Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Tiny victory for working poor,
TJN Joined Sun 12/02/07 Posts: 6745	Sat 03/22/14 10:47 AM
So should every minute they are on the clock be accounted for? Then do they not get paid for idle time when no one is in the line ordering food and the employees are not doing anything work related?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 03/22/14 10:53 AM
So should every minute they are on the clock be accounted for? Then do they not get paid for idle time when no one is in the line ordering food and the employees are not doing anything work related? that's what supervisors are there for, to make sure employees aren't 'idling' on the clock they cant be penalized for a shortage of business, they are still contributing their time that they could be doing something else and they should be paid when they are on the clock, with supervision to ensure they are doing the job they are paid for, and management to ensure that they aren't being made to work when they are off the clock and not being paid,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 03/22/14 10:59 AM
Please read posts for content. I clearly stated they deserved only the monies due them had they remained on the clock. Not exorbitant awards. Here is where I needed to take my own advice as I reread your post and learned that they received only the money and interest derived by the number of hours they worked off the clock and nothing more. So that much is settled. The matter that they knew it was wrong yet continued for a period of time before filing suit is another thing. The courts do not allow one to walk in and say, "yeah, I worked 40 hours off the clock". You have to have documented every minute in such a fashion as to serve as proof of the claim. I am not saying it didn't happen, this type of thing happens in every industry and at every level, every day. It is illegal and should not occur. I am saying that the way for the worker to avoid falling victim to this practice and achieve victory is to not participate in the illegal activity. A "victory" in my estimation would have been just compensation for any worker terminated for refusing to work off the clock. Furthermore, the statement that they had to be paid to save money is not entirely valid. They were paid, just not for a small portion of time the worked off the clock. Yet, in the vein of personal responsibility, I believe you infer that the minimum wage worker is incapable of saving money. There is an old adage that illustrates this concept: "can't never could do anything". If you are capable of having cable, satellite, internet service, cell phone, higher rent than you can afford, you have opportunities to save. Shed the unnecessary until you can afford it with money left over. It is the principle of living within your means. I encourage others to live BELOW their means. Does it make life difficult? Yes. Does it allow one to become as successful as they are able? Yes. To rally people with the false hype that they should not have to give up luxuries in life to get ahead instills an entitlement mindset that is a disservice to them. Don't misconstrue my comments about entitlement as me begrudging anyone a hand up. I do, however, begrudge anyone receiving a hand out. It is not the short term to balance one's finances it is the long term, often generational, career recipient that offends. I extend you this olive branch: I will call this a victory for the worker if you will agree that they had a duty to themselves to not actively participate in their own mistreatment. YES I agree, there is a duty to self to know what others should and shouldn't be able to do to you but there is a LEGAL OBLIGATION for employers to know the statutes under which the law REQUIRES them to operate towards their employee,, and ignorance of such statutes doesn't make anyone stupid or inferior, just uneducated about those statutes,,, until they are educated about those statutes, at which time, they should seek to correct whichever statute was violated,,,

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 03/22/14 11:01 AM
So should every minute they are on the clock be accounted for? Then do they not get paid for idle time when no one is in the line ordering food and the employees are not doing anything work related? I wouldn't say accounted for but definitely paid for, it is part of the contract, that contracted for the pay and the employer contracts for the time, a fair exchange. Idle time, work time, so long as they are on the clock and under the direction of the employer is time that needs to be compensated. However, if they are asked to clock out and leave the work area then they are on their own, not under control of the employer. This is true for many service organizations, especially in the food industry where there are busy times and slack times. It has always been so where you bring people in to set up before the meal, work during serving and then to clean up afterwards. Then you cut back on the wait staff and only keep the kitchen staff to start preparing for the next service when the wait staff returns. But somehow that seems to be a sin for a large chain where there are large amounts of money a lawyer could get his hands on in these illegal courts designed to spread the wealth amongst the private member union commonly referred to as the BAR.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 03/22/14 11:16 AM
large corporations which make large profits certainly have access to actuarial and accounting resources which allow them to 'project' their daily work needs,,, waiters and waitresses, when times get slower than PROJECTED are usually not asked to just stick around off the clock, unless its for a 'break' period , of which they can only have one during each four or five hour period of scheduled time if its slower than that, they are to be sent home,,,, SCHEDULED work is SCHEDULED pay, with the exception of the legally allotted break time, any other 'down' time that an employer cant use an employee , ,they either have to send them home or keep them around and bite that financial bullet which is why projecting demand is important to the survival and success of a business,,,

