4 ms·

The limit, legally, is pretty cut and dry: commute time is not paid, anything on site is. If you have to wait in line for security, that's paid. If it takes 10

The limit, legally, is pretty cut and dry: commute time is not paid, anything on site is. If you have to wait in line for security, that's paid. If it takes 10 minutes to count out your till at the end of a cashier shift, that's paid. If you're sent to another location in the middle of the day, time getting there from your normal place of work is paid. There are a small handful of edge cases that vary by state (e.g., if you have to change into a uniform when you get to work, that's considered on-the-clock in California, but not federally), but not many.

peterpeppers 6y ago
Exactly! There is a reason why factories put their punch clock AT THE DOOR. Workers leave their assigned areas, pass through security, proceed to the punch clock and exit the facility. Apple is one of the wealthiest companies in the world. The cost of adding an additional security guard and letting their employees exit from the rear of each store is negligible.
- vertbhrtn 6y ago
  Not negligible for the person responsible for that facility. Someone with a VP title is given a budget and freedom to run the shop and optimize expenses. Soon that VP realises that moving the punch clock inside the facility saves 3 millions a year and he gets to pocket half. Unfair, but legal. And if he doesn't pocket the easy money, he will be seen as incompetent by his manager - an SVP.
  - blackoil 6y ago
    Last line shows it is a company issue not individual. Think if some VP in Google recommends reducing free beverages inside company to shitty cola only it will not be accepted by higher ups. If your VP/SVP/CFO are reading only number and not the text line attached to it and its implications it is a culture issue.
    - vertbhrtn 6y ago
      In this example with Google, the higher ups might reject this idea, but only because the measure would have a net negative impact on their own bonuses: pulling the cheap drinks would make 0.3% of employees move and the execs won't get bonuses because retention rate is a metric the company owners look at. I see execs as a blind force of nature that does everything possible to enrich itself within the constraints set by higher ups. If the company owner hires an exec and gives him a task "give me more liquid assets by end of year no matter what", the exec will liquidate the company, because the constraints were loose. Same with those sleazy VPs running the facilities: SVPs set very loose constraints (likely intentionally), and got the rather expected result.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    > Unfair, but legal. Apparently, not.
    - vertbhrtn 6y ago
      OK, not quite legal, but justifiable. Nobody goes to prison for that, and the saved 10 mil get a nice house for that exec.
      - GeneralMayhem 6y ago
        No, not justifiable. Illegal. Rich people blatantly stealing from poor people. Wage theft is more common in the United States than all other types of theft combined, and we shouldn't normalize it. It's criminal, and it's morally despicable.
ldoughty 6y ago
How do you feel about "employee parking" being an extra minute or two away? That time adds up to... And it's virtually the same thing -- ”company policy mandatees you ___"... I agree with everything you're staying, but add I said, this is a thought experiment... What would be a good line to draw?
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Unless the company policy mandates that you drive to work, and further mandates that you then use their parking, then that sounds a lot like commute time to me. If the hypothetical company decided to not offer parking to its employees, and they had to park a 15 minute walk away on the street, that would certainly be commute time.
- numpad0 6y ago
  Whatever terms the corporate and unions agree on?
- techsupporter 6y ago
  > How do you feel about "employee parking" being an extra minute or two away? What about arguing the converse, which is not at all hypothetical in my case (this is a change that happened to me): an employee commutes to work via public transport and the stop the employee uses is a straight-line path to the front door of the employee's work location through an open area owned by the employer. The employer then constructs a parking lot on that open area and places a fence around it so that only people assigned to that parking area may use it. Now, the employee--who does not drive and thus does not have access to the parking lot--is required (by the employer, who owns the property and assigns the employee to a building and does not permit the employee access to the parking lot) to walk an additional three minutes from the public transit stop to the front door of the employee's building. Employees who drive to work are now positioned closer to the front door. Do the people who drive now take a pay cut because they spend less time getting from commute vehicle to the front door of the office building? Does the employee who uses public transport get a raise?
- HeyZuess 6y ago
  > What would be a good line to draw? Parking is a convenience, a benefit as such. Your responsibility is to arrive at the entrance, ready for work on time (or clock in). When someone from the company prohibits you from entry to clock in or leave on time, that is on the company. Another aligned argument here, could be that the closet food restaurant is 20 minutes away and you have 60 minutes for lunch. It is not the companies responsibility to make sure you make it there and back in 60 minutes, you account for traffic, ordering time, eating time etc. But if the company stops you at the door with a security guard for 10 minutes, before you can go get your lunch, and when you enter back from lunch then it's their problem.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

peterpeppers 6y ago

Exactly! There is a reason why factories put their punch clock AT THE DOOR. Workers leave their assigned areas, pass through security, proceed to the punch clock and exit the facility. Apple is one of the wealthiest companies in the world. The cost of adding an additional security guard and letting their employees exit from the rear of each store is negligible.

