FeriluceAdrift on the morning star.Aberdeen, WARegistered Userregular
The company I work for has switched to a new payroll software, Paylocity, which has an option for employees to approve their own time punches as well as management. Payroll is hounding us about making sure employees are using that approval and sending us strongly worded emails when they're not.
I don't know what they expect from us, we can't and shouldn't force employees tondo this. Due to the nature of the approval it would need to be off clock as well.
If Amazon allowed workers to have cell phones on the warehouse floor, all we would be doing instead is yelling about how Amazon got someone killed because they were using their phone while driving a forklift.
People are more likely to be killed by being on their phones and walking into the path of a forklift than a forklift driver is likely to kill someone while on their phone, and even then those people aren't in a lot of danger unless they're deaf and blind because forklift drivers tend to drive slow and honk aggressively so everyone knows they're operating around them. Tons of workplaces with on-site heavy equipment (like mine!) let workers use their personal judgement when it comes to appropriate cellphone use because they trust them to be smart, professional, and situationally aware in the course of their duties.
If this discourse is any indication, taking cellphones away from workers is actually a good way to make sure they don't get critical prevailing conditions alerts. Leaving their safety in the hands of totalitarian corporate overlords like Amazon has already demonstrably cost lives and caused injuries. I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly wouldn't trust any employer with a shady history like Amazon to have my best interests in mind when operating in their space.
And the best part of that is that I can say that with full confidence because I've worked gigs on their Seattle corporate campus in the past, and each time they cared more about making sure I signed an onerous NDA than they did about making sure me and my crew were operating under safe conditions. They even required us to be escorted to and from the bathrooms by security personnel (who were almost certainly making less money than we were). It was galling.
I have seen a person get crippled by being hit by a forklift on a blind corner because they weren’t paying attention. Forklift incidents happen way more frequently than tornado incidents. Phones make it even more likely.
They honk so frequently that you are always hearing forklift honking and factory settings are kind of loud it’s easy to ignore. According to OSHA 35,000 serious forklift accidents happen a year, with 87 deaths.
Tornadoes kill about 80 people and cause about 1500 injuries total.
It’s is more economical to focus on keeping injuries and deaths down from forklifts. No cell phones is a reasonable way to keep that number down.
Not when your employer doesn't give two shits about your safety and wellbeing, as is the case with Amazon.
Dude, I guarantee you, despite your wailing and gnashing of teeth otherwise, that you are FAR from the most pro-labor person on this board. In fact, you are so rabidly "must prove my points", that you cost labor credit in a lot of people's eyes (At least here). Just to be clear, being anti capital is NOT the same as being pro-labor. Despite that, as you may have noticed, I'm largely inclined to agree with most of your points, but there are times, and this is one of them, that I feel compelled to rein you in (or at least counter your viewpoints) when you go beyond "excessive" and into "extreme". Repeatedly holding Amazon responsible for not exceeding legal requirements is.... something.
While you may or may not be right about your general opinion about them as a company (and I think you know where I sit there based on my history), your continued propensity to attack them blindly doesn't help to convince/persuade people in the middle.
I mean seriously, let's go back to the tornado thing. You are posting in a leftist forum on a labor topic that tends to attract even more leftist folks. You then go on to say "Well, OSHA said they didn't break any laws, but need to improve these things, but they are EVIL!>!>!!> " What were you expecting to happen? People to take up pitchforks? You can't hold people/companies legally responsible for regulations that didn't exist. You need to change the law.
Hacksaw is a union organiser. I mean sure, you can have a go at his flair for the dramatic, but to say he is bad for the labour movement is nonsensical. If his militancy against a company like Amazon makes you, a white collar worker (don’t worry, I am one too nowadays) uncomfortable, perhaps you should start by interrogating that. Particularly important, I think, when probably the single largest issue with labour organising in the US is a severe lack of militancy from workers when it comes to labour relations. In an adversarial system like the one we have, if you don’t have union officials willing to go after companies and stake an aggressive claim, you end up getting fuck all in the ensuing negotiations
Except that counters none of what I said. I said his militancy within "his own faction" causes issues. We've now spent how many pages halfway derailed from the idea of actually examining a SPECIFIC case of "do we need to fix this situation and how" because we've had to deal with a bunch of people saying "Amazon is evil and should be burned to the ground for this". This is ESPECIALLY true in the case where Hacksaw even indicated he doesn't care that he's essentially derailing the argument.
Here's the thing, and a point which the "anti-amazon" brigade seem to miss. The fact that a number of us aren't jumping all over that right now and supporting that idea in this current discussion has NOTHING to do with whether we agree about it. There have been some flaws as per OSHA already IDed, and the discussion would be around possibly identifying/discussing others from the framework of "maybe we also need to bulk up the regulatory component here that would then protect workers at ALL companies, not just at Amazon". So in the end, the militancy has detracted from discussion that could improve things overall, ESPECIALLY when you factor in some of the less "Amazon must burn" suggestions that are anti-corporate are untenable for a host of reasons. To be clear, I don't meant to pick on Hacksaw specifically, but he's both been the most vocal in this specific instance and unlike a lot of others on this forum, has worn who he is on his sleeve publicly. Most of us do not.
