Category Archives: Uncategorized

Workplace deaths increase in Nebraska during 2019; work comp benefits set to increase in 2020

Posted on by

The Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court reported workplace deaths increased from 41 to 54 over the last fiscal year. Workplace deaths increased in Nebraska even as the overall number of reported work injuries declined.

The findings were included in the annual report of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation released on Monday.

I think its’ important to note that the number of First Report of Injuries is just an estimate of work injuries in Nebraska. Filing a first report isn’t an admission of a work injury by an employer. On the flip side some employers under-report work injuries, so the number reported by the court could either overestimate or underestimate the number of work injuries in this states

Statistics from one year from one state may not indicate any kind of trend about workplace deaths or work injuries. Workers’ compensation laws vary from state to state. Statistics from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) probably give a better picture of national trends but, their reporting lags behind one fiscal year. In the most recent reported year, Fiscal Year 2018, the BLS showed a 2 percent increase in workplace fatalities.

But even if the increase in workplace deaths in Nebraska isn’t significant from a statistical point of view, workplace deaths are tragic for the families affected. I’ve written previously about how the workplace injury and death survivor group, USMWF has started to lobby for better workplace safety and workers’ compensation laws.

 

Maximum benefit rates increased for 2020

The Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court announced the maximum weekly benefit will also increase from $882 to $855. Nebraska law adjusts the maximum wage rate along with increases to the state’s average wage rate.

While the increase in maximum benefits in Nebraska is routine, that is not the case in every state. In 2017, a judge in Alabama ruled portions of their workers’ compensation law was unconstitutional because maximum benefits had not increased since 1987.

Interestingly enough, the court has not announced the mileage rate for 2020. That number is based on the IRS rate which has not been announced yet. The current mileage rate is $.58 per mile.

Transportation cost is one factor in determining how disabled injured workers are in Nebraska. Much litigation centers on whether it is cost-effective for a worker living in a remote area to commute to a more populated area for work. The cost of a commute, as determined by the mileage rate, in proportion the wages earned is a crucial question.

In 2019, the cost of transportation increased faster than the increase in average wages in the state. In practical terms, this would mean an injured worker might reasonably expected to commute a shorter distance. But mileage costs can vary from year to year, while the maximum benefit as average wage tends to increase steadily. Mileage reimbursement was only 5.4 percent higher in 2019 than it was in 2009. In contrast, the maximum benefit increased 27.4 percent over the same period.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized.

Why regional discrimination is a (legally actionable) thing in China, but not in the U.S.

Posted on by

A Chinese woman from Henan province successfully sued a company in Hangzhou province for denying her a job based on status as a resident of Henan province.

To put this in American terms, this would be the equivalent of someone from West Virginia or Kentucky winning a case against an employer in New York or California for denying them a job based on them being from West Virginia or Kentucky.

State or regional discrimination claims would not succeed under U.S. law. State and regional discrimination is also less of an issue in the United States than it is in China. A comparison of legal systems between the two countries can help us understand why.

China v. United States Part 1: Just Cause v. At-will

In order to fire an employee in China, an employer generally needs to prove good cause. In the United States an employer can fire an employee at any time for any reason. This is called “employment at-will” and I’ve discussed the topic extensively. In short. American courts are reluctant to intervene in the employee-employer relationship barring some explicit statutory or case law authority giving them power to do so. State citizenship or regional background is not one of those reasons.

Chinese courts aren’t bound by the employment at-will and have more leeway to second guess employment decisions. A Chinese court is free to decide that not hiring someone because of provincial origin is unlawful even without any express legal guidance on the issue. Chinese law also provides discrimination protections for workers in rural areas seeking employment in urban areas.

China v. U.S. Part 2: Hukou v. Article IV

Regional discrimination is a more contentious issue in China because of the hukou system which limits the abilities of Chinese citizens to migrate, contract and own property within China. In contrast, Americans have the right to travel, work and contract anywhere in the United States. This freedom is guaranteed by the so-called privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution at Article IV, Clause 1. The privileges and immunities clause also limits the ability of U.S. states to discriminate against the citizens of other states.

So in essence, U.S. law severely limits discrimination based on state origin by governments, but permits private parties to discriminate on that basis in the workplace. In contrast, Chinese law approves of government discrimination based on provincial (state) origin, but is more willing to limit such discrimination between private parties in the workplace.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized.

Why AB5 could survive

Posted on by

Last month gig economy companies like Uber announced a petition drive to repeal Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) which expanded workers’ compensation benefits and other employment protections to gig economy workers and others in California.

AB5 should increase workplace protections for Lyft and Uber drivers, but what can California’s previous attempts to help professional drivers tell us about the future of AB5? It may explain why the gig economy companies are working at a state rather than the federal level. 

