The case for the revival of Chevron Deference was filed in the Supreme Court and the court issued an opinion for the actions of federal regulators with the majority of 6-3 judges. Justice Antonin Scalia has decided the case in favor of Federal Communication Commission. The Telecommunication act was formulated in 1996, according to which the ability of local and state authorities has regulated wireless on the sitting decisions. Now the claimant has filed the case for the action of local authorities on the sitting applications within suitable time.
FCC has adopted the view for issuance of declaratory ruling and said that the suitable time means the presumption of 90 days to carry out action on the collocation applications and on the other applications, they need 150 days. This ruling of FCC was challenged in the court by the city of Arlington. Supreme Court conducted the fifth circuit to support FCC. The Supreme Court larger bench maintained the majority decision and asked two questions including the stand of Congress on the issue and if not do so, then ensure construction of law. The court also asked Congress to make intention for filling the gaps, which were left through suspicion in the laws. When Congress see limited action from the agency then they have confirmed the capability to speak and when they see the prudence of the agency then they speak over the issue generally.
The court has said that the judges have issued the interim decision and they did not waste the time in making decision that the interpretation of the statutory provision of the case is come under jurisdiction or not. In this case, FCC has mentioned the suspicion in their jurisdiction. The court has also given references where jurisdiction of agency is applied on the Chevron. The court further said that any decision against FCC could help to change various decisions having connection with agencies. The majority of judge was of the opinion that the arguments go against FCC were used intentionally to demoralize Chevron.
This case was heard by the bench of judges in which Chief Justice Roberts, Kennedy and Alito showed disagree with the case and they also expressed their apprehension over the power exercised by the administrative agencies. They were also of the view that they must finalized that Congress had designated powers to any agency to verify any suspension. The Chief Justice wrote in his opinion that he thought that the standing of federal agencies did not misrepresent the power of the court to decide about the law.
Justice Breyer wrote in his opinion that there is an ambiguity about the decision of jurisdictional and non jurisdictional decision when this question is arisen that any agency can act within its constitutional authority. The ruling of FCC left spaces and these were filled with their own elucidation. Justice Breyer rejected this argument of the petitioner in the presence of saving clause and the presence of judicial review excluded FCC to follow the law. The opinion of Justice Breyer appeared to work as balance between the opposition and majority of bench.
The new ‘employee shareholders’ law has been enacted by the House of Lords and it becomes come into effect immediately. This law has been introduced more or less useful for all practical purposes. House of Lords has also accorded approval for the governing of this law with its clause 27 meant for the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. This law has meaningful amendments, which will assist the employees to perform their responsibilities before using the new employment status. The bill was presented in both houses and meaningful discussion was held there, then both houses granted approval of the bill to provide security to the employee shareholders and this law is governed with immediate effect.
According to the new introducing employment contract, the employers will provide the cooling off period to the employees and from the date of offer, the employment contract will be no effect after passing of seven days. The employers will also provide two written statements and the statement having particulars which are necessary for the Employment Rights Act and the employer will provide the statement of particular within two months after start of the employment. He will also provide the statement quoting the status of the shareholder with detailed particulars to attach with the shares of the employees.
The employers will have to pay the expenses incurred on the obtaining of the advice from the court, which the members House of Lords advised to be taken in thousands as it will facilitate to the employees. The amount of the expenses can also be met by the employees as the individual becomes the shareholder employee or not but he will have to pay this amount. This legal bill has already been discussed in both houses thoroughly and its every nook and corner has been taken into account while thinking over it. After detailed discussion, this bill got approval in both houses and now comes into effect and enacted as a law. The enactment of this law will give satisfaction and confidence to both the employees and employers and they will perform their respective duties in peaceful manner.
In the Employment Rights Act, a clause will be introduced in the new section, section 205 A. This section will provide atmosphere to the employees to work under restrictive terms and the proposal to this effect has attracted sufficient debate for this section meant for the working condition of the employees. With the provision of these new terms, if any employee considers a position then there will be one thing assured that their employers will take a chance by presenting these terms and they should also be well aware of the legal fee for the consideration of new job offered to them. The employers will not wait for any legal advice and he will also not allow the cooling off period to any potential employee. This legal process of the enactment of new law for the employee shareholders will protect their legal rights as well as provide them atmosphere to carry on their business without any hesitation and hassle.
It has been reported that a large number of public and private sector employees prefer the use of social tools at their work place. They are of the opinion that the use of social tools at the work place can enhance their productivity and they can execute the work in entertaining and exciting environment. On the other hand, some companies do not support this opinion for the use of social tools at the work place and they even impose ban on the use of social tools in their area.
Microsoft has conducted a research report in which it has been revealed that about 9908 information worker carried out survey in about 32 countries of the world. They found that about 39 percent employees think that there is no better understanding in the workplaces. About 40 percent people think that the use of social tools can create better understanding and the entertaining environment which is pivotal for the sophisticated collaboration. There is notable number of employees, who have shown their willingness to get their social tools by spending their own money.
The people living in different countries have their different approach towards the use of social tools, the limit of productivity, teamwork and contacting tools in their offices or the work places. The people living in Asian Pacific region are leading attributors in the use of social tools and they enjoy it in their workplace. The people living in Latin America and Europe also like to use social tools for creating better understanding and environment at their workplaces. They consider it helpful for increasing the productivity level and enjoy with it while executing their responsibilities.