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 03/22/14 02:37 PM
So should every minute they are on the clock be accounted for? Then do they not get paid for idle time when no one is in the line ordering food and the employees are not doing anything work related? that's what supervisors are there for, to make sure employees aren't 'idling' on the clock they cant be penalized for a shortage of business, they are still contributing their time that they could be doing something else and they should be paid when they are on the clock, with supervision to ensure they are doing the job they are paid for, and management to ensure that they aren't being made to work when they are off the clock and not being paid,, Sort of misconstruing the details there aren't you. The lawyers said most McDonald’s franchisees used software provided by the company that calculates employee-to-sales ratios and instructs restaurants to reduce staffing when sales drop below a certain level in any given hour. As a result, the lawyers said, some McDonald’s workers in the suit were ordered, upon reporting to work, not to clock in for an hour or two and instead wait until more customers arrived. In several lawsuits, workers contend that they were at times told to clock out but remain in the restaurant or parking lot for an hour to two after business slowed down — perhaps when business slackened after the breakfast rush — so they could be on hand to clock back in when hourly sales picked up. Seems to be the terms of the job, they don't have to accept. They could always get employment elsewhere. Sort of like the places where you pick up day labor. They arrive very early in the morning and hang around all day hoping someone will need them and they could earn some money. But even that is not the real story, seems the lawyers are looking for a huge payday. McDonald's workers in California, Michigan and New York filed lawsuits this week against the company and several franchise owners, asserting that they illegally underpaid employees by erasing hours from their timecards, not paying overtime and ordering them to work off the clock. The lawsuits were announced Thursday by the employees' lawyers and organizers of the union-backed movement that is pressing the nation’s fast-food restaurants to increase wages to at least $15 an hour. In two lawsuits filed in Michigan against McDonald's and two Detroit-area franchise owners, workers claimed that their restaurants told them to show up to work, but then ordered them to wait an hour or two without pay until enough customers arrived. Those lawsuits also argued that a McDonald's requirement that employees pay for their uniforms illegally reduced their pay below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. "Our wages are already at rock bottom," Sharnell Grandberry, a McDonald's worker in Detroit, said in a news release announcing the suit. "It is time for McDonald's to stop skirting the law to pad profits. We need to get paid for the hours we work." So which is it, that are clocking out and not being paid or not being paid when clocked in. Only the later is illegal and should be remedied. But really that is not the whole story: The lawyers are contending that McDonald's should be considered a joint employer and share liability with its franchisees, although the company, like many other fast-food chains with franchises, has argued in the past that it is not a joint employer and should not be liable for its franchisees' misdeeds on the ground that the franchised restaurants are independently run businesses. Now we are getting into the meat of the matter, the lawyers trying to get their greedy little hands on the big money bag. But let's not stop here, there are other motives at work here. The strategists behind the push for a $15 wage, which is largely financed by the Service Employees International Union, are trying to pressure McDonald’s and other fast-food chains to increase wages and not oppose union-organizing efforts. The movement began with several one-day strikes in New York in 2012 and expanded to one-day strikes in more than 70 cities last December. Now we have the real meat here, the unions are looking at getting their hooks onto the big banana. All those dues, raises and rules, another bankrupt business. I'll bet all those franchise owners are kicking themselves asking just why they didn't go for Subway when they had the chance. But the good news is that without McDonald's America will be a healther place, well except for those that needed the money to support themselves until something better came along.

Shy_Emo_chick Joined Fri 04/01/11 Posts: 4393	Sat 03/22/14 02:46 PM
I get the feeling the government are trying to humiliate the poor. So they lower every single opportunity available to them. There's this place called the Jobcentre, but it's a running joke. As whoever attends that place, gets forced to do this or that, otherwise their pay is stopped. I'm mainly talking about people who have severe illness. Lots of people who are in pain every day who can hardly move. I worry that the government will try to take all of our money and leave us with absolutely nothing to get by on.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 03/22/14 03:05 PM
large corporations which make large profits certainly have access to actuarial and accounting resources which allow them to 'project' their daily work needs,,, waiters and waitresses, when times get slower than PROJECTED are usually not asked to just stick around off the clock, unless its for a 'break' period , of which they can only have one during each four or five hour period of scheduled time if its slower than that, they are to be sent home,,,, SCHEDULED work is SCHEDULED pay, with the exception of the legally allotted break time, any other 'down' time that an employer cant use an employee , ,they either have to send them home or keep them around and bite that financial bullet which is why projecting demand is important to the survival and success of a business,,, Wrong again, waitresses are scheduled to work meal periods when the restaurant is open for meals and they work split shifts. However, a fast food restaurant is always serving. If they do not like the prospects of the job, they can always look elsewhere. Oh, wait the entitlement crowd thinks they should be entitled to special treatment instead of what the position offers. Too bad it doesn't work that way until the government comes in with their guns.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Sat 03/22/14 03:19 PM
I get the feeling the government are trying to humiliate the poor. So they lower every single opportunity available to them. There's this place called the Jobcentre, but it's a running joke. As whoever attends that place, gets forced to do this or that, otherwise their pay is stopped. I'm mainly talking about people who have severe illness. Lots of people who are in pain every day who can hardly move. I worry that the government will try to take all of our money and leave us with absolutely nothing to get by on. Government humiliated the poor long ago, now it is just pure destruction. But also long ago their was the concept of charity, mostly christian organizations with a few non-profits thrown in. These organizations existed purely on voluntary donations and had more money than they needed for the large part. They helped those down on their luck get back on their feet but their most important work was to help those truly in need that could not help themselves. But they did refuse to help those that refused to help themselves. Hard to BS someone that knew you and their help was personal. But then came the government that proclaimed some right to steal from those that had and redistribute to those that wouldn't. That is how we got to here. But the same goes for minimum wage, why should there be one? If there is a job for a $1 an hour and someone accepts, that is their right. If no one accepts, then either the wage gets increased or it doesn't get done. That is freedom and rights. No one owes anyone anything, the law of contracts, the offer and the acceptance followed by performance and consideration.