We are investigating meat suppliers’ and restaurants’ use of the product commonly referred to as “meat glue.”  This product is being used by some meat product companies and restaurants to bind (“glue”) together scraps of meat into a single piece, and sell it as if it were one cut of higher-grade meat (e.g. a “filet”).  There may be false advertising or consumer law violations in certain situations, if meat-glued products are not being correctly labeled as the law requires.

The meat-glue substance itself is a powder mix, sold under the brand names Activa or Fibrimex.  The Activa product is made with the enzyme transglutaminase, also called TG or TGase.  The Fibrimex product is made with the enzyme fibrin.

Here is an article we wrote with more information about “meat glue” and food-industry use of this product to combine meat scraps and sell the meat-glued products.

If you get in a workplace dispute, watch your emotions carefully.  If you lose your cool, you will likely lose your job.

People understandably feel strong emotions when confronted with strong emotions– say if a boss or HR rep is treating you condenscendingly, sarcastically, or worse, is yelling at you.  If these things happen, it is hard not to let emotions well up and take over.  But that is exactly what you have to prevent.

If management loses their cool, they keep their jobs.  You do not make the decision whether your managers keep their jobs, when they lost their cool in dealing with you.  But if you lose YOUR cool in dealing with them, then they can choose whether to label your actions “insubordination” or “misconduct”, etc.  They can choose to fire you.

These are simple concepts.  But the minute a worker gets into a dispute, he is quick to forget the logical concepts above, and likely to lose his cool.  Don’t lose your cool.  It will do you no good, and will likely cost you your job.

If you are a worker in a dispute — whether it’s a dispute with your current employer’s management, a dispute with your former employer about unemployment benefits, etc.– there is something important you should know.

Regardless of what the employer may have done wrong, YOU are probably the person who is under the most scrutiny, and who has the most to lose. That is, you are probably the one on the hotseat.

For example, if you are subject to a disciplinary meeting or grievance process at work, it may well be that the discipline is unfair.  However, the nature of that sort of proceeding (whether the discipline is fair or not) is to decide whether YOU did something wrong.  That sort of proceeding is NOT a proceeding to determine whether others (coworkers, management, etc.) did something wrong. You are on the hotseat, not them.

Similarly, in an unemployment hearing, it is usually the judge’s job to decide whether the WORKER did something wrong.  Whether the worker committed misconduct or not, whether the worker quit without good cause or not, etc.  It is usually not part of the unemployment judge’s function to decide whether the employer did something wrong.  So again, YOU would be on the hotseat, not the employer.

If you are in a dispute at work or in a legal proceeding, before you make any assumptions or take any actions, ask yourself this: “Who is on the hotseat here?”  That is, ask yourself what the purpose of the proceeding is– to examine YOUR wrongdoing or the employer’s.

Chances are, the proceeding is geared to investigate your wrongdoing.  Chances are, you are the one on the hotseat.  If you are not sure who is on the hotseat, then don’t make any assumptions, and talk to an attorney.

If you are in fact the one on the hotseat, then it is very important you know this: the worst thing to do while on the hotseat is to blame others for their wrongdoing.  If you’re accused of starting a fire (falsely or not), then that is not a good occasion to talk about others’ tax fraud.

For a more common example, if you are in a disciplinary meeting with management, you should not speak during that occasion (i.e. a proceeding for which you are on the hotseat and being reviewed for accusations against you) about what other people did wrong, about how you are being disciplined unfairly, etc. The hotseat is not the place to cast blame from. Because of the context, people in authority will be suspicious of what you have to say, and think you are playing the blame game; that you are being defensive and trying to divert attention from yourself.  If you case blame from the hotseat, it will only make people more upset, and more inclined to take action against you.

So what DO you do while you’re on the hotseat?  Three things.  First, you LISTEN.  Second, you ANSWER. (If no one asks you a question, then you don’t say anything).  Third, when you have to answer, you SPEAK WITH FACTS.  Fact-talk is talk like this: “On June 1, the sky was blue.”  Blame-talk is like this: “Manager Smith was being unfair and lying when he said the sky was green. That’s ridiculous.  Why are you giving me discipline, when he’s the one that’s wrong?  Management has not given this matter a fair investigation.”

Hopefully, what I’m saying gives you pause.  Hopefully, you’ll give thorough thought to whether you’re on the hotseat, and if so, you’ll take great care not to cast blame.

If you have any doubts, talk to an employee rights attorney to sort it out before you say or do something that may make the hotseat hotter!

If you are an H-1B worker with unpaid wages, as we have described before, there is a 1-year deadline for a particular type of legal complaint you could pursue.  That is, there is 1-year deadline to file a WH-4 complaint at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).

We have found that many H-1B workers (whether they have read our blog or not) are aware that a WH4 complaint can be pursued at DOL as a way to seek unpaid wages.

However, some H-1B workers who are past the 1-year deadline for a WH4 complaint may assume they have lost their chance to pursue unpaid wages.

Please know that often this is not the case.  There often are options an H-1B worker can consider when the unpaid wages were earned more than one year ago.  For example, several Federal and State laws (unlike the H-1B regulations and WH4 process) allow deadline periods of 2-6 years to pursue unpaid wages.  So, if an H-1B worker’s employer had failed to pay wages that were due more than a year ago, that worker– while not having options at DOL per the WH4  complaint process– may well have options under other Federal or State laws.  The attorney-authors of this blog can speak to this firsthand, as we have represented H-1B workers in several legal actions with legal claims seeking wages owed from several years prior.

