1. Who sponsored the
bill, debate, how employers' behavior changed
Fair Labor Standards Act
1938 was coined as FLSA or Wages and Hours Bill. This legislative act (Pub.L) is
the United States’ federal statute (Time Magazine, 1937). At the beginning the
FLSA introduced 40 hours per week for the national minimum wage. In certain
jobs, the legislation guaranteed overtime of ‘time and a half’. More employment
of minors was prohibited in the legislation for protecting child labor, and
termed it as “oppressive child labor”. The
act was also applicable to the commercial enterprise, interstate commerce or in
the production of goods of commerce.
Senator Hugo Black
drafted the original FLSA, in which employers were to adopt a 30-hour workweek,
but the proposal was stiffly resisted. After the implementation of the Act, the
Act was termed as “most significant New Deal Legislation” by President Franklin Roosevelt. 700,000 workers were affected
by the FLSA (Barrera, 2013).
The United States Supreme Court, in its 1946 ruling in
Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. case changed the preliminary control of
work activities by the employers. The case was against the entire employers’
benefits. The Congress had to pass an amendment, in response to the Supreme
Court’s ruling and to narrow down the ruling. The Portal to Portal Act in 1947
had exactly specified the type of time, compensable for work. The act was considered important
because of the engagement of the employees by the employer and the employers
were obliged to pay for the engagement. The act also specified that the travel
time from and to the workplace should also be counted, regardless of the employees’
performance (Howard, 2000).
The wartime inflation
during 1940s had compelled the postponement of full effect of FLSA of 1938,
because of increase of nominal wages. The Fair Labor Standards Amendment on
October 26, 1949 can be seen at (ch. 736, Pub.L. 81–393, 63 Stat. 910, 29
U.S.C. § 201), which included the changes in the compensation for the overtime and
termed it as “regular rate”. The amendment was also noted for redefining the
term “produced”, while raising 40 cents of the minimum wage to 75 cents per
hour. The child labor coverage was also extended by the amendment. For special
workers’ classes, the amendment was also to effect a few new exemptions for
special workers.
Another amendment was
made in the FLSA in 1955 for increasing the minimum wage up to $1 per hour. In
1961, FLSA was further amended for ensuring “enterprise coverage”, which is
applicable to only those businesses which are engaged in interstate commerce
and have the gross per year business volume of $500,000 (minimum). The
amendment was to benefit all the employees working in these types of
enterprises (Forsythe, 2008). The other care facilities included in the 1961
amendments were residential, nursing home, hospitals and school cares. All
governmental facilities, of all levels, were also included in this amendment.
In this year the minimum wage was also increased to $1.25 per hour. The
provision for suing for back wages was also included in this year’s amendment (Grossman,
2008).
However, in the next
year, i.e. 1962, without amending the FLSA, a new act Contract Work Hours
Standards Act came into effect. The act was the rule for employee compensation
for the federal contractors, in which often ambiguous and always confusing
“Eight Hour laws” was replaced with a “single comprehensive law” enforced as
the governance hours for the laborers’ works.
The next year, 1963 is
remembered for the “Equal Pay Act”, for amending FLSA, in which discrepancies
of illegal or favored payment was the bug. Hence the new act was coined as
“equal pay for equal work”. The act is mainly noted for the wage discrepancies,
as was in vogue, for the female workers. The earlier pay structure for the
female workers was less for the same job done by the male workers, as the
female workers were not the bread earners for the family. So the new act
disregarded the role in family and established Equal Pay Act.
The FLSA was again
amended in 1966 for increasing minimum wages to $1.60 per hour and also for
expanding the benefits to the farm workers. Cesar Chavez, the labor leader, was
very much in the forefront in this effort, drawing national attention towards
the rights of the farm workers. Further to these, both local and state
government employees were brought under this protective umbrella.
The next year, 1967 is
noted for ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act). The act prohibits age
discrimination against those who are 40 or above in age. Before the enactment
of the ADEA, persons of 40 years or above were denied certain health benefits
and were also bereft of training opportunities. The Act was applicable to the
enterprises where the employee strength was more than 20 workers.
