HR Direct Response

$85 million Wal-Mart wage and hour settlement

admin — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:39:05 +0000

Court grants final approval in $85 million Wal-Mart wage and hour settlement, as appeals court dismisses objection
Over three million Wal-Mart hourly employees who worked in 30 states have received final approval of an $85 million dollar settlement after the Ninth Circuit dismissed an objection to the settlement, which had been preliminarily approved last November by Judge Phillip Pro of the US District Court for the District of Nevada. (Pro gave final district court approval to the settlement agreement in July.) The Ninth Circuit’s ruling “puts an end to an attempt by 4 of 3.4 million employees, who are represented by lawyers who make a living objecting to class action settlements, to block the rest of the class from receiving benefit of the settlement,” said Robert Bonsignore of Bonsignore and Brewer, national lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “It is important to add that Wal-Mart stood by their employees.”

The employees in this consolidated action asserted that the retailer forced employees to work off the clock, required workers to skip lunch and rest breaks, and manipulated time and wage records. The settlement, which covers two settlement classes—one consisting of class members from 29 states and another just California workers—also requires Wal-Mart to continue to use electronic systems and safeguards designed to maintain compliance with its wage and hour policies and applicable law.

The settlement resolves the largest wage-and hour class suit in US history, noted Bonsignore. Absent further appeals, class members can expect to be paid before the end of the year, he said. Employees are projected to receive between $25 and $300 depending on their length of service and number of incidents claimed. Depending on the number of claims made, the payment amount could go up to $1,000.

Employment law expert discusses risks of talking politics at the office

admin — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:04:59 +0000

The start of the 2010 election cycle has brought a new fervor to regional and national politics. The gubernatorial and Senate races at the state level are hotly contested while the national political landscape is changing on a daily basis. Social and political issues such as the Arizona immigration law, the economy, states’ budget crises and health care have caused political passions to flare. Discussions on these issues are becoming more frequent, volatile and passionate, and tensions resulting from these discussion are increasingly adversely affecting the workplace environment. Addressing the current political climate, the labor and employment law experts at Fisher & Phillips LLP advise employers to be aware of the divide between expression and harassment in the workplace.

The increased frustration in our state and national elected officials and emotion behind many of the issues up for vote makes this election particularly sensitive in the workplace. This creates a highly-charged environment, in which discussions that may be mistaken for free speech under the First Amendment can actually open up a Pandora’s box of legal concerns,” explains Lonnie Giamela, an employment law attorney at Fisher & Phillips LLP.

Giamela lists the following “do’s and don’ts” of political discussion at work:

DO evaluate motives. Political discussions at in a place of work can expose sharp differences about irrelevant issues, which can create obstacles that make functioning together difficult. It may be wise for all involved to ask, “Why risk it?”
DO remain neutral and comply with state laws regarding voting time. Employers should facilitate and encourage employees to vote, but never for a particular candidate. They must also ensure adequate time off for voting.
DO ensure policies are objectively developed and enforced. Regardless of individual political views, policies regarding politics in the work place must be administered equally and without bias. While it’s okay to allow some forms of traditional political expression; formal meetings to discuss politics and heated discussions bordering on harassment are different stories.
DO monitor political discussion. What employers aren’t aware of can hurt them. It’s the responsibility of the employer to be well-informed about what types of political conversations or arguments occur at work and work-related functions.
DON’T push political agendas. Employers and managers can find themselves in a heap of legal trouble if they spread propaganda. Even heated political arguments can cause tensions to erupt leading to undesirable hostility in the workplace.
DON’T criticize, joke or jab. Employers should beware of inappropriate comments about political affiliations. Even subtle jokes or jabs can make some employees feel like targets. Comments like, “You’re only supporting her because she’s a woman,” can turn into a world of trouble for employers.
DON’T solicit funds. Employees should never feel coerced into supporting or contributing to a candidate as a condition of employment. Even if employees are doing the soliciting, dependent upon the circumstances, such requests can be illegal.
DON’T gloat. When all is said and done and the votes are counted, resist the urge to brag about a win―it will only cause discomfort.

