Many Lawyers, Littler Help
One of the expert employment law firms I mentioned in an earlier post put up a news alert on the released-then-revoked USERRA poster.
According to Littler-Mendelson, the Labor Department agency "VETS has given no reason why the poster was removed, but has stated that a revised poster will be ready for downloading by March 10, 2005."
Check.
They continue helpfully, "Recent amendments to USERRA require that employers notify employees of their military leave rights. The amendments do not mandate the form of notice to be given, so employers are not required to use the VETS poster ... to meet the notice requirement. Obviously use of a VETS prescribed poster is an efficient way in which to meet the notice requirement."
Ahh, they're saying we don't have to wait for any "official" poster; that's helpful. So, perhaps the already-released poster — yes, the one VETS published-then-pulled — will satisfy the law. How about that? We've got that one, will that comply?
They continue unhelpfully, "Since the revised poster has not yet been released, comments cannot be made regarding its compliance with USERRA's notice provisions."
Well, sure, we don't want legal opinions about posters the Labor Department has not yet released, but how about a comment about the existing USERRA poster? I mean, we know VETS published a poster already; how about that one? Isn't that a good one for employers?
My point is, you're lawyers, you purport to be ready to issue opinions about a USERRA poster's compliance with the law, and with all your resources (two named partners in a firm with dozens of "shareholders" and wads of associates and a smattering "of counsel"), all you're able to say is that a not-yet-released poster (that won't even be mandatory when it comes out) may — or may not — comply.
Sadly, that stunningly-obvious point is Littler help than we expected.
According to Littler-Mendelson, the Labor Department agency "VETS has given no reason why the poster was removed, but has stated that a revised poster will be ready for downloading by March 10, 2005."
Check.
They continue helpfully, "Recent amendments to USERRA require that employers notify employees of their military leave rights. The amendments do not mandate the form of notice to be given, so employers are not required to use the VETS poster ... to meet the notice requirement. Obviously use of a VETS prescribed poster is an efficient way in which to meet the notice requirement."
Ahh, they're saying we don't have to wait for any "official" poster; that's helpful. So, perhaps the already-released poster — yes, the one VETS published-then-pulled — will satisfy the law. How about that? We've got that one, will that comply?
They continue unhelpfully, "Since the revised poster has not yet been released, comments cannot be made regarding its compliance with USERRA's notice provisions."
Well, sure, we don't want legal opinions about posters the Labor Department has not yet released, but how about a comment about the existing USERRA poster? I mean, we know VETS published a poster already; how about that one? Isn't that a good one for employers?
My point is, you're lawyers, you purport to be ready to issue opinions about a USERRA poster's compliance with the law, and with all your resources (two named partners in a firm with dozens of "shareholders" and wads of associates and a smattering "of counsel"), all you're able to say is that a not-yet-released poster (that won't even be mandatory when it comes out) may — or may not — comply.
Sadly, that stunningly-obvious point is Littler help than we expected.
This entry was posted
on Monday, March 07, 2005 at 3:59 PM.
