributions toward their unfunded accrued liability payment, and as a percentage of payroll for normal costs, will increase. contracting agencies, public k-12 and public community college districts should prepare now for the impending reduction in the assumed rate of return and higher employer contributions by including this prospect in budget forecasting, as well as in labor negotiations. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "discount rate", budgets, calpers, employer contribution, retirement calpers poised to lower discount rate again, increase employer contributions by frances rogers on december 20, 2016 posted in retirement calpers agencies still reeling from the increase in employer contribution rates beginning 2013/2014 may very well experience yet another increase in the next couple of years due to a further reduction in the “discount rate” or rate of return.  simply put, the discount rate or rate of return is the percentage of expected returns on investments made by calpers.  generally, the higher expected return, the lower employer contributions will likely be. the problem arises, though, that if calpers’ investments do not meet the expected return rate, this creates risk and greater unfunded liabilities because the employer contribution rates were based on that expected return. this further results in volatile employer contribution rates. in 2012, calpers reduced the discount rate from 7.75% to 7.5% which resulted in a considerable increase in employer contribution rates.  now, calpers seems poised to potentially decrease that discount rate even further.  calpers’ finance and administration committee undertook a study of decreasing the discount rate.  as a part of this, the committee surveyed and received information from over 600 contracting agencies, as well as public school districts, in addition to receiving feedback from employee, employer and retiree organizations. of those surveyed, 76% of contracting agencies, and 52% of school districts, are following calpers’ return on investments.  29%  are prefunding pension liabilities while 61% are planning for a reduction in the discount rate through budget forecasting out three and five years.  employers were also asked what would be the level of impact to the agency if there was another drop in the discount rate.  72% indicated that the impact will be high to extremely high. on december 20, 2016, the calpers board of administration will hear the committee’s findings and recommendations.  the committee’s agenda report indicates that “achieving the current 7.5% expected rate of return over the next 10 years will be a significant challenge.”  the committee estimates that with a reduction in the rate of return to 7.25%, most employers could expect up to a 2% increase in the normal cost for miscellaneous plans, and up to 3% for safety plans.  should the rate of return be reduced to 7%, employers could expect an increase in the normal cost of up to 3% for miscellaneous, and up to 5% for safety plans.  bottom line: employer contributions toward their unfunded accrued liability payment and as a percentage of payroll will increase. the committee recommends that any reduction in the rate of return (and increase in employer contributions) begin with the 2017-2018 fiscal year for public school districts, and 2018-2019 for contracting agencies. the committee indicated that the reduction in the rate of return is critical for the long-term health of the pension system. the board of administration will decide if, when and how any reduction in the rate of return will be implemented. employers should prepare now for a likely further reduction in the rate of return and higher employer contributions by including this prospect in budget forecasting.  employers may also want to consider pre-funding trusts. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "discount rate", budgets, calpers, employer contribution, retirement california’s new minimum wage takes effect on january 1, 2017 – are you ready? by wage & hour blogger on december 15, 2016 posted in wage and hour this post was authored by danny y. yoo this year has kept many agencies on their toes when it comes to complying with the fair labor standards act.  this summer, the ninth circuit issued its flores v. city of san gabriel decision and changed the way many agencies calculate their regular rate of pay.  you can read about flores here and here. also in the summer, the federal department of labor (“dol”) issued new regulations that would change the salary basis test for flsa overtime exemptions.  these regulations were supposed to go into effect on december 1, 2016, but they have been put on hold by a temporary injunction.  you can read about the regulations and the injunction. as we look toward 2017, there is yet another wage and hour compliance issue that many california public agencies should take note of: minimum wage.  earlier this year, we discussed senate bill 3, which will increase california’s minimum wage each year so that it will reach $15 per hour in 2022.  effective january 1, 2017, the minimum wage in california will be $10.50 per hour.  (the federal minimum wage is still $7.25 per hour.) does this new california minimum wage apply to your public agency? effective january 1, 2017, labor code section 1182.12 expressly states that for the purposes of california’s minimum wage, “employer” includes the “state, political subdivisions of the state, and municipalities.”  thus, we recommend that general law cities comply with the state minimum wage requirements. however, for counties and charter cities, there is a strong argument that the state minimum wage does not apply to those agencies because those agencies have exclusive rights under the state constitution to set compensation for their own employees.  in some limited instances, a matter of statewide concern can potentially supersede a county’s or charter city’s ability to set compensation for its employees.  counties and charter cities must, of course, comply with any minimum wage that they have set for themselves.  for example, the city of santa clara’s minimum wage will be $11.10 per hour, effective january 1, 2017.  for counties and charter cities, legal counsel should be consulted in determining whether the minimum wage law applies to them. what should our agency do about it? if the state minimum wage applies to your agency, ensure compliance by reviewing the pay schedule for your employees, including part-time and seasonal workers.  the following chart is a guide for the minimum pay that complies with the new california minimum wage of $10.50 per hour: hours per week weekly minimum monthly minimum yearly minimum 20 $210 $910 $10,920 30 $315 $1,365 $16,380 40 $420 $1,820 $21,840 if your agency pays employees around or below these thresholds, we recommend that you carefully review the hourly rate at which your agency is paying them.  please note that if your agency does need to raise the hourly rate for a particular employee or class of employees, you may have to negotiate with the appropriate employee bargaining unit because this directly affects their members’ wages. will the dol regulations regarding the threshold salary for exempt employees affect compliance with the california minimum wage? no.  the dol regulations only address the threshold salary for employees who are exempt from flsa overtime.  employers are still required to pay minimum wage to these employees, regardless if they are exempt from overtime.  as a practical matter, however, the minimum salary thresholds for flsa overtime exemptions ($455 per week) are higher than the state minimum wage requirements for a 40-hour employee ($420 per week).  therefore, if an employee is properly classified as exempt from flsa overtime, then he or she is being paid at least the state minimum wage. does this apply to independent contractors or interns?  no.  this only applies to employees.  agencies should be cautious, however, on relying on the classification of independent contractor or intern and should conduct an independent review of whether contractors and interns may actually be classified as employees.  on that point, we do not recommend employers changing an employee’s title to a “contractor” or an “intern” in an attempt to avoid paying minimum wage. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment holidays and the workplace: be merry or bah humbug by elizabeth arce on december 6, 2016 posted in employment, workplace policies ready or not, the holidays are here.  not only are the holidays a time to reflect on the passing year, but also a time full of fun, festive celebrations.  as you get ready for this season’s festivities at work, make sure to keep in mind following tips that can help your agency stay in the festive mood without the post-holiday hangover of a lawsuit. religious holiday accommodations for many, the holidays are a time for religious observance.  for example, a christian employee working the night shift may ask for the evening off to attend christmas eve mass or a jewish employee may request time off to observe hanukah.  both federal and state discrimination laws require employers to accommodate their employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, and observances.  thus, employers who are confronted with requests for time off should try to accommodate them unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.  accommodating an employee may mean changing the employee’s schedule or allowing the employee to switch shifts with a co-worker. workplace and workspace decorations before decking the halls, employers should consider the location of holiday decorations.  employers who plan to decorate common work areas should strive to avoid the appearance of endorsing one religion over another.  for example, if a nativity scene is displayed in the reception area or lunch room, the employer may be perceived as favoring the christian religion. some employees may this find offensive.  