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: 1) by gtomorrow on Sunday July 29 2018, @08:22AM (5 children)
I'm sure that shortly all Starbucks employees (and all other hourly-wage workers shortly afterward) will be put on salary with no change in present duties. I'm estimating ~US$1280 a month for full-time employment, 8.5-9 hours a day.
I'm also sure that while the plaintiff in this case estimated 4-10 minutes daily, I'd bet we're really talking double that, although honestly "walking co-workers to their cars" seems to me more courtesy/social behavior than duty.
Cynic: off.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:38AM
Unlikely, as all the benefits of a "salaried" employee would likely be too expensive.
More likely, the store employee responsible for closing and locking the store will get 5 minutes' additional pay per shift as some form of allowance, but all employees still on the premises 3 minutes after the end of a shift will get penalised, but everyone clocking off a few minutes will get lower perfomance ratings...
Expect *exact* clockings, and *more* staff getting ripped off by a few minutes a shift.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:42AM
I doubt it. This was probably lower or middle management trying to save pennies to get a promotion and corporate defending themselves to prevent an enormous settlement or verdict. As fucked up as their politics are, Starbucks generally does relatively well by their employees. I mean, they have better health insurance than my roommate and his company drops over $20K/yr on his (not counting what he pays).
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 29 2018, @02:53PM
Walking coworkers to their cars may be a courtesy, in most cases. On the other hand, it may be a necessity. Starbucks doesn't do business only in wealthy cities, and good neighborhoods. Depending on time and place, I've walked a few coworkers to their cars. Other times, I've watched as coworkers left the property. I've taken more care to watch out for coworkers after threats have been made, and less care when I deem it all to be a waste of time.
The one instance in which the company decided that they needed some extra security made me laugh. Fat bastard sat in his car all night long, near to the front entrance. A couple times each night, he would start the car, and drive from the front entrance, to the other entrances, sometimes shining a light. I could have bypassed fat bastard with ease. Drive up the adjoining road, park, walk across the railroad tracks, down through a ditch, up a six foot embankment, then over the chain link fence. Once inside the fence, anyone I had it in for would be at my mercy, and the fat bastard could only react after the fact.
Management never did understand that. They ASSumed that if the disgruntled employee returned with revenge on his mind, he would come in through the main entrance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:51PM
Unlikely as 'law'. California law is very specific on who is salary or not. The legal terms are exempt and non exempt. However, someone like Amazon should take notice of this. As this particular abuse is one amazon has done for years. Now their is precedent and can be cited by others.
For this republican it is easy. Pay a man his due and make sure uncle sam gets their cut. That is it. Do not pay him under the table. Do not trim them. Just pay them for what they did. "who will clean our toilets" screams under the table pay rates. It is amazon how rampant wage abuse is. One guy I know had to pay taxes twice because 'woopsie' his boss did not pay the taxes but kept them. Guess what? Uncle sam wants his due. Then the guy skipped town and he did not have enough to sue for it. Putting people on salary is just a way to trim people for what they are due.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday July 30 2018, @12:09AM
I can't speak for wherever you live, but in civilized states, there are minimum wage requirements for employees to be paid as salaried employees. Starbucks employees are unlikely to qualify.