Finally, and to try to add something of substance that isn't just internecine bickering:
Looking over OSHAs findings and just discussions here, some modifications/changes/improvements that I'd like to see:
1) Increased availability of shelter structures. It seems fairly reasonable that at this facility, both bathrooms should have been shelter. Maybe it would be something as simple as tightening # of shelters/employee or sqf and specifying an increased number of minimum shelters.
2) Mandatory site specific disaster training, possibly with some kind of employer/employee testing regimen to assure that people aren't just ignoring it like they tend to with fire drills. Since tornado season is a relatively known thing, I'd probably require it to happen within a month of the beginning of the season, and possible an additional time during.
3) Better signage. Exits typically have to be pretty well marked, and relatively easy to locate, but it should be super clear, no matter where you are in a facility where the nearest structure is, even if it's just a line on the floor with some wording periodically.
I'll be real curious to see what the congressional probe comes down with though, since they won't be nearly as held to just "existing regulation" as OSHA and thus may still have some room for showing that Amazon really was criminally negligent here.
Mill posted pages ago about the scenario where Amazon is still at fault despite complying with the minimum standards of the law, and how therefore we must improve those standard and his post was pretty much glossed over except for me and maybe a handful of other posters, and not because of Hack’s labor militancy.
Because, if so, the fundamental problem is that it boils down to it's final statement:
So no, people are right to be made about the idea of Amazon getting to walk away from this unscathed because there is probably a high chance they knew what they were doing was going to get someone royally fucked. They just didn't care because they were in a spot to make sure they wouldn't have to face consequences in the event that shit hit the fan. They also wouldn't be the first company to pull this kind of shit, where they knew what they were doing was harmful, but they took steps to keep the lid on it because "profits man!"
The short version is, it's not the discussion that was trying to be had, still.
If people want to talk about how bad Amazon is, or about regulatory capture and how it helps keep laws against labor, sure, let's do that. The question as brought up was whether Amazon had been criminally negligent or had in fact followed safety regulations as they stood. Per OSHA, it APPEARS they largely did. If people want to have the discussion that laws are insufficient or regulatory capture is winning out here, or even just talk about how bad Amazon treats it's labor (or anything that isn't it's profits) then let's have that discussion instead of trying to shoehorn it into a specific sub conversation.
Being as this is the (unspecified) Labor thread, we can have all of those discussions at once. We are not limited to one narrow path down which all the discourse must flow, so long as it broadly touches upon Labor at large. That's why I made the OP a bit loosey goosey about specific parameters of discussion, so we wouldn't waste time with needless claims that such things were "off topic" or "against the natural flow of conversation."
+7
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
If Amazon allowed workers to have cell phones on the warehouse floor, all we would be doing instead is yelling about how Amazon got someone killed because they were using their phone while driving a forklift.
People are more likely to be killed by being on their phones and walking into the path of a forklift than a forklift driver is likely to kill someone while on their phone, and even then those people aren't in a lot of danger unless they're deaf and blind because forklift drivers tend to drive slow and honk aggressively so everyone knows they're operating around them. Tons of workplaces with on-site heavy equipment (like mine!) let workers use their personal judgement when it comes to appropriate cellphone use because they trust them to be smart, professional, and situationally aware in the course of their duties.
If this discourse is any indication, taking cellphones away from workers is actually a good way to make sure they don't get critical prevailing conditions alerts. Leaving their safety in the hands of totalitarian corporate overlords like Amazon has already demonstrably cost lives and caused injuries. I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly wouldn't trust any employer with a shady history like Amazon to have my best interests in mind when operating in their space.
And the best part of that is that I can say that with full confidence because I've worked gigs on their Seattle corporate campus in the past, and each time they cared more about making sure I signed an onerous NDA than they did about making sure me and my crew were operating under safe conditions. They even required us to be escorted to and from the bathrooms by security personnel (who were almost certainly making less money than we were). It was galling.
I have seen a person get crippled by being hit by a forklift on a blind corner because they weren’t paying attention. Forklift incidents happen way more frequently than tornado incidents. Phones make it even more likely.
They honk so frequently that you are always hearing forklift honking and factory settings are kind of loud it’s easy to ignore. According to OSHA 35,000 serious forklift accidents happen a year, with 87 deaths.
Tornadoes kill about 80 people and cause about 1500 injuries total.
It’s is more economical to focus on keeping injuries and deaths down from forklifts. No cell phones is a reasonable way to keep that number down.
Not when your employer doesn't give two shits about your safety and wellbeing, as is the case with Amazon.
Dude, I guarantee you, despite your wailing and gnashing of teeth otherwise, that you are FAR from the most pro-labor person on this board. In fact, you are so rabidly "must prove my points", that you cost labor credit in a lot of people's eyes (At least here). Just to be clear, being anti capital is NOT the same as being pro-labor. Despite that, as you may have noticed, I'm largely inclined to agree with most of your points, but there are times, and this is one of them, that I feel compelled to rein you in (or at least counter your viewpoints) when you go beyond "excessive" and into "extreme". Repeatedly holding Amazon responsible for not exceeding legal requirements is.... something.