therefore, employers who wish to decorate the workplace should use non-religious, winter themed decorations such as snowflakes, candy canes, holly and gingerbread houses. since non-religious decorations are permissible, there is always debate over whether a christmas tree is a religious symbol.  while  a decorated tree  may have religious connotations for some people, the u.s. supreme court has determined that a christmas tree is a secular nonreligious symbol.  this view was also adopted by the eeoc.  thus, employers may include christmas trees among their decorations even if an employee objects.  however, for purposes of promoting positive employee relations, employers should be sensitive to the diversity of their workplace.  thus, even if you have a tree, ornaments with religious connotations, such as crosses, angels, or nativity references should not be allowed. employees who wish to decorate their own personal workspaces with christmas, kwanzaa or hanukah themed decorations present a more difficult question.  prohibiting employees from displaying religious holiday themed decorations in their own workspaces may give rise to claim of violation of free speech and religious expression.  because the law requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs, employers should not try to suppress religious expression in an employee’s personal workspace unless it creates an undue hardship on business operations. finally, mistletoe should never be allowed in any area of the workplace including individual workspaces because it could lead to sexual harassment or hostile work environment claims. holiday gift exchanges the traditional holiday gift exchange where one “secret santa” employee gives a gift to a randomly assigned employee has largely been replaced by the “white elephant” gift exchange.  employees favor this type of gift exchange because it is fun and the gifts up for grabs are often humorous.  however, this game can easily turn into blood sport as employees become competitive and even downright vicious towards each other in their quest for the best gift. in order to ensure fun for all employees, the announcement of a gift exchange should include language reminding employees to select gifts appropriate for the workplace.  for example, employees should be discouraged from buying items that contain profane, graphic or sexual content.  in addition, employees should be reminded that the gift exchange is a festive occasion where everyone should be treated respectfully.  a very modest limit on the cost of such gifts should be established, such as $10 or $15. holiday parties the two biggest concerns for employers about holiday parties are potential legal liability from sexual harassment and drinking and driving.  because employees typically “let their hair down” during these events, they may not conduct themselves the same way they do at work.  also, alcohol clouds judgment. a luncheon rather than an evening event is more prudent for all these reasons. if a festive evening is the preferred celebration, employers may want to consider taking the following preventative steps to reduce liability. employees should be reminded of the employer’s discrimination, harassment and alcohol and drug policies.  in addition, employers should designate a supervisor or manager to provide discrete oversight over employees during the party.  for example, if an employee appears to have had too much to drink, a supervisor or manager can intervene and make arrangements for the employee to get home safely.  if alcohol is served, employers should limit the amount consumed by either issuing drink tickets to employees or stopping the service of alcohol well before guests start leaving the party.  finally, if a harassment complaint is made after the party, employers should make sure they promptly investigate it. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "religious accommodation", gift exchanges, holidays, office decorations, party texas judge orders nationwide halt of the dol’s new overtime rule by lisa s. charbonneau on november 23, 2016 posted in wage and hour on tuesday, november 22, 2016, judge amos mazzant of the u.s. district court in the eastern district of texas (a 2014 obama-appointee) issued a preliminary injunction barring implementation of the u.s. department of labor’s (dol) new rule (“final rule”) raising the salary threshold for certain overtime exemptions under the fair labor standards act (flsa).  the final rule was set to go into effect in less than two weeks – on december 1, 2016.  the court’s order halting implementation applies “nationwide,” i.e. to all states, and is effective immediately absent further judicial order.  it remains to be seen whether the dol will appeal or seek other relief, or what final position it will take on the effectiveness of the order. as we reported in prior blog posts, in may of this year, the dol issued a final rule that raises the federal salary basis for exempt employees to $47,476 per year, effective december 1, 2016.  the final rule increases the salary threshold level for the highly compensated employee exemption from $100,000 per year to $134,004 per year, and adjusts salary levels automatically every three years.  the office of management and budget estimated the new rule will extend overtime coverage to more than 4 million employees nationwide. the november 22, 2016 order calls the final rule into question.  california public and private employers will have to await further developments in the coming days to determine whether the dol can mount an effective litigation strategy to overturn the order, or concede that it will have to forego implementing the final rule for the time being. background – the judicial challenge on september 20, 2016, two federal lawsuits were filed in the eastern district of texas against the dol seeking to overturn the final rule. the lawsuits – one filed by a coalition of twenty-one states (state of nevada et al. v. u.s. department of labor) and the other filed by a coalition of business groups (plano chamber of commerce et al. v. u.s. department of labor) – advance numerous legal theories to challenge the rule, including that the dol failed to follow proper procedures when adopting the new salary threshold and that the automatic indexing for upward adjustments runs contrary to the terms of the flsa. the lawsuit filed by the states also argues that the final rule is unconstitutional because the dol does not have the power to dictate how state governments pay their employees and spend state resources. the states’ lawsuit argues further that the flsa delegates too much power to the dol and that the 1986 decision extending the flsa to the states, garcia v. san antonio metro. transit authority, should be overruled.  the lawsuits also ask the courts to block enforcement of the rule. on october 12, 2016, the state plaintiffs moved for an emergency order that temporarily enjoins (or halts) the implementation and enforcement of the final rule pending further judicial review.  shortly thereafter, the lawsuits were consolidated.  oral arguments on the plaintiffs’ emergency stay were held november 16, 2016. the november 22, 2016 decision to prevail on their motion for preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a number of factors, including that there is a substantial likelihood that their case will succeed on the merits and that the plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. in its evaluation of whether the plaintiffs’ lawsuit would succeed on the merits, the court first examined plaintiffs’ argument that the flsa has been unconstitutionally applied to the states.  although the court found persuasive plaintiffs’ argument that the supreme court’s garcia decision may have been implicitly overruled, the court ultimately concluded that garcia has not been specifically overruled thus the flsa applies to the states. however, the court agreed with the plaintiffs in finding that the final rule’s new salary threshold conflicts with the statutory text of the flsa because it gives too much weight to the salary component of the exemption, i.e. doubling the salary threshold in effect made that test “supplant” the statutorily-mandated “duties test.”   the court reasoned that, because the dol promulgated regulations that conflict with the text of the flsa, the final rule is contrary to congressional intent and therefore likely to be declared unlawful.  as for irreparable harm, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that implementation of the final rule would increase costs, which, for the states, means a detrimental effect on government services that benefit the public.  the court also found that the balance of hardships weighs in favor of granting the preliminary injunction because the defendants failed to articulate any harm suffered by delaying implementation of the final rule.  the court further found that the public interest is best served by an injunction because the legality of the final rule should be determined with finality prior to implementation. finally, citing, in part, to an august 2016 decision by another texas federal judge that issued a nationwide injunction to ban enforcement of the department of education’s rule related to transgender bathroom policies, the court determined that proper scope of the injunction is nationwide because the final rule is applicable to all the states. the full text of the order is available here. dol response in a written statement released after the november 22, 2016 order was issued, the department of labor stated “[w]e strongly disagree with the decision by the court, which has the effect of delaying a fair day’s pay for a long day’s work…we are currently considering all of our legal options.”  it remains to be seen whether the dol will appeal the order or seek other relief.  the appeal would be heard by the fifth circuit court of appeals, which is generally regarded as one of the more conservative circuit courts.  