Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/GQJK-5P4M-QRPW-5Y3X
Kenneth H. Ryesky
Like other members of the public, those employed by the federal and state governments have personal tax filing and payment obligations. Government agencies seem to hold public employees and officers to enhanced standards in the discharge of their personal tax obligations. The degree and extent to which the tax obligations are so enhanced is dependent on several factors, including the government agency to which the employee reports, the employee's duties, the employee's rank within the agency, and other circumstances relevant to the employee in question. Tax collection agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service generally impose the most stringent tax compliance stand ards on their employees. The enhanced tax obligations must be viewed in light of the employees' personal rights. As the tax law grows increasingly complex, the tax obligations of public employees can be expected to be called to question with increasing frequency, raising concerns for public employer and employee alike. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) clearly and unequivocally requires individuals whose income exceeds a relatively low threshold to file their federal income tax returns in a timely manner [1, 2]. Failure to do so can lead to significant conse quences, both civil [3] and criminal [e.g., 4-5]. Most states have analogous requirements [e.g., 6-8]. The American system of income taxation is based on self-assessment in the initial filing of the return and calculation of the tax [9]. Such a system can operate only through the enforcement of "strict filing standards" [10]. Truthfulness on the part of the taxpayer is most imperative [11-13].
{"title":"Above and Beyond the Call of Duty: Enhanced Tax Obligations of the Public Employee","authors":"Kenneth H. Ryesky","doi":"10.2190/GQJK-5P4M-QRPW-5Y3X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/GQJK-5P4M-QRPW-5Y3X","url":null,"abstract":"Like other members of the public, those employed by the federal and state governments have personal tax filing and payment obligations. Government agencies seem to hold public employees and officers to enhanced standards in the discharge of their personal tax obligations. The degree and extent to which the tax obligations are so enhanced is dependent on several factors, including the government agency to which the employee reports, the employee's duties, the employee's rank within the agency, and other circumstances relevant to the employee in question. Tax collection agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service generally impose the most stringent tax compliance stand ards on their employees. The enhanced tax obligations must be viewed in light of the employees' personal rights. As the tax law grows increasingly complex, the tax obligations of public employees can be expected to be called to question with increasing frequency, raising concerns for public employer and employee alike. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) clearly and unequivocally requires individuals whose income exceeds a relatively low threshold to file their federal income tax returns in a timely manner [1, 2]. Failure to do so can lead to significant conse quences, both civil [3] and criminal [e.g., 4-5]. Most states have analogous requirements [e.g., 6-8]. The American system of income taxation is based on self-assessment in the initial filing of the return and calculation of the tax [9]. Such a system can operate only through the enforcement of \"strict filing standards\" [10]. Truthfulness on the part of the taxpayer is most imperative [11-13].","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126268825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/27R7-P69K-EN6U-3URG
P. Staudohar
This article examines the concept of industrial democracy as it applies to individual rights in the workplace. Although emphasis is placed on the development of rights, it is necessary to develop also the notion of job duties and obligations. Just as a citizen under a politically democratic system is expected to fulfill certain duties, so is an employee expected to perform at a reasonable level of competence. The difficulty of reconciling fairness with efficiency is recognized in the article. Participative management, a modern example of industrial democracy, is discussed as having potential for creating a more egalitarian workplace while at the same time increasing work output and quality. Beginning a new journal is an exciting venture, especially when its area of coverage is so important to working people. The editors should be applauded for their conception of the Journal of Individual Employment Rights and for carefully planning this inaugural issue. It will be interesting to see the Journal evolve. My sense is that it will become an increasingly valuable resource to both scholars and practitioners. It seems likely that in the years ahead new topics will be explored which we have little if any notion of today. Such is the dynamic nature of laws and institutional arrangements affecting the employment field. In considering topics that might be addressed in this and future issues of the Journal, I tried to envision the ballpark of individual employment rights. What are the areas about which authors might be concerned? How can contrasting views of appropriate policies be reconciled? Who stands to gain and lose as a result of the application of rights? The following remarks are brief but hopefully stimulative of thought about the philosophical and research directions that authors might pursue.