The employees working in the financial institutions have to face the restrictions and they are declared prohibited for the use of social tools. These financial sectors have imposed ban on the use of the social tools due to leakage of the important information or security concerns. These financial institutions have adopted strict regulations over the employees to ensure the protection of the financial matter but other departments do not take so much strict actions against the institutions. Other departments like hospital and travelling companies take the action against the use of social tools at low level as they are of the view that use of social tools create hindrance in the routine work and they have to face the loss due to less working. The use of social tools in the hospital can cause the medical negligence which resulted into death or serious condition of the disease. In the sensitive department like hospital, use of social tools in the duty time should be prohibited and it should be encouraged.
In a study, it has been revealed that men like to use the social tools at the workplace and they contribute good response of the use of the social tools. The significant number of women thinks that their department should restrict the use of social tools in the working times and men think that use of social tools is restricted because of some security problems.
In United Kingdom, labor and employment laws have gone through drastic changes during last couple of decades. In fact these modifications and changes in this law have been compelled by various factors such as for falling in line with European Union’s directives, rising inflow of immigrant workforce, and drastically changing acceptance of labor court verdicts by labor union in regard to various labor complaints etc.
The employment laws governing compensation for employed workforce in United Kingdom constitute ‘National Minimum Wage Regulations Act’, and ‘National Minimum Wage Act’ approved by government in 1998. The parliament updates these employment laws every year and determines minimum level of wages for labors working at different levels under employment agreement. It is not necessary that employment agreement between employer and worker is of formal type, it could be an oral employment agreement or implied contracts between both parties; this legislation deals with all these agreement types.
Back in 2008, the minimum wage amount was proposed to be six British pounds for one hour work. It does not matter whether a worker is given daily, weekly, monthly or hourly payments; the law of minimum wage equally applies to all cases. However, there is no guarantee of minimum wage for volunteers, independent directors of companies and apprentices; they may get more or less than this limit depending upon employers. The employment law is not defined for them.
The UK labor and employment law also stipulates the maximum time limit for which a worker can be hired to work daily. Presently, this limit is defined as 48 hours per week or about 9 hours per day. However, it is up to workers if they want to work more than this defined limit, they are free to opt this, but it must be cleared that they are not obligated to do this. No employer is allowed to force his workers to work beyond the time limit specified in law. Moreover, UK employment law is also flexible to take leaves; a worker is permitted to avail a paid leave of minimum five to six weeks during a calendar year. Apart from full time employees, part-time job holders are also equally entitled for availing paid leaves up to six weeks per year. Moreover, all workers are also entitled to have at minimum one off day per week. And if a worker works for a time of more than six hours per day, he has a legal right to get rest break.
Employment law also defines additional benefits for employees working night shifts; employers are liable to pay them free health coverage if workers demand. According to a provision in employment law, companies who are planning to close their business partially or completely can sack their workers. In addition, worker’s laying-off is also permitted if employers have grounds to establish that their company does not need many workers engaged in certain trade. The workers who have served a company for continuous two year can demand payment on their dismissal; this payment would be exempted from tax.
It is common for most employers to be more interested in amassing profits than the safety of their workers. Had it not been for the laws that are aimed at safeguarding the lives of employees, most employees would not have been alive today. The number of workers who have dies as a result of negligence at their places of work is very high. Current statistics between the year 2011 and 2012 indicate that more than 1 million people were suffering from work related illnesses including injuries and infections that were acquired from their places of work. This is a very alarming development that requires immediate attention if the lives of workers are to be safeguarded. Regarding the number deaths that were reported at places of work, the statistics between the year 2011 and 2012 revealed that close to 180 people had lost their lives while at places of work.
The period between 2011 and 2012 also revealed that over a 100, 000 workers had been reported to have been injured while at work. It is important to call to mind the fact that all the injuries that the workers had sustained while at work were very serious and almost fatal. Undoubtedly, there is every need for employees to intensify the safety measures for their employees. Doing this will prevent the continued loss of lives as well as the sustenance of injuries by workers. Both employers and the employees must play a leading role in ensuring that any place of work is as safe as possible. The laws are clear about the safety of the workers and both the employees and the employers are fully aware of what the law stipulates regarding the safety of the workers.
According to the law, there is no employee who should cause a fellow employee to be at risk of being injured at work. The law does not also allow any employee to put the life of an employee at risk. Every employee must make sure that both one’s life and that of another employer is safe. There are many measures that every employee can put in place to ensure that the life of another employee is as safe as possible. For example, all equipment that is very hazardous must be put back to their storage areas after use. Electric powered equipment must be switched off after use to prevent any electrocutions.
On the other hand, employers are supposed to ensure that all their employees are working under safe conditions. As an employer, you must make sure that all equipment is safe for every worker. This means that all equipment must pass both the efficiency and safety test prior to first time usage. It is important to test the safety of all equipment before it can be given to the workers. All employees must be trained to use all equipment properly before it can be given to employees for use. In addition, timely supervision is required to ensure that all employees are using their equipment properly.