moreover, it is possible that congressional action to overturn or amend the dol regulations will gain momentum if legislation reaches president-elect trump’s desk with the regulation placed on hold by the courts. what should be done now? the state of the law is uncertain in all regards.  legal counsel should be consulted about steps to take.  any employer who has been planning to raise compensation levels per the new regulations should hold off on taking concrete action pending further developments.  we will report on further significant developments as we learn them. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: dol, duties test, final rule, flsa, overtime older posts › about this blog liebert cassidy whitmore is a full service employment and labor relations law firm providing expert consultation, representation, litigation, negotiation and investigation services to public agency management... more stay connected subscribe to this blog via rss view our linkedin profile follow us on twitter subscribe to this blog by email your website url topics appeals bankruptcy brown act cfra class/collective action conferences constitutional rights disability discrimination e-discovery education employment ethics first amendment flsa fmla harassment healthcare hiring labor relations layoffs lcw seminars legislation lessons learned liebert cassidy whitmore litigation military discrimination military leave negotiations pension perb personnel issues privacy public safety issues public sector retaliation retirement safety social media tips from the table travel time uncategorized userra wage and hour workplace policies archives archives select month january 2017 december 2016 november 2016 october 2016 september 2016 august 2016 july 2016 june 2016 may 2016 april 2016 march 2016 february 2016 january 2016 december 2015 november 2015 october 2015 september 2015 august 2015 july 2015 june 2015 may 2015 april 2015 march 2015 february 2015 january 2015 december 2014 november 2014 october 2014 september 2014 august 2014 july 2014 june 2014 may 2014 april 2014 march 2014 february 2014 january 2014 december 2013 november 2013 october 2013 september 2013 august 2013 july 2013 june 2013 may 2013 april 2013 march 2013 february 2013 january 2013 december 2012 november 2012 october 2012 september 2012 august 2012 july 2012 june 2012 may 2012 april 2012 march 2012 february 2012 january 2012 december 2011 november 2011 october 2011 september 2011 august 2011 july 2011 june 2011 may 2011 april 2011 march 2011 february 2011 january 2011 david urbandavid urban represents organizations in all aspects of labor and employment law, and has over fifteen years of litigation experience. he frequently advises on free speech law as it applies to public employers and educators. more...melanie chaneymelanie chaney is an experienced litigator who represents liebert cassidy whitmore clients including cities, counties, community college districts, school districts, public safety departments and special districts in employment litigation more...lisa s. charbonneaulisa charbonneau represents and advises liebert cassidy whitmore clients in all matters pertaining to labor and employment law. more...paul d. knothepaul knothe is an associate in liebert cassidy whitmore's los angeles office. paul advises and represents clients in the areas of employment law and labor relations. more...stefanie k. vaudreuilstefanie vaudreuil provides general counsel advice to and litigates on behalf of public agency employers, public schools, charter schools, and private education institutions. more... @lcwlegal lcwlegal's most recent twitter posts “i don’t feel so good” – protecting employees from illness in the workplace during cold and flu season… https://t.co/ogzm5lsfju 14 hours ago tips from the table: developing your influencing skills https://t.co/o1ryvjq9yn 7 days ago rt @nboanet: last chance to sign up for the #nboawebinar on #ada accommodations #privateschool hiring & admissions: https://t.co/mz2k5fe1ri… 7 days ago six statutes for the new year https://t.co/1t01ykkq1k https://t.co/g5rg06ifgv 1 week ago happy retirement, chief calhoun! https://t.co/tl5xojnyhq 1 week ago follow lcwlegal on twitter >> liebert cassidy whitmore california public agency labor & employment blog privacy policy terms of use los angeles 6033 west century blvd 5th floor los angeles, ca 90045 phone: 310.981.2000 san francisco 135 main street 7th floor san francisco, ca 94105 phone: 415.512.3000 fresno 5250 n. palm avenue suite 310 fresno, ca 93704 phone: 559.256.7800 san diego 550 west c street suite 620 san diego, ca 92101 phone: 619.481.5900 sacramento 400 capitol mall suite 1260 sacramento, ca 95814 phone: 916.584.7000 copyright © 2017, liebert cassidy whitmore. all rights reserved. strategy, design, marketing & support by lexblog


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 8303

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.6% (631)
and - 2.28% (189)
for - 2.18% (181)
age - 1.78% (148)
employee - 1.49% (124)
that - 1.31% (109)
per - 1.24% (103)
employer - 1.16% (96)
our - 1.13% (94)
all - 1.04% (86)
ill - 0.88% (73)
employees - 0.87% (72)
act - 0.84% (70)
work - 0.79% (66)
are - 0.79% (66)
eve - 0.73% (61)
not - 0.71% (59)
rate - 0.71% (59)
employers - 0.71% (59)
wage - 0.67% (56)
end - 0.64% (53)
with - 0.55% (46)
state - 0.54% (45)
over - 0.54% (45)
should - 0.52% (43)
this - 0.51% (42)
public - 0.51% (42)
from - 0.51% (42)
require - 0.49% (41)
will - 0.48% (40)
their - 0.48% (40)
2016 - 0.47% (39)
pay - 0.47% (39)
par - 0.46% (38)
may - 0.45% (37)
law - 0.45% (37)
agency - 0.43% (36)
california - 0.42% (35)
use - 0.41% (34)
court - 0.41% (34)
labor - 0.4% (33)
minimum - 0.37% (31)
turn - 0.36% (30)
time - 0.36% (30)
year - 0.36% (30)
can - 0.36% (30)
rest - 0.35% (29)
one - 0.35% (29)
ever - 0.34% (28)
more - 0.34% (28)
but - 0.34% (28)
hour - 0.33% (27)
here - 0.33% (27)
rule - 0.33% (27)
part - 0.33% (27)
any - 0.31% (26)
you - 0.31% (26)
return - 0.3% (25)
they - 0.3% (25)
final - 0.29% (24)
have - 0.29% (24)
off - 0.29% (24)
agencies - 0.29% (24)
day - 0.29% (24)
new - 0.29% (24)
ten - 0.28% (23)
calpers - 0.28% (23)
like - 0.26% (22)
on, - 0.26% (22)
january - 0.26% (22)
effect - 0.26% (22)
salary - 0.25% (21)
provide - 0.25% (21)
its - 0.25% (21)
break - 0.24% (20)
2017 - 0.24% (20)
order - 0.24% (20)
because - 0.24% (20)
period - 0.23% (19)
sign - 0.23% (19)
december - 0.23% (19)
based - 0.23% (19)
increase - 0.23% (19)
there - 0.23% (19)
other - 0.23% (19)
post - 0.23% (19)
also - 0.23% (19)
contribution - 0.22% (18)
author - 0.22% (18)
were - 0.22% (18)
during - 0.22% (18)
out - 0.22% (18)
even - 0.2% (17)
discount - 0.2% (17)
quest - 0.2% (17)
sex - 0.2% (17)
employment - 0.2% (17)
under - 0.2% (17)
dol - 0.2% (17)
when - 0.2% (17)
how - 0.2% (17)
required - 0.19% (16)
expect - 0.19% (16)
your - 0.19% (16)
such - 0.19% (16)
which - 0.18% (15)
them - 0.18% (15)
sick - 0.18% (15)
was - 0.18% (15)
effective - 0.18% (15)
than - 0.18% (15)
flu - 0.18% (15)
fair - 0.17% (14)
flsa - 0.17% (14)
has - 0.17% (14)
religious - 0.17% (14)
high - 0.17% (14)
consider - 0.17% (14)
2014 - 0.17% (14)
who - 0.17% (14)
2012 - 0.17% (14)
holiday - 0.17% (14)
place - 0.17% (14)
less - 0.17% (14)
district - 0.16% (13)
reduction - 0.16% (13)
however, - 0.16% (13)
get - 0.16% (13)
2013 - 0.16% (13)
see - 0.16% (13)
very - 0.16% (13)
change - 0.16% (13)
contract - 0.16% (13)
code - 0.16% (13)
call - 0.16% (13)
laws - 0.16% (13)
2011 - 0.14% (12)
main - 0.14% (12)
legal - 0.14% (12)
2015 - 0.14% (12)
- 0.14% (12)
read - 0.14% (12)
17, - 0.14% (12)
hold - 0.14% (12)
posted - 0.14% (12)
gift - 0.14% (12)
prohibit - 0.14% (12)
must - 0.14% (12)
service - 0.14% (12)
follow - 0.14% (12)
november - 0.14% (12)
exempt - 0.14% (12)
federal - 0.14% (12)
expected - 0.14% (12)
further - 0.14% (12)
bus - 0.14% (12)
committee - 0.14% (12)
years - 0.14% (12)
days - 0.13% (11)
guard - 0.13% (11)
compensation - 0.13% (11)
these - 0.13% (11)
requirement - 0.13% (11)
could - 0.13% (11)
comment - 0.13% (11)
including - 0.13% (11)
sure - 0.13% (11)
email - 0.13% (11)
16, - 0.13% (11)
equal - 0.13% (11)
rates - 0.13% (11)
request - 0.13% (11)
decision - 0.13% (11)
apply - 0.13% (11)
plan - 0.13% (11)
2017, - 0.13% (11)
now - 0.13% (11)
linkedin - 0.13% (11)
states - 0.13% (11)
blog - 0.13% (11)
would - 0.13% (11)
city - 0.13% (11)
safe - 0.13% (11)
local - 0.13% (11)
document - 0.13% (11)
workplace - 0.12% (10)
harassment - 0.12% (10)
home - 0.12% (10)
records - 0.12% (10)
regulation - 0.12% (10)
tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle - 0.12% (10)
san - 0.12% (10)
 the - 0.12% (10)
business - 0.12% (10)
plus - 0.12% (10)
work. - 0.12% (10)
guards - 0.12% (10)
gender - 0.12% (10)
health - 0.12% (10)
issue - 0.12% (10)
breaks - 0.12% (10)
term - 0.12% (10)
take - 0.12% (10)
school - 0.12% (10)
contributions - 0.12% (10)
leave - 0.12% (10)
employees. - 0.12% (10)
fun - 0.12% (10)
districts - 0.12% (10)
applicable - 0.12% (10)
relations - 0.11% (9)
every - 0.11% (9)
sexual - 0.11% (9)
officials - 0.11% (9)
training - 0.11% (9)
prior - 0.11% (9)
just - 0.11% (9)
present - 0.11% (9)
tags: - 0.11% (9)
allow - 0.11% (9)
add - 0.11% (9)
pra - 0.11% (9)
table - 0.11% (9)
2016, - 0.11% (9)
each - 0.11% (9)
person - 0.11% (9)
those - 0.11% (9)
us, - 0.11% (9)
likely - 0.11% (9)
plaintiffs - 0.11% (9)
lawsuit - 0.11% (9)
august - 0.11% (9)
only - 0.11% (9)
injunction - 0.11% (9)
threshold - 0.11% (9)
chart - 0.11% (9)
what - 0.11% (9)
safety - 0.11% (9)
recommend - 0.11% (9)
overtime - 0.11% (9)
about - 0.11% (9)
acting - 0.1% (8)
another - 0.1% (8)
right - 0.1% (8)
decorations - 0.1% (8)
tree - 0.1% (8)
view - 0.1% (8)
does - 0.1% (8)
discrimination - 0.1% (8)
following - 0.1% (8)
applies - 0.1% (8)
cities - 0.1% (8)
$10 - 0.1% (8)
many - 0.1% (8)
liebert - 0.1% (8)
section - 0.1% (8)
cassidy - 0.1% (8)
whitmore - 0.1% (8)
illness - 0.1% (8)
cold - 0.1% (8)
season - 0.1% (8)
direct - 0.1% (8)
charter - 0.1% (8)
negotiation - 0.1% (8)
ability - 0.1% (8)
gain - 0.1% (8)
provision - 0.1% (8)
come - 0.1% (8)
set - 0.1% (8)
department - 0.1% (8)
serious - 0.1% (8)
similar - 0.1% (8)
budget - 0.1% (8)
report - 0.1% (8)
cover - 0.1% (8)
tips - 0.1% (8)
own - 0.1% (8)
meal - 0.1% (8)
shall - 0.1% (8)
phone - 0.1% (8)
requires - 0.1% (8)
periods - 0.1% (8)
been - 0.1% (8)
regulations - 0.1% (8)
example, - 0.1% (8)
security - 0.1% (8)
remain - 0.1% (8)
march - 0.08% (7)
addition - 0.08% (7)
october - 0.08% (7)
negotiations - 0.08% (7)
hours - 0.08% (7)
exemption - 0.08% (7)
amend - 0.08% (7)
factor - 0.08% (7)
higher - 0.08% (7)
authorize - 0.08% (7)
she - 0.08% (7)
year, - 0.08% (7)
stand - 0.08% (7)
two - 0.08% (7)
some - 0.08% (7)
documents - 0.08% (7)
abm - 0.08% (7)
different - 0.08% (7)
services - 0.08% (7)
september - 0.08% (7)
made - 0.08% (7)
employees, - 0.08% (7)
paid - 0.08% (7)
ethnicity - 0.08% (7)
race - 0.08% (7)
whether - 0.08% (7)
week - 0.08% (7)
protect - 0.08% (7)
cost - 0.08% (7)
requirements - 0.08% (7)
supreme - 0.08% (7)
statute - 0.08% (7)
districts, - 0.08% (7)
administration - 0.08% (7)
exchange - 0.08% (7)
contracting - 0.08% (7)
calpers’ - 0.08% (7)
event - 0.08% (7)
restroom - 0.07% (6)
reason - 0.07% (6)
appeal - 0.07% (6)
need - 0.07% (6)
press - 0.07% (6)
respond - 0.07% (6)
february - 0.07% (6)
al. - 0.07% (6)
retirement - 0.07% (6)
june - 0.07% (6)
issued - 0.07% (6)
general - 0.07% (6)
20, - 0.07% (6)
receive - 0.07% (6)
serve - 0.07% (6)
implementation - 0.07% (6)
authorized - 0.07% (6)
april - 0.07% (6)
month - 0.07% (6)
july - 0.07% (6)
result - 0.07% (6)
claim - 0.07% (6)
action - 0.07% (6)
case - 0.07% (6)
breaks, - 0.07% (6)
class - 0.07% (6)
full - 0.07% (6)
investments - 0.07% (6)
title - 0.07% (6)
while - 0.07% (6)
way - 0.07% (6)
include - 0.07% (6)
cfra - 0.07% (6)
fmla - 0.07% (6)
ready - 0.07% (6)
lcw - 0.07% (6)
office - 0.07% (6)
well - 0.07% (6)
purpose - 0.07% (6)
still - 0.07% (6)
prohibited - 0.07% (6)
finally, - 0.07% (6)
a” - 0.07% (6)
counties - 0.07% (6)
provides - 0.07% (6)
most - 0.07% (6)
taking - 0.07% (6)
after - 0.07% (6)
find - 0.07% (6)
people - 0.07% (6)
level - 0.07% (6)
work, - 0.07% (6)
potential - 0.07% (6)
impact - 0.07% (6)
practice - 0.07% (6)
keep - 0.07% (6)
same - 0.07% (6)
employees.  - 0.06% (5)
too - 0.06% (5)
manager - 0.06% (5)
erin - 0.06% (5)
experience - 0.06% (5)
nationwide - 0.06% (5)
question - 0.06% (5)
wage. - 0.06% (5)
liability - 0.06% (5)
miss - 0.06% (5)
and/or - 0.06% (5)
into - 0.06% (5)
litigation - 0.06% (5)
number - 0.06% (5)
challenge - 0.06% (5)
normal - 0.06% (5)
substantial - 0.06% (5)
working - 0.06% (5)
again - 0.06% (5)
system - 0.06% (5)
comply - 0.06% (5)
race, - 0.06% (5)
ensure - 0.06% (5)
reduce - 0.06% (5)
holidays - 0.06% (5)
male - 0.06% (5)
review - 0.06% (5)
ask - 0.06% (5)
christmas - 0.06% (5)
mean - 0.06% (5)
workspace - 0.06% (5)
constitution - 0.06% (5)
argument - 0.06% (5)
before - 0.06% (5)
certain - 0.06% (5)
policies - 0.06% (5)
u.s. - 0.06% (5)
standard - 0.06% (5)
california’s - 0.06% (5)
rise - 0.06% (5)
work.  - 0.06% (5)
note - 0.06% (5)
mind - 0.06% (5)
rights - 0.06% (5)
7.5% - 0.06% (5)
send - 0.06% (5)
limit - 0.06% (5)
website - 0.06% (5)
sex, - 0.06% (5)
thus - 0.06% (5)
pager - 0.06% (5)
cannot - 0.06% (5)
free - 0.06% (5)
education - 0.06% (5)
agencies, - 0.06% (5)
conduct - 0.06% (5)
member - 0.06% (5)
filed - 0.06% (5)
elected - 0.06% (5)
los - 0.06% (5)
claims - 0.06% (5)
back - 0.06% (5)
three - 0.06% (5)
relief - 0.06% (5)
more... - 0.06% (5)
employee’s - 0.06% (5)
ago - 0.06% (5)
compliance - 0.06% (5)
fail - 0.06% (5)
give - 0.06% (5)
phone: - 0.06% (5)
risk - 0.06% (5)
pending - 0.06% (5)
authorization - 0.06% (5)
assume - 0.06% (5)
22, - 0.06% (5)
recommendations - 0.06% (5)
radio - 0.06% (5)
perform - 0.06% (5)
therefore - 0.06% (5)
paul - 0.05% (4)
break, - 0.05% (4)
constitute - 0.05% (4)
reach - 0.05% (4)
company - 0.05% (4)
surveyed - 0.05% (4)
rate.  - 0.05% (4)
thus, - 0.05% (4)
previous - 0.05% (4)
specific - 0.05% (4)
exemptions - 0.05% (4)
themselves - 0.05% (4)
unfunded - 0.05% (4)
liabilities - 0.05% (4)
titled - 0.05% (4)
counsel - 0.05% (4)
tend - 0.05% (4)
trial - 0.05% (4)
finance - 0.05% (4)
employee, - 0.05% (4)
lower - 0.05% (4)
percentage - 0.05% (4)
major - 0.05% (4)
unit - 0.05% (4)
particular - 0.05% (4)
stay - 0.05% (4)
therefore, - 0.05% (4)
private - 0.05% (4)
assumed - 0.05% (4)
judicial - 0.05% (4)
favor - 0.05% (4)
them. - 0.05% (4)
board - 0.05% (4)
prevent - 0.05% (4)
women - 0.05% (4)
7.0% - 0.05% (4)
make - 0.05% (4)
toward - 0.05% (4)
forecasting - 0.05% (4)
rate, - 0.05% (4)
current - 0.05% (4)
law, - 0.05% (4)
six - 0.05% (4)
pension - 0.05% (4)
purposes - 0.05% (4)
position - 0.05% (4)
generally - 0.05% (4)
indicated - 0.05% (4)
regardless - 0.05% (4)
continue - 0.05% (4)
courts - 0.05% (4)
held - 0.05% (4)
act, - 0.05% (4)
care - 0.05% (4)
duty - 0.05% (4)
daily - 0.05% (4)
test - 0.05% (4)
begin - 0.05% (4)
provisions - 0.05% (4)
emergency - 0.05% (4)
though - 0.05% (4)
where - 0.05% (4)
enforcement - 0.05% (4)
12, - 0.05% (4)
finding - 0.05% (4)
i.e. - 0.05% (4)
consult - 0.05% (4)
alcohol - 0.05% (4)
designate - 0.05% (4)
meet - 0.05% (4)
represents - 0.05% (4)
often - 0.05% (4)
media - 0.05% (4)
party - 0.05% (4)
texas - 0.05% (4)
constitutional - 0.05% (4)
next - 0.05% (4)
states, - 0.05% (4)
long - 0.05% (4)
cities, - 0.05% (4)
ban - 0.05% (4)
matter - 0.05% (4)
determine - 0.05% (4)
least - 0.05% (4)
concern - 0.05% (4)
lawsuits - 0.05% (4)
five - 0.05% (4)
legislative - 0.05% (4)
reported - 0.05% (4)
plaintiffs’ - 0.05% (4)
significant - 0.05% (4)
2016. - 0.05% (4)
appropriate - 0.05% (4)
allowed - 0.05% (4)
information - 0.05% (4)
hiring - 0.05% (4)
resources - 0.05% (4)
festive - 0.05% (4)
appear - 0.05% (4)
$10.50 - 0.05% (4)
violation - 0.05% (4)
raise - 0.05% (4)
state, - 0.05% (4)
substantially - 0.05% (4)
intern - 0.05% (4)
contractor - 0.05% (4)
decorate - 0.05% (4)
status - 0.05% (4)
area - 0.05% (4)
potentially - 0.05% (4)
both - 0.04% (3)
colleague - 0.04% (3)
poised - 0.04% (3)
decrease - 0.04% (3)
lunch - 0.04% (3)
served - 0.04% (3)
francisco - 0.04% (3)
sneezing - 0.04% (3)
text - 0.04% (3)
states. - 0.04% (3)
become - 0.04% (3)
adopted - 0.04% (3)
overruled - 0.04% (3)
7.0%, - 0.04% (3)
suite - 0.04% (3)
found - 0.04% (3)
coughing - 0.04% (3)
posts - 0.04% (3)
legislation - 0.04% (3)
return, - 0.04% (3)
advises - 0.04% (3)
personal - 0.04% (3)
gets - 0.04% (3)
clients - 0.04% (3)
organizations - 0.04% (3)
did - 0.04% (3)
angeles - 0.04% (3)
orders - 0.04% (3)
“i - 0.04% (3)
everyone - 0.04% (3)
issues - 0.04% (3)
received - 0.04% (3)
duties - 0.04% (3)
relieved - 0.04% (3)
simply - 0.04% (3)
within - 0.04% (3)
terms - 0.04% (3)
early - 0.04% (3)
street - 0.04% (3)
lcwlegal - 0.04% (3)
url - 0.04% (3)
twitter - 0.04% (3)
unless - 0.04% (3)
firm - 0.04% (3)
standards - 0.04% (3)
shift - 0.04% (3)
rule. - 0.04% (3)
harm - 0.04% (3)
want - 0.04% (3)
common - 0.04% (3)
drink - 0.04% (3)
unlikely - 0.04% (3)
decide - 0.04% (3)
much - 0.04% (3)
circuit - 0.04% (3)
supervisor - 0.04% (3)
conditions - 0.04% (3)
maintain - 0.04% (3)
here. - 0.04% (3)
family - 0.04% (3)
gifts - 0.04% (3)
put - 0.04% (3)
individual - 0.04% (3)
rates. - 0.04% (3)
hardship - 0.04% (3)
workspaces - 0.04% (3)
$15 - 0.04% (3)
determined - 0.04% (3)
themed - 0.04% (3)
wish - 0.04% (3)
procedures - 0.04% (3)
language - 0.04% (3)
accommodate - 0.04% (3)
evening - 0.04% (3)
schedule - 0.04% (3)
extreme - 0.04% (3)
total - 0.04% (3)
hear - 0.04% (3)
due - 0.04% (3)
condition” - 0.04% (3)
seek - 0.04% (3)
demonstrate - 0.04% (3)
creates - 0.04% (3)
“serious - 0.04% (3)
return. - 0.04% (3)
garcia - 0.04% (3)
reduced - 0.04% (3)
considerable - 0.04% (3)
fmla/cfra - 0.04% (3)
proper - 0.04% (3)
independent - 0.04% (3)
overturn - 0.04% (3)
entitled - 0.04% (3)
developments - 0.04% (3)
planning - 0.04% (3)
prospect - 0.04% (3)
years.  - 0.04% (3)
preliminary - 0.04% (3)
requiring - 0.04% (3)
committee’s - 0.04% (3)
schools, - 0.04% (3)
community - 0.04% (3)
charbonneau - 0.04% (3)
college - 0.04% (3)
lisa - 0.04% (3)
allowing - 0.04% (3)
miscellaneous - 0.04% (3)
plans. - 0.04% (3)
halt - 0.04% (3)
judge - 0.04% (3)
upon - 0.04% (3)
study - 0.04% (3)
relations, - 0.04% (3)
already - 0.04% (3)
practices - 0.04% (3)
wages - 0.04% (3)
“list - 0.04% (3)
effort - 0.04% (3)
verify - 0.04% (3)
that, - 0.04% (3)
justify - 0.04% (3)
vigilant - 0.04% (3)
majority - 0.04% (3)
disparity - 0.04% (3)
designated - 0.04% (3)
differential - 0.04% (3)
1197.5 - 0.04% (3)
signage - 0.04% (3)
answer - 0.04% (3)
check - 0.04% (3)
pagers - 0.04% (3)
bathroom - 0.04% (3)
periods, - 0.04% (3)
first - 0.04% (3)
government - 0.04% (3)
protection - 0.04% (3)
statutes - 0.04% (3)
strong - 0.04% (3)
facilities - 0.04% (3)
through - 0.04% (3)
members - 0.04% (3)
temporarily - 0.04% (3)
since - 0.04% (3)
basis - 0.04% (3)
mandated - 0.04% (3)
knothe - 0.04% (3)
referred - 0.04% (3)
response - 0.04% (3)
related - 0.04% (3)
no. - 0.04% (3)
help - 0.04% (3)
eligibility - 0.04% (3)
statewide - 0.04% (3)
good - 0.04% (3)
hour.  - 0.04% (3)
quality - 0.04% (3)
amendment - 0.04% (3)
10, - 0.04% (3)
moreover, - 0.04% (3)
changes - 0.04% (3)
against - 0.04% (3)
division - 0.04% (3)
granted - 0.04% (3)
judgment - 0.04% (3)
managers - 0.04% (3)
court’s - 0.04% (3)
authority - 0.04% (3)
critical - 0.04% (3)
single - 0.04% (3)
exist - 0.04% (3)
true - 0.04% (3)
merit - 0.04% (3)
noted - 0.04% (3)
amended - 0.04% (3)
1825 - 0.04% (3)
remains - 0.04% (3)
limited - 0.04% (3)
paying - 0.04% (3)
payment - 0.04% (3)
“an - 0.04% (3)
immediate - 0.04% (3)
salaries - 0.04% (3)
includes - 0.04% (3)
costs - 0.04% (3)
legislature - 0.04% (3)
specifically - 0.04% (3)
had - 0.04% (3)
failed - 0.04% (3)
months - 0.04% (3)
party.  - 0.02% (2)
use. - 0.02% (2)
available - 0.02% (2)
agency, - 0.02% (2)
male-designated - 0.02% (2)
order. - 0.02% (2)
occupancy - 0.02% (2)
seen - 0.02% (2)
instances, - 0.02% (2)
2016.  - 0.02% (2)
spreading - 0.02% (2)
thereby - 0.02% (2)
eastern - 0.02% (2)
start - 0.02% (2)
gender-based - 0.02% (2)
below - 0.02% (2)
restrooms - 0.02% (2)
people, - 0.02% (2)
arguments - 0.02% (2)
toilet - 0.02% (2)
it. - 0.02% (2)
investigate - 0.02% (2)
steps - 0.02% (2)
period. - 0.02% (2)
particularly - 0.02% (2)
employers, - 0.02% (2)
personnel - 0.02% (2)
until - 0.02% (2)
connotations - 0.02% (2)
symbol.  - 0.02% (2)
subdivisions - 0.02% (2)
non-religious - 0.02% (2)
political - 0.02% (2)
room, - 0.02% (2)
nativity - 0.02% (2)
hanukah - 0.02% (2)
religion - 0.02% (2)
areas - 0.02% (2)
“substantially - 0.02% (2)
“equal - 0.02% (2)
meant - 0.02% (2)
try - 0.02% (2)
requests - 0.02% (2)
beliefs, - 0.02% (2)
wage.  - 0.02% (2)
workplace.  - 0.02% (2)
question.  - 0.02% (2)
complying - 0.02% (2)
additional - 0.02% (2)
parties - 0.02% (2)
$15. - 0.02% (2)
winter - 0.02% (2)
francisco, - 0.02% (2)
reminded - 0.02% (2)
addition, - 0.02% (2)
select - 0.02% (2)
best - 0.02% (2)
governor - 0.02% (2)
yes, - 0.02% (2)
speech - 0.02% (2)
management - 0.02% (2)
assigned - 0.02% (2)
gives - 0.02% (2)
signs - 0.02% (2)
exchanges - 0.02% (2)
signage. - 0.02% (2)
environment - 0.02% (2)
undue - 0.02% (2)
expression - 0.02% (2)
levels - 0.02% (2)
power - 0.02% (2)
extend - 0.02% (2)
appears - 0.02% (2)
david - 0.02% (2)
offensive - 0.02% (2)
don’t - 0.02% (2)
feel - 0.02% (2)
good” - 0.02% (2)
protecting - 0.02% (2)
results - 0.02% (2)
seems - 0.02% (2)
pass - 0.02% (2)
archives - 0.02% (2)
privacy - 0.02% (2)
appointed - 0.02% (2)
either - 0.02% (2)
military - 0.02% (2)
type - 0.02% (2)
sneezing, - 0.02% (2)
brown - 0.02% (2)
appeals - 0.02% (2)
compensation, - 0.02% (2)
coughing, - 0.02% (2)
subject - 0.02% (2)
via - 0.02% (2)
urban - 0.02% (2)
1825, - 0.02% (2)
sick, - 0.02% (2)
west - 0.02% (2)
mall - 0.02% (2)
sacramento - 0.02% (2)
620 - 0.02% (2)
diego - 0.02% (2)
310 - 0.02% (2)
fresno - 0.02% (2)
application - 0.02% (2)
familial - 0.02% (2)
reasons. - 0.02% (2)
floor - 0.02% (2)
relationship - 0.02% (2)
prohibits - 0.02% (2)
rather - 0.02% (2)
asylum - 0.02% (2)
recent - 0.02% (2)
penalty - 0.02% (2)
vaudreuil - 0.02% (2)
1019.1 - 0.02% (2)
unlawful - 0.02% (2)
law. - 0.02% (2)
honor - 0.02% (2)
chaney - 0.02% (2)
subscribe - 0.02% (2)
learn - 0.02% (2)
million - 0.02% (2)
access - 0.02% (2)
county’s - 0.02% (2)
site.  - 0.02% (2)
then - 0.02% (2)
detrimental - 0.02% (2)
requestor - 0.02% (2)
copy - 0.02% (2)
unconstitutional - 0.02% (2)
argues - 0.02% (2)
contrary - 0.02% (2)
automatic - 0.02% (2)
rule, - 0.02% (2)
succeed - 0.02% (2)
labor) - 0.02% (2)
coalition - 0.02% (2)
statutory - 0.02% (2)
and, - 0.02% (2)
supersede - 0.02% (2)
implementing - 0.02% (2)
responding - 0.02% (2)
strategy - 0.02% (2)
mount - 0.02% (2)
gender-neutral - 0.02% (2)
agency’s - 0.02% (2)
merits - 0.02% (2)
courts. - 0.02% (2)
articulate - 0.02% (2)
placed - 0.02% (2)
written - 0.02% (2)
requirements. - 0.02% (2)
entity - 0.02% (2)
day’s - 0.02% (2)
stated - 0.02% (2)
provided - 0.02% (2)
training.  - 0.02% (2)
act. - 0.02% (2)
delaying - 0.02% (2)
benefit - 0.02% (2)
suffer - 0.02% (2)
congressional - 0.02% (2)
flsa, - 0.02% (2)
conflict - 0.02% (2)
agreed - 0.02% (2)
reaches - 0.02% (2)
1661. - 0.02% (2)
individuals - 0.02% (2)
responsive - 0.02% (2)
city’s - 0.02% (2)
irreparable - 0.02% (2)
mass - 0.02% (2)
gender, - 0.02% (2)
course, - 0.02% (2)
problem - 0.02% (2)
resulted - 0.02% (2)
7.75% - 0.02% (2)
bargaining - 0.02% (2)
2012, - 0.02% (2)
practices, - 0.02% (2)
reviewing - 0.02% (2)
greater - 0.02% (2)
implemented - 0.02% (2)
though, - 0.02% (2)
arises, - 0.02% (2)
be. - 0.02% (2)
rates.  - 0.02% (2)
group - 0.02% (2)
lcw’s - 0.02% (2)
generally, - 0.02% (2)
calpers.  - 0.02% (2)
returns - 0.02% (2)
monthly - 0.02% (2)
put, - 0.02% (2)
guest - 0.02% (2)
video - 0.02% (2)
29, - 0.02% (2)
pay. - 0.02% (2)
undertook - 0.02% (2)
 on - 0.02% (2)
76% - 0.02% (2)
frequently - 0.02% (2)
disease - 0.02% (2)
covered - 0.02% (2)
factors - 0.02% (2)
61% - 0.02% (2)
cal.app.4th - 0.02% (2)
prefunding - 0.02% (2)
29%  - 0.02% (2)
investments.  - 0.02% (2)
52% - 0.02% (2)
surveyed, - 0.02% (2)
decreasing - 0.02% (2)
organizations. - 0.02% (2)
retiree - 0.02% (2)
feedback - 0.02% (2)
receiving - 0.02% (2)
workers’ - 0.02% (2)
hope - 0.02% (2)
expressly - 0.02% (2)
600 - 0.02% (2)
dist. - 0.02% (2)
this, - 0.02% (2)
authored - 0.02% (2)
skills - 0.02% (2)
asked - 0.02% (2)
unpaid - 0.02% (2)
continuing - 0.02% (2)
replace - 0.02% (2)
industrial - 0.02% (2)
construed - 0.02% (2)
obligation - 0.02% (2)
reporting - 0.02% (2)
several - 0.02% (2)
behalf - 0.02% (2)
always - 0.02% (2)
called - 0.02% (2)
fear - 0.02% (2)
exemptions. - 0.02% (2)
essence - 0.02% (2)
radios - 0.02% (2)
work” - 0.02% (2)
interrupt - 0.02% (2)
encourage - 0.02% (2)
service, - 0.02% (2)
(i.e., - 0.02% (2)
ruled, - 0.02% (2)
net - 0.02% (2)
worked - 0.02% (2)
seeing - 0.02% (2)
employers. - 0.02% (2)
unable - 0.02% (2)
treatment - 0.02% (2)
influencing - 0.02% (2)
minutes - 0.02% (2)
developing - 0.02% (2)
four - 0.02% (2)
regular - 0.02% (2)
table: - 0.02% (2)
21, - 0.02% (2)
rogers - 0.02% (2)
frances - 0.02% (2)
activities - 0.02% (2)
liability. - 0.02% (2)
twice - 0.02% (2)
calls - 0.02% (2)
look - 0.02% (2)
healthcare - 0.02% (2)
considering - 0.02% (2)
 according - 0.02% (2)
impose - 0.02% (2)
providing - 0.02% (2)
contain - 0.02% (2)
augustus - 0.02% (2)
provider - 0.02% (2)
guidance - 0.02% (2)
performing - 0.02% (2)
drop - 0.02% (2)
illness, - 0.02% (2)
statutorily - 0.02% (2)
directly - 0.02% (2)
accordingly, - 0.02% (2)
hourly - 0.02% (2)
immediately - 0.02% (2)
$420 - 0.02% (2)
home, - 0.02% (2)
consistent - 0.02% (2)
consulted - 0.02% (2)
wage-gap - 0.02% (2)
santa - 0.02% (2)
takes - 0.02% (2)
sending - 0.02% (2)
increases - 0.02% (2)
green - 0.02% (2)
skill, - 0.02% (2)
equality - 0.02% (2)
few - 0.02% (2)
injunction. - 0.02% (2)
confer - 0.02% (2)
avenue - 0.02% (2)
employer’s - 0.02% (2)
disparities - 0.02% (2)
wages. - 0.02% (2)
gaps - 0.02% (2)
differently - 0.02% (2)
interns - 0.02% (2)
sufficient - 0.02% (2)
christian - 0.02% (2)
accommodations - 0.02% (2)
choose - 0.02% (2)
not, - 0.02% (2)
female - 0.02% (2)
if, - 0.02% (2)
avoid - 0.02% (2)
attempt - 0.02% (2)
changing - 0.02% (2)
discriminatory - 0.02% (2)
ethnicity-based - 0.02% (2)
contractors - 0.02% (2)
ethnicity, - 0.02% (2)
being - 0.02% (2)
classified - 0.02% (2)
week) - 0.02% (2)
else - 0.02% (2)
thresholds - 0.02% (2)
overtime. - 0.02% (2)
no.  - 0.02% (2)
affect - 0.02% (2)
ordinances - 0.02% (2)
flores - 0.02% (2)
72% - 0.02% (2)
negotiations. - 0.02% (2)
similarly - 0.02% (2)
hire’s - 0.02% (2)
possible - 0.02% (2)
competitive - 0.02% (2)
estimates - 0.02% (2)
process - 0.02% (2)
7.25% - 0.02% (2)
fiscal - 0.02% (2)
employees’ - 0.02% (2)
negotiations, - 0.02% (2)
challenge.”  - 0.02% (2)
line: - 0.02% (2)
“achieving - 0.02% (2)
recommendations.  - 0.02% (2)
findings - 0.02% (2)
repeat - 0.02% (2)
heard - 0.02% (2)
earning - 0.02% (2)
high. - 0.02% (2)
extremely - 0.02% (2)
communicable - 0.02% (2)
justification - 0.02% (2)
bottom - 0.02% (2)
accrued - 0.02% (2)
experience. - 0.02% (2)
alternative - 0.02% (2)
demonstrates - 0.02% (2)
summer, - 0.02% (2)
comes - 0.02% (2)
job - 0.02% (2)
highly - 0.02% (2)
plans.  - 0.02% (2)
respect - 0.02% (2)
means - 0.02% (2)
supposed - 0.02% (2)
yet - 0.02% (2)
violate - 0.02% (2)
between - 0.02% (2)
contribution, - 0.02% (2)
calpers, - 0.02% (2)
budgets, - 0.02% (2)
rate", - 0.02% (2)
"discount - 0.02% (2)
without - 0.02% (2)
prepare - 0.02% (2)
relying - 0.02% (2)
increase. - 0.02% (2)
costs, - 0.02% (2)
payroll - 0.02% (2)
support - 0.02% (2)
of the - 0.53% (44)
in the - 0.48% (40)
that the - 0.36% (30)
minimum wage - 0.31% (26)
to the - 0.3% (25)
the state - 0.28% (23)
on the - 0.25% (21)
the court - 0.24% (20)
an employee - 0.24% (20)
for the - 0.22% (18)
employer contribution - 0.22% (18)
discount rate - 0.2% (17)
rate of - 0.2% (17)
final rule - 0.19% (16)
with the - 0.19% (16)
if the - 0.18% (15)
to work - 0.18% (15)
of return - 0.18% (15)
rest period - 0.18% (15)
that a - 0.16% (13)
the final - 0.16% (13)
the dol - 0.16% (13)
should be - 0.16% (13)
labor code - 0.16% (13)
will be - 0.16% (13)
the employee - 0.16% (13)
based on - 0.16% (13)
on december - 0.14% (12)
employers should - 0.14% (12)
because the - 0.13% (11)
with a - 0.13% (11)
the discount - 0.13% (11)
required to - 0.13% (11)
by the - 0.13% (11)
reduction in - 0.13% (11)
january 1, - 0.13% (11)
the employer - 0.13% (11)
posted in - 0.12% (10)
plus comment - 0.12% (10)
under the - 0.12% (10)
public agency - 0.12% (10)
tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus - 0.12% (10)
employer contributions - 0.12% (10)
from the - 0.12% (10)
comment tags: - 0.11% (9)
wage and - 0.11% (9)
the committee - 0.11% (9)
the california - 0.11% (9)
1, 2017, - 0.11% (9)
and the - 0.11% (9)
to provide - 0.1% (8)
to public - 0.1% (8)
increase in - 0.1% (8)
wage order - 0.1% (8)
they are - 0.1% (8)
public agencies - 0.1% (8)
effective january - 0.1% (8)
expected return - 0.1% (8)
per hour - 0.1% (8)
the rate - 0.1% (8)
the work - 0.1% (8)
state minimum - 0.1% (8)
during the - 0.1% (8)
liebert cassidy - 0.1% (8)
fair pay - 0.1% (8)
for example, - 0.1% (8)
the fair - 0.08% (7)
contracting agencies - 0.08% (7)
such as - 0.08% (7)
rest periods - 0.08% (7)
the flsa - 0.08% (7)
may be - 0.08% (7)
the new - 0.08% (7)
employee is - 0.08% (7)
pay act - 0.08% (7)
sick employee - 0.08% (7)
our agency - 0.08% (7)
of labor - 0.08% (7)
supreme court - 0.08% (7)
a reduction - 0.08% (7)
employee to - 0.08% (7)
the law - 0.08% (7)
applicable to - 0.08% (7)
sexual harassment - 0.08% (7)
and hour - 0.08% (7)
employees to - 0.08% (7)
the agency - 0.08% (7)
apply to - 0.08% (7)
gift exchange - 0.08% (7)
the table - 0.07% (6)
the plaintiffs - 0.07% (6)
tips from - 0.07% (6)
the workplace - 0.07% (6)
department of - 0.07% (6)
labor relations - 0.07% (6)
contribution rates - 0.07% (6)
your agency - 0.07% (6)
not be - 0.07% (6)
at work - 0.07% (6)
code section - 0.07% (6)
school districts, - 0.07% (6)
applies to - 0.07% (6)
age of - 0.07% (6)
the same - 0.07% (6)
2016 posted - 0.07% (6)
on january - 0.06% (5)
the salary - 0.06% (5)
in addition - 0.06% (5)
than a - 0.06% (5)
public school - 0.06% (5)
and charter - 0.06% (5)
charter cities - 0.06% (5)
this blog - 0.06% (5)
counties and - 0.06% (5)
the labor - 0.06% (5)
their break - 0.06% (5)
minimum wage. - 0.06% (5)
to set - 0.06% (5)
the guards - 0.06% (5)
for employees - 0.06% (5)
part of - 0.06% (5)
of this - 0.06% (5)
there is - 0.06% (5)
the minimum - 0.06% (5)
less than - 0.06% (5)
would be - 0.06% (5)
equal pay - 0.06% (5)
federal law - 0.06% (5)
local agency - 0.06% (5)
number of - 0.06% (5)
they were - 0.06% (5)
similar work - 0.06% (5)
whether the - 0.06% (5)
in employment - 0.06% (5)
is not - 0.06% (5)
22, 2016 - 0.06% (5)
and flu - 0.06% (5)
employers are - 0.06% (5)
race, or - 0.05% (4)
california fair - 0.05% (4)
at least - 0.05% (4)
if you - 0.05% (4)
discount rate.  - 0.05% (4)
prior salary - 0.05% (4)
percentage of - 0.05% (4)
the training - 0.05% (4)
a time - 0.05% (4)
2017, the - 0.05% (4)
or ethnicity - 0.05% (4)
public records - 0.05% (4)
normal cost - 0.05% (4)
or rest - 0.05% (4)
substantially similar - 0.05% (4)
a number - 0.05% (4)
their own - 0.05% (4)
sex, race, - 0.05% (4)
contracting agencies, - 0.05% (4)
the wage - 0.05% (4)
november 22, - 0.05% (4)
to consider - 0.05% (4)
do not - 0.05% (4)
on that - 0.05% (4)
california public - 0.05% (4)
law requires - 0.05% (4)
during a - 0.05% (4)
2016, the - 0.05% (4)
have been - 0.05% (4)
a rest - 0.05% (4)
wage will - 0.05% (4)
over the - 0.05% (4)
employers who - 0.05% (4)
the flu - 0.05% (4)
indicated that - 0.05% (4)
provide the - 0.05% (4)
the order - 0.05% (4)
employees who - 0.05% (4)
december 20, - 0.05% (4)
 the court - 0.05% (4)
the calpers - 0.05% (4)
2017 posted - 0.05% (4)
are required - 0.05% (4)
flsa overtime - 0.05% (4)
employees may - 0.05% (4)
employers must - 0.05% (4)
and that - 0.05% (4)
of those - 0.05% (4)
an employer - 0.05% (4)
likely to - 0.05% (4)
have a - 0.05% (4)
the company - 0.05% (4)
or stand - 0.05% (4)
during cold - 0.05% (4)
employees from - 0.05% (4)
public employers - 0.05% (4)
shall be - 0.05% (4)
assumed rate - 0.05% (4)
to take - 0.05% (4)
$10.50 per - 0.05% (4)
employers may - 0.05% (4)
budget forecasting - 0.05% (4)
security guards - 0.05% (4)
to keep - 0.05% (4)
may have - 0.05% (4)
that they - 0.05% (4)
will have - 0.05% (4)
in employer - 0.05% (4)
to all - 0.05% (4)
does not - 0.05% (4)
on investments - 0.05% (4)
new year - 0.05% (4)
and wage - 0.04% (3)
failed to - 0.04% (3)
code and - 0.04% (3)
breaks, a - 0.04% (3)
of employees - 0.04% (3)
during their - 0.04% (3)
agencies should - 0.04% (3)
to 7.0%, - 0.04% (3)
december 1, - 0.04% (3)
employers could - 0.04% (3)
california minimum - 0.04% (3)
did not - 0.04% (3)
this new - 0.04% (3)
california supreme - 0.04% (3)
relieved of - 0.04% (3)
christmas tree - 0.04% (3)
abm security - 0.04% (3)
wage in - 0.04% (3)
work during - 0.04% (3)
themed decorations - 0.04% (3)
pay for - 0.04% (3)
it will - 0.04% (3)
contributions by - 0.04% (3)
meal or - 0.04% (3)
a significant - 0.04% (3)
they have - 0.04% (3)
exempt from - 0.04% (3)
for miscellaneous - 0.04% (3)
purposes of - 0.04% (3)
if your - 0.04% (3)
meet the - 0.04% (3)
per week - 0.04% (3)
similar work. - 0.04% (3)
that if - 0.04% (3)
the supreme - 0.04% (3)
sure to - 0.04% (3)
compensation for - 0.04% (3)
security services - 0.04% (3)
poised to - 0.04% (3)
the break - 0.04% (3)
finance and - 0.04% (3)
require an - 0.04% (3)
of all - 0.04% (3)
blog post - 0.04% (3)
business purpose - 0.04% (3)
board of - 0.04% (3)
requires employers - 0.04% (3)
to accommodate - 0.04% (3)
contributions to - 0.04% (3)
those agencies - 0.04% (3)
higher employer - 0.04% (3)
period time - 0.04% (3)
may not - 0.04% (3)
the holidays - 0.04% (3)
and up - 0.04% (3)
an employee’s - 0.04% (3)
not apply - 0.04% (3)
labor standards - 0.04% (3)
effect on - 0.04% (3)
rest breaks - 0.04% (3)
because it - 0.04% (3)
are not - 0.04% (3)
when they - 0.04% (3)
turn to - 0.04% (3)
text of - 0.04% (3)
calpers board - 0.04% (3)
is the - 0.04% (3)
argument that - 0.04% (3)
the november - 0.04% (3)
the lawsuits - 0.04% (3)
the state, - 0.04% (3)
to raise - 0.04% (3)
rule is - 0.04% (3)
compliance with - 0.04% (3)
for its - 0.04% (3)
per hour.  - 0.04% (3)
employers to - 0.04% (3)
employment eligibility - 0.04% (3)
of their - 0.04% (3)
that it - 0.04% (3)
to overturn - 0.04% (3)
employers from - 0.04% (3)
are also - 0.04% (3)
have to - 0.04% (3)
employers will - 0.04% (3)
of administration - 0.04% (3)
sick leave - 0.04% (3)
authorized to - 0.04% (3)
more serious - 0.04% (3)
community college - 0.04% (3)
for safety - 0.04% (3)
the normal - 0.04% (3)
we are - 0.04% (3)
could expect - 0.04% (3)
to work, - 0.04% (3)
employment law - 0.04% (3)
los angeles - 0.04% (3)
and employment - 0.04% (3)
well as - 0.04% (3)
level of - 0.04% (3)
cold or - 0.04% (3)
implementation of - 0.04% (3)
example, the - 0.04% (3)
in all - 0.04% (3)
to remain - 0.04% (3)
could be - 0.04% (3)
dol regulations - 0.04% (3)
a “serious - 0.04% (3)
health condition” - 0.04% (3)
or she - 0.04% (3)
entitled to - 0.04% (3)
enforcement of - 0.04% (3)
“serious health - 0.04% (3)
a person - 0.04% (3)
set compensation - 0.04% (3)
as well - 0.04% (3)
in wage - 0.04% (3)
to employees - 0.04% (3)
are the - 0.04% (3)
justify a - 0.04% (3)
preliminary injunction - 0.04% (3)
ab 1825 - 0.04% (3)
issued a - 0.04% (3)
addition to - 0.04% (3)
u.s. department - 0.04% (3)
too much - 0.04% (3)
of public - 0.04% (3)
the following - 0.04% (3)
regardless of - 0.04% (3)
the committee’s - 0.04% (3)
want to - 0.04% (3)
five years - 0.04% (3)
employees should - 0.04% (3)
two years - 0.04% (3)
contribution rates. - 0.04% (3)
per year - 0.04% (3)
administration committee - 0.04% (3)
elected officials - 0.04% (3)
or local - 0.04% (3)
in compensation - 0.04% (3)
a disparity - 0.04% (3)
employee has - 0.04% (3)
section 1197.5 - 0.04% (3)
for all - 0.04% (3)
agency officials - 0.04% (3)
the next - 0.04% (3)
go into - 0.02% (2)
authored by - 0.02% (2)
7.5% expected - 0.02% (2)
on hold - 0.02% (2)
and public - 0.02% (2)
findings and - 0.02% (2)
post was - 0.02% (2)
challenge.”  the - 0.02% (2)
by including - 0.02% (2)
rogers on - 0.02% (2)
by frances - 0.02% (2)
contribution, retirement - 0.02% (2)
this prospect - 0.02% (2)
recommendations.  the - 0.02% (2)
that “achieving - 0.02% (2)
return to - 0.02% (2)
calpers, employer - 0.02% (2)
summer, the - 0.02% (2)
prepare now - 0.02% (2)
city of - 0.02% (2)
can read - 0.02% (2)
return over - 0.02% (2)
rate", budgets, - 0.02% (2)
salary basis - 0.02% (2)
in budget - 0.02% (2)
that with - 0.02% (2)
the current - 0.02% (2)
and higher - 0.02% (2)
tags: "discount - 0.02% (2)
new regulations - 0.02% (2)
risk and - 0.02% (2)
in retirement - 0.02% (2)
return and - 0.02% (2)
investments do - 0.02% (2)
not meet - 0.02% (2)
10 years - 0.02% (2)
"discount rate", - 0.02% (2)
the expected - 0.02% (2)
prospect in - 0.02% (2)
including this - 0.02% (2)
in 2012, - 0.02% (2)
further reduction - 0.02% (2)
though, that - 0.02% (2)
now for - 0.02% (2)
results in - 0.02% (2)
should prepare - 0.02% (2)
expected return. - 0.02% (2)
administration will - 0.02% (2)
liabilities because - 0.02% (2)
return rate, - 0.02% (2)
greater unfunded - 0.02% (2)
if calpers’ - 0.02% (2)
budgets, calpers, - 0.02% (2)
a further - 0.02% (2)
expected returns - 0.02% (2)
3% for - 0.02% (2)
safety plans.  - 0.02% (2)
this creates - 0.02% (2)
a considerable - 0.02% (2)
resulted in - 0.02% (2)
or rate - 0.02% (2)
7.5% which - 0.02% (2)
7.75% to - 0.02% (2)
made by - 0.02% (2)
employer contribution, - 0.02% (2)
calpers.  generally, - 0.02% (2)
return is - 0.02% (2)
the higher - 0.02% (2)
expected return, - 0.02% (2)
the lower - 0.02% (2)
rate from - 0.02% (2)
be. the - 0.02% (2)
problem arises, - 0.02% (2)
calpers reduced - 0.02% (2)
determined that - 0.02% (2)
you can - 0.02% (2)
new rule - 0.02% (2)
employees and - 0.02% (2)
power to - 0.02% (2)
contrary to - 0.02% (2)
new salary - 0.02% (2)
including that - 0.02% (2)
v. u.s. - 0.02% (2)
et al. - 0.02% (2)
of labor) - 0.02% (2)
al. v. - 0.02% (2)
coalition of - 0.02% (2)
of texas - 0.02% (2)
eastern district - 0.02% (2)
and private - 0.02% (2)
2016 order - 0.02% (2)
1, 2016.  - 0.02% (2)
succeed on - 0.02% (2)
district of - 0.02% (2)
example, if - 0.02% (2)
the party.  - 0.02% (2)
a harassment - 0.02% (2)
make sure - 0.02% (2)
lisa s. - 0.02% (2)
the eastern - 0.02% (2)
– on - 0.02% (2)
per year, - 0.02% (2)
2016.  the - 0.02% (2)
it remains - 0.02% (2)
seen whether - 0.02% (2)
will appeal - 0.02% (2)
or seek - 0.02% (2)
we reported - 0.02% (2)
pending further - 0.02% (2)
the merits - 0.02% (2)
a supervisor - 0.02% (2)
table: developing - 0.02% (2)
to this - 0.02% (2)
public safety - 0.02% (2)
2014 may - 0.02% (2)
labor and - 0.02% (2)
free speech - 0.02% (2)
whitmore clients - 0.02% (2)
your influencing - 0.02% (2)
state of - 0.02% (2)
7 days - 0.02% (2)
days ago - 0.02% (2)
1 week - 0.02% (2)
labor & - 0.02% (2)
employment blog - 0.02% (2)
terms of - 0.02% (2)
and labor - 0.02% (2)
hold by - 0.02% (2)
irreparable harm - 0.02% (2)
the states, - 0.02% (2)
injunction is - 0.02% (2)
has been - 0.02% (2)
plaintiffs’ argument - 0.02% (2)
agreed with - 0.02% (2)
that, because - 0.02% (2)
court agreed - 0.02% (2)
means a - 0.02% (2)
the regulation - 0.02% (2)
found that - 0.02% (2)
2016 decision - 0.02% (2)
the department - 0.02% (2)
all the - 0.02% (2)
circuit court - 0.02% (2)
is possible - 0.02% (2)
or manager - 0.02% (2)
to reduce - 0.02% (2)
read about - 0.02% (2)
a county’s - 0.02% (2)
are exempt - 0.02% (2)
if they - 0.02% (2)
who are - 0.02% (2)
threshold salary - 0.02% (2)
exempt employees - 0.02% (2)
salary for - 0.02% (2)
the threshold - 0.02% (2)
the hourly - 0.02% (2)
that you - 0.02% (2)
what should - 0.02% (2)
be consulted - 0.02% (2)
counsel should - 0.02% (2)
city’s ability - 0.02% (2)
or charter - 0.02% (2)
potentially supersede - 0.02% (2)
per week) - 0.02% (2)
comply with - 0.02% (2)
yet another - 0.02% (2)
minimum wage.  - 0.02% (2)
to your - 0.02% (2)
political subdivisions - 0.02% (2)
state, and - 0.02% (2)
we recommend - 0.02% (2)
for counties - 0.02% (2)
concern can - 0.02% (2)
strong argument - 0.02% (2)
rights under - 0.02% (2)
in some - 0.02% (2)
limited instances, - 0.02% (2)
a matter - 0.02% (2)
of statewide - 0.02% (2)
however, the - 0.02% (2)
than the - 0.02% (2)
rather than - 0.02% (2)
type of - 0.02% (2)
however, for - 0.02% (2)
should not - 0.02% (2)
personal workspace - 0.02% (2)
undue hardship - 0.02% (2)
holiday gift - 0.02% (2)
a gift - 0.02% (2)
as employees - 0.02% (2)
tree is - 0.02% (2)
other in - 0.02% (2)
in addition, - 0.02% (2)
be reminded - 0.02% (2)
cost of - 0.02% (2)
holiday parties - 0.02% (2)
the two - 0.02% (2)
thus, employers - 0.02% (2)
a christmas - 0.02% (2)
wage requirements - 0.02% (2)
employee may - 0.02% (2)
from flsa - 0.02% (2)
does this - 0.02% (2)
workplace policies - 0.02% (2)
holidays are - 0.02% (2)
religious holiday - 0.02% (2)
example, a - 0.02% (2)
off to - 0.02% (2)
religious connotations - 0.02% (2)
religious beliefs, - 0.02% (2)
try to - 0.02% (2)
to avoid - 0.02% (2)
wish to - 0.02% (2)
decorate the - 0.02% (2)
religious symbol.  - 0.02% (2)
will increase. - 0.02% (2)
in augustus - 0.02% (2)
accrued liability - 0.02% (2)
agencies have - 0.02% (2)
the agency’s - 0.02% (2)
may add - 0.02% (2)
response to - 0.02% (2)
the requestor - 0.02% (2)
the records - 0.02% (2)
allowed to - 0.02% (2)
public documents - 0.02% (2)
act request - 0.02% (2)
requires equal - 0.02% (2)
male-designated restroom - 0.02% (2)
more than - 0.02% (2)
complying with - 0.02% (2)
for appropriate - 0.02% (2)
san francisco, - 0.02% (2)
may include - 0.02% (2)
such records - 0.02% (2)
direct individuals - 0.02% (2)
california labor - 0.02% (2)
months of - 0.02% (2)
also prohibited - 0.02% (2)
section 1019.1 - 0.02% (2)
to receive - 0.02% (2)
members of - 0.02% (2)
and elected - 0.02% (2)
referred to - 0.02% (2)
agency provides - 0.02% (2)
taking office - 0.02% (2)
ab 1661. - 0.02% (2)
training requirements - 0.02% (2)
the training.  - 0.02% (2)
following the - 0.02% (2)
six months - 0.02% (2)
of taking - 0.02% (2)
office and - 0.02% (2)
every two - 0.02% (2)
disparity in - 0.02% (2)
for “substantially - 0.02% (2)
is authorized - 0.02% (2)
or require - 0.02% (2)
supposed to - 0.02% (2)
that an - 0.02% (2)
that would - 0.02% (2)
to justify - 0.02% (2)
hire’s previous - 0.02% (2)
prior salaries - 0.02% (2)
women to - 0.02% (2)
and is - 0.02% (2)
of gender - 0.02% (2)
it may - 0.02% (2)
than an - 0.02% (2)
finally, the - 0.02% (2)
that are - 0.02% (2)
pay act, - 0.02% (2)
was authored - 0.02% (2)
a business - 0.02% (2)
system a - 0.02% (2)
was not - 0.02% (2)
was amended - 0.02% (2)
to pay - 0.02% (2)
law and - 0.02% (2)
based upon - 0.02% (2)
the legislature - 0.02% (2)
wage gaps - 0.02% (2)
in prior - 0.02% (2)
d. knothe - 0.02% (2)
change the - 0.02% (2)
on sex, - 0.02% (2)
the statute - 0.02% (2)
protection of - 0.02% (2)
and equality - 0.02% (2)
act of - 0.02% (2)
the employer’s - 0.02% (2)
discrimination in - 0.02% (2)
pay based - 0.02% (2)
consider the - 0.02% (2)
for many - 0.02% (2)
pagers and - 0.02% (2)
workers’ compensation - 0.02% (2)
unlikely that - 0.02% (2)
possible that - 0.02% (2)
communicable disease - 0.02% (2)
allowing a - 0.02% (2)
is unlikely - 0.02% (2)
covered by - 0.02% (2)
serious communicable - 0.02% (2)
send a - 0.02% (2)
be entitled - 0.02% (2)
a particular - 0.02% (2)
all of - 0.02% (2)
the other - 0.02% (2)
unable to - 0.02% (2)
risk of - 0.02% (2)
is critical - 0.02% (2)
and health - 0.02% (2)
employee home, - 0.02% (2)
that their - 0.02% (2)
a colleague - 0.02% (2)
& employment - 0.02% (2)
don’t feel - 0.02% (2)
so good” - 0.02% (2)
– protecting - 0.02% (2)
illness in - 0.02% (2)
many people - 0.02% (2)
that many - 0.02% (2)
particularly during - 0.02% (2)
or their - 0.02% (2)
home if - 0.02% (2)
signs of - 0.02% (2)
to leave - 0.02% (2)
should consider - 0.02% (2)
including in - 0.02% (2)
will likely - 0.02% (2)
to send - 0.02% (2)
expected to - 0.02% (2)
that is - 0.02% (2)
a familial - 0.02% (2)
to increase - 0.02% (2)
can potentially - 0.02% (2)
supersede a - 0.02% (2)
county’s or - 0.02% (2)
charter city’s - 0.02% (2)
ability to - 0.02% (2)
reported in - 0.02% (2)
one document - 0.02% (2)
matter of - 0.02% (2)
from “list - 0.02% (2)
have the - 0.02% (2)
documents to - 0.02% (2)
prohibited from - 0.02% (2)
honor documents - 0.02% (2)
the authorization - 0.02% (2)
to work.  - 0.02% (2)
statewide concern - 0.02% (2)
instances, a - 0.02% (2)
the table: - 0.02% (2)
six statutes - 0.02% (2)
developing your - 0.02% (2)
influencing skills - 0.02% (2)
in labor - 0.02% (2)
relations, negotiations - 0.02% (2)
tips that - 0.02% (2)
can be - 0.02% (2)
negotiations. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle - 0.02% (2)
local ordinances - 0.02% (2)
some limited - 0.02% (2)
for california - 0.02% (2)
to follow - 0.02% (2)
new minimum - 0.02% (2)
california employees - 0.02% (2)
including the - 0.02% (2)
state, political - 0.02% (2)
subdivisions of - 0.02% (2)
keep their - 0.02% (2)
on, and - 0.02% (2)
their unfunded - 0.02% (2)
employee, employer - 0.02% (2)
and received - 0.02% (2)
information from - 0.02% (2)
over 600 - 0.02% (2)
as public - 0.02% (2)
to receiving - 0.02% (2)
feedback from - 0.02% (2)
and retiree - 0.02% (2)
this, the - 0.02% (2)
organizations. of - 0.02% (2)
those surveyed, - 0.02% (2)
76% of - 0.02% (2)
and 52% - 0.02% (2)
of school - 0.02% (2)
districts, are - 0.02% (2)
return on - 0.02% (2)
committee surveyed - 0.02% (2)
decreasing the - 0.02% (2)
are prefunding - 0.02% (2)
that expected - 0.02% (2)
the problem - 0.02% (2)
arises, though, - 0.02% (2)
calpers’ investments - 0.02% (2)
rate, this - 0.02% (2)
creates risk - 0.02% (2)
and greater - 0.02% (2)
unfunded liabilities - 0.02% (2)
2012, calpers - 0.02% (2)
study of - 0.02% (2)
reduced the - 0.02% (2)
from 7.75% - 0.02% (2)
to 7.5% - 0.02% (2)
which resulted - 0.02% (2)
considerable increase - 0.02% (2)
contribution rates.  - 0.02% (2)
undertook a - 0.02% (2)
investments.  29%  - 0.02% (2)
pension liabilities - 0.02% (2)
return, the - 0.02% (2)
agencies and - 0.02% (2)
current 7.5% - 0.02% (2)
expected rate - 0.02% (2)
next 10 - 0.02% (2)
years will - 0.02% (2)
significant challenge.”  - 0.02% (2)
for contracting - 0.02% (2)
public schools, - 0.02% (2)
and recommendations.  - 0.02% (2)
to 7.25% - 0.02% (2)
reduction to - 0.02% (2)
estimates that - 0.02% (2)
most employers - 0.02% (2)
cost for - 0.02% (2)
line: employer - 0.02% (2)
contributions toward - 0.02% (2)
“achieving the - 0.02% (2)
committee’s findings - 0.02% (2)
while 61% - 0.02% (2)
the level - 0.02% (2)
are planning - 0.02% (2)
rate through - 0.02% (2)
out three - 0.02% (2)
and five - 0.02% (2)
years.  employers - 0.02% (2)
were also - 0.02% (2)
asked what - 0.02% (2)
of impact - 0.02% (2)
high. on - 0.02% (2)
agency if - 0.02% (2)
there was - 0.02% (2)
another drop - 0.02% (2)
72% indicated - 0.02% (2)
impact will - 0.02% (2)
be high - 0.02% (2)
to extremely - 0.02% (2)
lower employer - 0.02% (2)
higher expected - 0.02% (2)
remain vigilant - 0.02% (2)
their breaks, - 0.02% (2)
period.  the - 0.02% (2)
authorized rest - 0.02% (2)
hours worked - 0.02% (2)
time shall - 0.02% (2)
both the - 0.02% (2)
court majority - 0.02% (2)
their pagers - 0.02% (2)
all employees - 0.02% (2)
respond to - 0.02% (2)
and were - 0.02% (2)
not require - 0.02% (2)
remain on - 0.02% (2)
call during - 0.02% (2)
still working - 0.02% (2)
and did - 0.02% (2)
rest periods, - 0.02% (2)
shall not - 0.02% (2)
break time - 0.02% (2)
on behalf - 0.02% (2)
court in - 0.02% (2)
augustus v. - 0.02% (2)
22, 2016, - 0.02% (2)
agency employers. - 0.02% (2)
and reporting - 0.02% (2)
responding to - 0.02% (2)
were filed - 0.02% (2)
abm had - 0.02% (2)
guards and - 0.02% (2)
on call - 0.02% (2)
breaks, and - 0.02% (2)
in essence - 0.02% (2)
were required - 0.02% (2)
and respond - 0.02% (2)
trial court - 0.02% (2)
of appeal - 0.02% (2)
not have - 0.02% (2)
periods, which - 0.02% (2)
generally, the - 0.02% (2)
reported that - 0.02% (2)
look to - 0.02% (2)
the decision - 0.02% (2)
agency labor - 0.02% (2)
v. abm - 0.02% (2)
agency should - 0.02% (2)
to ensure - 0.02% (2)
frances rogers - 0.02% (2)
which will - 0.02% (2)
on employee - 0.02% (2)
put, the - 0.02% (2)
discount rate, - 0.02% (2)
the percentage - 0.02% (2)
of expected - 0.02% (2)
returns on - 0.02% (2)
investments made - 0.02% (2)
by calpers.  - 0.02% (2)
a lawsuit - 0.02% (2)
an agency - 0.02% (2)
a lunch - 0.02% (2)
violation of - 0.02% (2)
break, the - 0.02% (2)
that labor - 0.02% (2)
provisions are - 0.02% (2)
the protection - 0.02% (2)
state agency - 0.02% (2)
wage orders - 0.02% (2)
in case - 0.02% (2)
company could - 0.02% (2)
periods for - 0.02% (2)
pay the - 0.02% (2)
day the - 0.02% (2)
agencies, and - 0.02% (2)
rule that - 0.02% (2)
should check - 0.02% (2)
meal and - 0.02% (2)
to them. - 0.02% (2)
san diego - 0.02% (2)
rate of return - 0.18% (15)
the final rule - 0.16% (13)
the discount rate - 0.13% (11)
reduction in the - 0.13% (11)
tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment - 0.12% (10)
january 1, 2017 - 0.12% (10)
plus comment tags: - 0.11% (9)
liebert cassidy whitmore - 0.1% (8)
the rate of - 0.1% (8)
state minimum wage - 0.1% (8)
january 1, 2017, - 0.1% (8)
effective january 1, - 0.1% (8)
wage and hour - 0.08% (7)
fair pay act - 0.08% (7)
the state minimum - 0.08% (7)
labor code section - 0.07% (6)
in the rate - 0.07% (6)
2016 posted in - 0.07% (6)
tips from the - 0.07% (6)
from the table - 0.07% (6)
if an employee - 0.07% (6)
a reduction in - 0.06% (5)
counties and charter - 0.06% (5)
applicable to public - 0.06% (5)
the labor code - 0.06% (5)
in the discount - 0.06% (5)
november 22, 2016 - 0.05% (4)
are required to - 0.05% (4)
to provide the - 0.05% (4)
increase in the - 0.05% (4)
assumed rate of - 0.05% (4)
to the state - 0.05% (4)
during cold and - 0.05% (4)
a rest period - 0.05% (4)
the fair pay - 0.05% (4)
on december 20, - 0.05% (4)
posted in employment - 0.05% (4)
to public agency - 0.05% (4)
in employer contribution - 0.05% (4)
2017 posted in - 0.05% (4)
increase in employer - 0.05% (4)
of the final - 0.05% (4)
the discount rate.  - 0.05% (4)
december 20, 2016 - 0.05% (4)
sex, race, or - 0.05% (4)
public records act - 0.05% (4)
labor code and - 0.04% (3)
rest period time - 0.04% (3)