While you may or may not be right about your general opinion about them as a company (and I think you know where I sit there based on my history), your continued propensity to attack them blindly doesn't help to convince/persuade people in the middle.
I mean seriously, let's go back to the tornado thing. You are posting in a leftist forum on a labor topic that tends to attract even more leftist folks. You then go on to say "Well, OSHA said they didn't break any laws, but need to improve these things, but they are EVIL!>!>!!> " What were you expecting to happen? People to take up pitchforks? You can't hold people/companies legally responsible for regulations that didn't exist. You need to change the law.
Hacksaw is a union organiser. I mean sure, you can have a go at his flair for the dramatic, but to say he is bad for the labour movement is nonsensical. If his militancy against a company like Amazon makes you, a white collar worker (don’t worry, I am one too nowadays) uncomfortable, perhaps you should start by interrogating that. Particularly important, I think, when probably the single largest issue with labour organising in the US is a severe lack of militancy from workers when it comes to labour relations. In an adversarial system like the one we have, if you don’t have union officials willing to go after companies and stake an aggressive claim, you end up getting fuck all in the ensuing negotiations
Except that counters none of what I said. I said his militancy within "his own faction" causes issues. We've now spent how many pages halfway derailed from the idea of actually examining a SPECIFIC case of "do we need to fix this situation and how" because we've had to deal with a bunch of people saying "Amazon is evil and should be burned to the ground for this". This is ESPECIALLY true in the case where Hacksaw even indicated he doesn't care that he's essentially derailing the argument.
Here's the thing, and a point which the "anti-amazon" brigade seem to miss. The fact that a number of us aren't jumping all over that right now and supporting that idea in this current discussion has NOTHING to do with whether we agree about it. There have been some flaws as per OSHA already IDed, and the discussion would be around possibly identifying/discussing others from the framework of "maybe we also need to bulk up the regulatory component here that would then protect workers at ALL companies, not just at Amazon". So in the end, the militancy has detracted from discussion that could improve things overall, ESPECIALLY when you factor in some of the less "Amazon must burn" suggestions that are anti-corporate are untenable for a host of reasons. To be clear, I don't meant to pick on Hacksaw specifically, but he's both been the most vocal in this specific instance and unlike a lot of others on this forum, has worn who he is on his sleeve publicly. Most of us do not.
Finally, and to try to add something of substance that isn't just internecine bickering:
Looking over OSHAs findings and just discussions here, some modifications/changes/improvements that I'd like to see:
1) Increased availability of shelter structures. It seems fairly reasonable that at this facility, both bathrooms should have been shelter. Maybe it would be something as simple as tightening # of shelters/employee or sqf and specifying an increased number of minimum shelters.
2) Mandatory site specific disaster training, possibly with some kind of employer/employee testing regimen to assure that people aren't just ignoring it like they tend to with fire drills. Since tornado season is a relatively known thing, I'd probably require it to happen within a month of the beginning of the season, and possible an additional time during.
3) Better signage. Exits typically have to be pretty well marked, and relatively easy to locate, but it should be super clear, no matter where you are in a facility where the nearest structure is, even if it's just a line on the floor with some wording periodically.
I'll be real curious to see what the congressional probe comes down with though, since they won't be nearly as held to just "existing regulation" as OSHA and thus may still have some room for showing that Amazon really was criminally negligent here.
Mill posted pages ago about the scenario where Amazon is still at fault despite complying with the minimum standards of the law, and how therefore we must improve those standard and his post was pretty much glossed over except for me and maybe a handful of other posters, and not because of Hack’s labor militancy.
Because, if so, the fundamental problem is that it boils down to it's final statement:
So no, people are right to be made about the idea of Amazon getting to walk away from this unscathed because there is probably a high chance they knew what they were doing was going to get someone royally fucked. They just didn't care because they were in a spot to make sure they wouldn't have to face consequences in the event that shit hit the fan. They also wouldn't be the first company to pull this kind of shit, where they knew what they were doing was harmful, but they took steps to keep the lid on it because "profits man!"
The short version is, it's not the discussion that was trying to be had, still.
If people want to talk about how bad Amazon is, or about regulatory capture and how it helps keep laws against labor, sure, let's do that. The question as brought up was whether Amazon had been criminally negligent or had in fact followed safety regulations as they stood. Per OSHA, it APPEARS they largely did. If people want to have the discussion that laws are insufficient or regulatory capture is winning out here, or even just talk about how bad Amazon treats it's labor (or anything that isn't it's profits) then let's have that discussion instead of trying to shoehorn it into a specific sub conversation.
Being as this is the (unspecified) Labor thread, we can have all of those discussions at once. We are not limited to one narrow path down which all the discourse must flow, so long as it broadly touches upon Labor at large. That's why I made the OP a bit loosey goosey about specific parameters of discussion, so we wouldn't waste time with needless claims that such things were "off topic" or "against the natural flow of conversation."
Cool, except you were doing it specifically in reply to a given topic of conversation. You clearly also didn't read the rest of my post(s) where I have indicated that if we want to have the other conversations, let's have them, just replying with conversation A to conversation B is... unhelpful. This is kind of the last I'll say on this specific thing, I've made my stance abundantly clear.
