Source: https://nuddleman.com/2016/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 09:04:36+00:00

Document:
Is Pokémon Go Causing Productivity Losses?
I’ve heard several stories about the current Pokémon Go craze, and the seemingly mindless zombie-youth walking around neighborhoods trying to find the best and the most Pokémon Go characters. Lest you think the craze is limited to the younger generation, I know several adults that are gripped by the craze. But, what happens when that craze spills over to your work?
For those of you living under a rock, Pokémon Go is a game based on the beloved(?)Pokémon characters from the 1990’s. The game uses your phone’s GPS to detect where and when you are in the game and make Pokémon “appear” on your phone screen so you can go and catch them. As you move around, more—and hopefully different—Pokémon appear. The game has a time aspect to it such that if you don’t act quickly, the Pokémon may not be there later on. So what do you do if you’re in the middle of typing your report, and you get notified that Pikachu is right down the hall? If you don’t act quickly, he’ll be gone. But that darn report has to get done.
This is not an isolated problem, nor is one that was created by Pokémon Go. Companies are continually struggling with how to deal with personal use of electronic devices in the workplace.
Don’t download Pokémon Go or any other game onto your work phone. Employers who discover games on work phones will presume you are playing games instead of doing work. Even if your company policy is lax—or non-existent—it doesn’t make sense to open the door to problems.
Games shouldn’t be running in the background. You don’t want your phone notifying you that Squirtle is in the copy room when you are in a meeting with your boss.
Never download software onto a work computer or device without your employer’s permission. This is particularly true for personal cloud software such as Google Drive, Dropbox or Box. You could unknowingly compromise your company’s systems or give the impression that you are taking confidential company material.
Don’t access your personal email or social media accounts from work computers or devices. Depending on your company’s policies, the employer could have a right to view anything done on a work device, including personal and even confidential emails.
Make sure your company has a written policy regarding use of personal devices during work or at the worksite. Communicate clear policies to employees before problems arise.
Don’t infringe on employee break and meal time. Employees that want to spend their lunch break tracking down MewTwo, that’s their business.
Whenever possible, don’t mix personal devices with work devices. If you require employees to use cell phones or tablets, give them a company device for that purpose. Work devices are for work. Employees should not access personal emails or social media pages from work computers.
Develop an electronic device policy that works for your company. Cutting and pasting a policy from a different company may not fit your needs.
There are some very positive things that can come from Pokémon Go. Kids are getting out and walking around exploring their neighborhoods. One girl even found a dead body while searching for Pokémon. Maybe the game gives your family something they can do together. Whether you like the game or not, be smart about what you do and don’t do at work.
https://nuddleman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Pokemon-No-Go.jpg 374 692 Robert Nuddleman https://nuddleman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Nuddleman_LH_11.jpg Robert Nuddleman2016-07-25 08:39:392016-07-26 07:32:01Is Pokémon Go Causing Productivity Losses?
Encino Motorcars, LLC is an automobile dealership. Encino’s service advisors filed a lawsuit alleging that Encino violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime compensation when they worked more than 40 hours in a week. At issue in this case is whether the Department of Labor’s interpretation of the service advisor exemption is valid.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay over­time compensation to covered employees who work more than 40 hours in a given week. In 1966, Congress enacted an exemption from the overtime compensation requirement for “any salesman, parts-man, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automo­biles” at a covered dealership. Congress authorized the Department of Labor to promulgate necessary rules, regulations, or orders with respect to this new provision. The Department exercised that authority in 1970 and issued a regulation that defined “salesman” to mean “an employee who is employed for the purpose of and is primarily engaged in making sales or obtaining orders or contracts for sale of the vehicles . . . which the establishment is primarily engaged in selling.” 29 CFR §779.372(c)(1) (1971).
The regulation excluded service advisors, who sell repair and maintenance services but not vehicles, from the ex­emption. Several courts, however, rejected the Department’s conclusion that service advisors are not covered by the statutory exemption. In 1978, the Department issued an opinion letter departing from its previous position and stating that service advisors could be exempt under 29 U. S. C. §213(b)(10)(A). In 1987, the Department confirmed its new interpretation by amending its Field Operations Handbook to clarify that service advisors should be treated as exempt under the statute. In 2011, however, the Department issued a final rule that followed the original 1970 regulation and interpreted the statutory term “salesman” to mean only an employee who sells vehicles. 76 Fed. Reg. 18859. The Department gave little explanation for its deci­sion to abandon its decades-old practice of treating service advisors as exempt under §213(b)(10)(A).
