Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Sunday July 29 2018, @07:02AM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 29 2018, @10:51PM (#714493)

    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.