07 October 2019

Doublespeak


I think the original comment was badly phrased; presumably he meant that the court decision would subtract billions in costs from employers' bottom lines (but the counterargument still stands)/

4 comments:

  1. Snark aside, this is actually a fairly interesting case (presuming I found the right one):

    https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2018/s234969.html

    I'm no lawyertician, but I think the concern is that employers would now be required to account and pay for employee activities such as waiting in line to punch in for the day (employee actions required to work that typically constitute less than a minute of actual activity). Time and effort spent to track such activities would certainly constitute a significant time and dollar cost, so the summary here is a bit simplistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was actually wondering what the other side of the argument is - thanks for elucidating part of it.

      Delete
  2. Most hourly payroll is done in 15 minutes, correct? If you worked 14 minutes "off the clock" is not payable usually. If you work 15+ minutes it is a different thing.

    17 months = a bit less than 74 weeks. The employee mentioned worked 12 hours and 50 minutes.770 minutes divided over 74 weeks = 10.4 minutes per week or 2.08 minutes per day.

    How about this deal. I will pay you for the 2.08 minutes per day you worked off the clock if I can dock you the time you are on the clock and doing personal stuff. On the phone, emailing, talking to a non-customer friend, etc, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Man.. I went to summer camp with that guy

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...