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Our company is particularly bad in riding roughshod over CA pay laws, I assume they found some kind of loophole for being a small business. They delay paychecks by an entire period. Like, this check I was expecting to be deposited this weekend was from me working from the 1st-15th of this month. Despite having returned to work on the 4th, I haven't seen a single dollar since my "severance" payment back in mid-march.
But that's just how companies roll these days *shrug emoji*
Raiden333 on
There was a steam sig here. It's gone now.
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Yep. If your landlord can assess a $50 per day late fee on your rent, I see no reason why your job shouldn’t owe you an extra $50 per day if they can’t get their shit together to pay you on schedule.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Yeah, Hydropolo your write off of my post is bullshit. One it comes across as tone policing because "how dare you imply that it's okay for people to be mad! Thus your main point is invalid!" Also like many things, it's possible to do more than one thing.
My main point, which you dismissed because you apparently didn't like it's tone and decided that the whole post was invalid. Was that yes, we can and have had cases where the law isn't adequate. That sometimes those laws are intentionally inadequate because someone with lots of influence so to it. Like if Amazon totally didn't have a hand in rigging the system so that they wouldn't be in violation of the law, then it is on them to prove otherwise because their current track record is fucking garbage. They made their reputation and it is on them to salvage it if they don't like the blowback it's getting them now. This is my second point, that even if Amazon is in the clear legally, people by no means give up their right to be mad about a situation that is very likely bullshit.
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
It’s not hard either.
The company I work for now. If the direct deposit fucks up (and shit happens on occasion). They cut a check that Friday or Monday at the latest.
That’s how it should be. We do some donkey shit but that we do well.
Now I’ve seen companies that can’t make payroll, and that’s a big problem. Hydropolo, you may want to start the documentation process and maybe discuss the issue with your states department of labor. Because it’s first in first paid for payroll claims.
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Our company is particularly bad in riding roughshod over CA pay laws, I assume they found some kind of loophole for being a small business. They delay paychecks by an entire period. Like, this check I was expecting to be deposited this weekend was from me working from the 1st-15th of this month. Despite having returned to work on the 4th, I haven't seen a single dollar since my "severance" payment back in mid-march.
But that's just how companies roll these days *shrug emoji*
CA payroll laws do not have a loophole for small business that I'm aware of and have high penalties. I'm not sure you'd have a job if you pursue them though. You can try keeping track of issues and then go to a lawyer if you leave or get fired.
The company I work for now. If the direct deposit fucks up (and shit happens on occasion). They cut a check that Friday or Monday at the latest.
That’s how it should be. We do some donkey shit but that we do well.
Now I’ve seen companies that can’t make payroll, and that’s a big problem. Hydropolo, you may want to start the documentation process and maybe discuss the issue with your states department of labor. Because it’s first in first paid for payroll claims.
They have TYPICALLY been good about paying things on time, and they admitted to where process broke down when I brought it up (our payroll department is essentially being replaced), so I'll give them till this next paycheck. But yeah, I've already looked up what L&I here says and basically it starts with a copmlaint with them and I have the link. Fortunately, unlike Raiden, my company has a pretty reasonable history of these things.
Yeah, Hydropolo your write off of my post is bullshit. One it comes across as tone policing because "how dare you imply that it's okay for people to be mad! Thus your main point is invalid!" Also like many things, it's possible to do more than one thing.
My main point, which you dismissed because you apparently didn't like it's tone and decided that the whole post was invalid. Was that yes, we can and have had cases where the law isn't adequate. That sometimes those laws are intentionally inadequate because someone with lots of influence so to it. Like if Amazon totally didn't have a hand in rigging the system so that they wouldn't be in violation of the law, then it is on them to prove otherwise because their current track record is fucking garbage. They made their reputation and it is on them to salvage it if they don't like the blowback it's getting them now. This is my second point, that even if Amazon is in the clear legally, people by no means give up their right to be mad about a situation that is very likely bullshit.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time here except to say you are dramatically misreading what I wrote. If you want to discuss further I'll happily take it up in DMs but I've derailed here myself enough.
If Amazon allowed workers to have cell phones on the warehouse floor, all we would be doing instead is yelling about how Amazon got someone killed because they were using their phone while driving a forklift.
People are more likely to be killed by being on their phones and walking into the path of a forklift than a forklift driver is likely to kill someone while on their phone, and even then those people aren't in a lot of danger unless they're deaf and blind because forklift drivers tend to drive slow and honk aggressively so everyone knows they're operating around them. Tons of workplaces with on-site heavy equipment (like mine!) let workers use their personal judgement when it comes to appropriate cellphone use because they trust them to be smart, professional, and situationally aware in the course of their duties.
If this discourse is any indication, taking cellphones away from workers is actually a good way to make sure they don't get critical prevailing conditions alerts. Leaving their safety in the hands of totalitarian corporate overlords like Amazon has already demonstrably cost lives and caused injuries. I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly wouldn't trust any employer with a shady history like Amazon to have my best interests in mind when operating in their space.
And the best part of that is that I can say that with full confidence because I've worked gigs on their Seattle corporate campus in the past, and each time they cared more about making sure I signed an onerous NDA than they did about making sure me and my crew were operating under safe conditions. They even required us to be escorted to and from the bathrooms by security personnel (who were almost certainly making less money than we were). It was galling.