The FLSA was again
amended in 1974 for expanding the coverage to both local and state government
employees, who were uncovered so far. Besides this, domestic workers were also
covered and the minimum wage was raised to $2.30 per hour and in the next year,
i.e. 1975 through 1981, the minimum wage was raised in stages up to $3.35 per
hour. Further changes were also effected as the tip credit and the tipped
employees. Repeal of exemption of partial overtime in restaurants, motels and
certain hotels was also made effective during this time (Parker, 2015).
In the year 1983, MSPA
(Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act) came as a new act for
extending benefits to the seasonal and migrant firm workers’ working condition,
pay and other work-related conditions. These workers were to register with the US Department of Labor.
Local and State Government employers were allowed to
compensate the overtime hours of their employees with the paid time when the
employees were away from work (as the compensation in) in 1985. In the next
year, i.e. 1986, the DDAA (Department of Defense Authorization Act) was passed
for repealing the requirements of daily eight-hour overtime for all federal
contracts.
The Wage Amendment that
took place in 1989 was aimed at increasing minimum wages to $4.25 per hour
along with the elimination of distinction between the wages on non-retail and
retail sector. Workers employed in laundry,
dry cleaning or in construction sectors were included under the ambit of the
wage benefits (U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division, 2010). Tip
credit system was also taken care of. “Training wage” was introduced in which
workers below 20 years were entitled for 85% of minimum, youth minimum or
sub-minimum wage (USDL, 2010).
The next amendment of FLSA was in 1996 when the minimum wage
was again raised to $5.15 per hour. Nonetheless, the year is notable for
introducing Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (PL 104-188) and tipping
the employers from the minimum wage increase for the upcoming years. The
amendment had frozen the tipped minimum wage by the enactment of the federal
law (29 U.S.C. § 203). The state law which used to grant higher wages
was kept in force (Wilson, 2012).
FLSA was further amended in August 23, 2004, when exemptions
pertaining to overtime and minimum wage came into being. This was considered as
the substantial modifications, when discussed about the term “exempt” for an
employee. In USA, the low-level supervisors in the industries were reclassified
as “executives”, who had to do away with their “over time”. The new regulation
was termed by Bush administration as the “FairPay”. However, the regulation
drew lots of flaks from AFL-CIO, who reacted that the new changes would turn
millions of additional workers incapable to make use of FLSA relief from
overtime pay. The Congress unsuccessfully attempted to overturn the
regulations.
President George Bush signed a new law “H.R. 2206”, a
supplemental appropriation in the name of Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. The
new law increased minimum wages through incremental plan up to $7.25 by 2009
July. By amending Section 7 of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(H.R.3590), the nursing mothers were provided extra facilities of expressing
milk and that too in an appropriate place where none can intrude (Hicks, 2012).
In April 2014, the Senate debated the FLSA for increasing
wages up to $10.10 per hour over two years’ period i.e. 2016. [8] The
bill has been strongly supported by many of the senators and the President
Obama, but has been opposed by the Republicans. President Obama, in January
2015 has asked the US Congress to pass the Healthy Families act. If the bill is
passed, the employees will be eligible for an hour of paid sick leave after
their completion of 7 days’ 30 hours of work. The Act also extends the facility
of 56 hours of paid sick leave per year. The applicability of the bill under FLSA
will be for those enterprises where there are 15 or more workers in an
establishment (Hicks, 2012).
2. What law governing the topic must be considered, summarize the law: for example:
Equal pay act (1963)
The Equal
Pay Act 1963 is the amendment of FLSA for removing any sort of discrepancies,
pertaining to favored or illegal payment. This was considered to be legally
offensive hence the phrase, “equal pay for equal work” was brought into the
ambit of legalities. The main beneficiaries were the women folk.
Age Discrimination Act 1967
The Age
Discrimination in Employment Act or ADEA (1967) was specially meant for
benefitting any person of 40 years or above that age. It was a long cry that this
segment of workers was discriminated for a long time either for their training
opportunities or for their health ground. After the FLSA amendment this age
related discrimination was brought to an end.
Exemption 2004
By
amending FLSA in the year 2004, the workers were extended an important income
source. The workers in the guise of “So called Executives” were denied
overtime. However, different court cases had unearthed the actual facts or
tricks by the employers. The Bush administration’s initiatives of “FairPay” had
brought reliefs to thousands of such workers, who were designated as
“Executives” for avoiding overtime and such benefits, but were made to work low
level duties.
