 It bars employers from: • 1. firing, disciplining, or otherwise retaliating against an employee who (a) refuses to provide this access or (b) files a complaint with a public or private body or court about the employer's request for access or retaliation for refusing such access and • 2. refusing to hire an applicant because the applicant would not provide access to his or her personal online account. Under the bill, a “personal online account” is an online account the employee or applicant uses exclusively for personal purposes unrelated to any of the employer's business purposes, including e-mail, social media, and retail-based Internet web sites. It does not include any account created, maintained, used, or accessed by an employee or applicant for the employer's business purposes. The bill makes exceptions for accounts and devices the employer provides and for certain types of investigations. Employers covered by the bill include the state and its political subdivisions, but its prohibitions do not apply to a state or local law enforcement agency conducting a preemployment investigation of law enforcement personnel. The bill allows employees and applicants to file a complaint with the labor commissioner, who can impose civil penalties of up to $25 for initial violations against job applicants and $500 for initial violations against employees. Penalties for subsequent violations can be up to $500 for violations against applicants and up to $1,000 for violations against employees. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2015 EXCEPTIONS: The bill provides for a number of circumstances in which an employer can request or require an employee or applicant to provide a user name, password, or other authentication means for a personal online account. Employer's Accounts and Devices: It allows an employer to request or require that an employee or applicant provide access to: • 1. any account or service (a) provided by the employer or by virtue of the employee's work relationship with the employer or (b) that the employee uses for business purposes and • 2. any electronic communications device the employer supplied or paid for, in whole or in part. It defines “electronic communications device” as any electronic device capable of transmitting, accepting, or processing data, including a computer, computer network and computer system, as defined in state law, and a cellular or wireless telephone. Investigations: The bill allows exceptions for certain investigations, with limitations. Employers can conduct an investigation: • 1. based on receiving specific information about activity on an employee's or applicant's personal online account to ensure compliance with (a) applicable state or federal laws, (b) regulatory requirements, or (c) prohibitions against work-related employee misconduct or • 2. based on receiving specific information about an employee's or applicant's unauthorized transfer of the employer's proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to or from a personal online account operated by an employee, applicant, or other source. An employer conducting these investigations can require an employee to provide access to a personal online account, but cannot require disclosure of the user name, password, or other means of accessing the personal online account. For example, an employee or applicant under investigation could be required to privately access a personal online account, but then provide the employer with access to the account content. The bill permits an employer to discharge, discipline, or otherwise penalize an employee or applicant who transferred, without the employer's permission, the employer's proprietary information, confidential information, or financial data to or from the employee or applicant's personal online account. Monitoring and Blocking Data: The bill allows an employer, in compliance with state and federal law, to monitor, review, access, or block electronic data (1) stored on an electronic communications device paid for in whole or in part by the employer or (2) traveling through or stored on an employer's network. State and Federal Laws: The bill specifies that it does not prevent an employer from complying with state or federal laws, regulations, or rules for self-regulatory organizations (e.g., the Securities Exchange Commission's rules). ENFORCEMENT: The bill allows employees and applicants to file complaints with the labor commissioner alleging an employer requested or required access to a personal online account or retaliated for a refusal to provide access in violation of this bill. The commissioner must investigate each complaint and may hold a hearing, after which she must send each party a written decision. Any employee or applicant who prevails in a hearing must be awarded reasonable attorneys' fee and costs. If the commissioner finds an employer violated the bill's ban on requesting access to an employee's account, or retaliated against an employee for refusing to provide access, she can (1) levy a civil penalty against the employer of up to $500 for an initial violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation and (2) award the employee all appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement, back pay, reestablishment of wages, or any other relief the commissioner deems appropriate. If she finds an employer violated the bill's ban on requesting access to an applicant's account, or refused to hire an applicant for refusing to provide access, she can (1) levy a civil penalty against the employer of up to $25 for an initial violation and $500 for each subsequent violation. The commissioner can ask the attorney general to bring a civil suit to recover any of the above civil penalties. Any party aggrieved by the commissioner's decision can appeal to the Superior Court. NOTE: The analysis provided here may not be based on the ultimate language of the new Public Act as the legislature may have fiddled with it in the final stages of the law’s passage. A final copy of the language of the law can be found at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/act/pa/2015PA-00006-R00SB-00426-PA.htm. NOTE: This report is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in providing legal, financial, accounting or other professional advice. If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.. © 2015 Connecticut Human Resource Reports, LLC |
31 May 2015
• Connecticut Public Act 15-6 [SB-0426] — Effective October 1, 2015
29 May 2015
• U.S. Gross Domestic Product — Q1 2015
|
Real gross domestic product -- the value of the production of goods and services in the United States, adjusted for price changes -- decreased at an annual rate of 0.7 percent in the first quarter of 2015, according to the "second" estimate. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 2.2 percent. The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the "advance" estimate issued last month. In the advance estimate, real GDP increased 0.2 percent. With the second estimate for the first quarter, imports increased more and private inventory investment increased less than previously estimated. The decrease in real GDP in the first quarter primarily reflected negative contributions from exports, nonresidential fixed investment, and state and local government spending that were partly offset by positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), private inventory investment, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased. Please visit this link to read the full report: USDOC-BEA NOTE: This report is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in providing legal, financial, accounting or other professional advice. If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Furthermore, while we do our best to ensure that these data are accurate, we suggest that any entity making decisions based on these numbers should verify the data at their source prior to making such decisions. © 2015 Connecticut Human Resource Reports, LLC |