Source: Fisher & Phillips, LLP; www.laborlawyers.com.

Expert provides five tips for fighting back against FMLA abuse

admin — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:56:56 +0000

It’s only a small number of employees who take advantage of family and medical leave—estimates put it between five and 10 percent of the workforce—but because they keep taking leave over and over again, in any and every way they can, the costs add up in terms of the price of temporary help, lost productivity, missed deadlines, late shipments, lost business, and overworked staff.

Abuse of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) typically manifests itself as regular long weekends (the “Friday/Monday Leave Act”) and/or annual illness at the same time of year, often following denied requests for time off, during nice weather, or at traditional holidays. And then there is the employee with the “perfect fit.” That’s the one who manages to use exactly 12 weeks of leave every year.

FMLA abusers believe that there is nothing an employer can do about it as long as they get their certification. Matthew S. Effland explained how to fight back:

Train your managers,
Check your policies,
Require complete certification,
Get second opinions, and
Deploy surveillance and investigative techniques.

While the FMLA is stacked in favor of employees, you can and should use the tools the law gives you. Be prepared for resistance, but hold firm and be consistent. Your employee will get the message.

Train your managers. The FMLA is one of the few employment laws that allows for individual liability. This gives your managers some “skin” in the game. They are the front line of defense (and liability) and a key source in recognizing the signs of abuse. They will know what is going on with a given employee, and they are charged with “institutional memory,” meaning that what one manager knows, all managers are deemed to know. Good communication is important, as it is not uncommon for employees to “shop” managers or HR staff until they find someone who will say yes.

Train your managers to alert you when an employee is out with a potentially-qualifying illness so that you can send out the FMLA paperwork. You are the brain of the “institutional memory” and the managers are the limbs. Don’t put the burden for knowing when to send the paperwork on your supervisors.

Check your policies. Review your leave policies—abusers know the policies inside out so be sure that the policies say what you mean. Don’t bury key issues in small print. By leaving out essential terms, an organization expands an employee’s leave rights. Make sure that all necessary information is given to employees. Spell out who to contact with leave questions, who should/should not be told about absences, and provide alternative contacts for when a designated contact can not be reached.

The new regulations allow employers to require compliance with their “call-in” procedures; if there is a procedure in place, an employee who phones a buddy to relay the message that the employee is not coming in to work is noncompliance. Employees must now comply with an employer’s procedures absent unusual circumstances. But keep in mind that the longer the call-in requirement (say, four hours versus one hour), the more likely there will be unusual circumstances.

In response to a question about an employee who sent a text message from the doctor’s office, rather than following his employer’s one-hour “phone in” procedure, Mr. Effland suggested that the text message should be treated as notice (although he did raise the question of why the employee was in the doctor’s office—was it a regularly-scheduled exam or an unscheduled visit) because courts don’t like employers putting form over substance.

With regard to a no call/no show situation, Mr. Effland said employers are not required to attempt to track down the employee to determine the reason for the absence, but doing so does put the employer in a better position defensively if it is done uniformly for all employees.

Require complete certification. Mr. Effland recommended that you require certification for all FMLA leave, not just those that are unclear or suspicious. If an employee won’t sign a HIPPA release, deny the leave request.

The doctor’s fee for completion of FMLA certification is initially the employee’s responsibility, which is a good deterrent. Moreover, you are entitled to all of the information contained in a medical certification. Push back on incomplete or insufficient certifications; once they are accepted, you’re stuck with them. If the form is unreadable, anyone except an employee’s immediate supervisor can call the doctor about it. If the form is incomplete, give it back and give the employee seven days to get it fixed.

Consider attaching a job description and attendance record to the certification form with a space for the doctor to initial the attachment. You probably can’t require that the doctor initial it, but it provides you with questions you can ask the employee: for example, do absences always have to be on Fridays?

