Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
A Summary Of Data From Families And Work Institute’S National Study Of Employers (2008), Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
A Summary Of Data From Families And Work Institute’S National Study Of Employers (2008), Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
Memos and Fact Sheets
This memo presents data from the Families and Work Institute’s 2008 National Study of Employers describing the similarities in access to flexible work arrangements (“FWAs”) for employees of small and large employers. The 2008 National Study of Employers (“2008 Study”) provides a comparison of the availability of 12 types of FWAs to employees of small (50-99 employees) and large (over 1,000 employees) employers.
Flexible Work Arrangements (Fwas): Possible Public Policy Approaches, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
Flexible Work Arrangements (Fwas): Possible Public Policy Approaches, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
Memos and Fact Sheets
There is a range of ways in which public policy can help workplace flexibility become a norm in the American workplace. Indeed, the various bills introduced in the 110th Congress to increase access to FWAs, one component of workplace flexibility, represent a wide range of public policy approaches.
This document categorizes and characterizes these public policy approaches to help clarify the options that might be pursued to increase access to FWAs.
The Legislative History Of Fefcwa And Feptcea, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
The Legislative History Of Fefcwa And Feptcea, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
Charts and Summaries of State, U.S., and Foreign Laws and Regulations
No abstract provided.
Statements Illustrating The Legislative Intent Of These Laws, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
Statements Illustrating The Legislative Intent Of These Laws, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
Memos and Fact Sheets
Based on statements in the legislative history, these laws were meant to provide:
- Overarching Benefits in the Current Economy
- Benefits to Families
- Benefits to Management
- Equality for Women
- Protection of the Environment
Telework In The Federal Government: The Overview Memo, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
Telework In The Federal Government: The Overview Memo, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
Memos and Fact Sheets
Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs) alter the time and/or place that employees work on a regular basis in a manner that is manageable and predictable for both employees and employers.1 Telework, also called telecommuting, refers to an FWA that enables an employee to work from an alternative place to the employer’s usual worksite, typically home or a satellite work center. Telework technically refers to work performed with the use of a telecommunications connection to the workplace (e.g., computer, telephone), but the term is also
An Overview Of Early Laws Increasing Access To Flexible Scheduling And Reduced Hours In The Federal Workforce, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
An Overview Of Early Laws Increasing Access To Flexible Scheduling And Reduced Hours In The Federal Workforce, Workplace Flexibility 2010, Georgetown University Law Center
Memos and Fact Sheets
The Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act (FEFCWA) authorizes, but does not require, agencies to offer alternative work schedules to employees. FEFCWA permits employees to designate non-traditional arrival and departure times, centered around core agency hours, and to experiment with four-day workweeks or other compressed schedules. Under the law, implementation and employee utilization of alternative work schedules depends on management support and leadership.
Managers, Shareholders, And The Corporate Double Tax, Michael Doran
Managers, Shareholders, And The Corporate Double Tax, Michael Doran
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The United States generally imposes two levels of federal income tax on corporate profits. The first level taxes income to the corporation; the second level taxes dividends to the shareholders. Academics and policymakers have long considered this double tax to be "unusual, unfair, and inefficient." Legislators from both political parties have proposed integration of the corporate and individual income taxes on many occasions, but the proposals consistently fail. Prior academic analyses have struggled to explain the failure of integration. This paper demonstrates how certain managers, shareholders, and collateral interests rationally favor certain integration proposals and oppose other integration proposals, while …