Does the FLSA Apply to Service Advisors?
Encino argued that the FLSA overtime provisions do not apply because service advisors are covered by an exemption in §213(b)(10)(A).The District Court granted the motion, but the Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part. Deferring under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, to the interpretation set forth in the 2011 regulation, the court held that service advisors are not covered by the §213(b)(10)(A) exemption.
The Ninth Circuit held that section 213(b)(10)(A) must be construed without placing controlling weight on the Department’s 2011 regulation.
When an agency is authorized by Congress to issue regulations and promulgates a regulation interpreting a statute it enforces, the interpretation receives deference if the statute is ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. See Chevron, supra, at 842–844. When Congress authorizes an agency to proceed through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that procedure is a “very good indicator” that Congress intended the regulation to carry the force of law, so Chevron should apply. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 229–230. But Chevron deference is not warranted where the regulation is “procedurally defective”—that is, where the agency errs by failing to follow the correct procedures in issuing the regulation. 533 U. S., at 227.
One basic procedural requirement of administrative rulemaking is that an agency must give adequate reasons for its decisions. Where the agency has failed to provide even a minimal level of analysis, its action is arbitrary and capricious and so cannot carry the force of law. Agencies are free to change their existing policies, but in explaining its changed position, an agency must be cognizant that longstanding policies may have “engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.” FCC v. Fox Television Sta­tions, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 515. An “[u]nexplained inconsistency” in agency policy is “a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change from agency practice,” National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. 967, 981, and an arbitrary and capricious regulation of this sort re­ceives no Chevron deference.
This is not the first time the DOL has changed courses and reinterpreted the law. In this instance, the court found that the DOL’s failure to include a reasoned explanation regarding the change of course was sufficient to render the DOL’s interpretation void.
Over the last few years, several cities and counties in California have passed ordinances requiring paid time off or paid sick leave for employees. California employers are still trying to figure out how to comply with California’s paid sick leave law (aka: Healthy Workplace Healthy Family Act). Santa Monica, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Long Beach have added their own sick leave ordinances, and San Francisco has amended its sick leave ordinance, making it that much more difficult for employers to comply with the sometimes contradicting requirements. Below are brief highlights the new/amended local ordinances.
Effective January 1, 2017, San Francisco’s paid sick leave law is amended in an attempt to better align its provisions with California’s paid sick leave law. The amendments provide that San Francisco’s sick leave begins to accrue upon the commencement of employment, but employers may limit usage until after 90 days of employment. The amendments allow employers to “advance” the sick leave at the beginning of the year instead of permitting employees to accrue the time. This is treated as an advance, temporarily halting accrual until after working the number of hours necessary to have accrued the advanced amount, at which point accrual resumes. However, unlike the grant method under California’s paid sick leave law, employers still have to allow employees to carry over unused sick time to the following year. I suspect this will continue to cause problems for San Francisco employers, and doesn’t really address the accrual versus one-time grant problem.
The amendments also change to the definition of “family members” for whom time may be used, expands the permitted uses to include preventative care and time for purposes related to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking suffered by the employee, clarifies how and when sick leave must be paid, requires written notice to employees regarding available balances of paid sick leave, and, like California’s law, requires reinstatement of unused sick leave if an employee is rehired within one year of separation.
San Francisco is usually pretty good about providing FAQ’s about their ordinances, so I suspect the city will publish material to help guide employers in the near future.
So far, Oakland and Emeryville have not changed their paid sick leave ordinances. None of the local ordinances require employers to pay out unused paid sick leave upon termination. However, if an employer allows employees to use paid sick leave for purposes other than sick leave, the employer could turn the paid sick leave into a paid time off policy which would have to be paid out at the end of the employment.
California employers with employees working in any of the cities above should review their paid sick leave f policies to evaluate whether they comply with both the state and municipal sick leave ordinances. Businesses with employees in multiple cities should either adopt a different policy for employees in certain cities or create a single policy complies with whichever municipality is the strictest.

References: §779
 §213
 §213
 §213
 v. 
 §213
 v. 
 v. 
 v.