3 ms·

In college one summer I worked on a car factory line, alternating between morning/afternoon and "late shifts" that ended around 11 PM. I had to commute to the

In college one summer I worked on a car factory line, alternating between morning/afternoon and "late shifts" that ended around 11 PM. I had to commute to the factory, and I felt my driving was dangerous in two ways. First, I would drive recklessly fast to get to my 6:00 AM shift start because company policy was that if you were late 3 times you were fired. Second, after my late shift ended, I would be driving home exhausted at night on quiet + dark 2-lane highways. I probably had more near-miss accidents during this 3 month period than the next 15 years as a driver.

daniel-cussen 5y ago
Generally companies don't actually need to have 100% of their workers at the same place at the same time ready to start their day. They just like insisting on it, first because they can, it's considered an acceptable cultural norm to always be punctual and it's one of the things they can ask for unlimited amounts of without looking evil. The second reason is, for the boss, it's extremely gratifying to have everyone there at a bad time, at your beck and call. But it's wage theft. Part of it's they want you there early on the off chance you do some work for free. If you punish lateness extremely, the subordinate has to go to extreme lengths to avoid lateness, and that eats up their time in exchange for nothing. Especially with the idea of "no excuses", which is bizarre, because that leads to the logical conclusion that you should spend every hour outside of work commuting to and from work. Every hour. Because there's no excuses, and let's take for granted getting fired is unthinkably bad (it could be), then why not wake up an extra two hours earlier every day? Or four hours? You can't rule out the likelihood that there will be three accidents on the way to work, and there are no excuses, so the logical conclusion is you have to dedicate even more hours to commuting if you really don't want to be late. In fairness to employers, however, there is such a thing as a slippery slope where if you don't insist on showing up on time it becomes a mess and work never starts. And I do believe that being on time every time gives you dignity if you do it for your own sake, as an employee.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 5y ago
  >But it's wage theft. Part of it's they want you there early on the off chance you do some work for free. That's a stretch. It's not wage theft because you don't have to work before your shift starts. You could very well sit outside and browse HN before work starts.
  - banannaise 5y ago
    Forcing someone to be at the job site and not paying them, regardless of whether they are working, is definitionally wage theft, per the US Department of Labor.
    - gruez 5y ago
      source?
      - curryst 5y ago
        https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/22-flsa-hours-worked https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/22-flsa-hours-w... Under "Waiting Time". If you're forced to be there, they have to pay you. There have been several cases recently. There was a case against Apple about whether the time spent waiting for them to frisk you counted as payable time, and I believe another against Amazon relating to how long it took to get into their parking lot. I don't recall offhand what the decisions were, but they're easy to find if you're interested.
        gruez 5y ago
        > If you're forced to be there, they have to pay you But you're not forced to be there. If you walk to the factory (or otherwise have a very predictable commute), you don't have to show up early at all. Also, the source you provided doesn't really support your claim. The examples under "Waiting Time" are all instances where they have to be present, and are waiting for work (which appears randomly/sporadically) to arrive. This is different than having to show up to work at a precise time. >I believe another against Amazon relating to how long it took to get into their parking lot I searched around and can't articles referencing this.
- hattmall 5y ago
  Realistically, it is generally so that the other people can go home. It's not some sadist conspiracy. If a shift starts at 7 and another ends at 7 then having a lack of people means things could have to stop or others have to stay longer. Lots of places have legally mandated requirements of the number of people to be working at any given time so there's no leeway for someone being late, it's a 1:1 if you're late someone else has to stay longer.
  - tda 5y ago
    Of course the employer could pay everyone half an hour extra for a bit of overlap and a proper handover.

daniel-cussen 5y ago

Generally companies don't actually need to have 100% of their workers at the same place at the same time ready to start their day. They just like insisting on it, first because they can, it's considered an acceptable cultural norm to always be punctual and it's one of the things they can ask for unlimited amounts of without looking evil. The second reason is, for the boss, it's extremely gratifying to have everyone there at a bad time, at your beck and call. But it's wage theft. Part of it's they want you there early on the off chance you do some work for free. If you punish lateness extremely, the subordinate has to go to extreme lengths to avoid lateness, and that eats up their time in exchange for nothing. Especially with the idea of "no excuses", which is bizarre, because that leads to the logical conclusion that you should spend every hour outside of work commuting to and from work. Every hour. Because there's no excuses, and let's take for granted getting fired is unthinkably bad (it could be), then why not wake up an extra two hours earlier every day? Or four hours? You can't rule out the likelihood that there will be three accidents on the way to work, and there are no excuses, so the logical conclusion is you have to dedicate even more hours to commuting if you really don't want to be late. In fairness to employers, however, there is such a thing as a slippery slope where if you don't insist on showing up on time it becomes a mess and work never starts. And I do believe that being on time every time gives you dignity if you do it for your own sake, as an employee.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gruez 5y ago
>But it's wage theft. Part of it's they want you there early on the off chance you do some work for free. That's a stretch. It's not wage theft because you don't have to work before your shift starts. You could very well sit outside and browse HN before work starts.
- banannaise 5y ago
  Forcing someone to be at the job site and not paying them, regardless of whether they are working, is definitionally wage theft, per the US Department of Labor.
  - gruez 5y ago
    source?
    - curryst 5y ago
      https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/22-flsa-hours-worked https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/22-flsa-hours-w... Under "Waiting Time". If you're forced to be there, they have to pay you. There have been several cases recently. There was a case against Apple about whether the time spent waiting for them to frisk you counted as payable time, and I believe another against Amazon relating to how long it took to get into their parking lot. I don't recall offhand what the decisions were, but they're easy to find if you're interested.
      - gruez 5y ago
        > If you're forced to be there, they have to pay you But you're not forced to be there. If you walk to the factory (or otherwise have a very predictable commute), you don't have to show up early at all. Also, the source you provided doesn't really support your claim. The examples under "Waiting Time" are all instances where they have to be present, and are waiting for work (which appears randomly/sporadically) to arrive. This is different than having to show up to work at a precise time. >I believe another against Amazon relating to how long it took to get into their parking lot I searched around and can't articles referencing this.
hattmall 5y ago
Realistically, it is generally so that the other people can go home. It's not some sadist conspiracy. If a shift starts at 7 and another ends at 7 then having a lack of people means things could have to stop or others have to stay longer. Lots of places have legally mandated requirements of the number of people to be working at any given time so there's no leeway for someone being late, it's a 1:1 if you're late someone else has to stay longer.
- tda 5y ago
  Of course the employer could pay everyone half an hour extra for a bit of overlap and a proper handover.