Rest breaks for truckers

California amended their wage and hour law to require employers give truckers a break after five hours of service. That law offered more protections than federal law, At the end of 2018, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ruled that California law on breaks was preempted by federal law.

There is nothing new about employers running to the federal government to undo state laws that improve workers’ rights — those efforts date back at least to the Dred Scott decision in the 1857.

So what are the chances that AB5 will suffer the same fate as California’s efforts to insure fair pay and working conditions for truckers? I think AB5 will be harder to undo on a federal level for a few reasons.

Federalism issues

Preemption of federal law by state law has a better chance of succeeding if there is a strong constitutional basis for federal regulation. In the case of trucking, the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government a solid basis for regulating trucking. It’s easier to argue that federal law should preempt state law in an industry that clearly falls within Congressional power to regulate.

In contrast, workers’ compensation laws are state-based laws enacted under state police powers. Workers’ compensation is a form of insurance and Congress has largely delegated insurance regulation to the states. So at least for the workers’ compensation provisions of AB5, I believe there is almost no chance that federal courts would rule that part of the legislation would be preempted by federal court.

Political reasons

The reason the trucking industry had to rely on a ruling by the FMSCA to invalidate California’s law on detention pay for truckers, was that it was unable to get the so-called Denham amendment passed.  In other words, the trucking industry failed to change the law legislatively, so they ran to the executive branch rule making process to get what they wanted.

I started paying close attention to worker classification and portable benefit schemes as they related to the gig economy in 2015. I read a paper from the Democratic-leaning Hamilton Project promoting portable benefit schemes for gig economy workers. Part of that paper included a quote from former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin stating that there needed to be reform of labor laws for the 21st century. Rubin was an architect of financial deregulation in the 1990s, so the idea of him doing the same for labor laws horrified me.

What horrified me was the prospect of Wall Street and Silicon Valley influenced Democrats working with Republicans in some “grand bargain” or feat of “bi-partisanship” to hammer the coffin nail in state workers’ compensation laws from a federal level.

But if the trucking industry can’t even pass the Denham amendment. (BTW Representative Jeff Denham was defeated in 2018), a federal grand bargain on the gig economy seems far-fetched. The Democratic Party, at least on paper, has become a stronger supporter of worker rights over the last four years. Labor militancy has made a comeback in the last four years.  The tech industry has also seen its reputation and popularity lag over the last four years.

Gig economy companies are still attempting to weaken America’s already weak employment laws, but the passage of AB5 in California shows their efforts can by stymied. 

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized.

Free to work where you want, but not free to claim workers’ compensation where you want

Posted on by

Americans enjoy the freedom to travel, live, work and enter into contracts throughout the United States. But when an employee is injured on the job they are often forced to claim workers’ compensation benefits in a distant and or unfamiliar state.  

Article IV of the United States Constitution explains this dilemma for injured workers. But Article IV may allow some employees to be more fairly compensated for their work injuries as well.

The privileges and immunities clause

Article IV, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the so-called privileges and immunities clause, gives Americans the right to freely travel, work, contract and buy property in any state without discrimination by state governments.

But states are allowed to discriminate some based on laws enacted for the health and welfare of its citizens enacted under their 10th Amendment police powers. Workers’ compensation laws are enacted by states under their 10th Amendment police powers. This means that states can decide which employers and employees are subject to their workers’ compensation laws.

In practical terms, this often means injured workers are forced to claim workers’ compensation benefits in a state where they don’t live. Fortunately states cannot discriminate against non-residents when it comes to access to courts. But if the privileges and immunities clause guarantees equal access to state courts regardless of state citizenship, is it constitutional to force someone to travel thousands of miles to pursue a workers’ compensation case? Arguably it’s not. It’s arguably also unconstitutional to deny a workers’ compensation claimant the right to a video or telephonic hearing if they are required to incur heavy travel expenses.

Full faith and credit clause and workers’ compensation

Article IV, Clause 1 requires states to give full faith and credit to the judgments of other states. In some circumstances this means that an injured workers can only claim and collect workers’ compensation benefits in one state even if they would be eligible for benefits in multiple states. If a state workers’ compensation law holds that you can only collect benefits in that state, then you cannot collect benefits in multiple states.

But if state law is silent about the receipt of benefits in multiple states you can collect benefits in multiple states. As one Supreme Court justice pointed out, workers’ compensation benefits are limited and they don’t always adequately compensate an injured worker. Double collection of benefits isn’t necessarily a windfall. But as I pointed out in a post in 2017, the Supreme Court isn’t overly supportive of injured workers claiming benefits in multiple states. The last decision on this issue came out nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court has become even less friendly to workers since then.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Constitutional law, Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation and tagged , .

