SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the all-work-and-no-pay-makes-Jack-a-litigious-boy dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following (paywalled) story:
July 26, 2018
Starbucks Corp. must pay employees for off-the-clock work such as closing and locking stores, the California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a decision that could have broad implications for companies that employ workers paid by the hour across the state.
The decision is a departure from a federal standard that gives employers greater leeway to deny workers’ compensation for short tasks, such as putting on a uniform, that are performed before they clock in or after they clock out.
More details are available from pbs.org:
The ruling came in a lawsuit by a Starbucks employee, Douglas Troester, who argued that he was entitled to be paid for the time he spent closing the store after he had clocked out.
Troester said he activated the store alarm, locked the front door and walked co-workers to their cars — tasks that required him to work for four to 10 additional minutes a day.
An attorney for Starbucks referred comment to the company. Starbucks did not immediately have comment.
A U.S. District Court rejected Troester’s lawsuit on the grounds that the time he spent on those tasks was minimal. But the California Supreme Court said a few extra minutes of work each day could “add up.”
Troester was seeking payment for 12 hours and 50 minutes of work over a 17-month period. At $8 an hour, that amounts to $102.67, the California Supreme Court said.
“That is enough to pay a utility bill, buy a week of groceries, or cover a month of bus fares,” Associate Justice Goodwin Liu wrote. “What Starbucks calls ‘de minimis’ is not de minimis at all to many ordinary people who work for hourly wages.”
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 29 2018, @07:35PM (4 children)
People who think like you caused this, VLM. Don't you fucking dare sit there with that injured "who me?" expression. You have a problem with this? Get out there and stump for labor rights.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 30 2018, @03:48AM (2 children)
They're not rights. You're not entitled to be treated well or even reasonably by your boss unless he's violating labor laws. If you were a slave you might be but you can down tools any time you like and go elsewhere. We're sitting on damned good unemployment numbers at the moment, so the jobs are there. Take a page from Johnny Paycheck [youtube.com], it feels fantastic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 30 2018, @07:20PM (1 child)
No one asked you, shitbird. I hate you Lawful Evil types more than anything else on the grid, precisely because you pervert the entire purpose of Law like this.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday July 30 2018, @07:55PM
Following = perversion, check. The purpose of law in this country is not to give you what you want. It is to prevent the government and your fellow citizens from infringing upon your actual rights. Not entitlements, not furthering the greater good, not anything else. Spend any amount of time studying our founding and this becomes abundantly obvious.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday July 31 2018, @06:42PM
Technically its those nice people who passed the 1965 immigration reform laws that resulted in a flood of supply; its all supply and demand.
You can stump till you're blue in the face; won't do nothing unless it aligns with supply and demand.
You'd be surprised how many people want pre-65 immigration reform, plenty of stumping for it. That would help quite a bit.