I have seen a person get crippled by being hit by a forklift on a blind corner because they weren’t paying attention. Forklift incidents happen way more frequently than tornado incidents. Phones make it even more likely.
They honk so frequently that you are always hearing forklift honking and factory settings are kind of loud it’s easy to ignore. According to OSHA 35,000 serious forklift accidents happen a year, with 87 deaths.
Tornadoes kill about 80 people and cause about 1500 injuries total.
It’s is more economical to focus on keeping injuries and deaths down from forklifts. No cell phones is a reasonable way to keep that number down.
Not when your employer doesn't give two shits about your safety and wellbeing, as is the case with Amazon.
Dude, I guarantee you, despite your wailing and gnashing of teeth otherwise, that you are FAR from the most pro-labor person on this board. In fact, you are so rabidly "must prove my points", that you cost labor credit in a lot of people's eyes (At least here). Just to be clear, being anti capital is NOT the same as being pro-labor. Despite that, as you may have noticed, I'm largely inclined to agree with most of your points, but there are times, and this is one of them, that I feel compelled to rein you in (or at least counter your viewpoints) when you go beyond "excessive" and into "extreme". Repeatedly holding Amazon responsible for not exceeding legal requirements is.... something.
While you may or may not be right about your general opinion about them as a company (and I think you know where I sit there based on my history), your continued propensity to attack them blindly doesn't help to convince/persuade people in the middle.
I mean seriously, let's go back to the tornado thing. You are posting in a leftist forum on a labor topic that tends to attract even more leftist folks. You then go on to say "Well, OSHA said they didn't break any laws, but need to improve these things, but they are EVIL!>!>!!> " What were you expecting to happen? People to take up pitchforks? You can't hold people/companies legally responsible for regulations that didn't exist. You need to change the law.
Hacksaw is a union organiser. I mean sure, you can have a go at his flair for the dramatic, but to say he is bad for the labour movement is nonsensical. If his militancy against a company like Amazon makes you, a white collar worker (don’t worry, I am one too nowadays) uncomfortable, perhaps you should start by interrogating that. Particularly important, I think, when probably the single largest issue with labour organising in the US is a severe lack of militancy from workers when it comes to labour relations. In an adversarial system like the one we have, if you don’t have union officials willing to go after companies and stake an aggressive claim, you end up getting fuck all in the ensuing negotiations
Except that counters none of what I said. I said his militancy within "his own faction" causes issues. We've now spent how many pages halfway derailed from the idea of actually examining a SPECIFIC case of "do we need to fix this situation and how" because we've had to deal with a bunch of people saying "Amazon is evil and should be burned to the ground for this". This is ESPECIALLY true in the case where Hacksaw even indicated he doesn't care that he's essentially derailing the argument.
Here's the thing, and a point which the "anti-amazon" brigade seem to miss. The fact that a number of us aren't jumping all over that right now and supporting that idea in this current discussion has NOTHING to do with whether we agree about it. There have been some flaws as per OSHA already IDed, and the discussion would be around possibly identifying/discussing others from the framework of "maybe we also need to bulk up the regulatory component here that would then protect workers at ALL companies, not just at Amazon". So in the end, the militancy has detracted from discussion that could improve things overall, ESPECIALLY when you factor in some of the less "Amazon must burn" suggestions that are anti-corporate are untenable for a host of reasons. To be clear, I don't meant to pick on Hacksaw specifically, but he's both been the most vocal in this specific instance and unlike a lot of others on this forum, has worn who he is on his sleeve publicly. Most of us do not.
Finally, and to try to add something of substance that isn't just internecine bickering:
Looking over OSHAs findings and just discussions here, some modifications/changes/improvements that I'd like to see:
1) Increased availability of shelter structures. It seems fairly reasonable that at this facility, both bathrooms should have been shelter. Maybe it would be something as simple as tightening # of shelters/employee or sqf and specifying an increased number of minimum shelters.
2) Mandatory site specific disaster training, possibly with some kind of employer/employee testing regimen to assure that people aren't just ignoring it like they tend to with fire drills. Since tornado season is a relatively known thing, I'd probably require it to happen within a month of the beginning of the season, and possible an additional time during.
3) Better signage. Exits typically have to be pretty well marked, and relatively easy to locate, but it should be super clear, no matter where you are in a facility where the nearest structure is, even if it's just a line on the floor with some wording periodically.
I'll be real curious to see what the congressional probe comes down with though, since they won't be nearly as held to just "existing regulation" as OSHA and thus may still have some room for showing that Amazon really was criminally negligent here.
this isn't a leftist forum, it's a liberal forum
your mistake is thinking that hacksaw is even in your faction
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Well, a large part of the problem is that corporate leadership sees late pay and the problems it causes for workers to be a "you" problem. A few months back, Alison Green of Ask A Manager got a letter from a manager complaining about how one of his subordinates "wasn't respectful" when the company fucked her pay up (read: stood up for herself and demanded the issue be fixed including the hardships the late pay caused her (with a very clear subtext of "I don't want to make a federal case out of his, but I will if I have to.")) The guy's response has to be read to be believed:
I’m not comfortable with one of my new staff members and how overconfident she is. Her work is great and she needed very little training but she’s got very big britches.