Why am I getting a letter from the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court?

Posted on by

The Nebraska Workers Compensation Court mails copies of First Reports of Injury out to about 40,000 workers per year along with a letter from the court.

So if you receive one of these letters, why are you getting this letter from the court? What can this report tell you about your potential workers compensation claim?

Why are you getting a letter from the comp court?

You are getting a letter because your employer or their workers compensation insurer or claims administrator filed a First Report of Injury with the Nebraska Workers Compensation Court.

Employers are required to file a First Report when an employee seeks outside medical treatment, is killed on the job, misses work or has an injury that results in restricted work. The fact that your employer filed this report doesn’t mean that you are going to get workers compensation benefits or that your employer even admitted you got hurt at work.

But even if this report isn’t an admission of responsibility by your employer, it can tell you some important things about your workers compensation case.

Insurance information

The report includes the name of your insurer. It should also include a claim number for your workers compensation claim. You can give that claim number to your doctor’s office so they can turn over their bills to the workers compensation insurer.

Lack of insurance information, should be a major red flag and should lead you to call a lawyer

Reporting of injury

The report includes information about when the injury happened and when the injury reported to the employer. Remember that this report was filled out by your employer or their insurer. If the dates on the form about when the injury happened and when it was reported don’t match with your recollection you might want to contact an attorney.

Nature of Injury

The report includes a section for nature of the injury. If that section doesn’t match up with what your injuries are, that should concern you. It’s possible your employer may not be willing to cover all of your work injuries.

Discrepancies about the reporting of the injury and nature of the injury can be an indication that your employer might argue you did not give them timely notice of accident. Though this defense rarely succeeds, employers can claim lack of timely notice to defeat an otherwise valid claim.

This means one of two things: either your employer doesn’t have your current address or they didn’t fill out a First Report. Under Nebraska law, an employer’s failure to file the report extends the time an employee can file a workers’ compensation claim. It can also lead to criminal sanctions on your employer. But from a practical perspective, the fact that your employer didn’t file a First Report makes it harder to get benefits. The Nebraska workers compensation court can give you insurance information, but oftentimes contacting an insurer when a report hasn’t been filed leads to an unhelpful response from an insurer.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized.

Credit where credit is due; George H.W. Bush and civil rights

Posted on by

I thought Dana Carvey’s impersonation of George H.W. Bush was high comedy circa 1990

Anybody who knows me in real life (IRL) or online knows my politics skew left of center. 

But I give the recently departed George H.W. Bush credit where credit due for the Americans with Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act of 1991.

The Americans with Disabilities Act has given disabled workers protections in the workplace. When coupled with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the ADA has been particularly helpful to workers hurt on the job who had to miss work because of work injuries.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 amended Title VII and the ADA to allow for jury trials in those cases and to allow for compensatory and punitive damages in those cases.  In short, discrimination cases became worth more.

Bush vetoed and denounced the Civil Rights Act of 1990 as a “quota” bill, but his support of the 1991 Civil Rights Bill lead to strong backlash among the white nationalist wing of the GOP and prominent figures in that wing including former Klansman David Duke. TV commentator Pat Buchannan picked up Duke’s banner of racial resentment and challenged H.W. Bush in the 1992 Republican Presidential primary.

H.W. Bush doesn’t deserve some posthumous profile in courage for his support of civil rights legislation. He played to racial prejudice with his attacks on Mike Dukakis over Willie Horton

H.W. Bush also governed with a Democratic congress for the entirety of his term. Any kudos that he gets for the ADA and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 need to be shared with Democratic legislators such as Ted Kennedy and Tom Harkin.

H.W. Bush’s judicial appointments also generally interpreted the ADA and Title VII that made it harder for employees to effectuate their substantive rights. In fact, the ADA was gutted so bad by federal courts that Congress basically had to re-pass the ADA in 2008.

H.W Bush also presided during a decline in unionization that began in his predecessor Ronald Reagan’s term and continue to his day. He didn’t do anything to slow this trend and his appointments to the NLRB and his trade policies certainly accelerated the trend.  In many respects, unions provide more protections on the job than civil rights laws.

But the said fact is that no major civil rights laws have been passed since H.W Bush was President. This time period included the 16 years of the Clinton and Obama presidencies. While it is true that Clinton and Obama did tend to appoint judges and administrative officials who tend to be more favorable to employee rights, it’s hard to argue that Clinton and Obama appointees are employee-advocates when it comes to things like whistleblower law and pensions.