Fair minimum Wage 2007
In the history
of US Labor Laws, 2007 is one of the most significant years for legalizing Fair
Minimum Wage Act. The act was a supplementation of the existing FLSA. Section 7
of the FLSA was amended for protecting patients with the affordable health care
facilities. The nursing mothers were also provided with many extra facilities,
including expressing milk to the newborn.
3. Summary of four recent cases:
a) Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo - Supreme Court
The Case
No. 14–1146, argued November 10, 2015, and the court’s decision came on March
22, 2016.
The
employees of Tyson Foods are the respondents in
the case. The duties of the respondents are to kill, cut and retrim pork in the
Tyson Foods in Iowa. The work of the respondents involved wearing protective
gear. However, the exact type of the protective gear was dependent on a given
day. For donning and doffing of the employees, some amounts were compensated by
the petitioner, but not all. Neither the employer nor the petitioner had
recorded the time spent by each of those employees for these donning and
doffing activities.
The filing of the lawsuit in accordance with the FLSA was
based on the argument that donning and doffing of the protective gear was the
indispensible and integral part of the hazardous work, but the policy of the
petitioner was not to pay for those activities, so the employees were denied
compensation for overtime, which is against the FLSA 1938.
Further to these, a claim under Iowa Law was also raised by
the respondents in which they sought the class action to be certified under
FLSA case and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which is as per 29 U. S. C.
§216. However, certification of both the
classes was objected by the petitioner with the argument that there are
variances in the protective gears used by the employees, so the claims of the
employees cannot be taken as sufficiently similar and resolvable on a
class-wide basis.
The conclusion of the District Court was donning and doffing
is compensable under FLSA and so eligible for class wide resolution,
irrespective of the fact that all workers might not have used the same gear.
The case was decided in favor of the respondents towards the recovery of FLSA’s
overtime provision, as petitioners were found to have violated the rule. The
respondents were to prove that each of the workers had worked more than forty
hours a week that includes the donning and doffing timing.
Since the employers did not record the time required for
donning and doffing, the respondents had to primarily depend on the study by
Dr. Kenneth Mericle, an industrial relations expert, who had videotaped
different activities of donning and doffing and the timings involved therein.
An average time of 18 minutes (per day) was calculated for the cut & retrim
departments and the average time for the kill department was 21-25 minutes. These
calculated timings were added to each employee’s time sheets for ascertaining
which of the class members had worked more than forty hours a week and by this
way class-wide recovery’s value was determined. The petitioner tried to argue
that the timings of donning and doffing were varying and by sampling Mericle’s
video tape was improper for those who had not worked for 40 hours a week. But
the jury had awarded $2.9 million unpaid wages to the respondents. The judgment
was affirmed and awarded (Legal Information Institute, 2016).
b) STEELE v. LEASING ENTERPRISES, LTD
United
States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
The case
No. 15-20139 was filed on June 14, 2016
A novel
question was addressed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case No.
15-20139 to settle the employers’ ability in the deduction of certain service
fees, received as tips through credit cards. The case is about a restaurant
chain, “Leasing Enterprises, Limited”, which retained 3.25% of the tips
received by its employees from the customers through credit cards. The court observed that the deduction had
exceeded the collection of credit card tips’ direct costs.
The court
also observed that restaurants and other establishments that use the partially
compensated money of the employees as tips can claim “tip-credit”, in
accordance with the requirements of FLSA’s Minimum Wage Act. Nonetheless,
servers’ entitlement is strictly regulated by FLSA that is connected with the
customers’ gratuities. The case Steele v. Leasing Enterprises, Ltd. had
initiated a novel question by addressing the employer’s jurisdiction to cut a
portion of the service fees in kind of tips via credit cards.
In this
case employees were paid “tipped amount” applicable under FLSA’s minimum wage
i.e. $2.13 to make up the difference of the standard minimum wage and this
through the claim of the “tip credit”. But in this case the deduction by the
employer was server tips’ 3.25% paid through credit cards. The deductions, as attributed
by the employer were:
1) Cost of credit card
conversion receipts to cash being paid daily to the employees and
2) the fees for the
issuers of the credit card.
