Comments on: Long Lunch http://hrlori.com/long-lunch/ Attempting to Unravel the Complex World of California Human Resources Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:11:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Lori Dorn http://hrlori.com/long-lunch/#comment-28 Lori Dorn Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:19:00 +0000 http://hrlori.com/?p=38#comment-28 You would be correct if he did abrogate the employee-client privilege, however if this were the case, one would expect immediate employment action as opposed to waiting until a month later, although he may have been on vacation for that month as the article states that he was escorted off premises the day he returned from vacation. You would be correct if he did abrogate the employee-client privilege, however if this were the case, one would expect immediate employment action as opposed to waiting until a month later, although he may have been on vacation for that month as the article states that he was escorted off premises the day he returned from vacation.

]]> By: Alex http://hrlori.com/long-lunch/#comment-27 Alex Wed, 14 Sep 2005 03:01:15 +0000 http://hrlori.com/?p=38#comment-27 I haven't had the time to research this fully, but my initial impression is that an attorney owes his client (in this case, the agency, whose policies are set by the state executive) a duty of loyalty, as well as confidentiality. This sounds like he has violated both of those duties, as well as having unilaterally and without his client's permission abrogated the attorney-client privilege, if his comments were based at all on work that he has done in his professional capacity. Am I wrong here? Please tell me why if you think so. I haven’t had the time to research this fully, but my initial impression is that an attorney owes his client (in this case, the agency, whose policies are set by the state executive) a duty of loyalty, as well as confidentiality.

This sounds like he has violated both of those duties, as well as having unilaterally and without his client’s permission abrogated the attorney-client privilege, if his comments were based at all on work that he has done in his professional capacity.

Am I wrong here? Please tell me why if you think so.

]]> By: Lori Dorn http://hrlori.com/long-lunch/#comment-26 Lori Dorn Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:43:59 +0000 http://hrlori.com/?p=38#comment-26 Point taken. Thank you for the clarification Kent. Point taken. Thank you for the clarification Kent.

]]> By: kent http://hrlori.com/long-lunch/#comment-25 kent Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:37:54 +0000 http://hrlori.com/?p=38#comment-25 I don't think it's fair to claim Miles was interpreting FLSA when he issued the famous "Locker letter." Instead, he was trying to interpret the California Labor Code and Wage Order requirements for a "monthly" (in contrast to the FLSA "weekly") salary rule for exempt employees. Sure, his interpretation was wack -- work a minute, get paid $2300 for the month (and besides, it was during the last energy-brownout crisis where lots of companies were considering a week-long shutdown to save money, and here's Miles telling them they had to pay exempts during a week-long shutdown and in fact owed the whole "monthly" salary if any work was done), but he wasn't talking about FLSA. I don’t think it’s fair to claim Miles was interpreting FLSA when he issued the famous “Locker letter.” Instead, he was trying to interpret the California Labor Code and Wage Order requirements for a “monthly” (in contrast to the FLSA “weekly”) salary rule for exempt employees.

Sure, his interpretation was wack — work a minute, get paid $2300 for the month (and besides, it was during the last energy-brownout crisis where lots of companies were considering a week-long shutdown to save money, and here’s Miles telling them they had to pay exempts during a week-long shutdown and in fact owed the whole “monthly” salary if any work was done), but he wasn’t talking about FLSA.

]]>