Daniel O’Donnell has expressed fears that Brexit will affect his future music tours to the UK. The Donegal singer has revealed that he was always against Brexit and is hoping for a peaceful outcome to negotiations.Daniel says he worries about how the UK’s split from the EU will affect his career as he tours across the continent. Daniel is currently performing a series of shows in Branson, Missouri in the US. He told BBC Radio Ulster: “It (Brexit) shouldn’t affect people south of the border but it’s going to affect us. I think it will affect us very much in an economic way, it has to, because there’s such a trade thing with the UK and Ireland and there’s such movement between the two countries. And I know very little about economics but it’s just how I see it.“I would hate to think that every time we go to England you have a whole big hoo-haa of passports and all them little things too.”Daniel said he was personally disappointed with the UK’s vote to leave the EU and wouldn’t rule out supporting a second referendum “if the majority felt they made the wrong decision.”Daniel, who is about to release a new album for Christmas, said he hopes that Brexit will not affect peace in Northern Ireland. He said: “The one thing we must be absolute about is that it never goes back to the Troubles because of something like Brexit. It would be a pure tragedy.”Daniel O’Donnell’s new album ‘Walking In The Moonlight’ is out on 30th November and available to pre-order now.*AFDaniel worries about passport ‘hoo-haa’ after Brexit was last modified: November 25th, 2018 by Staff WriterShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:Brexitdaniel o donnell
The lesson for employers is that giving an employee a Hobson’s Choice is indeed a great way to promote employee litigation. And for the love of Pete! Twenty-eight disciplinary notices?!? Remember folks: hire slow, fire fast. Yeah, not so much, said the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals: A demotion to a different position that pays significantly less than the former position is certainly materially adverse…a demotion taken voluntarily is not an adverse employment action…[But], Hicks testified that he had no choice but to accept the demotion because he [reasonably] believed that he would be fired if he did not…Such a choice could be said to be no choice at all, and the jury agreed. Thus, Hicks presented sufficient evidence at trial for a reasonable jury to find that his demotion was involuntary. A maintenance mechanic in Illinois received twenty-eight disciplinary-action forms from his supervisor. Ultimately, he was offered two choices: (1) accept a demotion to a non-mechanic position and take a significant pay cut; or (2) keep the position, fight the discipline, but face potential termination. On the advice of his union representative, the mechanic took the demotion. He later sued for retaliation, claiming that the demotion, which he voluntarily accepted, was a direct response to a charge of discrimination he previously filed with the EEOC. Is this retaliation? A federal circuit court gave us the answer. The case is Hicks v. Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois. At trial, a jury determined that the company had, in fact, retaliated against the plaintiff and awarded him $30,000. The company subsequently appealed, arguing that no rational jury could have found for the plaintiff because he did not present sufficient evidence of retaliation. To prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate three elements: He opposed an unlawful employment practice; That he suffered an adverse employment action; and That the adverse employment action was caused by his opposition to the unlawful employment practice. The company argued on appeal that the mechanic did not present evidence that he had suffered an adverse employment action. Indeed, he voluntarily accepted a demotion on the advice of his union representative.
Is Uber’s recognition of the Independent Driver’s Guild (IDG) in New York a step in the right direction or an evil red herring? It depends, of course, on which lawyer you ask.One the one hand, lawyers for the IDG say the agreement with Uber will guarantee drivers monthly meetings to raise concerns, create an appeals process for driver termination decisions and provide legal services and benefits to drivers at discounted rates.Some view this agreement as a positive development – the forging of an unlikely and unsteady alliance. The agreement will provide some protection for drivers while also helping Uber stem the flow of litigation. Uber also gains an ally in its attempt to repeal a New York law taxing “black car” rides 9%, but which exempts traditional yellow taxi cabs.On the other side of the debate, we have Senator Elizabeth Warren, who says the “gig economy” is merely a symptom of the erosion of worker rights over time. Taking on-demand taxi gigs is a sort of last-ditch effort to create economic security and autonomy by workers who’ve been marginalized and squeezed by corporate America while all the wealth flowed to the top. She may have a point.To be fair to Uber, unionizing gig economy workers is really difficult. It starts with the mentality of such workers, having watched as their influence over wages at the corporate level dissipated steadily over the years and as traditional trade unions were pushed out. Union membership rates have been declining consistently for about 50 years. And during that time, wages for the vast majority of Americans remained stagnant while the C suite got paid. About that, Senator Warren is correct.Now, however, workers have the technology to fight back. They can use apps like Uber and Lyft to provide transportation, Miniluxe or Shortcut to provide onsite hairstyling and even source temporary staffing apps like Shiftgig and TaskRabbit to find short-term jobs. They can choose their own wages, essentially, by choosing how often they want to work. The catch, of course, is that workers who want both the flexibility and the money are hung out to dry when they have a medical or financial crisis because their “employer” doesn’t provide health insurance. Not to mention, the lack of a practical, portable retirement savings account (in the absence of employer-sponsored 401(k)s for contractors) means those workers may be left hanging in retirement as well.The other catch is that being a contractor (employee?) for one of these companies means your choices about work are going to be very personal. The amount of individual control workers have over these apps and their work schedules makes it very difficult to get them to agree on broad labor terms, let alone specifics like benefit plans or wages. That makes it extremely impractical and difficult to get them to band together and that is why the formation of the IDG and its recognition by Uber is a big development, albeit on a small scale.As usual, the solution is a compromise and perhaps a reimagining