28 May 2015
• U.S. Initial Unemployment Claims — 23 May 2015
In the week ending May 23, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 282,000, an increase of 7,000 from the previous week's revised level. The previous week's level was revised up by 1,000 from 274,000 to 275,000. The advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate was 1.7 percent for the week ending May 16, an increase of 0.1 percentage point from the previous week's unrevised rate. The advance number for seasonally adjusted insured unemployment during the week ending May 16 was 2,222,000, an increase of 11,000 from the previous week's unrevised level of 2,211,000. The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending May 9 were in Alaska (3.3), Puerto Rico (2.8), the Virgin Islands (2.6), New Jersey (2.5), California (2.4), Connecticut (2.3), Nevada (2.2), Pennsylvania (2.2), West Virginia (2.1), Illinois (2.0), Massachusetts (2.0), and Wyoming (2.0). The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending May 16 were in Missouri (+1,382), Oregon (+1,002), New York (+965), Kentucky (+604), and Pennsylvania (+575), while the largest decreases were in California (-2,530), South Carolina (-705), Illinois (-648), Colorado (-439), and Georgia (-431). Note: “Insured unemployment rate” refers to individuals who are unemployed and receiving UC benefits. See the complete report at this link: USDOL-BLS NOTE: This report is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in providing legal, financial, accounting or other professional advice. If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Furthermore, while we do our best to ensure that these data are accurate, we suggest that any entity making decisions based on these numbers should verify the data at their source prior to making such decisions. © 2015 Connecticut Human Resource Reports, LLC URL: http://connecticuthumanresources.blogspot.com/ |
27 May 2015
• U.S. Labor Market Conditions Index — April 2015
|
The Federal Reserve reports that the LMCI for APRIL is: -1.9 Supposedly, values above zero indicate an improving labor market and values below zero indicate a deteriorating labor market. Please visit this link to read the full report: Federal Reserve Fed: “The LMCI is derived from a dynamic factor model that extracts the primary common variation from 19, seasonally-adjusted, labor market indicators. Users can read about the included indicators at: Federal Reserve Information on the LMCI. Users of the LMCI should take note that the entire history of the LMCI may revise each month….” The Wall Street Journal says, “The labor market conditions index is by definition an index. Higher index numbers are positives and vice versa. The report focuses on the change in the index — how strong a plus change or a negative change. Plus indicates improving labor market conditions. But there is extreme detail with 19 components. Subcomponent detail can be important, depending on how many components are positive versus those that are negative or sluggish. A key feature of this report is that it pulls together many labor market indicators into one place.” NOTE: This report is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in providing legal, financial, accounting or other professional advice. If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Furthermore, while we do our best to ensure that these data are accurate, we suggest that any entity making decisions based on these numbers should verify the data at their source prior to making such decisions. © 2015 Connecticut Human Resource Reports, LLC |
• U.S. Regional & State Unemployment & Employment — April 2015
|
Unemployment: Regional and state unemployment rates were little changed in April. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia had unemployment rate decreases from March, 11 states had increases, and 16 states had no change. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia had unemployment rate decreases from a year earlier and five states had increases. Employment: 17 states had statistically significant over-the-month changes in employment, all of which were positive. The largest significant job gains occurred in California (+29,500), Pennsylvania (+27,000), and Florida (+24,500). Please visit this link to read the full report: USDOL-BLS NOTE: This report is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in providing legal, financial, accounting or other professional advice. If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Furthermore, while we do our best to ensure that these data are accurate, we suggest that any entity making decisions based on these numbers should verify the data at their source prior to making such decisions. © 2015 Connecticut Human Resource Reports, LLC |
• Connecticut Labor Situation — April 2015
|
Preliminary nonfarm employment estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS establishment survey) show Connecticut added 1,200 jobs (0.07%) to state payrolls in April 2015 - seasonally adjusted. Connecticut has now increased job levels by 23,200 since April 2014 (1.39%, 1,933 jobs per month) to 1,687,200. March’s initially estimated job increase of 4,000 (0.24%) was revised slightly lower by 700 positions to a 3,300 job gain (0.20%). This is the third monthly employment increase in 2015 and the tenth monthly job gain in the last twelve months.  “This was a relatively quiet month in the job market with mixed results across the state’s major industry sectors,” said Andy Condon, Director of the Office of Research. “Continuing job growth combined with improving wages appears to be attracting more job seekers into the labor market.” Please visit this link to read the full report: CTDOL NOTE: This report is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in providing legal, financial, accounting or other professional advice. If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Furthermore, while we do our best to ensure that these data are accurate, we suggest that any entity making decisions based on these numbers should verify the data at their source prior to making such decisions. © 2015 Connecticut Human Resource Reports, LLC |
26 May 2015
• Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®— May 2015
|
”The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index®, which had declined in April, increased moderately in May. The Index now stands at 95.4 (1985=100), up from 94.3 in April…  Please visit this link to read the full report: TheConferenceBoard NOTE: This report is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in providing legal, financial, accounting or other professional advice. If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Furthermore, while we do our best to ensure that these data are accurate, we suggest that any entity making decisions based on these numbers should verify the data at their source prior to making such decisions. © 2015 Connecticut Human Resource Reports, LLC |