The Worker Thread

[Vrede too]

I get the distinct impression from the image that they're accusing KFC.

I didn't notice that.

[homerfobe]

Homo's "mom" was a working mom. She worked Reynolds Ave in N. Charleston, and Spruill Ave as far down as Amvets and The Americana Motor Lodge.

Since Mom died in a car wreck in Louisiana when I was 8, I have to say you got the wrong person in mind; however, your being totally familiar with the area tells us my Daddy could be your Daddy; he frequented that area regularly looking for fifty cent whores. Hi Brother! Are you totally Black or mostly white?

I hear that homerfobe sometimes get $15 an hour. Never more than that, though. He's not as pretty and flexible as he used to be..... The $15 an hour is for something else.

You may be right. I hear you're doing freebies as long as they don't demand you wear a paper bag over your head.

He doesn't have to be either to take his tooth out and give a blow job. $15/hr seems a bit generous, unless, of course, that includes about 6 BJs per hour . . . .

Says the "boatrocker" with the chocolate star lips. Good advertising, if you can get any takers.

[Vrede too]

Homo's "mom" was a working mom. She worked Reynolds Ave in N. Charleston, and Spruill Ave as far down as Amvets and The Americana Motor Lodge.

I hear that homerfobe sometimes get $15 an hour. Never more than that, though. He's not as pretty and flexible as he used to be.

He doesn't have to be either to take his tooth out and give a blow job. $15/hr seems a bit generous, unless, of course, that includes about 6 BJs per hour . . . .

The $15 an hour is for something else, nttawwt.

I guess he'd make a good pincusion.

[homerfobe]

We know. You're easy. You already told us. A pushover. A wimp. Flaming homosexual. Let it out, we're listening.
Tell us all about Mummy and Poppy. We won't charge you another nickel. Cute button you got there. You wear it to all the parades?

If your that desperate for attention, (or unnatural affection) here's another you really ought to wear.

[Vrede too]

[Vrede too]

Employers steal billions from workers’ paychecks each year
Survey data show millions of workers are paid less than the minimum wage, at significant cost to taxpayers and state economies

NC gets several mentions.

Report: NC employers stealing $316 million per year from employees; Labor Commissioner faulted

[bannination]

Employers steal billions from workers’ paychecks each year
Survey data show millions of workers are paid less than the minimum wage, at significant cost to taxpayers and state economies

NC gets several mentions.

Report: NC employers stealing $316 million per year from employees; Labor Commissioner faulted

Don't worry, Trump will be getting rid of minimum wage and overtime laws.

[O Really]

Not to say there isn't a lot of wage theft - of course there is. But the authors of that article live in a different world from mine. In my world, DOL Wage-Hour investigators are pretty responsive. Sure, they may have the same number of investigators now as they did many years ago, but much better technology - both their own and in the data received from employers. But an employee isn't required to go to the DOL (or a state labor agency). They can go directly to federal court for FLSA violations. And it doesn't cost them anything, because if their attorney finds any violation - any, no matter how small - s/he's going to be awarded fees. And in some of those places in the article, like Florida, you can't turn on the TV or go past a billboard that doesn't encourage you to call Morgan and Morgan or whoever. Employers who are caught do usually have to pay "full relief" with back pay for two years, or three years for a willful violation. One of the states mentioned, Cali, has very aggressive enforcement and usually takes the position that since it's the employer's job to know the law, any violation is by definition "willful." As to penalties for the employer, in addition to back pay (not just for the individual employee, but for everyone else similarly paid or screwed), courts can order liquidated damages, doubling the award, and fine the employer up to $1,000 per violation. Think $1,000 isn't much of a fine? Well all violations are counted on a workweek basis, and everybody affected is counted as a violation. So if you underpay 10 guys for 10 weeks, that's not 10 violations, that 100 violations x $1,000. Certainly that doesn't happen all that often but it does happen to repeat and flagrant violators.

Anyway, wage theft is a big problem. Employers needing defense for having done so (unintentionally or not) keep me and some of my colleagues in nice toys, and keep the plaintiff attorneys in big boats and oceanfront homes. But to say enforcement is lax or that employees have no ready recourse is simply not accurate.

[Vrede too]

The article merely grabs an item from the report. Can you challenge the specifics of the report's methodology, data or conclusions?

[O Really]

Well, the CPS itself has quite a few self-acknowledged issues in collection and interpretation of data. For example, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimu ... 5/home.htm

Several of the sources cited in the article are pretty dated, at least one looked like it went back to '79 or so. And collectivizing data from such divergent causes doesn't really paint an accurate picture of the problem. As the article says, wage theft can arise from (a) paying a nominal rate below the minimum; (b) not paying for time worked; (c) taking out deductions to reduce below minimum; (d) unlawful exemptions; and (e) mis-handling tip credits. Those are vastly different causes. To boil those down to "an average of $64/week lost" is about as meaningless as saying the average person is 20 pounds overweight. May very well be true, but that average is made up of a lot of people way bigger, some people who aren't overweight at all, some with health issues, some with heavy muscular builds....yada.

Again, I'm not arguing that FLSA violations aren't a problem. They are. I just think the article's conclusions are overly broad and misleading. I've been in this business a long time, and I can't say I ever ran into any employer who tried to get by with stating up front "I'm going to pay you less than minimum." I've got clients in agriculture, and they frequently misunderstand the agricultural exemption for overtime and (even more obscure) minimum wage, but none of them actually pay a rate less than minimum. Many employers don't understand that (a) it's legal to deduct the cost of uniforms/tools from an employee but (b) not if the deduction takes the employee below minimum. They think, "I thought you said it was OK to deduct the uniforms, WTF." Lots of employers think work starts when the employee gets to the work station and ends when s/he leaves, without considering required preparation time, or little time-eaters like "tool-box safety talks" or whatever. Lots of employers misunderstand "independent contractors" but cracking down on those violations is high on the priority list of both the DOL and the IRS.

