Uber Retirement

Although by no means a new question regarding retirement, the noteworthy growth of gig companies in the sharing economy has renewed concerns that even more American workers will lack access to employment-based retirement plans.  Although some argue that the gig economy offers workers advantages including more independence and flexibility, company-sponsored retirement saving is not one of them.  This is a dangerous state of affairs, as employment-based retirement plans make up a critical part of an individual’s strategy for retirement security.

Such retirement plans, like the nearly-ubiquitous 401(k) plans, provide a necessary bulwark against destitution in old age, especially given that Social Security provides only partial income replacement and few Americans have put away much in private savings.  Yet, independent contractors, which is how most gig companies classify their workers, are approximately two-thirds less likely than standard employees to have access to an employer-provided retirement plan.

Much academic and judicial ink has already been spilt over whether Uber drivers and other members of the sharing economy are members of the so-called “contingent” workforce or “precariat” (part-time, leased, temporary, and per diem workers), not entitled to receive retirement benefits as part of their employment.  Whether these employees are statutory employees is of utmost importance because it largely determines whether gig workers are covered by employment laws, as most such laws center on the employer-employment relationship.

What all these jobs have in common is that the work activity is happening outside of the traditional safety net of employment and are highly unstable.  Whereas statutory employees are covered in the United States by numerous labor and employment law statues that provide security and protection in the workplace, workers in these alternative work arrangements are not.  Once stable employment relationships have given way to relationships that are much more arms-length, regardless of whether it is a contractor situation, temporary employment, or a one-time encounter.

Continue ReadingUber Retirement

That Extra Incentive

Most of us are familiar with wellness programs—programs sponsored by our employer or health plan that try to incentivize us to eat healthier, sleep well, and get more exercise.  If you’re anything like me, it helps to have that extra push or incentive, especially around the holidays when sweets abound, to stay on track—or at least, to not stray too far from health goals. Most of these programs have the added advantage of lowering health care costs, both by providing financial incentives to reduce immediate costs to the individual employees and by boosting the overall health of the employees as a whole, which could reduce future health care costs.   However, extensive technical regulations and recent litigation by the AARP make implementing health and wellness programs increasingly tricky for employers.

Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”) and the regulations promulgated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) thereunder, generally prohibit “an employer [from] request[ing], require[ing], or purchas[ing] genetic information [which includes an individual’s family medical history] with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee.”  42 U.S.C. § 2000ff–1(b). However, there is an exception for wellness programs, as long as employers jump through a set of hoops. 29 CFR § 1635.8(b)(2).  While not without its own problems and excesses, the exception in the EEOC regulations at least allows employers to provide incentives to those employees willing to participate in employer-sponsored wellness programs.

The AARP doesn’t like this whole “incentive” idea to begin with. It recently filed a lawsuit against the EEOC in an attempt to vacate the regulations entirely.  AARP v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 1:16-cv-02113 (D. D.C. 2016) (hereafter the “AARP Complaint”).  This actually might not be a bad idea, except for the fact that the AARP thinks that the regulations do not have enough hoops.  In fact, the AARP would prefer that the regulations abolish any permission for any incentives or penalties to induce participation in employer-sponsored wellness programs. The AARP alleges in its complaint that all employer incentives or penalties to induce participation in employer-sponsored wellness programs violate Title I of the ADA and Title II of GINA.  AARP Complaint at 3. 

Continue ReadingThat Extra Incentive

Proposed Changes to the Model Business Corporation Act: Future Changes to Chapter 180?

The Model Business Corporation Act, potentially following suit with the rest of ever-changing 2016, has acquired proposed notable changes through provisional amendments by its Official Committee. Some of these changes model company-friendly Delaware’s legal structure, which can only help to attract companies to incorporate within states that choose to adopt such changes. Although Wisconsin has modeled its own state corporation statutes based on the Act under Chapter 180 of the state legislature, the addition of these new amendments could help attract local companies to incorporate within the state.

First, the Committee has proposed adoption of the addition of subchapter E to chapter one of the Act, mirroring the Delaware General Corporations Law’s 2014 amendments. The subchapter permits the ratification of defective corporate actions, including actions in connection with the issuance of shares. It also provides for retroactive validity of subsequent actions taken in reliance on the validity of the defective action upon its ratification. If Wisconsin adopts this subchapter, actions taken by local corporations won’t be hindered and found void based on, for example, a greater issuance of shares than allowed by the articles of incorporation. This malleability gives companies assurance that certain vote-based corporate actions have a safety net from being deemed void instantly, ensuring a remedy for defective corporate actions.

Next the Committee has proposed changes to sections 2.02 and 8.70 of the Act, allowing corporations to include a provision within its articles limiting or eliminating the duty of a director or officer to become involved with a corporate opportunity without informing the corporation, which typically falls under a director’s or officer’s duty of loyalty. These provisions would give the corporation control over the liability imposed upon its directors and/or officers upon involvement in corporate opportunities, shielding them from said liability. It would also allow directors and officers to engage in such opportunities against the wishes of the company. These provisions have their strengths and weaknesses, but the advantage surrounds the control given to the corporation.

Continue ReadingProposed Changes to the Model Business Corporation Act: Future Changes to Chapter 180?