Doctors hate the FMLA more than HR does, said Mr. Effland, because it puts their credibility at risk. He noted that we’re seeing more honest doctors these days as doctors are being put more and more on the spot.

The recent H1N1 flu outbreak has created some uncertainty regarding FMLA designation. The doctors were telling people with the flu to stay home because there wasn’t anything the doctors could do for them. Yet, if you credited that absence to FMLA, the employee may claim that he or she was not incapacitated and that you robbed them of leave entitlement for the number of days they were out with the flu.

Get second opinions. The FMLA gives you this weapon. Why would you toss out an arrow from your quiver when there are so few? The FMLA permits second opinions by a doctor of the employer’s choosing once a year if there is reason to doubt a certification’s validity. Employees who don’t cooperate lose FMLA protection.

While the employer bears the cost, second opinions are worth the price when you consider the cost for someone to be out for 12 weeks. For a second opinion, choose a doctor that you don’t regularly use (e.g., not your workers’ compensation doctor).

Investigate suspected abuse. There are several potential benefits to employing surveillance and investigative techniques: you can confirm your suspicions or put them to rest, you can obtain solid evidence to support your employment decisions, and it can be very persuasive to fact finders if done correctly. This doesn’t mean get Joe from accounting to follow around suspected abusers. Use off-duty police officers or private investigators. As a neutral third-party, they have more credibility.

Surveillance has been supported by the courts. In a 2008 case, an employer used surveillance to catch an employee, who frequently called in with a migraine, helping her husband with his yard business during the day. The court upheld the employee’s termination because the employer had an “honest suspicion” of abuse.

Surveillance is not without potential pitfalls, however, including claims of retaliation and disparate treatment, invasion of privacy, an inability to easily articulate why the employee is being surveilled, and inconsistency. Additionally, surveillance may not provide conclusive evidence of fraud.

Source: “FMLA in the Trenches” presented by Matthew S. Effland at the SHRM 2010 Annual Conference and Exposition, San Diego, Calif., June 28, 2010.

Schwarzenegger vetoes agricultural worker overtime bill

admin — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:41:16 +0000

Legislation that would have mandated paying California’s agricultural workers overtime for work over eight hours in a workday and over 40 hours in a workweek was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. California’s overtime law generally requires employers to compensate employees for overtime hours worked in excess of 8 hours in a workday or 40 hours in a workweek, but provides for certain specified exemptions, including an exemption for agricultural employees. Senate Bill 1121 proposed to remove that agricultural employee exemption. California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No 14 already requires employers with five or more workers to pay overtime to agricultural workers who work more than 10 hours in a workday or more than six days in a workweek.

The California legislature specifically exempted agricultural workers from the overtime provisions when it enacted the Eight-Hour-Day Restoration and Workplace Flexibility Act in 1999, Schwarzenegger noted, recognizing that the nature of the work is different from other industries in that it is seasonal, subject to the unpredictability of nature, and requires harvesting of perishable goods. He said the measure, “while well-intended, will not improve the lives of California’s agricultural workers and instead will result in additional burdens on California’s businesses, increased unemployment and lower wages.”

“In order to remain competitive against other states that do not have such wage requirements, businesses will simply avoid paying overtime,” the Governor said. “Instead of working 10-hour days, multiple crews will be hired to work shorter shifts, resulting in lower take-home pay for all workers. Businesses trying to compete under the new wage rules may become unprofitable and go out of business, resulting in further damage to our already fragile economy.”

Farm workers have been largely excluded from national labor and protective legislation, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and federal child labor laws, since the 1930s. Senate Bill 1121 passed the state assembly on July 1 by a 478-28 vote. The enrolled bill was sent to the governor on July 20.