The
collective action FLSA case was filed by the plaintiffs that the defendant was
improper to deduct fees which was the former’s income from the tips.
By keeping
note of the regulations of the Department of Labor, in adherence to FLSA, the
court agreed to allow the employers to cut only the amount being charged by the
credit card companies. Further to it, the court observed that the other portion
of the cash conversion of the fees was against the DOL rules, as the amount
from the tips through credit cards was as per the decision of the employer to
pay cash tips on a daily basis, and which was not from the fees related with
the credit cards’ uses.
It was
also observed by the court that employers are allowed by the DOL rules to
average some part of the fees to be deducted from the tips but these deductions
are not to be included with the amounts which have no direct connection between
the charges of the credit card users and the business. If the restrictions are
not adhered to, it will lead to the applicable tip credit loss. For this, the
employer is subjected to pay the penalties like double damages, fees of the
attorneys and minimum wage payments claim (ParkerPoe, 2016).
c) Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk
The case
No 13–433, argued in the Supreme Court on October 8, 2014, and was decided on
December 9, 2014 with the revision order as, “We hold that the time is not compensable. We therefore reverse the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit”.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit
CITATION 574 US _
(2014), GRANTED on Mar 3, 2014, ARGUED on Oct
8, 2014 and DECIDED on
Dec 9, 2014.
Integrity
Staffing Solutions, Inc. the petitioner is the provider of staffing solutions
to the warehousing of Amazon.com, pan USA. The respondents Laurie Castro and Jesse Busk were the hourly
employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. at their respective
warehouses in Las Vegas and Fenley and Nevada. Retrieving products from the
shelves and packing them before delivery were their work responsibilities.
In
this case, the employer required its warehouse employees to undergo an
anti-theft process as the security screening, before the employees could leave
the warehouse after their duty hours. The question in the case was, whether the
time spent by the employees during this security checking is compensable under
FLSA. Reference in this case was made under 29
U. S. C. §201 et seq.,
in accordance to the Portal- to-Portal Act of 1947, §251 et seq.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals was the requirement
of the Integrity Staffing
was its employees to undergo security check at the end of a day, before the
employees leave the warehouse. This screening process involved employees to
remove their belts, keys and wallets from their possessions and pass through a
metal detector. The lower court rejected the argument of the employees by
finding that the employees’ waiting time for undergoing the security screening
was compensable under the FLSA act and the employer should have reduced the
time a de minimis amount. The court observed that these
arguments were to be properly put forward at the bargaining table under 29 U.
S. C. §254(b)(1), instead of bringing to a FLSA claim.
When the matter went to the Supreme Court, the court
concluded with two critical issues that the indispensable and closely related
activities are to be included in the “compensable principal activities” by
quoting “ante, at 6 (quoting 29 CFR §790.8(c)(2013))” The Supreme Court
observed that both the precedence and the Department of Labor
regulations clarify the fact that the principal activity means if an
employee cannot dispense the “principal activity” without a particular task
safely and effectively, the time involved in it is compensable under FLSA.
d) LIZETH LYTLE, v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC.
On August
15, 2012, Lytle filed a collective action complaint. Case No.
8:12-cv-1848-T-33TBM, in the US District Court, Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division.
In 2012, a
former employee of HR Division, Lizeth Lytle, of Lowe’s Home Center sued the
warehouse for unpaid overtime. As per Lytle’s claim, Lowe’s Home Center
purposefully misclassified its HR manager and classified as exempt employees so
that they can avoid paying overtime. Lytle expanded the suit to include all the
HR employees and HR managers in the country.
Lytle’s
claim was denied by Lowe’s by asserting that nationwide HR managers were not
situated alike and that also each store had the individualized differences, making
the position inappropriate for hour and wage related collective actions. The
court rejected the facts submitted by Lowe’s. The court’s certification of all
current and former HR managers and all HR store employees with any title,
employed with Lowe’s, were referred as “collective” for taking action under the
FLSA. The suit against the Lowe’s was joined by 891 individuals. Lowe’s was
penalized to distribute the amount of $3,564,000
as compensation.
For this a pro rata share was to be received by each class member on their
total workweeks, dated retrospectively from the 10th of January,
2011 till the approval date of the settlement.