{"title":"The Elements of Industrial Democracy","authors":"P. Staudohar","doi":"10.2190/27R7-P69K-EN6U-3URG","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/27R7-P69K-EN6U-3URG","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the concept of industrial democracy as it applies to individual rights in the workplace. Although emphasis is placed on the development of rights, it is necessary to develop also the notion of job duties and obligations. Just as a citizen under a politically democratic system is expected to fulfill certain duties, so is an employee expected to perform at a reasonable level of competence. The difficulty of reconciling fairness with efficiency is recognized in the article. Participative management, a modern example of industrial democracy, is discussed as having potential for creating a more egalitarian workplace while at the same time increasing work output and quality. Beginning a new journal is an exciting venture, especially when its area of coverage is so important to working people. The editors should be applauded for their conception of the Journal of Individual Employment Rights and for carefully planning this inaugural issue. It will be interesting to see the Journal evolve. My sense is that it will become an increasingly valuable resource to both scholars and practitioners. It seems likely that in the years ahead new topics will be explored which we have little if any notion of today. Such is the dynamic nature of laws and institutional arrangements affecting the employment field. In considering topics that might be addressed in this and future issues of the Journal, I tried to envision the ballpark of individual employment rights. What are the areas about which authors might be concerned? How can contrasting views of appropriate policies be reconciled? Who stands to gain and lose as a result of the application of rights? The following remarks are brief but hopefully stimulative of thought about the philosophical and research directions that authors might pursue.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126446890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/D3XU-6LBE-43HR-KRKJ
C. F. Cohen, A. Balfour
ABSTRACT Although employers have considerable rights to regulate employee appear ance, their policies must comply with Title VII. Emerging fashion trends in tattoos, hairstyles, and body piercing present potential challenges to such codes. An analysis of Title VII challenges to employer dress codes is presented. Differences between the application of Title VII to appearance codes and other equal employment issues are noted. The effect of current law on emerging issues is discussed and recommendations for legal compliance are made.
{"title":"Emerging Issues in Title vii and Employment Appearance Codes","authors":"C. F. Cohen, A. Balfour","doi":"10.2190/D3XU-6LBE-43HR-KRKJ","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/D3XU-6LBE-43HR-KRKJ","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although employers have considerable rights to regulate employee appear ance, their policies must comply with Title VII. Emerging fashion trends in tattoos, hairstyles, and body piercing present potential challenges to such codes. An analysis of Title VII challenges to employer dress codes is presented. Differences between the application of Title VII to appearance codes and other equal employment issues are noted. The effect of current law on emerging issues is discussed and recommendations for legal compliance are made.","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126456519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/ME2C-8GUE-JP1T-R4B0
Suzanne Butler
{"title":"Sexual Harassment: Winning the War, but Losing the Peace?","authors":"Suzanne Butler","doi":"10.2190/ME2C-8GUE-JP1T-R4B0","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/ME2C-8GUE-JP1T-R4B0","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129828069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/E3JA-XKTQ-TX71-QHT1
Brandy L. Scott
{"title":"Employee E-Mail: A Protected Right to Privacy","authors":"Brandy L. Scott","doi":"10.2190/E3JA-XKTQ-TX71-QHT1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/E3JA-XKTQ-TX71-QHT1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121529510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/MQN6-6GQL-PMR6-PRMH
E. M. Wagner
The 1991 decision by a federal district court in Kansas declaring that the homosexual classification is suspect is supported in this article [1]. The court's decision requires strict scrutiny of the homosexual classification with respect to employment. The treatment of the homosexual classification in other lower courts, and in the Supreme Court, which has declined to address the equal protection rights of homosexuals, is also discussed. Employment protection for lesbians and gay men, which exists in several states, is noted, and the possible impact of the evidence regarding a biological connection to sexual orientation on the individual employment rights is addressed. The article suggests that protection for sexual orientation could be effected with little disruption in the workplace through an amendment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, extending the law against sexual harassment, and by apply ing the narrowly-defined bona fide occupational qualification. In its quarterly publication, Issues in Human Resources, the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) reported in January, 1991 that although dis crimination laws have historically sought to protect groups with immutable physical characteristics, "The next wave of civil rights protections could be for what may be termed 'lifestyle disabilities.' " [2, p. 8]. The article included sexual preference under this frontier umbrella. The inference was that homosexuality is not based on an immutable physical characteristic [2]. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychobiologists have long puzzled over the cause of homosexuality; there has been less agreement on its cause than on its 1 Some prefer the term sexual orientation because "the word preference suggests a degree of voluntary choice . . . that has not been demonstrated in psychological research" [3, p. 973].
