State labor legislation

Child labor was one of the other issues which was tackled in the 2007 legislation. Fitzpatrick and Perrine (2008) explained that, California enacted and put an extension for the the laws which were to get outdated, for the exception of minors between the age of 16 and 17 employed in a specific municipality, and who were to work for maximum of 60 hours in a week when the schools were closed. In 2008, Arizona made amendments for the hours which a person below the age of 16 was supposed to work. It required that if such a person worked beyond 8pm they had to be in the company of an adult.

New Mexico made amendments stating that an employer could employ school students between the age of 16 and 17 as long as they keep proper records about the children and also get written consent documents by those in charge of the children. Zachary (2008) posited that New Mexico modified the requirements for the number of working hours and the issuing of work permits for workers who are below the age of 18 years. Fines for the employers who are responsible for the death of a minor who die while working for them were increased. Colorado amended their laws and put provision for the categories of social orientation and and religion.

Viollis and Decker 92005) stated that the provision stated that, there will be equal opportunities of employment. Employers were restricted from doing acts like, discharging, promoting or demoting, refusing to hire, harassing an employee during employment and discriminating when it comes to compensation on the basis of sexuality or religion. Illinois made it an offense for an employer to refuse to transfer a pregnant person in the firefighting department to a less strenuous job during the period when a person is pregnant if such a condition has been specified by the physician.

Refusing to accommodate the requirements of such an employee is termed as a violation of civil rights. The civil rights Act in Illinois has been amended and sensitized on the issue of gender where it states that, the local government, the state or the municipality shall not exclude anybody in participating, or discriminate a person, or deny benefits to a person, under any activity or program. Arizona changed the laws of the state to enable full utilization and participation in the workforce where available. These ideas were expressed by (Viollis & Decker, 2005).

The barriers that were deterring people from getting job opportunities such as race, disability, and marital status were done away with. New Mexico amended the legislation and provided that where an employer has more than 50 employees working in his company, an employee is then entitled to a leave of three days in a twelve months year, if he has issues of domestic violence which needs to be resolved. According to Fitzpatrick and Perrine (2008) the workers have a right to require for a deduction or increment in payment of taxes where the legal requirements give them discretion to do so.

In Arizona, big companies with employers having more than 50 employees work for mare than 20 days in a calendar year must always allow leave to any worker who has suffered under crime in order to get a protection order. As expressed by (Zachary, 2008) Colorado law provided that an employee has a right to decide to take an unpaid family leave or to take the leave and later substitute it by working over their vacation. In Illinois, if an employee decides to take a leave in order to donate blood, the amended law stipulate that such an employee should be paid.

The law enacted in the New Mexico allowed the withholding of wage by the employers for certain reasons. The use of payroll cards is also allowed for use by the employers while paying the employees. The Arizona law which was enacted prohibited employment of an alien who got into the country in unauthorized manner and required that the employers use the pilot verification program to determine the legibility of their employees, failure to which an employer is liable for a civil wrong.

Zachary (2008) explained that this was a requirement of Arizona protection laws in the department of immigration. The statute provided that if the employer fails to comply with the minimum wage after 2007, the 1st of January, and he did so in good faith and complied with the legal instruments which were in force prior to the enactment, then he may not be held liable.

The Act also requires that if an employer terminates the employment period for an employee, they must pay them effectively and in the right time, failure to follow the rule, the employer will be liable to pay the amount owned to the employee and an additional fine. In a nutshell, the enactment of the 2007 labor law Act by and large had great impact on various legislations touching on labor law in many states.

This Act improved the working conditions of the workers while at the same time demanding that the workers must adhere to the rules and regulations stipulated in their area of work. The rights of the employers were also amended to ensure that they also enjoy their privileges. Failure of either party calls for a penalty in a civil suit. After going through the amended 2007 labor law Act, one cannot fail to notice that it has the goal of improving a good working environment for both the employer and the employees.


Fitzpatrick, J. & Perrine, J. (2008). State labor legislation (SLL) enacted in 2007: Monthly Labor Rev, 131(1), 3-31. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global Viollis, J. & Decker, K. (2005). Avoiding the Legal Aftermath of Workplace Violence: Employee Relations Law Journal, 31(3), 62-69. Retrieved on May 21, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 930280031). Zachary, K. (2008). Labor law: Sexual harassment procedures and third party retaliation. Super Vision, 69(3), 21-27. Retrieved May 21st 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.