Lowe’s had
to pay $500,000 towards administrative cost spent by Lytle’s lawyer, which was
in addition to the legal fees $1,300,000. Apart from this,
Lowe’s had to reimburse up to $70,000 as
litigation costs.
Further to it, as per the settlement, the parties agreed
that calculation of overtime should be proper and for this calculation of
fluctuating weekend method must be used. By this method, the HR employees of Lowe’s were allowed for
half-time recovery of their claimed hours. The average per employee was awarded
$4,000 through the settlement (United States District Court
Middle District of Florida Tampa Division, 2014).
4. How was the FLSA law enforced? New York State Department of labor and Fair Labor Standards Act.
There are
several procedures and methods for enforcing the provisions of FLSA for
establishing minimum wages, record keeping, overtime pay and the standard of child
labor. These procedures and methods are as below:
· US Department of Justice
can criminally prosecute the erring person or party
· Lawsuits or civil
actions by the Federal Government
· Private Law suits by the
workers or employees that may include collective actions or individual law
suits
US Department of Justice (DOJ): Criminal actions can be
brought by DOJ for willful FLSA violations. A willful violation refers to
voluntary, deliberate and intentional breach of law.
DOJ can enforce Act either in addition to
or instead of the Secretary of labor for injunctive relief or back wages. If
there are willful violations by an employer, the employer will be ordered to
pay back pay or liquidated damages and also be penalized for criminal penalty
or fine, imposed by a court. The criminal penalties can be: for the first conviction,
a fine up to $10,000, a fine up to $10,000 or up to six months of imprisonment
or both after the first conviction.
Government Civil actions: US
Sectary of Labor is empowered to enforce criminal proceedings for the violation
of over time provision and minimum wages through two types of civil actions.
They are as follows:
Under FLSA’s § 216(c)
the Secretary has the power of suing the erring party for liquidated back wages
and recovering back wages from
employers, related to pay or salary, would have been earned by an employee. The
liquidated damages refer to the
amount of pre-determined or fixed money. That means an employee is eligible for
getting back wages plus and also an amount which equals to that in the form of
liquidated damages.
§ 217 empowers a
Secretary to file a lawsuit for a court order or for an injunction that
prevents an employer from violating the law and thus can order an employer to
pay back wages.
Private suit by employees: Enforcement actions can be filed by
workers in two ways under FLSA. They are collective collections and individual
lawsuits.
Individual actions
Employees, who are the victims of violation of FLSA, can sue
their employer through private action for recovering unpaid overtime or minimum
wages, in addition to liquidated damages. Besides this, an employer can be sued
by his employee if the former either discriminates or discharges against the
employee for asserting rights provided by FLSA under Anti-discrimination
provision. However, the employee’s right does not hold good if the action has
already been filed by the Secretary of Labor. The employee cannot also file a
lawsuit if the two actions are towards the same allegation of violation of FLSA
(Lawyers.com, 2015).
5. Opinions about Fair
Labor Standards Act, wages, hours, exemption.
There are
different types of opinions and revelations about FLSA. A few came from
different corners and a large number had ended with different court rulings,
including the Country’s Supreme Court.
Realities of Economy
Among the
media corners, an opinion posted by Doug Hass in Independent Contractors, dated
September 18, 2015, was headlined as “Do Sharing Economy Cases Show that the
FLSA is Outdated? (Hass, 2015). This was cited from the Workplace ProfBlog,
where Prof. Sachin Pandya was quoted. The answer was with a single word, “Yes”.
The reference was made in connection with the recent cases where pioneers from
“top notch” sharing economy could well define the difficulties of applying the
laws, which were drafted in the middle of the 20th century and to be
applicable to the business model of the 21st century, which is submerged
within the technology advancements. One of the judges termed the FLSA as
“appear outmoded” in the context of sharing economy.
In another
Administrator’s Interpretation by Dr. David Weil, USA’s Administrator,
Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) in the DOL blog post had
stressed that expansive viewing of FLSA is the need of the hour, so that most
of the workers can qualify as the employees. The other critic of the
Administrator, Dr. David Weil, is of the views that he had shifted from the
“realities of economy” and has landed on something different, which can be
termed as “economic dependence”. The glaring weakness in the FLSA becomes vivid
when it is compared with similar laws of other countries.