Arizona barred from enforcing portions of immigration enforcement law

admin — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:44:10 +0000

July 30th, 2010

Published in Blog

All eyes were on Arizona as Judge Susan Bolton of the District Court of Arizona ruled on July 28 that the state must not enforce the more controversial provisions of its new immigration enforcement law (SB 1070), granting the Obama administration’s request for a preliminary injunction (United States of America v State of Arizona, July 28, 2010, Bolton, S). But the judge permitted the remaining portions of the law to take effect July 29 as planned.

On July 6, the United States filed a suit challenging the legality of SB 1070, as well as a motion requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction to stop Arizona from enforcing SB 1070 until a final determination is made on the law’s constitutionality. The United States’ main argument was that the law violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution because it unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy. Of note, six other lawsuits have been filed challenging SB 1070, including one filed by the ACLU, among other civil rights organizations (Friendly House v Whiting, DAriz, No CV-10-01061-MEA, complaint filed May 17, 2010).

Likely success on the merits. The court found that the United States was likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following sections of SB 1070 are preempted by federal law:

A portion of Section 2 of SB 1070/ARS § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained, or arrested if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person;
Section 3 of SB 1070/ARS § 13-1509: making failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers a crime;
A portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070/A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): making it a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work; and
Section 6 of SB 1070/ARS § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

In addition, the court found that the United States was likely to suffer irreparable harm if it did not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these sections and that “the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest.”

Portions upheld. Judge Bolton did, however, uphold a provision of the law making it a crime for a motor vehicle to stop to pick up day laborers and for day laborers to get into a motor vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic. She also upheld a provision prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. Provisions restricting so-called “sanctuary” policies, requiring employers to keep a record of the employment verification from E-verify for the duration of an employee’s employment, or three years, whichever is longer, and making it a crime to transport or harbor an unlawfully present alien or encourage or induce an unlawfully present alien to come to, or live in, Arizona were also upheld.

The fight has just begun. This, of course, was only the first of many court battles to come. “I am disappointed by Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling enjoining several provisions of SB 1070,” said Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) in a July 28 statement. “I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.”

And the state of Arizona did in fact the following day file an expedited appeal with the Ninth Circuit asking the court to lift the preliminary injunction preventing the state from implementing portions of its new immigration enforcement law (United States of America v State of Arizona, no 2:10-cv-01413-SRB, preliminary injunction appeal filed July 29, 2010).

The notice of appeal and motion for expedited briefing and hearing schedule asks the Ninth Circuit to establish a timeline that would have the state file a substantive brief on August 12, the United States file its response brief on August 26, and the state file its reply brief on September 2. The state asked the Ninth Circuit to schedule oral arguments on the appeal the week of September 13 and to expedite its ruling.

Good cause exists to expedite this appeal under Ninth Circuit rules, said the state in its motion, “because it is an appeal of a preliminary injunction enjoining several key provisions of SB 1070 that the Arizona legislature determined were critical to address serious criminal, environmental, and economic problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government.”

In the other states. Meanwhile, Stateline Staff Writer John Gramlich summarizes what other states are doing about the illegal immigration issue. He notes that state lawmakers are increasingly taking immigration matters into their own hands amid congressional inaction on a comprehensive national policy. The latest reminder is a new report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, finding that every state with a regular legislative session this year addressed immigration and migrant issues.

Gramlich points to the NCSL’s annual report, which tracks immigration bills introduced in legislatures around the country. It found that at least five states – Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Rhode Island – are weighing their own Arizona-style immigration measures. With legislative sessions still under way in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, it is possible that another state could follow Arizona this year, though the bills are still in the early stages of debate.

A new poll in Tennessee, Gramlich notes, is the latest to find that public support for the Arizona law appears to be high in many states. Tennesseans favor the measure by an eye-opening 4-to-1 margin, according to the poll, which was conducted by The Tennessean newspaper and other media outlets.