1991年堪萨斯州联邦地区法院宣布同性恋分类是可疑的，这篇文章也支持了这一决定[1]。法院的裁决要求严格审查与就业有关的同性恋分类。本文还讨论了其他下级法院和最高法院对同性恋分类的处理，最高法院拒绝处理同性恋者的平等保护权利。注意到在几个州存在的对男女同性恋者的就业保护，并讨论了关于性取向与生理联系的证据对个人就业权利的可能影响。这篇文章建议，通过修改《民权法案》第七章，扩大反性骚扰的法律，并应用狭义的“真实职业资格”，可以在工作场所不受干扰的情况下实现对性取向的保护。1991年1月，美国人力资源管理学会(SHRM)在其季刊《人力资源问题》(Issues In Human Resources)中报告称，尽管歧视法在历史上一直寻求保护具有不可改变的身体特征的群体，“下一波民权保护可能是针对所谓的‘生活方式残疾’。”’”[2，第8页]。这篇文章将性偏好纳入了这个前沿保护伞之下。由此得出的结论是，同性恋并不是基于一种不可改变的生理特征[2]。长期以来，心理学家、精神病学家和心理生物学家一直对同性恋的成因感到困惑;有些人更喜欢用“性取向”这个词，因为“偏好这个词暗示了某种程度的自愿选择……这在心理学研究中还没有得到证实”[3，第973页]。
{"title":"A Kinder, Gentler Workplace for Lesbians and Gay Men","authors":"E. M. Wagner","doi":"10.2190/MQN6-6GQL-PMR6-PRMH","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/MQN6-6GQL-PMR6-PRMH","url":null,"abstract":"The 1991 decision by a federal district court in Kansas declaring that the homosexual classification is suspect is supported in this article [1]. The court's decision requires strict scrutiny of the homosexual classification with respect to employment. The treatment of the homosexual classification in other lower courts, and in the Supreme Court, which has declined to address the equal protection rights of homosexuals, is also discussed. Employment protection for lesbians and gay men, which exists in several states, is noted, and the possible impact of the evidence regarding a biological connection to sexual orientation on the individual employment rights is addressed. The article suggests that protection for sexual orientation could be effected with little disruption in the workplace through an amendment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, extending the law against sexual harassment, and by apply ing the narrowly-defined bona fide occupational qualification. In its quarterly publication, Issues in Human Resources, the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) reported in January, 1991 that although dis crimination laws have historically sought to protect groups with immutable physical characteristics, \"The next wave of civil rights protections could be for what may be termed 'lifestyle disabilities.' \" [2, p. 8]. The article included sexual preference under this frontier umbrella. The inference was that homosexuality is not based on an immutable physical characteristic [2]. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychobiologists have long puzzled over the cause of homosexuality; there has been less agreement on its cause than on its 1 Some prefer the term sexual orientation because \"the word preference suggests a degree of voluntary choice . . . that has not been demonstrated in psychological research\" [3, p. 973].","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128811425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/GUNH-B34U-XDX0-JBTK
R. K. Robinson, E. Gillenwater, D. Terpstra
In a recent decision, the NLRB has created a framework for legal analysis of unlawful employer domination allegations which threatens many employee participation or empowerment programs in nonunion places of employment. A marked incompatibility in the application of the 58 year old National Labor Relations Act and current accepted management practices has been noted. The most likely solution to this apparent dilemma in labor-management relations appears to be statutory reform of the labor code. On December 16, 1992, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision likely to have profound consequences for many employee participation programs (EPP) nationwide. In its Electromation, Inc. v. International Brother hood of Teamsters ruling [1], the NLRB upheld the decision of Administrative Law Judge George F. Mclnerny that the company's employee "action com mittees" were "labor organizations" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) [2]. The administrative law judge had further held that these "labor organizations" (the aforementioned action committees) were unlaw fully dominated by the employer in violation of § 8(a)(2) of the NLRA. In affirming the decision of the administrative law judge, the NLRB was scrupulous
在最近的一项决定中，NLRB创建了一个框架，用于对非法雇主支配指控进行法律分析，这些指控威胁到许多员工参与或在非工会就业场所授权项目。已实行58年的《国家劳动关系法》的适用与目前公认的管理做法明显不一致。对于劳资关系中这种明显的困境，最有可能的解决方案似乎是对劳动法进行法定改革。1992年12月16日，国家劳资关系委员会(NLRB)发布了一项决定，可能对全国许多员工参与计划(EPP)产生深远影响。在Electromation, Inc.诉国际卡车司机兄弟会案(International Brother - hood of Teamsters)的裁决[1]中，NLRB支持行政法法官George F. Mclnerny的判决，即该公司的员工“行动委员会”是《国家劳动关系法》(National labor Relations Act, NLRA)意义上的“劳工组织”[2]。行政法法官进一步认为，这些“劳工组织”(上述行动委员会)是非法的——由雇主主导，违反了《劳资关系法》第8(a)(2)条。在确认行政法法官的决定时，NLRB是谨慎的
{"title":"Electromation v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters: Analytic Framework for NLRB Interpretation of Unlawful Employer Domination of Nonunion Employee Participation Programs","authors":"R. K. Robinson, E. Gillenwater, D. Terpstra","doi":"10.2190/GUNH-B34U-XDX0-JBTK","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/GUNH-B34U-XDX0-JBTK","url":null,"abstract":"In a recent decision, the NLRB has created a framework for legal analysis of unlawful employer domination allegations which threatens many employee participation or empowerment programs in nonunion places of employment. A marked incompatibility in the application of the 58 year old National Labor Relations Act and current accepted management practices has been noted. The most likely solution to this apparent dilemma in labor-management relations appears to be statutory reform of the labor code. On December 16, 1992, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision likely to have profound consequences for many employee participation programs (EPP) nationwide. In its Electromation, Inc. v. International Brother hood of Teamsters ruling [1], the NLRB upheld the decision of Administrative Law Judge George F. Mclnerny that the company's employee \"action com mittees\" were \"labor organizations\" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) [2]. The administrative law judge had further held that these \"labor organizations\" (the aforementioned action committees) were unlaw fully dominated by the employer in violation of § 8(a)(2) of the NLRA. In affirming the decision of the administrative law judge, the NLRB was scrupulous","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116606589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：