The Obama administration did make some federal rule changes that were favorable to employees, but since the Obama administration slow-walked these changes they were vulnerable to repeal during the Trump administration.

Neither Clinton nor Obama did much of anything to reverse the decline of unionization. Obama did next to nothing to support legislation to make it easier to organize unions when he had a near-super majority of Democrats in the Senate in the first two years of his term.

I’ve thought over the last few days about how to conclude this post. I believe that workplace rights laws are generally popular with voters. Then best way to promote workplace fairness is   to fight for broad based workplace rights legislation. Relying  on the judicial branch and executive action is a por substitute for legislation. Even a pro-business Republican like George H.W. Bush will not completely oppose the will of the people as expressed by Congress.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized.

Rolling Back The Rules That Have Made OSHA Effective In Protecting Workers

Posted on by

I am regularly surprised in my job.

I recently met with a client who worked in a psychically demanding industrial job who told me that his employer required a supervisor to accompany the employer to the company infirmary. Many supervisors refused to accompany employees to the nurse, so many employees would forgo going to the infirmary.

My jaw dropped when my client told me this.

Last year, OSHA cited a Pilgrim’s Pride Poultry plant in Florida for citation for failure to provide proper medical treatment for their employees. This was the first time such a sanction had been made. In a post last August, I pointed out that Pilgrim’s Pride was sanctioned for not making proper referrals to orthopedist for overuse injury. In the scenario my client described to me, many injured workers were unable to even get first aid for potential work injuries.

Inability to receive basic medical treatment on the jobsite forces employees to seek medical treatment outside work hours. But employees can risk termination if they seek medical treatment outside the plant without notifying their employer. Inability to obtain basic medical care on the job site makes it less likely that employers will log injuries and more likely they can defend workers’ compensation claims for lack of notice.

A year ago, OSHA would have probably been interested in such a scenario. But the Trump Department of Labor is rolling back many workplace safety rules implemented by the Obama administration. Workers may have to look elsewhere besides OSHA for vigorous enforcement of workplace safety laws.

Employees can report potentially unlawful practices like requiring a supervisor to accompany an employee to a nurse’s station to OSHA on their own. At least in Nebraska, this would allow them to pursue a whistleblower claim. But in many instances employees risk termination even a court finds that their employer engaged in unlawful retaliation.

Employees might also be able to pursue wrongful discharge claims based on violations of public policy. The potential problem with these types of claims is often times courts will find that federal law doesn’t create public policy for the purpose of a state law claim. Courts could also find that laws do not create a clear public policy sufficient to create a claim for wrongful discharge.

I am a firm believer in employees working together to address issues in the workplace. So-called protected concerted activity doesn’t involve litigation and is often effective in resolving workplace issues quickly. But again employees take some risks of retaliation. These retaliation claims are sometimes heard by the independent National Labor Relations Board. While the Department of Labor has signaled it will be less responsive to employee interests, the independent NLRB seems to be a more friendly forum for employee grievances against their employers.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized.

Look To Your Co-Workers Before Your Boss When Trying To Accommodate An Injury Or Medical Condition

Posted on by

Employees with an injury or medical condition that prevents them from doing  parts of their job ought to consider asking for help  from their co-workers  first before they talk to management about how to accommodate that medical condition or injury.

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and most parallel state laws, a disabled employee and their employer are supposed to engage in an “informal interactive process” to see if the employee’s disability can be reasonably accommodated. The process is supposed to be flexible.

In reality often times the interactive process can be an adversarial process where legal counsel for the employer,  HR,  employee health and risk management bureaucrats attempt to force working people to fill out complicated paperwork and create a paper trail justifying terminating an employee.

But if an employee can work with a co-worker or co-workers to shift and trade tasks that they can’t do because of a disability, then the employee has accommodated their own disability without having to deal with a squad of paper pushers who know little about how an employee actually does their job.

The other thing an employee does when they work with their co-workers to accommodate their own disability without interference from management is that they engage in what is called a “protected concerted” activity. So in addition to having legal protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the employee has protections under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as would  their co-workers.

Employees are faced with judges and government agencies who are increasingly sympathetic to management. But workers are re-discovering the power of concerted action. New York taxi drivers struck in protest of President Trump’s proposed Muslim Ban. Workers at Comcast walked out of work in protest of this policy as well.

I realize that many of my prospective and current clients may support Donald Trump and his policies. But regardless of your political views you can still ask for and provide mutual aid and support from your co-workers if you or one of them has a disability that keeps you or them from doing certain tasks on the job. This idea of mutual aid and support for co-workers on the job has long been an important part of workplace rights and will probably grow increasingly important and as courts and government agencies become increasingly supportive of management.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized.