The laws of the U.S. and the U.K. are similar in many ways, but there are important differences in their employment laws. If you are an American planning to work in the U.K., or vice versa, you should be aware of those differences which may be important to your circumstances and your employment relationship. This article will summarize four.
At-Will Employment
Subject to exceptions, U.S. law recognizes the doctrine of “at-will” employment. That is, the employment relationship is voluntary and may be terminated by either party with or without cause and without liability. Employment agreements and collective bargaining agreements often preclude at-will termination, but in the absence of such contractual protection an employee should assume that the employer has the right to terminate at-will. In the U.K., employment is typically subject to detailed contracts, often incorporating provisions of U.K. labor law intended to protect the employee from termination without good cause. Thus, terminations in the U.K. must be justifiable and in accordance with established rules, including a notice period. Failure to comply with the required procedures will likely result in claims for unfair dismissal or discrimination being brought against the employer.
Employment Authorization
In the U.S., non-citizens and non-permanent residents generally require governmental authorization to accept employment. In most cases, that authorization is in the form of a non-immigrant visa. Obtaining such visas can be difficult and expensive. On the other hand, enforcement of U.S. immigration laws is lax, and the penalties for hiring unauthorized workers light. As a result, unauthorized employment is common in the U.S. The penalties for such violations in the U.K. are severe. Therefore U.K. companies are meticulous in verifying employment authorization.
Non-Competes
In the U.S., non-compete provisions tend to be common in employment agreements and they are generally enforceable so long as they are reasonable in the context of the surrounding circumstances. U.K. law tends to more protective of employees, so that non-compete clauses and other post-termination restrictions in employment agreements are often found to be unenforceable.
Privacy
The U.S. and the U.K. have similar approaches to protecting the privacy of their citizen generally. However, they differ in the level of protection they provide in the case of employment screenings. Generally speaking, the U.S. allows employers to conduct background checks, and in most cases employers require potential employees to consent to such background checks. In the U.K., background checks are only allowed if relevant to the job in question. Moreover, U.K. data collection services must be registered with the government.
So, which law applies if you are a citizen of one country but working in the other? There is no easy answer except, “It depends.” As a rule, the law of the country where you are performing your services will apply. However, if you are only in that country briefly on a short business trip or secondment, for example, the law of your home country is likely to apply. Most employment agreements for ex-pats will state a governing law, but it is not certain those provisions will apply, especially if they conflict with the laws of country in which the employee is physically present and providing services. As always, it is best to consult with a qualified employment attorney.
This article was written together with Robert Tritter, a passionate freelance writer of law-related articles throughout the web. They write this on behalf of HJP&E, a group of great civil litigation lawyers in California who will go great lengths to serve you. If you have been a victim of Employee Discrimination, make sure to contact them and see how they can help you.
Speeding seems harmless when you’re flying down the interstate and almost necessary when you’re almost late for work. However, speeding, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), is the third most common contributor to auto accidents and takes approximately 13,000 American lives every year. These speed-related accidents cost $40 billion annually. That statistic means that for every minute that Americans save by speeding, U.S. society pays $76,000.
Police departments have dramatically reduced fatalities caused by driver impairment and by not wearing seatbelts. Speeding, unfortunately, remains an unsolved challenge. According to the National Safety Council, police, road engineers and private sector companies can work together to eliminate speeding. These four methods are commonly used in jurisdictions around the country.
Method One: Automated Speed Enforcement
The light has just turned yellow. You push your gas pedal so that you can speed through the intersection. As the light changes to red over your windshield, you notice a camera perched near the traffic signal. A few days later, you receive a letter with an unmistakable photo of your car. The letter details the speed at which you went through the intersection.
Cameras provide ongoing speeding enforcement while having minimal negative effects on the flow of traffic. Police can skip observation, chase and citation, which keeps them out of potentially unsafe situations. According to research from the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running, cameras cut crashes at intersections by between 25 and 30 percent. As long as the public knows that police are using cameras and the police department mounts an effective media campaign, automated enforcement with cameras can be an excellent deterrent for speeders.
Method Two: High-Visibility Anti-Speeding Campaigns
Combining a blitz of speed limit enforcement with an aggressive media campaign against speeding and other aggressive driving behaviors can significantly reduce driver speeds in a community or even across an entire state. This strategy has been employed successfully in the past to curb impaired driving as well as refusal to wear seat-belts The NHTSA publishes information on preparing one of these anti-speeding campaigns in its “Guidelines for Developing a Municipal Speed Enforcement Program.”
Method Three: Strategic Road Engineering
When roads are planned, engineers should employ measures to control speeding by adding in physical deterrents. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, some good examples include vertical deflections, such as speed bumps, speed tables and raised intersections; horizontal shifts such as neighborhood traffic circles; methods to narrow roadways like adding center islands; and closures like diagonal diverters that essentially force drivers to take other routes.
In addition to strategic road building, police can calm traffic by adding speed detectors on particularly troublesome roads. For instance, if police notice frequent speeding and speeding-related crashes on a certain highway, then they can erect speed signs letting drivers know how fast their vehicles are moving. These speed signs are also effective in construction zones.
Method Four: Driver Monitoring
Commercial vehicle operators or companies who provide their employees with vehicles can take measures to make sure their drivers avoid speeding. Fleet management devices like speed monitors, speed logs or speed regulators can discourage commercial and company car drivers from barreling down the highway.
Driving without going over the speed limit cuts auto insurance costs for everyone. When drivers avoid speeding, they also save lives. So make a special effort to slow down or to leave for work on time. The life that you save may be your own.
Despite these measures, reckless speeding can still occur. A wrongful deathattorney can help if you or a loved one is the victim of a reckless driver.
My involvement in a taxi cab accident taught me a lot of tough lessons. After driving around the same block in Chicago for 45 minutes to find a parking spot, I finally saw my opportunity. A car ahead of me pulled out of a parking lot onto the street, and he’d left a spot open right at the front of the lot! I turned left to enter the parking lot when a taxi cab behind me smashed into my driver’s side door so hard that it set off my airbags. The cabbie later claimed that he was trying to go around me from behind. Because I wear glasses, the impact of the airbags bruised and cut my face. Luckily, my wife had no injuries and she was able to get the cab driver’s plate number and company information. She also exchanged insurance information with him. We’d never been in an accident before, and we were both so shaken up that we couldn’t remember what we had to do. The cab driver seemed genuinely sorry and assured us that we didn’t have to worry because his insurance would pay for everything, so there was no need to call the police. Our first mistake was believing him as we drove off to a hospital.
My left eye swelled up badly; I felt worried because of the bleeding and the fact that I couldn’t see out of it for 24 hours, but there was no damage serious enough to warrant an operation. The ER visit was expensive because they ran extra tests on me since I had slight whiplash from the impact. My wife first called our car insurance company and explained to them what had happened. They asked her if she had taken any photographs of the damage, and we had not; that was our second mistake. There was a big dent on our car, but the cab didn’t have much more than a broken headlight from what we could remember. When she described the accident to our insurance representative, he deduced that the cab driver was at fault, which was just as we’d suspected, since he made an illegal move by crossing the center median while trying to go around us. My wife immediately called the cabbie’s insurance company to begin to file our claim with them. Unfortunately, what we didn’t know was that the cab driver’s insurance had expired more than six months ago. We had to argue with our own insurance company to try to help pay for the medical bills since our plan did not cover accidents with uninsured motorists.
The police couldn’t help us, even though we had his license plate number because they weren’t there after the accident to confirm our story, so we were left in a case of our word against the driver’s. The cabbie also gave us phony contact details, so we filed suit in small claims court against his taxi company for our damages. The company was able to trace the driver using the plate number and they forced him to settle with us in mediation to avoid going to trial and creating a bad name for their company. After this nightmare to recover more than $2,500 in total expenses, we’ve learned to always call the cops, take photos before moving our vehicles in an accident, and check the driver’s insurance information carefully! I hope others reading this story never have to go through a similar experience.
Byline: Ryan Devereux found a lawyer that specialized in taxi accidents when he was struck with his bad cab experience.