vertbhrtn 6y ago
Not negligible for the person responsible for that facility. Someone with a VP title is given a budget and freedom to run the shop and optimize expenses. Soon that VP realises that moving the punch clock inside the facility saves 3 millions a year and he gets to pocket half. Unfair, but legal. And if he doesn't pocket the easy money, he will be seen as incompetent by his manager - an SVP.
- blackoil 6y ago
  Last line shows it is a company issue not individual. Think if some VP in Google recommends reducing free beverages inside company to shitty cola only it will not be accepted by higher ups. If your VP/SVP/CFO are reading only number and not the text line attached to it and its implications it is a culture issue.
  - vertbhrtn 6y ago
    In this example with Google, the higher ups might reject this idea, but only because the measure would have a net negative impact on their own bonuses: pulling the cheap drinks would make 0.3% of employees move and the execs won't get bonuses because retention rate is a metric the company owners look at. I see execs as a blind force of nature that does everything possible to enrich itself within the constraints set by higher ups. If the company owner hires an exec and gives him a task "give me more liquid assets by end of year no matter what", the exec will liquidate the company, because the constraints were loose. Same with those sleazy VPs running the facilities: SVPs set very loose constraints (likely intentionally), and got the rather expected result.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  > Unfair, but legal. Apparently, not.
  - vertbhrtn 6y ago
    OK, not quite legal, but justifiable. Nobody goes to prison for that, and the saved 10 mil get a nice house for that exec.
    - GeneralMayhem 6y ago
      No, not justifiable. Illegal. Rich people blatantly stealing from poor people. Wage theft is more common in the United States than all other types of theft combined, and we shouldn't normalize it. It's criminal, and it's morally despicable.

ldoughty 6y ago

How do you feel about "employee parking" being an extra minute or two away? That time adds up to... And it's virtually the same thing -- ”company policy mandatees you ___"... I agree with everything you're staying, but add I said, this is a thought experiment... What would be a good line to draw?

AmericanChopper 6y ago
Unless the company policy mandates that you drive to work, and further mandates that you then use their parking, then that sounds a lot like commute time to me. If the hypothetical company decided to not offer parking to its employees, and they had to park a 15 minute walk away on the street, that would certainly be commute time.
numpad0 6y ago
Whatever terms the corporate and unions agree on?
techsupporter 6y ago
> How do you feel about "employee parking" being an extra minute or two away? What about arguing the converse, which is not at all hypothetical in my case (this is a change that happened to me): an employee commutes to work via public transport and the stop the employee uses is a straight-line path to the front door of the employee's work location through an open area owned by the employer. The employer then constructs a parking lot on that open area and places a fence around it so that only people assigned to that parking area may use it. Now, the employee--who does not drive and thus does not have access to the parking lot--is required (by the employer, who owns the property and assigns the employee to a building and does not permit the employee access to the parking lot) to walk an additional three minutes from the public transit stop to the front door of the employee's building. Employees who drive to work are now positioned closer to the front door. Do the people who drive now take a pay cut because they spend less time getting from commute vehicle to the front door of the office building? Does the employee who uses public transport get a raise?
HeyZuess 6y ago
> What would be a good line to draw? Parking is a convenience, a benefit as such. Your responsibility is to arrive at the entrance, ready for work on time (or clock in). When someone from the company prohibits you from entry to clock in or leave on time, that is on the company. Another aligned argument here, could be that the closet food restaurant is 20 minutes away and you have 60 minutes for lunch. It is not the companies responsibility to make sure you make it there and back in 60 minutes, you account for traffic, ordering time, eating time etc. But if the company stops you at the door with a security guard for 10 minutes, before you can go get your lunch, and when you enter back from lunch then it's their problem.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]