Increase in Court cases
In another
post Doug Hass has come up with the other Court Opinions, dated January 4,
2016, with the headlines, “Overtime Lawsuits of FLSA Minimum Wage, sets New
Record in 2015”. He added that “Filing Growth Continues” (Hass, 2016). Since
1990, there are many number of FLSA related cases in the federal courts. If the
statistics of PACER is to be referred to, between 1st of January
2015 and 31st of December, the numbers of cases were 8,954. In 2014,
the total FLSA related cases for comparison purposes, filed by plaintiffs were
8,086. The number is 30% more than the year since 2011.
In a startling
information it was found that there are sharp increases in FLSA cases on
overtime and minimum lawsuits over the past two and half decades, particularly
since 2002.
By studying
the chart, it becomes clear that there were only 888 FLSA lawsuits in 1990 (as
per PACER). The number did not fluctuate much till 2000. With the dot-com
implosion in 2002 and following the 9/11 attacks, the number of lawsuits rose
to 3,886. In 2004 alone the filing reached more than 4000 counts and went on
increasing and the Great Recession added fire to the fuel. During 2009 the
number of filing was 6,120 and in the next year it reached 6,786, and the
following 2013 it reached 7,900. In the year 2014 the number of FLSA lawsuits
reached 8,086, which is noted to be all time high.
Conclusion
According
to Mark Wilson, the former deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of
Labor and also the former head of the Applied Economic Strategies, LLC, with
almost three decades of experience researching labor force economic issues, “these
laws discourages the employers from paying wages below a mandated level” which
is not advantageous for the country’s economy. He furthered to say decades of
economic researches have proved that minimum wages actually harm both the
broader economy and the workers. In fact, minimum wages minimize minorities’,
youth’s and low-skill workers’ job opportunities.
In fact
policy makers try to help these people while on the other side, the employers
adjust the pay due to the additional costs. The employers, as the remedial
measures, cut employee work hours, reduce hiring, charge higher prices and also
reduce employee benefits. It may be the conception of some policy makers that
the businesses absorb the extra costs towards minimum pay and suffer reduced
profits, but the fact is they respond rationally and cut employments, and take
other decisions for maintaining their net income. This type of
business-responses actually disrupts the results of the positive labor market
for which the policy makers plan for.
References
Barrera, V. (2013). Hugo L. Black. Encyclopedia of Alabama.
Forsythe,
J. (2008). Legislative History of the
Fair Labor Standards Act. U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour
Department.
Grossman,
J. (2008). Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage. United States Department of
Labor.
Hass,
D. (2015). Do Sharing Economy Cases Show
that the FLSA is Outdated? Yes! The Day Shift.
Hass,
D. (2016). FLSA Minimum Wage, Overtime
Lawsuits Set New Record in 2015, Filing Growth Continues. The Day Shift.
Hicks, S. (2012). The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. New
York Publishing.
Howard,
S. (2000). "Troubled passage: the labor movement and the Fair Labor
Standards Act" Monthly Labor Review.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Lawyers.com. (2015). Enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Legal Information
Institute (2016). TYSON FOODS, INC. v.
BOUAPHAKEO.
Lizeth
Lytle, et al. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., et al., Case No.8:12-cv-01848 (2014). United States District Court Middle
District of Florida Tampa Division.
Parker,
Katharine (2015). "No End In Sight For Wave of Paid Family and Sick Leave
Laws". The National Law Review.
ParkerPoe
(2016). Employers Limited in Service Fees
Deductions From Credit Card Tips. EmployNews Bulletin.
Pub.L. 75–718, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, June 25,
1938, 29 U.S.C. ch. 8
United Stated Department
of Labor. (2010). ”Wages: Subminimum Wage".
U.S. Department of Labor.
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Dol.gov
U.S.
Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division. (2010). “Fact Sheet #32: Youth Minimum Wage - Fair Labor Standards Act".
”Wages and Hours”. (1937). Time Magazine.
Wilson,
M. (2012). Policy Analysis: The Negative
Effects of Minimum Wage Laws. CATO Institute.
Need a custom written paper? Order now and get 20% discount on your first order.