The take-home points for you, as an underpaid H-1B worker, are these: (1) if you’re owed wages from more than one year ago, don’t assume you are beyond all legal deadlines to pursue those wages, unless a competent attorney tells you that following a consultation; and (2) if you are interested in a potential legal complaint, promptly have an attorney evaluate your situation, potential legal claims, and deadlines.  The longer you wait, the more likely it is that all applicable legal deadlines will pass.

Before they retained us, many underpaid workers we represent had tried to get their unpaid wages by themselves and without an attorney. The workers tried to (1) get the wages directly from the employer, via complaining or negotiating; (2) filed a legal complaint with a government agency; or (3) took both of these actions.

Many underpaid workers who take action without an attorney are unsuccessful. There are a number of reasons for this, not all of which we’ll discuss in this article.

But one big reason underpaid workers fail to obtain their wages is this: they do not know that obtaining unpaid wages is a process.

You cannot expect unpaid wages to be paid to you until the required process has been completed.  Much like a baby cannot be born unless and until a process (namely, pregnancy) has taken place, as well as the related passage of time needed for that process (often, close to 9 months), and the related work (addressing medical needs, dietary and physical needs, etc.).

Do you know all the different processes that could lead to you obtaining your unpaid wages?  Do you know all the potential risks and benefits of pursuing each process (and are you SURE about that)? Do you know which process is the best one to pursue?  Do you know how much time that process is likely to take, and all the work/tasks that are necessary for that process?

If you don’t have good answers to these questions, an experienced wage attorney will.  That’s not to say you must retain an attorney, or that you must pursue any particular process.  But if you fail to realize there IS a process involved with an unpaid wage matter, and fail to consider the questions above, then you are less likely to be successful in obtaining your unpaid wages and otherwise achieving what you want to.

Yesterday, PBC Attorney Michael Brown, who represents John Kroner in the case of John Kroner v. Oneida Seven Generations Corporation (Appeal No. 2010AP002533), conducted argument before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.   The issues before the Supreme Court concern the Brown County Circuit Court’s decision to transfer the case to the Oneida Tribal Judicial System, and whether that decision was appropriate under Wisconsin’s tribal transfer statute (Wis. Stat. 801.54) and other law concerning tribal jurisdiction.

Video and audio recordings of the parties’ oral arguments are available here at the Wisconsin Eye website.

Many employees engaged in employment disputes believe that the truth will set them free.  That once the employer, or the legal system, finds out the employee is factually correct or “in the right,” then everything will work out in the employee’s favor.

This view, while understandable, is flat wrong.  More often than not, the truth does not set an employee free from their dispute.

Consider this.  Say a given person is diagnosed with cancer.  In most instances, such a person would probably (1) recognize he was in a severe situation; (2) seek the assistance of a professional (e.g. doctor, etc.); (3) undertake steps to best deal with the situation (e.g. treatment); and (4) recognize that those steps would improve the ODDS of a successful outcome, but would not be a guarantee.  Accordingly, the person would recognize the situation to be one that involved risk, and that required careful attention to how it was managed.

All of the same factors apply in a legal dispute.  The unfairness, or untruth, of your situation will not cause matters to resolve in your favor. There is risk involved with your situation, however right you may be, and how your situation works out depends in large part on the (careful) steps you take, and a number of factors involved.

The truth is just one factor, one variable, in a legal dispute.  Other variables include, but are not limited to: what other witnesses will say (i.e. their “truths” asserted), what documentation supports your case, the employer’s level of wealth and leverage, the legal resources available (e.g. whether you can get an attorney, whether a legal claim exists or doesn’t exist for your situation, however unfair, etc.), the timing of your matter (e.g. whether you are beyond a deadline), the particular legal authority you’re dealing with (e.g. the particular unemployment claims adjudicator, judge, jury) and so on.

I don’t write all this to be pessimistic.  Often, employees DO have good legal claims and successful outcomes in employment disputes.

However, if you hold the mistaken assumption that the truth will set you free, and you ACT based on that assumption– for example, if you give your employer or an unemployment adjudicator an earful about how “right” you are– you will find out the hard way how insufficient the truth is in the employment-law world.

The Wisconsin Lawyers Assistance Program (WisLAP) provides confidential assistance to help lawyers, judges, law students, and their families cope with problems related to the stress of practicing law.

Peterson Berk & Cross Attorney Michael Brown (this blog’s author) is a volunteer with WisLAP, and is happy to discuss the program with anyone who wants more information about it.

There are recent news reports about a company called Carrier IQ which has an application installed on millions of smartphones, including some Androids. Concerns exist that Carrier IQ’s application may be obtaining and transmitting phone users’ information without their knowledge.

My law firm handles individual rights matters, and I have been investigating the Carrier IQ situation.

If you have an Android phone and want to detect whether it has the Carrier IQ application installed on it, you can download this application called Carrier IQ Detector to do so.

If you have Carrier IQ installed on your smartphone and you have questions about your legal rights, please feel free to contact me at mbrown@pbclaw.com.

Attorney Michael Brown

Peterson, Berk & Cross SC