in the normal - 0.04% (3)
to work during - 0.04% (3)
require an employee - 0.04% (3)
if your agency - 0.04% (3)
the security guards - 0.04% (3)
during their breaks - 0.04% (3)
law requires employers - 0.04% (3)
california supreme court - 0.04% (3)
the supreme court - 0.04% (3)
meal or rest - 0.04% (3)
to set compensation - 0.04% (3)
employees should be - 0.04% (3)
in addition to - 0.04% (3)
indicated that the - 0.04% (3)
higher employer contributions - 0.04% (3)
public school districts, - 0.04% (3)
as well as - 0.04% (3)
and administration committee - 0.04% (3)
fair labor standards - 0.04% (3)
california minimum wage - 0.04% (3)
there is a - 0.04% (3)
the assumed rate - 0.04% (3)
work during a - 0.04% (3)
finance and administration - 0.04% (3)
december 20, 2016, - 0.04% (3)
set compensation for - 0.04% (3)
employer contributions to - 0.04% (3)
labor standards act - 0.04% (3)
board of administration - 0.04% (3)
under the fair - 0.04% (3)
relieved of all - 0.04% (3)
code and wage - 0.04% (3)
the new year - 0.04% (3)
employer contributions by - 0.04% (3)
the salary threshold - 0.04% (3)
the fair labor - 0.04% (3)
implementation of the - 0.04% (3)
and that the - 0.04% (3)
for example, the - 0.04% (3)
an employee is - 0.04% (3)
the california fair - 0.04% (3)
when they are - 0.04% (3)
justify a disparity - 0.04% (3)
that they are - 0.04% (3)
a “serious health - 0.04% (3)
of the flsa - 0.04% (3)
they are sick - 0.04% (3)
the minimum wage - 0.04% (3)
argument that the - 0.04% (3)
whether the dol - 0.04% (3)
“serious health condition” - 0.04% (3)
enforcement of the - 0.04% (3)
1, 2017, the - 0.04% (3)
california fair pay - 0.04% (3)
u.s. department of - 0.04% (3)
the department of - 0.02% (2)
receiving feedback from - 0.02% (2)
employee, employer and - 0.02% (2)
retiree organizations. of - 0.02% (2)
to be seen - 0.02% (2)
school districts, are - 0.02% (2)
those surveyed, 76% - 0.02% (2)
and 52% of - 0.02% (2)
information from over - 0.02% (2)
committee’s findings and - 0.02% (2)
to 3% for - 0.02% (2)
for safety plans.  - 0.02% (2)
bottom line: employer - 0.02% (2)
contributions toward their - 0.02% (2)
unfunded accrued liability - 0.02% (2)
a percentage of - 0.02% (2)
of the order - 0.02% (2)
of administration will - 0.02% (2)
of return and - 0.02% (2)
600 contracting agencies, - 0.02% (2)
want to consider - 0.02% (2)
surveyed and received - 0.02% (2)
return, the lower - 0.02% (2)
frances rogers on - 0.02% (2)
six statutes for - 0.02% (2)
posted in retirement - 0.02% (2)
7 days ago - 0.02% (2)
table: developing your - 0.02% (2)
simply put, the - 0.02% (2)
is the percentage - 0.02% (2)
of expected returns - 0.02% (2)
whitmore clients in - 0.02% (2)
on investments made - 0.02% (2)
labor and employment - 0.02% (2)
by calpers.  generally, - 0.02% (2)
the higher expected - 0.02% (2)
problem arises, though, - 0.02% (2)
this, the committee - 0.02% (2)
that if calpers’ - 0.02% (2)
investments do not - 0.02% (2)
meet the expected - 0.02% (2)
return rate, this - 0.02% (2)
creates risk and - 0.02% (2)
greater unfunded liabilities - 0.02% (2)
subscribe to this - 0.02% (2)
because the employer - 0.02% (2)
based on that - 0.02% (2)
should be consulted - 0.02% (2)
of decreasing the - 0.02% (2)
discount rate.  as - 0.02% (2)
a part of - 0.02% (2)
undertook a study - 0.02% (2)
new minimum wage - 0.02% (2)
by including this - 0.02% (2)
for employees who - 0.02% (2)
charter city’s ability - 0.02% (2)
or seek other - 0.02% (2)
dol will appeal - 0.02% (2)
seen whether the - 0.02% (2)
remains to be - 0.02% (2)
for counties and - 0.02% (2)
on december 1, - 0.02% (2)
calpers, employer contribution, - 0.02% (2)
go into effect - 0.02% (2)
threshold salary for - 0.02% (2)
compliance with the - 0.02% (2)
eastern district of - 0.02% (2)
the threshold salary - 0.02% (2)
are exempt from - 0.02% (2)
22, 2016 order - 0.02% (2)
flsa overtime exemptions - 0.02% (2)
therefore, if an - 0.02% (2)
lisa s. charbonneau - 0.02% (2)
the employee to - 0.02% (2)
employers should consider - 0.02% (2)
to decorate the - 0.02% (2)
supervisor or manager - 0.02% (2)
employees during the - 0.02% (2)
a christmas tree - 0.02% (2)
a supervisor or - 0.02% (2)
tree is a - 0.02% (2)
should be reminded - 0.02% (2)
who wish to - 0.02% (2)
a county’s or - 0.02% (2)
in the eastern - 0.02% (2)
prospect in budget - 0.02% (2)
the state, and - 0.02% (2)
agreed with the - 0.02% (2)
tags: "discount rate", - 0.02% (2)
budgets, calpers, employer - 0.02% (2)
holiday gift exchange - 0.02% (2)
to the states. - 0.02% (2)
you can read - 0.02% (2)
to go into - 0.02% (2)
they have been - 0.02% (2)
public agencies should - 0.02% (2)
minimum wage in - 0.02% (2)
$10.50 per hour.  - 0.02% (2)
plaintiffs’ argument that - 0.02% (2)
political subdivisions of - 0.02% (2)
and charter cities, - 0.02% (2)
district of texas - 0.02% (2)
on the merits - 0.02% (2)
because the dol - 0.02% (2)
that the final - 0.02% (2)
new salary threshold - 0.02% (2)
including that the - 0.02% (2)
filed by a - 0.02% (2)
department of labor) - 0.02% (2)
in some limited - 0.02% (2)
al. v. u.s. - 0.02% (2)
a coalition of - 0.02% (2)
the final rule. - 0.02% (2)
instances, a matter - 0.02% (2)
of statewide concern - 0.02% (2)
can potentially supersede - 0.02% (2)
counsel should be - 0.02% (2)
california public agency - 0.02% (2)
"discount rate", budgets, - 0.02% (2)
pay based on - 0.02% (2)
fair pay act, - 0.02% (2)
and equality act - 0.02% (2)
for “substantially similar - 0.02% (2)
paul d. knothe - 0.02% (2)
new year by - 0.02% (2)
prior salary to - 0.02% (2)
2017, labor code - 0.02% (2)
hire’s previous salary - 0.02% (2)
prior salary cannot - 0.02% (2)
to complying with - 0.02% (2)
every two years - 0.02% (2)
of taking office - 0.02% (2)
code section 1019.1 - 0.02% (2)
employers are also - 0.02% (2)
rather than a - 0.02% (2)
consider a new - 0.02% (2)
a new hire’s - 0.02% (2)
is authorized to - 0.02% (2)
on call during - 0.02% (2)
and did not - 0.02% (2)
by the state - 0.02% (2)
to remain on - 0.02% (2)
of all duty - 0.02% (2)
time shall be - 0.02% (2)
california labor code - 0.02% (2)
the guards and - 0.02% (2)
on behalf of - 0.02% (2)
may not be - 0.02% (2)
v. abm security - 0.02% (2)
pagers and radio - 0.02% (2)
to keep their - 0.02% (2)
employees to take - 0.02% (2)
act of 2016 - 0.02% (2)
wage and equality - 0.02% (2)
of the labor - 0.02% (2)
a familial relationship - 0.02% (2)
authorized to work, - 0.02% (2)
wage order provision - 0.02% (2)
more serious communicable - 0.02% (2)
from the table: - 0.02% (2)
are expected to - 0.02% (2)
come to work - 0.02% (2)
go home if - 0.02% (2)
for a particular - 0.02% (2)
cold or flu - 0.02% (2)
it is possible - 0.02% (2)
labor relations, negotiations - 0.02% (2)
a cold or - 0.02% (2)
home if the - 0.02% (2)
likely to be - 0.02% (2)
in the workplace - 0.02% (2)
employees from illness - 0.02% (2)
good” – protecting - 0.02% (2)
don’t feel so - 0.02% (2)
developing your influencing - 0.02% (2)
tips that can - 0.02% (2)
for example, a - 0.02% (2)
or charter city’s - 0.02% (2)
authorization to work.  - 0.02% (2)
to honor documents - 0.02% (2)
are also prohibited - 0.02% (2)
as part of - 0.02% (2)
requires employers to - 0.02% (2)
compensation for its - 0.02% (2)
ability to set - 0.02% (2)
supersede a county’s - 0.02% (2)
for the new - 0.02% (2)
concern can potentially - 0.02% (2)
matter of statewide - 0.02% (2)
limited instances, a - 0.02% (2)
to $10.50 per - 0.02% (2)
subdivisions of the - 0.02% (2)
for california employees - 0.02% (2)
employers should be - 0.02% (2)
that labor code - 0.02% (2)
on meal and - 0.02% (2)
this prospect in - 0.02% (2)
impact to the - 0.02% (2)
to extremely high. - 0.02% (2)
will be high - 0.02% (2)
that the impact - 0.02% (2)
rate.  72% indicated - 0.02% (2)
was another drop - 0.02% (2)
labor & employment - 0.02% (2)
the level of - 0.02% (2)
findings and recommendations.  - 0.02% (2)
what would be - 0.02% (2)
were also asked - 0.02% (2)
five years.  employers - 0.02% (2)
out three and - 0.02% (2)
through budget forecasting - 0.02% (2)
are planning for - 0.02% (2)
liabilities while 61% - 0.02% (2)
2016, the calpers - 0.02% (2)
the committee indicated - 0.02% (2)
on investments.  29%  - 0.02% (2)
to 5% for - 0.02% (2)
contributions by including - 0.02% (2)
and higher employer - 0.02% (2)
in the assumed - 0.02% (2)
prepare now for - 0.02% (2)
percentage of payroll - 0.02% (2)
toward their unfunded - 0.02% (2)
line: employer contributions - 0.02% (2)
cost for miscellaneous - 0.02% (2)
that “achieving the - 0.02% (2)
most employers could - 0.02% (2)
estimates that with - 0.02% (2)
a reduction to - 0.02% (2)
be a significant - 0.02% (2)
10 years will - 0.02% (2)
over the next - 0.02% (2)
current 7.5% expected - 0.02% (2)
are prefunding pension - 0.02% (2)
of school districts, - 0.02% (2)
augustus v. abm - 0.02% (2)
arises, though, that - 0.02% (2)
the employer contribution - 0.02% (2)
unfunded liabilities because - 0.02% (2)
risk and greater - 0.02% (2)
rate, this creates - 0.02% (2)
the expected return - 0.02% (2)
do not meet - 0.02% (2)
if calpers’ investments - 0.02% (2)
be. the problem - 0.02% (2)
calpers reduced the - 0.02% (2)
the lower employer - 0.02% (2)
higher expected return, - 0.02% (2)
calpers.  generally, the - 0.02% (2)
investments made by - 0.02% (2)
expected returns on - 0.02% (2)
the percentage of - 0.02% (2)
rogers on december - 0.02% (2)
on that expected - 0.02% (2)
discount rate from - 0.02% (2)
76% of contracting - 0.02% (2)
over 600 contracting - 0.02% (2)
of those surveyed, - 0.02% (2)
and retiree organizations. - 0.02% (2)
from employee, employer - 0.02% (2)
to receiving feedback - 0.02% (2)
districts, in addition - 0.02% (2)
as public school - 0.02% (2)
agencies, as well - 0.02% (2)
received information from - 0.02% (2)
7.75% to 7.5% - 0.02% (2)
committee surveyed and - 0.02% (2)
of this, the - 0.02% (2)
as a part - 0.02% (2)
study of decreasing - 0.02% (2)
committee undertook a - 0.02% (2)
a considerable increase - 0.02% (2)
which resulted in - 0.02% (2)
agency if there - 0.02% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.