4 ms·

Why does this even need a court decision? How would you defend the position, that you force additional work-related expenses onto your employees but are not req

by danbruc 12y ago

Why does this even need a court decision? How would you defend the position, that you force additional work-related expenses onto your employees but are not required to compensate them?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
jfidosa9 12y ago
You do realize employers aren't required to pay gas expenses for employees to drive to work, right?
- maaaats 12y ago
  That's a really bad analogy.
  - jfidosa9 12y ago
    And how is that a bad analogy? I'm responding directly to his point. Employers aren't required to pay for a host of things that are work related.
    - maaaats 12y ago
      Because there's a difference between "work related" and "work mandated". How I get to work is my problem (unless its out of office, then my employer pays the extra cost). But if they expect me to use a phone during work they will either need to provide me one or reimburse my expenses.
      - jfidosa9 12y ago
        You seem quite ignorant about labor laws. If you don't want to use the other analogy, here's another one. Employers are not required to pay for employee uniforms even if they're mandated for the workplace.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        mcv 12y ago
        Really? They should be. If the employer requires a specific uniform, I'd expect them to pay for it.
    - atlantic 12y ago
      Using a cell phone for work purposes is part of the job itself, it's work; driving to your place of employment isn't.
      - jfidosa9 12y ago
        Wearing a uniform is part of the job, but your employer is not required to pay for it. Pizza chains aren't required to reimburse their delivery drivers for mileage. Explain.
        tehmaco 12y ago
        I can only speak for the UK here, but commuting to work is your expense, as when you apply for a job, you know where the offices are, if it's going to cost you significant time/money to commute, you need to make a decision on whether the salary is enough before accepting the job. If you're required to drive anywhere as part of your work, mileage is paid by the company. Our sales force have a geographic area they cover, if they live outside it, mileage to get there isn't covered by the company, but once inside their area it is. I'm not sure if it's the law, but I've not heard of anywhere that doesn't do very similar to this. Same with phones, or additional travel (i.e. to a different work site), they're either paid in advance by the company, or expensed back to them by the employee.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Wearing a uniform is part of the job, but your employer is not required to pay for it. Under federal law, for FLSA non-exempt employees, if the employer chooses to have the employee pay for uniforms, the additional cost cannot reduce the employees effective pay below minimum wage, so, in effect, the employer is required to pay. [1] Under California law, it is more straightforward -- the employer is required to pay for mandatory uniforms, period. [2] And, in fact, for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer". [3] > Pizza chains aren't required to reimburse their delivery drivers for mileage. They are in California (under the same law cited above.) [1] http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs16.htm http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs16.htm [2] http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_deductions.htm http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_deductions.htm [3] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2802 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....
- danbruc 12y ago
  Maybe it is just a difference between American and European thinking. At least here in Germany the employee is essentially responsible to be at the factory gate in time and with suitable clothing, everything else is the business of the employer.
- aNoob7000 12y ago
  Does that mean I need to bring in my own desk, pen, paper, copier, etc..? Just because you might have the materials and equipment at home does not mean you have to provide it to your employer without some type of compensation.
- dalore 12y ago
  Right, because employees can take a bus, ride a bike or even walk. But if work is calling or requiring me to call and use up minutes that is a requirement. There is no alternative.
x0x0 12y ago
An employer making employees pay for a plan to use cell phone minutes in a non-incidental way is amazing; I don't know how that can stem from any place but fuck you, I've got mine. Though Amazon is claiming they shouldn't have to pay employees for waiting in line for security checks, for up to a claimed 30 minutes [1]. edit: I recalled a situation at a previous employer for an ops person who had significant work usage of his cell phone; our employer didn't want to pay for it. I'm not sure how that got resolved. Though this employer had pictures of naked women as part of the interview process so, you know, all class. (I didn't get that for my screen, but others did.) [1] http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-02/security-checks-paid-as-work-supreme-court-will-decide http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-02/security-che...
- dalore 12y ago
  I've had colleagues refuse to give their phone number out unless management say they will pay towards the cost of the phone. Also stops the out of hours calls.
roel_v 12y ago
Well, as per the example in the article, what about the situation where an employee already has a certain plan that covers the business use, so that the cost is already paid for anyway. Or, how about an employee who wants to use their own phone so that they only have to carry one (BYOD) and not a company-supplied one. I guess you're just being facetious in your 'ahmahgahd we're being repressed by The Man' but there are circumstances enough where both ways of looking at it are reasonable.