“Jane” has only been with us for two months. Just today she asked for a meeting with me and our payroll manager. It turns out payroll made an error entering her direct deposit information that resulted in Jane not getting paid, not once but two times.
Our company requires potential candidates to complete sample assignments during the interview process and we pay them an hourly contractor rate. It turns out she didn’t get paid for her assignment period, or for the next full pay cycle. The payroll employee apologized directly to Jane in an email, because it was their error in entering her information and not following up/fixing it that resulted in Jane not getting paid. Jane was able to show emails back and forth where she checked in with the payroll employee and asked if it was fixed, which they confirmed it was. Today was payday and Jane didn’t get paid. She checked with the employee again and they acknowledged that they “thought” it was fixed. It’s upsetting for Jane, I understand, but I think she was out of line about the whole thing. People make mistakes.
Neither payroll nor I knew anything about it until today. We both apologized and assured her the issue would be handled. After that, she looked at me and the payroll manager and said, “I appreciate your apology, but I need you both to understand that this can’t happen again. This has put me under financial strain and I can’t continue to work for COMPANY if this isn’t corrected today.”
The payroll manager was heavily in agreement, but I was speechless that she’d speak to management like that.
Payroll handled the whole thing and cut her a check with the okay from HR. Jane had referenced that not being paid put her in financial hardship and unable to pay bills, so HR allowed the use of the employee hardship fund and gave her $500 in gift cards so she can get groceries and gas and catch up on bills. I’m just kind of floored that she’s getting gift cards after speaking to her superiors like that. I’m also uncomfortable because why is our company responsible for her fiscal irresponsibility? Her personal finances or debts are not the company’s responsibility. I just don’t think it’s the company’s responsibility to give her more than what she’s earned (the extra $500 from the employee emergency relief fund) to fix things for her if she overspent or didn’t prioritize her bills or save smartly. We also don’t know if she is actually experiencing a financial hardship or just claiming she was.
HR allowed her paid time to go to the bank today and deposit her check. I told our HR person that while it’s not okay Jane didn’t get paid, the way she approached it was uncalled for. HR told me, “She’s right, it can’t happen again and it shouldn’t have happened at all.”
I’m getting tired of the respect gap I’m seeing with younger staff. I think Jane would be better suited in a different department. I’m not comfortable having her on my team since it’s obvious she doesn’t understand she’s entry-level and not in charge. Should I wait a while before suggesting she transfer to a different department?
To Alison's credit, her initial response was blunt and cut to the point:
I’m going to say this bluntly: you are very, very wrong about this situation, both as a manager and as a human.
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Yep. If your landlord can assess a $50 per day late fee on your rent, I see no reason why your job shouldn’t owe you an extra $50 per day if they can’t get their shit together to pay you on schedule.
My union penalizes employers who fail to pay on time. Each pay period that you're late on adds an additonal 10% to the tab. It's baked into all our contracts and Letters of Agreement as a mandatory provision because my industry has a rather ignominious history regarding touring companies trying to skip town without footing the bill.
I'd say something like that should be enshrined in law, but at this point I don't trust US lawmakers farther than I can throw the entire lot of them.
+20
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Well, a large part of the problem is that corporate leadership sees late pay and the problems it causes for workers to be a "you" problem. A few months back, Alison Green of Ask A Manager got a letter from a manager complaining about how one of his subordinates "wasn't respectful" when the company fucked her pay up (read: stood up for herself and demanded the issue be fixed including the hardships the late pay caused her (with a very clear subtext of "I don't want to make a federal case out of his, but I will if I have to.")) The guy's response has to be read to be believed:
I’m not comfortable with one of my new staff members and how overconfident she is. Her work is great and she needed very little training but she’s got very big britches.
“Jane” has only been with us for two months. Just today she asked for a meeting with me and our payroll manager. It turns out payroll made an error entering her direct deposit information that resulted in Jane not getting paid, not once but two times.
Our company requires potential candidates to complete sample assignments during the interview process and we pay them an hourly contractor rate. It turns out she didn’t get paid for her assignment period, or for the next full pay cycle. The payroll employee apologized directly to Jane in an email, because it was their error in entering her information and not following up/fixing it that resulted in Jane not getting paid. Jane was able to show emails back and forth where she checked in with the payroll employee and asked if it was fixed, which they confirmed it was. Today was payday and Jane didn’t get paid. She checked with the employee again and they acknowledged that they “thought” it was fixed. It’s upsetting for Jane, I understand, but I think she was out of line about the whole thing. People make mistakes.
Neither payroll nor I knew anything about it until today. We both apologized and assured her the issue would be handled. After that, she looked at me and the payroll manager and said, “I appreciate your apology, but I need you both to understand that this can’t happen again. This has put me under financial strain and I can’t continue to work for COMPANY if this isn’t corrected today.”
The payroll manager was heavily in agreement, but I was speechless that she’d speak to management like that.
