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: 5, Interesting) by deimtee on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:55AM (5 children)
The interesting thing about this is that there is a judge who understands that to some people $100 is a significant amount of money.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 29 2018, @02:56PM (4 children)
It isn't even necessary to be dirt poor for a hundred dollars to seem significant. I lost a tire to a nail yesterday. Road hazard guarantee should have covered it, but the dealer decided that it wasn't covered. (I'm certain that the dealer will return my tire to Hankook, and get at least a partial credit.) New tire was $137, mounted, balanced, and put on the truck. While I'm not going to miss any meals or anything because of it, that's $137 disposable income gone, which I would rather have spent on something else.
Significant? I don't know very many people who can lose a hundred dollar bill, and take no notice of it.
(Score: 2) by qzm on Monday July 30 2018, @03:42AM (2 children)
Or , if it was a normal nail puncture, you could have repaired it, considering fixing a nail hole is trivial, costs about $5 and a few minutes work.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Webweasel on Monday July 30 2018, @08:40AM
If it's close to or has scratched the inside of the sidewall a repair is not possible.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 30 2018, @04:31PM
Webweasel nailed it. It was a ten-penny nail, went into the tread about an inch, maybe an inch and a quarter away from the sidewall. But, it bent like a horse shoe nail, and gouged out the inside of the sidewall. I *could* maybe have risked repairing it, but I tend to drive a little fast. High speed and a weakened sidewall is one of many recipes for disaster.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 06 2018, @10:38AM
You may notice it, but it's not significant. As you said, you won't miss any meals. Some people have families that won't eat that night if they lose $100.