Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Changing Nature of Work
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Changing Nature of Work
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction to the Changing Nature of Work
- Part II What Has Changed?
- 4 Changes in Technology
- 5 The Changing Nature of Work
- 6 Changes in Occupations, Jobs, and Skill Polarization
- 7 Changes in the Legal Landscape
- 8 The Rise and Decline of Organized Labor in the United States
- 9 Changes in Organizational Income Inequality
- 10 Work and Employment in Fluid Organizational Forms
- 11 Changes in Worker Demographics
- 12 Generational Changes in Personality, Values, and Abilities
- 13 Changes in Work Behavior Patterns
- Part III Implications for Talent Management and Impact on Employees
- Index
- References
7 - Changes in the Legal Landscape
from Part II - What Has Changed?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Changing Nature of Work
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Changing Nature of Work
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction to the Changing Nature of Work
- Part II What Has Changed?
- 4 Changes in Technology
- 5 The Changing Nature of Work
- 6 Changes in Occupations, Jobs, and Skill Polarization
- 7 Changes in the Legal Landscape
- 8 The Rise and Decline of Organized Labor in the United States
- 9 Changes in Organizational Income Inequality
- 10 Work and Employment in Fluid Organizational Forms
- 11 Changes in Worker Demographics
- 12 Generational Changes in Personality, Values, and Abilities
- 13 Changes in Work Behavior Patterns
- Part III Implications for Talent Management and Impact on Employees
- Index
- References
Summary
The changing nature of work offers both opportunities and challenges for organizations. Among those challenges are issues related to maintaining compliance with labor and employment legal obligations. As work, and the workforce, changes, traditional strategies for maintaining compliance may no longer meet organizational needs and legal requirements. In this chapter, we highlight several areas in which the changing nature of work, the workforce, and the legal landscape may pose legal challenges for organizations going forward. We focus on four primary areas: (1) the classification of workers as “employees” versus “independent contractors,” (2) the occurrence of off-the-clock work, (3) pay equity, and (4) applications of big data for solving human capital problems. The chapter provides a brief background of the relevant legal standards, after which we address each of the four topic areas.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Changing Nature of Work , pp. 154 - 172Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. T., & Villanova, P. (1992). The criterion problem: 1917–1992. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 836–874.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. B., Aamodt, M. G., & Dunleavy, E. M. (2010). Technical advisory committee report on best practices in adverse impact analyses. Washington, DC: Center for Corporate Equality.Google Scholar
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.Google Scholar
Gutman, A., Koppes, L., & Vodanovich, S. (2010). EEO law and personal practices (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanvey, C. M. (2018). Wage and hour law: Guide to methods and analysis. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Hathaway, I., & Muro, M. (2016, October 13). Tracking the gig economy: New numbers. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-the-gig-economy-new-numbers/Google Scholar
Landers, R. N., Brusso, R. C., Cavanaugh, K. J., & Collmus, A. B. (2016). A primer on theory-driven webscraping: Automatic extraction of big data from the internet for use in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 21, 475–492.Google Scholar
Leberstein, S. (2012). Independent contractor misclassification imposes huge costs on workers and federal and state treasuries. New York, NY: National Employment Law Project (NELP). Retrieved from http://nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/IndependentContractorCosts1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 309–333.Google Scholar
Mael, F. A., & Hirsch, A. C. (1993). Rainforest empiricism and quasi-rationality: Two approaches to objective biodata. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 719–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manyika., J, Lund, S., Bughin, J., Robinson, K. Mischke, J., & Mahajan, D. (2016, October). Independent work: Choice, necessity, and the gig economy. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/employment-and-growth/independent-work-choice-necessity-and-the-gig-economyGoogle Scholar
McAbee, S. T., Landis, R. S., & Burke, M. I. (2017). Inductive reasoning: The promise of big data. Human Resource Management Review, 27(2), 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meade, A. W., Michels, L. C., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2007). Are Internet and paper-and-pencil personality tests truly comparable? An experimental design measurement invariance study. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 322–345.Google Scholar
Morris, S. B., & Dunleavy, E. M. (Eds.). (2016). Adverse impact analysis: Understanding data, statistics, and risk. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paetzold, R. L., & Willborn, S. L. (2013). The statistics of discrimination: Using statistical evidence in discrimination cases. Eagan, MN: WEST.Google Scholar
Putka, D. J., Beatty, A. S., & Reeder, M. (2017). Modern prediction methods: New perspectives on a common problem. Organizational Research Methods, 21(3), 689–732.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., & Wilk, S. L. (1994). Within-group norming and other forms of score adjustment in preemployment testing. American Psychologist, 49(11), 929–954.Google Scholar
Sady, K., Aamodt, M. G., & Cohen, D. (2015). Compensation equity: Who, what, when, where, why, and how. In Hanvey, C. & Sady, K. (Eds.), Practitioner’s guide to legal issues in organizations (pp. 249–282). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Sady, K. & Hanvey, C. (2018). Pay equity. In Hanvey, C. (Ed.), Wage and hour law: Guide to methods and analysis (pp. 171–184). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Shaw (2018). Annual workplace class action litigation report: An overview of 2017 in workplace class action litigation. Labor Law Journal, 69(1), 5–40.Google Scholar
Stolberg, S.G. (2009, January 29). Obama signs equal-pay legislation. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.htmlGoogle Scholar
Tippins, N. T., Beaty, J., Drasgow, F., Gibson, W. M., Pearlman, K., Segall, D. O., & Shepherd, W. (2006). Unproctored internet testing in employment settings. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 189–225.Google Scholar
Tonidandel, S., King, E. B., & Cortina, J. M. (Eds.). (2015). Big data at work: The data science revolution and organizational psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Usual weekly earnings of wage and salary workers, second quarter 2018 (News Release USDL-18-1180). Retrieved from www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdfGoogle Scholar
US Department of Labor. (n.d.a). Minimum wage. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/whd/minimumwage.htmGoogle Scholar
US Department of Labor. (n.d.b). Misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/whd/workers/misclassification/Google Scholar
US Department of Labor. (n.d.c). Breaking down the gender wage gap. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/wb/media/gender_wage_gap.pdfGoogle Scholar
US Department of Labor. (n.d.d). Women’s earnings and the wage gap [Issue Brief]. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/wb/resources/Womens_Earnings_and_the_Wage_Gap_17.pdfGoogle Scholar
US Department of Labor. (2013). Child labor provisions for nonagricultural occupations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/childlabor101_text.htm.Google Scholar
US Department of Labor. (2014). Fact sheet #13: Am I an employee? Employment relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Retrieved from www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs13.pdfGoogle Scholar
US Department of Labor. (2017a). Minimum length of meal period required under state law for adult employees in private sector. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/whd/state/meal.htmGoogle Scholar
US Department of Labor. (2017b). Minimum paid rest period requirements under state law for adult employees in private sector. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/whd/state/rest.htmGoogle Scholar
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2000). EEOC compliance manual, section 10: Compensation discrimination. Retrieved from www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/compensation.htmlGoogle Scholar
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2016). Use of big data has implications for equal employment opportunity, panel tells EEOC [press release]. Retrieved fromwww.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-13-16.cfmGoogle Scholar
US Government Accountability Office. (2015). Contingent workforce: Size, characteristics, earnings, and benefits (GAO-15-168R). Retrieved from www.gao.gov/assets/670/669766.pdfGoogle Scholar
US Government Accountability Office. (2016). Employment arrangements: Improved outreach could help ensure proper worker classification (GAO-06-656). Retrieved from www.gao.gov/new.items/d06656.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.Google Scholar