Stay tuned for the next round……

House sneaks in bill giving collective bargaining rights to first responders

admin — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:24:51 +0000

July 13th, 2010

Sometimes, playing it sneaky is the right thing to do

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (PSEECA), which, if enacted, would give firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical personnel with collective bargaining rights in states and localities that do not currently provide them. Currently, only half the states give first responders the right to bargain collectively and, according to Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, this bill will provide basic guarantees to first responders, but will prohibit them from “…engaging in a lockout, sickout, work slowdown, strike, or any other organized job action that will disrupt the delivery of emergency services.”

So what was so sneaky about it? The House only passed PSEECA by incorporating it into the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010, a bill that the House had to pass in order to keep the trains moving on time. Why did the House have to resort to such tactics to provide the men and women who are the first on the scene when disaster strikes with the same rights as your average dock-workers? Because anti-union groups got their dander up over the perceived giveaway to unions.

Doug Stafford, vice president of the National Right to Work Committee, argued the bill would be more appropriately named the “Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill,” saying that “…the ultimate goal of this legislation is to force every firefighter and police officer in the country under union boss control, whether the individual public safety officers want it or not.”

Sounds ominous. But a look at the bill shows it’s a good days work on behalf of the first responders.

PSEECA would establish minimum collective bargaining rights standards for these employees and would vest the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) with regulatory and enforcement powers. It would give first responders the right to form a union and bargain over hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employment. It would also provide them with an impasse resolution mechanism, such as mediation, fact-finding or arbitration and would give them the ability to have these basic rights enforced, including the right of the two parties to sign legally enforceable contracts.

Doesn’t sound so bad and it’s the guess here that the only reason groups like the NRWC opposed the bill is because it opens the door to a raft of representation campaigns. PSEECA’s prospects remain uncertain. Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also introduced it as an amendment to the Senate’s version of the Appropriations Bill, he quickly withdrew it. But if the Senate can follow the people’s house, it might just demonstrate that, even in today’s bitterly partisan Washington, some good work can be done.

Tips for avoiding company picnic legal pitfalls

admin — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:18:29 +0000

With summer comes the official start of company picnic season. Many businesses are looking for ways to boost morale in the tough economy and recognize employees. Although these celebrations often involve food, games and fun for all, they can end up being an employer’s worst nightmare. With tips from “The Manager’s Mentor,” Shanti Atkins, Esq., throwing a stress free and festive company picnic or party can be easy.

Atkins suggests avoiding the following when you plan this year’s festivities:

On the party invitation, ask “husbands and wives” to join you for summer fun. This is a quick way to alienate single employees as well as gay, bisexual and transgender employees.
Ask staff to work evenings or weekends arranging the party without paying for their extra time. Wage and hour violations are the biggest new area of employment law risk, and having employees work “off the clock” is one the easiest ways to get in hot water.
Make attendance mandatory. Unless you plan to host the party during work time or pay people for attending, mandatory attendance can cause wage and hour concerns as well.
Allow employees to post pictures and comments about your event on social media outlets without having a policy in place. Posting pictures on Facebook, etc. can cause employer embarrassment (i.e., a picture of a clearly inebriated employee holding up a glass with the company logo), and can also cause tension among co-workers (i.e., one coworker posting an embarrassing photo of another). And employees may be viewing these pictures on Company time.
Invite important clients, and lavish them with really expensive food, wine and gifts. Inappropriate gift giving is one of the most common workplace ethical missteps, and can result in very damaging conflicts of interest.
Only serve up big slabs of grilled meat. Cultural sensitivities should be thought of as well, i.e. religion, national origin, eating preferences.
Open bar all night with hard alcohol. There’s nothing like uncontrolled alcohol consumption to guarantee some messy problems to tackle the morning after. Not only will you see escalated risks around harassment, but more importantly, there are serious safety issues to manage.
Announce to everyone that “what happens at the summer party stays at the summer party.” Even though the event is likely to be offsite and after hours, it’s still a work event and all the same HR rules and policies apply. Employers need to remember that—and it needs to be clear to employees as well.
Invite summer interns without providing appropriate supervision. Some of these seasonal workers are very young, and don’t know or understand some of the basic rules of the road when it comes to a company event. Employers also need to remember their interns may be under 21, and should not be served alcohol.