Payroll handled the whole thing and cut her a check with the okay from HR. Jane had referenced that not being paid put her in financial hardship and unable to pay bills, so HR allowed the use of the employee hardship fund and gave her $500 in gift cards so she can get groceries and gas and catch up on bills. I’m just kind of floored that she’s getting gift cards after speaking to her superiors like that. I’m also uncomfortable because why is our company responsible for her fiscal irresponsibility? Her personal finances or debts are not the company’s responsibility. I just don’t think it’s the company’s responsibility to give her more than what she’s earned (the extra $500 from the employee emergency relief fund) to fix things for her if she overspent or didn’t prioritize her bills or save smartly. We also don’t know if she is actually experiencing a financial hardship or just claiming she was.
HR allowed her paid time to go to the bank today and deposit her check. I told our HR person that while it’s not okay Jane didn’t get paid, the way she approached it was uncalled for. HR told me, “She’s right, it can’t happen again and it shouldn’t have happened at all.”
I’m getting tired of the respect gap I’m seeing with younger staff. I think Jane would be better suited in a different department. I’m not comfortable having her on my team since it’s obvious she doesn’t understand she’s entry-level and not in charge. Should I wait a while before suggesting she transfer to a different department?
To Alison's credit, her initial response was blunt and cut to the point:
I’m going to say this bluntly: you are very, very wrong about this situation, both as a manager and as a human.
"what's the appropriate amount of time to wait to retaliate in a completely unlawful fashion?"
should just forward that email to the labor board, tbh
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Well, a large part of the problem is that corporate leadership sees late pay and the problems it causes for workers to be a "you" problem. A few months back, Alison Green of Ask A Manager got a letter from a manager complaining about how one of his subordinates "wasn't respectful" when the company fucked her pay up (read: stood up for herself and demanded the issue be fixed including the hardships the late pay caused her (with a very clear subtext of "I don't want to make a federal case out of his, but I will if I have to.")) The guy's response has to be read to be believed:
I’m not comfortable with one of my new staff members and how overconfident she is. Her work is great and she needed very little training but she’s got very big britches.
“Jane” has only been with us for two months. Just today she asked for a meeting with me and our payroll manager. It turns out payroll made an error entering her direct deposit information that resulted in Jane not getting paid, not once but two times.
Our company requires potential candidates to complete sample assignments during the interview process and we pay them an hourly contractor rate. It turns out she didn’t get paid for her assignment period, or for the next full pay cycle. The payroll employee apologized directly to Jane in an email, because it was their error in entering her information and not following up/fixing it that resulted in Jane not getting paid. Jane was able to show emails back and forth where she checked in with the payroll employee and asked if it was fixed, which they confirmed it was. Today was payday and Jane didn’t get paid. She checked with the employee again and they acknowledged that they “thought” it was fixed. It’s upsetting for Jane, I understand, but I think she was out of line about the whole thing. People make mistakes.
Neither payroll nor I knew anything about it until today. We both apologized and assured her the issue would be handled. After that, she looked at me and the payroll manager and said, “I appreciate your apology, but I need you both to understand that this can’t happen again. This has put me under financial strain and I can’t continue to work for COMPANY if this isn’t corrected today.”
The payroll manager was heavily in agreement, but I was speechless that she’d speak to management like that.
Payroll handled the whole thing and cut her a check with the okay from HR. Jane had referenced that not being paid put her in financial hardship and unable to pay bills, so HR allowed the use of the employee hardship fund and gave her $500 in gift cards so she can get groceries and gas and catch up on bills. I’m just kind of floored that she’s getting gift cards after speaking to her superiors like that. I’m also uncomfortable because why is our company responsible for her fiscal irresponsibility? Her personal finances or debts are not the company’s responsibility. I just don’t think it’s the company’s responsibility to give her more than what she’s earned (the extra $500 from the employee emergency relief fund) to fix things for her if she overspent or didn’t prioritize her bills or save smartly. We also don’t know if she is actually experiencing a financial hardship or just claiming she was.
HR allowed her paid time to go to the bank today and deposit her check. I told our HR person that while it’s not okay Jane didn’t get paid, the way she approached it was uncalled for. HR told me, “She’s right, it can’t happen again and it shouldn’t have happened at all.”
I’m getting tired of the respect gap I’m seeing with younger staff. I think Jane would be better suited in a different department. I’m not comfortable having her on my team since it’s obvious she doesn’t understand she’s entry-level and not in charge. Should I wait a while before suggesting she transfer to a different department?
To Alison's credit, her initial response was blunt and cut to the point:
I’m going to say this bluntly: you are very, very wrong about this situation, both as a manager and as a human.
There are motherfuckers out there still in the strong belief that they are the betters of society and are owed a deference by their lessers.
Is the mistake of the company, they need to own up to it. Current job makes a point of paying everybody a day before 15th/last, since banks having issues with transfers on those days tends to happen. Previous employeer had that happen, they inmediatly sent a part to me in order to get something while the rest gets through and apologized for the issue.
Woefully unprofessional manager that doesn't get something as basic as contractual obligations being non-optional, will likely cause people to quit before he gets fired. If that ever happens.
The one thing I will miss about my old boss is that he was keenly aware that he was a middle manager and basically just had a job so that they could say someone was overseeing us and staying on top of everyone when it came to compliance training and the like. He knew damn well that the agents and the leads were the ones who actually did things and was happy to just be supportive in any way he could.