The worst thing pointed out by the article to me? A minimum wage person is earning less proportionately now than 50 years ago.

[Vrede too]

Thanks. Is it all complaint driven or would a more proactive NC Labor Commissioner do better by workers than Republican Cherie K. Berry (2001–present)?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3grAbQihpg

This song by Tha Comissioners should find a place in the heart of anyone who has ever taken an elevator in the great state of North Carolina.

"Some rock bands find inspiration in love. Others find it in the person responsible for elevator safety."
-Charlotte Observer

"Easily the single greatest song ever written about a state commissioner of labor."
-Governing.com

"I just think it rocks. It's got a good beat. I love it."
-Cherie K. Berry

[O Really]

Thanks. Is it all complaint driven or would a more proactive NC Labor Commissioner do better by workers than Republican

Of course a proactive NC Labor Commissioner would be better than a Republican, but keep in mind that all but the tiniest employers are going to be covered by the federal FLSA. Here's why: the FLSA has "enterprise" coverage, applicable to the entire company if it has $500,000 or more in revenue and engages in "interstate commerce." But it also has individual coverage for an employee who engages in interstate commerce even if the company is not itself covered. The threshhold for dealing in interstate commerce is quite low and can include such things as processing a credit card from an out of state bank, ordering office supplies online, etc. The FLSA is sufficiently broad that some states, such as Florida, don't even bother and just say, "what the feds do." (except for minimum wage) And most states' requirements exceed the FLSA with either a higher minimum wage, fewer exemptions, or better rules on providing meal breaks or consecutive days worked. So even with a worthless Republican as Labor Commissioner, most enforcement will be through the federal DOL.

And most enforcement is complaint-generated, but some industries have adorned themselves with large brightly colored targets and get themselves subjected to closer oversight. Those include nursing homes, construction, agriculture, and hospitality, among others.

Widespread use of the term "wage theft" is fairly recent and, IMNVHO is used much too broadly in the original article. An employer misunderstanding the technicalities of a very complex law really isn't "theft." It becomes so only if the employer is informed of the correct thing to do and still doesn't do it.

[Vrede too]

Got it, thanks again. Have you ever heard of an employer misunderstanding the technicalities of a very complex law leading to workers getting paid too much?

My experience is that complaint-generated enforcement works pretty good for educated whites with alternatives, not so much for financially vulnerable others. I'd like to see the feds and states instead of just outside groups be more assertive with education and enforcement. Instead, we're moving in the opposite direction:

Policy Watch: Trump budget weakens protections for working people


The zombie robot argument lurches on
There is no evidence that automation leads to joblessness or inequality

Interesting. Is it ignorance or is there a deliberate effort to blame automation for other policies that have screwed workers?

[O Really]

I can think of numerous examples and situations where an employer's misunderstanding of the law results in an employee being paid more than required. Often because of differences in state requirements such as in some states you have to pay for unused vacation upon termination, some not. Some states you have to provide meal breaks, some not. Some people think you have to count holidays as time worked, you don't. Some employers think you have to pay for all time spent "on call", you don't. But violations on things like independent contractors aren't all the employer's fault. A lot of people seek "independent contractor" status because the employer doesn't deduct taxes (that's why the IRS pursues those so strongly).

But short of requiring all employers to turn in a certified payroll every week, I don't know much they could do different. They do respond and resolve complaints much faster than, say, the EEOC, and there's the army of plaintiff attorneys available for free. Again, to restate the obvious, I'm not arguing there aren't a lot of violations, but I really don't think there's a shortage of recourse.

[Vrede too]

... Some employers think you have to pay for all time spent "on call", you don't....

I didn't know that. I've always been paid for being on call, though often not very much.

[O Really]

... Some employers think you have to pay for all time spent "on call", you don't....

I didn't know that. I've always been paid for being on call, though often not very much.

That's one of the many technicalities that cause misunderstandings. You have to pay an employee for working. Being "on call" may or may not be working, depending on whether the employee is reasonably able to make use of the time as they see fit until or unless they are called in. F'rinstance, before there were cell phones, an employee who was required to sit at home for the phone to ring would be working. An employee who can take his/her cell (or previously a pager) out to dinner or to the park with the kids is not working. An employee who is not significantly restricted in their activity and is not called at all is not working. An employee who is interrupted several times to the extent that s/he can't use the time is working the entire time. From a practical standpoint, however, most employers do pay something extra for time spent on call even if it's not legally work time.

Or to provide further insight into why employers don't always get it right (despite the ready availability of highly talented people such as myself to help them), commuting to and from work is specifically excluded from working time...unless... you have to go somewhere unusual. So if your normal commute is a half hour, and you are required to travel to a workplace an hour away, you should get paid for the extra half hour... unless ...your job entails going to a different worksite regularly, which are all different distances. Then it's back to being unpaid commuting...unless... you drive other employees or carry equipment to the worksite...unless...the passenger is just a car-pooler or the equipment is your personal gear...unless... you actually do some work along with way, such as picking up doughnuts for the morning staff meeting...unless, ad nauseam.

[Vrede too]

I figure that not being allowed to drink a beer is "significantly restricted", even though I rarely drink.

[O Really]

I figure that not being allowed to drink a beer is "significantly restricted", even though I rarely drink.

Nope. Been litigated.

[Vrede too]

Bastards. <hic>
D.A.M.M. (Drunks Against Mad Managers)

[rstrong]

Nope. Been litigated.

BTW: Congratulations on the first state to adopt a "loser pays" system of civil litigation, breaking with almost 300 years of U.S. legal precedent, and joining the rest of the modern world.

Oklahoma.

By accident.