Keyword or Search: <% Dim MyValue2 Randomize MyValue2 = Int((6 * Rnd) + 1) Set Conn = Server.CreateObject("ADODB.Connection") Conn.Open Session("trsa_ConnectionString2") MySQL = "Select * From HouseAds Where HouseAdID Like '%" & MyValue2 & "%' " Set Conn = Conn.Execute(MySQL) %> "> " alt="" width=130 height=85 border=1 align=top> <% conn.close %>	Fair Labor Standards Act What Does Law's Language Really Mean to Our Industry? Since its coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the linen supply industry has been faced with numerous questions regarding application of the law. Many of these are concerned with what the language of the law really means. Others are special circumstance cases. Here is a recent example of the latter. This case, which is important in view of the riots, was decided by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor. An employee was unable to leave his employer's premises after regular working hours because of rioting in the streets outside his place of employment. Under terms of the FLSA, any employees required to work overtime must be paid at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of the statutory number of hours. For linen suppliers not covered by the law before its 1966 amendments, overtime is defined as all work in excess of 42 hours a week, effective Feb. 1, 1968. (Feb. 1, 1969, overtime will be that worked in excess of 40 hours a week.) The employee remained on the premises of his employer for his own personal safety and not to do any work for the employer. The question raised by the employer's inquiry of the Wage-Hour Division was whether the time spent by the employee on the premises after his normal duty hours would be compensable at the overtime rate. In answering this question, the Wage-Hour Division stated that "where an employee is unable to leave his employer's premises after his normal duty hours because of civil disorder, the time so spent would not be considered compensable for the purposes of the act, provided no production, in fact, was performed by the employee during such period." Employer Can Ask Applicant's Age, But He Must Not Discriminate on Age The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits employment discrimination based upon age and is administered by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor. A recent opinion letter issued by the Wage-Hour Division clarifies practices under the act which seek an applicant's age on employment applications. This opinion follows decisions by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board prohibiting inquiries as to race and union membership, respectively. In this case, an employer asked of the Wage-Hour Division if he could lawfully request age information of a job applicant. The Wage-Hour Division stated such an inquiry in itself was not prohibited by the act, but, because such an inquiry may indirectly indicate a preference or discrimination based upon age, inquiries on age would be closely scrutinized to assure that such a request is for a permissible purpose and not for proscribed purposes. The Wage-Hour Division stated its position that a request by an employer for information such as date of birth is not a prohibited inquiry provided that it is not used to discriminate. The division further stated that to inform the applicant that the purpose of the inquiry is not discriminatory, it would be advisable either to state orally that the employer will not discriminate on the basis of age or else note on the application form that the age discrimination act prohibits discrimination on the basis of age if individuals are at least 40 but less than 65 years old. As a practical matter, any employment application used by a linen supplier should state the fact that the company does not discriminate in employment on the basis of race, sex or age. In this way, the company protects itself from criticism and possible sanction by the federal regulatory agencies. Labor Standards Act Applies To Hospitals and Nursing Homes A recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court will interest linen suppliers who have contracts with hospitals and nursing homes. The decision makes provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act applicable to employees of any institution primarily engaged in care of the sick, aged or mentally ill or defective, who reside on the premises of such institution, regardless of whether the institution is public or private. These employees have been covered by provisions of the act in the 1966 amendments. However, several states challenged the constitutionality of federal wage-hour standards being applied to employees of public hospitals or other institutions. The Supreme Court held these amendments to be constitutional and should be enforced. The significance of this decision to linen suppliers who contract with hospitals, nursing homes or institutions for care of the mentally ill is that such institutions no longer have a wage advantage over linen suppliers in performing their own textile maintenance. Thus, there is a larger market for linen supply services because of the economic impact of this Supreme Court decision. Equal Opportunity Coverage Extended ON July 2, 1968, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) automatically expanded its coverage to add 195,000 employers with 25 or more employees and unions with 25 or more members. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act now extends to about six million more employees. This represents an increase of 150% over the number of employers covered by Title VII before July 2. This part of the act bans job discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Before July 2, 1968, the cut-off point was 50 employees. EEOC's jurisdiction now extends to 329,000 employers with some 44 million workers. This expansion is expected to produce longer delays in the EEOC administrative process which is already overburdened. Proceedings before the commission now may take months—even years—to conclude.