With apologies to LL Cool J for the title of this post, CNNMoney has a report entitled: 401(k) Contributios Make a Comeback:

Two points. With the automatic enrollment features of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, this is not a surprise. The PPA automatically opts workers into their employers’ 401(k) plans. If a worker does not want to contribute to their individual pension account, they have to affirmatively opt out.  The laws of inertia and the laws-of-not-knowing-what-in-the-world-is-going-on, tell us that not only will more workers be enrolled in these 401(k) plans, but they will be putting more money in also. Why? Because Qualified Default Investment Alternatives (QDIA) that their employers put them into for 401(k) purposes assure that people who would otherwise not participate or participate at a low level will do so at a higher level if they don’t indicate any preference. This is because these QDIA default investments not only diversify their investments, but also contribute a higher perecentage of income into these accounts.

In a fairly significant ruling in state employment law, the Wisconsin Supreme Court expanded the circumstances under which an employee covenant not  to compete will be enforced in Wisconsin.

Previously,covenants had to not only be reasonable and necessary to be enforced (under Wis. Stat. § 103.465, non-compete agreements are lawful only if the restriction is “reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer”), but all provisions of the covenant had to meet those requirements.  In other words, Wisconsin judges could not “blue pencil” out the offending, unreasonable part of the covenant, and had to hold the entire document unenforceable.   Now, after the decision in Star Direct v. Dal Pra, 2009 WI 76 (WI. July 14, 2009), the blue pencil exists for judges to save otherwise unenforceable covenants not to compete.

Here is an excerpt on the case from the State Bar of Wisconsin website:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted on July 14 new standards that tend to save contracts aimed at preventing ex-employees from competing with their former employers.

In Star Direct v. Dal Pra, 2009 WI 76, the court announced that portions of a restrictive covenant may be enforced even after another section is deemed unenforceable, so long as the surviving provisions remain understandable and capable of independent enforcement.

Dissenting justices criticized part of the majority’s analysis for assuming that a court signals approval of issues it could have addressed, but did not. The dissent warned that this new interpretative tool defies precedent and judicial restraint.

So, ladies and gentlemen of the Wisconsin judiciary, blue pencils out!

Cyndi Nance (Arkansas) posted this article from the ABA Journal on her Facebook page (can you imagine someone reading that line ten years ago!).  In any event, as far as “Where the Work Is”:

LABOR LAW

Record-high jobless rates and pro-union federal legislation may be negative news to some, but they add up to positive trends for America’s labor lawyers.

Firms specializing in labor and employment law say they’re growing busier as job losses result in cases related to wrongful termination, severance, un­em­ployment disputes and discrimination, as well as work relating to how companies deal with labor unions.