Wage & Hour Division clarifies FMLA definition of “son or daughter” as it applies to employees claiming parental relationships

admin — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:25:52 +0000

Due to employer and employee confusion over how the FMLA applies when there is no legal or biological parent-child relationship, the Wage and Hour Deputy Administrator has provided additional clarification on the definition of “son or daughter” in the context of an employee taking FMLA-protected leave for the birth or placement of a child, to care for a newborn or newly placed child, or to care for a child with a serious health condition.

Based on an examination of the relevant factors, it is the Administrator’s interpretation that either day-to-day care or financial support may establish an in loco parentis parental status relationship where the employee intends to assume the responsibilities of a parent with regard to a child. But in all cases, whether an employee stands in loco parentis to a child will depend on the particular facts.

The full text of the Division’s interpretation letter FMLA 2010-3 can be found here: http://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/adminIntrprtn/FMLA/2010/FMLAAI2010_3.htm.

Secretary Clinton’s comment that the DOJ will file suit challenging Arizona’s immigration law angers Governor Brewer, but is it true?

admin — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:17:20 +0000

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) was “stunned and angered” to learn during an Ecuadorian television interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the Obama administration has decided to file suit against the state challenging the legality of Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law (S.B. 1070). In the June 8 interview that began circulating Thursday in the US, Clinton said: “President Obama has spoken out against the [Arizona’s] law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.” However, in a comment to CCH, Department of Justice spokesperson Tracy Schmaler declined to confirm whether or not the federal agency was in fact filing suit, stating that: “The Department continues to review the law, and anything else is premature.” The DOJ has been reviewing the law and President Obama has met with the governor about the law.

“This is no way to treat the people of Arizona,” said Governor Brewer. “To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorian interview with the Secretary of State is just outrageous. If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”

The law, which has already been amended (H.B. 2162), takes effect July 29, 2010, unless stopped through a legal challenge.

TILT: flu-like symptoms plaguing Gulf cleanup workers

admin — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:55:12 +0000

The latest in a seemingly never-ending series of horror stories arising in the wake of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico comes to us in the form of a new acronym: TILT, short for Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance. Cleanup workers—formerly known as shrimpers, oystermen and fishermen, but now increasingly known as patients—have reported strange, flu-like symptoms such as joint pains, upper respiratory problems, difficulty breathing, stomach cramping, nervousness, inability to concentrate, balance difficulty, nausea, headaches, skin rashes, pain with or frequent urination.

Workers’ complaints to BP initially went unheeded as the company claimed it was unaware of any such problems and was slow to provide respirators to workers who experienced symptoms from odors associated with both petroleum and the chemical dispersants used to combat the spill.

According to InventorSpot.com, TILT (also known as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity) can be caused by exposure to diesel or gas engine exhaust, gasoline, tobacco smoke, insecticide, cleaning products like disinfectants or bleach cleansers, fresh tar or asphalt… even perfume-y odors, nail polish remover, or new furnishings. Pregnant women and asthmatics are most susceptible to TILT.

Despite a request to OSHA in late May by George Miller (D-Cal), Chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, to ensure that there were sufficient OSHA personnel dispatched to the Gulf of Mexico “to properly and aggressively protect the health and safety of those involved in the [BP] oil cleanup activities,” workers and citizens of Gulf communities are still getting sick.

While BP says it’s doing all it can to keep supplies stocked and has had to turn to foreign companies for help, the AP reports that, with demand so high for everything from plastic gloves, to oil-blocking booms and sand-sifting machines, finding enough items to outfit workers and protect the coast is an unending task. Added to that, the summer’s heat and humidity of the region pretty much ensures that we’ll be hearing a lot more about TILT.