by danbruc 12y ago

Why does this even need a court decision? How would you defend the position, that you force additional work-related expenses onto your employees but are not required to compensate them?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

jfidosa9 12y ago

You do realize employers aren't required to pay gas expenses for employees to drive to work, right?

maaaats 12y ago
That's a really bad analogy.
- jfidosa9 12y ago
  And how is that a bad analogy? I'm responding directly to his point. Employers aren't required to pay for a host of things that are work related.
  - maaaats 12y ago
    Because there's a difference between "work related" and "work mandated". How I get to work is my problem (unless its out of office, then my employer pays the extra cost). But if they expect me to use a phone during work they will either need to provide me one or reimburse my expenses.
    - jfidosa9 12y ago
      You seem quite ignorant about labor laws. If you don't want to use the other analogy, here's another one. Employers are not required to pay for employee uniforms even if they're mandated for the workplace.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - mcv 12y ago
        Really? They should be. If the employer requires a specific uniform, I'd expect them to pay for it.
  - atlantic 12y ago
    Using a cell phone for work purposes is part of the job itself, it's work; driving to your place of employment isn't.
    - jfidosa9 12y ago
      Wearing a uniform is part of the job, but your employer is not required to pay for it. Pizza chains aren't required to reimburse their delivery drivers for mileage. Explain.
      - tehmaco 12y ago
        I can only speak for the UK here, but commuting to work is your expense, as when you apply for a job, you know where the offices are, if it's going to cost you significant time/money to commute, you need to make a decision on whether the salary is enough before accepting the job. If you're required to drive anywhere as part of your work, mileage is paid by the company. Our sales force have a geographic area they cover, if they live outside it, mileage to get there isn't covered by the company, but once inside their area it is. I'm not sure if it's the law, but I've not heard of anywhere that doesn't do very similar to this. Same with phones, or additional travel (i.e. to a different work site), they're either paid in advance by the company, or expensed back to them by the employee.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Wearing a uniform is part of the job, but your employer is not required to pay for it. Under federal law, for FLSA non-exempt employees, if the employer chooses to have the employee pay for uniforms, the additional cost cannot reduce the employees effective pay below minimum wage, so, in effect, the employer is required to pay. [1] Under California law, it is more straightforward -- the employer is required to pay for mandatory uniforms, period. [2] And, in fact, for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the employer". [3] > Pizza chains aren't required to reimburse their delivery drivers for mileage. They are in California (under the same law cited above.) [1] http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs16.htm http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs16.htm [2] http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_deductions.htm http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_deductions.htm [3] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2802 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection....
danbruc 12y ago
Maybe it is just a difference between American and European thinking. At least here in Germany the employee is essentially responsible to be at the factory gate in time and with suitable clothing, everything else is the business of the employer.
aNoob7000 12y ago
Does that mean I need to bring in my own desk, pen, paper, copier, etc..? Just because you might have the materials and equipment at home does not mean you have to provide it to your employer without some type of compensation.
dalore 12y ago
Right, because employees can take a bus, ride a bike or even walk. But if work is calling or requiring me to call and use up minutes that is a requirement. There is no alternative.

x0x0 12y ago

An employer making employees pay for a plan to use cell phone minutes in a non-incidental way is amazing; I don't know how that can stem from any place but fuck you, I've got mine. Though Amazon is claiming they shouldn't have to pay employees for waiting in line for security checks, for up to a claimed 30 minutes [1]. edit: I recalled a situation at a previous employer for an ops person who had significant work usage of his cell phone; our employer didn't want to pay for it. I'm not sure how that got resolved. Though this employer had pictures of naked women as part of the interview process so, you know, all class. (I didn't get that for my screen, but others did.) [1] http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-02/security-checks-paid-as-work-supreme-court-will-decide http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-02/security-che...

dalore 12y ago
I've had colleagues refuse to give their phone number out unless management say they will pay towards the cost of the phone. Also stops the out of hours calls.

roel_v 12y ago

Well, as per the example in the article, what about the situation where an employee already has a certain plan that covers the business use, so that the cost is already paid for anyway. Or, how about an employee who wants to use their own phone so that they only have to carry one (BYOD) and not a company-supplied one. I guess you're just being facetious in your 'ahmahgahd we're being repressed by The Man' but there are circumstances enough where both ways of looking at it are reasonable.