of some labor regulations to reflect modern working conditions. Uber drivers are not, after all, gathering at some shady parking lot in downtown San Francisco at 5 a.m. every day to wait for work. They’re scanning smartphones for gigs in their downtime between hipster beard trimming class and Yoga.Senator Warren says there should be three major objectives for policy makers, legislators and worker unions in trailblazing the gig economy’s path when it comes to labor regulations: Improve the safety net by providing catastrophic insurance coverage, Make healthcare benefits portable; and Make retirement benefits portable.Those goals remain lofty and far off for now as the IDG won’t do much of that for Uber drivers in New York. But Uber’s recognition of the IDG is a small, tentative step in the right direction.Discrimination NationColleen Dominguez’s sex and age discrimination suit against Fox Sports 1 (FS1) will proceed to trial after the employer’s motion to dismiss the case on First Amendment grounds was denied. FS1 argued that it withheld assignments from Dominguez based on its right to craft its own programming message, but according to the court, that argument completely misses the point of the lawsuit. If crafting a corporate message results in the marginalization of individuals based on their sex or age, it’s still illegal.In this case, Dominguez claims she was asked to get an “Erin Andrews makeover” (complete with a facelift and hair extensions). This was in addition to numerous other comments and critiques about her physical appearance, issues which were not common with male or younger female colleagues. Now that the case can proceed, that will open up the “discovery” phase, during which time lawyers for Dominguez may get to see exactly what FS1 had to say about her when it chose not to let her cover big assignments like the 2015 Super Bowl, for example. Uh oh.Good news for employers that have faced frivolous or otherwise “unreasonable” EEOC lawsuits. In CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC, the Supreme Court held that the employer may recover up to $4 million in attorney’s fees from the EEOC after defending itself against a charge of systemic sexual harassment. During the investigation and resulting lawsuit, the EEOC (allegedly) failed to make witnesses available for depositions and otherwise allowed the statute of limitations on claims to expire in some cases.In these types of situations, attorney’s fees may be recoverable, but something tells me that pretty much every single employer that has ever been sued would view the lawsuit as “unreasonable.” Tread carefully when seeking attorney’s fees as it’s immensely difficult to prevail on those types of cases and you will accrue additional attorney’s fees in the process of trying to collect them. Gotta love lawyers!Compliance CarouselNew York State is suing Domino’s (corporate) together with several Domino’s franchisees, claiming that they collaborated to underpay workers by about $565,000 in 10 different stores. To bring corporate Domino’s into the case, the state will have to make the “joint employer” argument which means proving allegations that corporate Domino’s micromanaged employee relations issues at the franchisee level.The “ignorance of the law” defense rarely, if ever, works in court. In Craig v. Bridges Bros. Trucking, the 6th Circuit ruled that ignorance of FLSA regulations did not excuse an employer’s failure to pay proper overtime. The district court had ruled in the employer’s favor because the employee in question had failed to notify her employer about the missed overtime payments. The 6th Circuit found, however, that the employer likely knew about its overtime pay obligation to the employee because of some internal communications about capping her work hours.How is this song related to HR?In the last edition of HR Intel, we asked you how “Candidate” by Joy Division is related to HR. This song is very much about politics, but you don’t need much experience in the modern work setting to know that politics are hyper-relevant. Not only do people bring their political persuasions into the workplace, but office politics add a whole other layer of complexity.Candidate is about the struggles that go on between individuals or groups with different value systems and ultimately, a recognition that we’re all different and unique, yet we have similar objectives in that we need to work together. Sounds like something relatable to HR.We leave you with “Burn the Witch” by Radiohead from their new album: A Moon Shaped Pool.Tell us how you think this song is related to HR in the comments section below.Originally posted on the XpertHR blog.
Facing demands for his dismissal, Indian Army Chief General V.K. Singh on Thursday said the leak of his letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh presenting a grim picture of the force’s defence preparedness should be treated as “high treason” and the source of leakage dealt with “ruthlessly”.The assertion by the General to trace the source of the leak came even as Defence sources said that Intelligence Bureau has been asked to inquire into leakage of the letter to the media.As tensions between him and the government escalated over the leak of his official letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Gen Singh hit back saying a “cynical approach” to tarnish his reputation should stop.In a brief statement released by Army Headquarters, Gen Singh, who is currently in Jammu and Kashmir, further said his official communication with the Prime Minister and Defence Minister A.K. Antony is “privileged” communication.”The leakage of the letter should be treated as high treason. Cynical approach to tarnish my reputation should stop. Sources of the leakage should be found and dealt with ruthlessly,” said Singh, who is due to retire on May 31.Singh’s leaked letter led to demands by political parties — Samajwadi Party, Janata Dal (United) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) — for his dismissal on Wednesday even as government and Opposition were agreed his concerns should not have come out in the open.There was a strong demand to launch a probe how the letter was leaked to the media. It was also felt that the Army chief should have first raised his concerns on the risk to the country’s security directly with the Defence Minister. The General was also accused of breach of discipline.The media leak of the letter came on top of an acrimony between the Army chief and the government since early this week over his media interview in which he had claimed that he was offered a bribe of Rs 14 crore by a retired Lt Gen for swinging a sub-standard defence deal.”I have made serious note of the observations. After consulting the prime minister and colleagues, we will take appropriate action,” Antony said in Rajya Sabha on Wednesday after members expressed serious concerns over issues of national security.advertisement