I have two really good prospects on new jobs that will likely get me the same or higher pay long before my severance runs out however I get the impression that both have certain issues with middle managers who think they are Very Important.
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Well, a large part of the problem is that corporate leadership sees late pay and the problems it causes for workers to be a "you" problem. A few months back, Alison Green of Ask A Manager got a letter from a manager complaining about how one of his subordinates "wasn't respectful" when the company fucked her pay up (read: stood up for herself and demanded the issue be fixed including the hardships the late pay caused her (with a very clear subtext of "I don't want to make a federal case out of his, but I will if I have to.")) The guy's response has to be read to be believed:
I’m not comfortable with one of my new staff members and how overconfident she is. Her work is great and she needed very little training but she’s got very big britches.
“Jane” has only been with us for two months. Just today she asked for a meeting with me and our payroll manager. It turns out payroll made an error entering her direct deposit information that resulted in Jane not getting paid, not once but two times.
Our company requires potential candidates to complete sample assignments during the interview process and we pay them an hourly contractor rate. It turns out she didn’t get paid for her assignment period, or for the next full pay cycle. The payroll employee apologized directly to Jane in an email, because it was their error in entering her information and not following up/fixing it that resulted in Jane not getting paid. Jane was able to show emails back and forth where she checked in with the payroll employee and asked if it was fixed, which they confirmed it was. Today was payday and Jane didn’t get paid. She checked with the employee again and they acknowledged that they “thought” it was fixed. It’s upsetting for Jane, I understand, but I think she was out of line about the whole thing. People make mistakes.
Neither payroll nor I knew anything about it until today. We both apologized and assured her the issue would be handled. After that, she looked at me and the payroll manager and said, “I appreciate your apology, but I need you both to understand that this can’t happen again. This has put me under financial strain and I can’t continue to work for COMPANY if this isn’t corrected today.”
The payroll manager was heavily in agreement, but I was speechless that she’d speak to management like that.
Payroll handled the whole thing and cut her a check with the okay from HR. Jane had referenced that not being paid put her in financial hardship and unable to pay bills, so HR allowed the use of the employee hardship fund and gave her $500 in gift cards so she can get groceries and gas and catch up on bills. I’m just kind of floored that she’s getting gift cards after speaking to her superiors like that. I’m also uncomfortable because why is our company responsible for her fiscal irresponsibility? Her personal finances or debts are not the company’s responsibility. I just don’t think it’s the company’s responsibility to give her more than what she’s earned (the extra $500 from the employee emergency relief fund) to fix things for her if she overspent or didn’t prioritize her bills or save smartly. We also don’t know if she is actually experiencing a financial hardship or just claiming she was.
HR allowed her paid time to go to the bank today and deposit her check. I told our HR person that while it’s not okay Jane didn’t get paid, the way she approached it was uncalled for. HR told me, “She’s right, it can’t happen again and it shouldn’t have happened at all.”
I’m getting tired of the respect gap I’m seeing with younger staff. I think Jane would be better suited in a different department. I’m not comfortable having her on my team since it’s obvious she doesn’t understand she’s entry-level and not in charge. Should I wait a while before suggesting she transfer to a different department?
To Alison's credit, her initial response was blunt and cut to the point:
I’m going to say this bluntly: you are very, very wrong about this situation, both as a manager and as a human.
"what's the appropriate amount of time to wait to retaliate in a completely unlawful fashion?"
should just forward that email to the labor board, tbh
I can all but guarantee you that if the company made an error in your favor, they wouldn't wait till your next paycheck to make it right, they'd be reversing the deposit immediately, and if you are lucky they'll tell you.
The company I work for has switched to a new payroll software, Paylocity, which has an option for employees to approve their own time punches as well as management. Payroll is hounding us about making sure employees are using that approval and sending us strongly worded emails when they're not.
I don't know what they expect from us, we can't and shouldn't force employees tondo this. Due to the nature of the approval it would need to be off clock as well.
Approving your time punches is work so you should punch in to do it and punch out again.
Since you must be off the clock to approve your time punches you should punch in again to approve it snd then punch out again
I give your company two days tops if you, as a team, comply” with the directive
My company wants us to approve them every shift. I just do them the next day or right before I have to send off payroll. I'm not making people do paperwork that's not immediately necessary at the end of a long shift.
So far it's caused issues a grand total of zero times in 2+ years.
+1
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Approve your punches? What the hell is that?
Employees put in their time cards, managers approve it. Or employees punch in and out and managers approve that.
Employees put in their time cards, managers approve it. Or employees punch in and out and managers approve that.
It’s an important checks and balances systems.
IT's also important for the employee to know whenever their punches are altered or changed. To make sure malevolent managers don't pull off wage theft BS. Employees getting a say in approving their punches helps avoid that
The company I work for has switched to a new payroll software, Paylocity, which has an option for employees to approve their own time punches as well as management. Payroll is hounding us about making sure employees are using that approval and sending us strongly worded emails when they're not.
I don't know what they expect from us, we can't and shouldn't force employees tondo this. Due to the nature of the approval it would need to be off clock as well.
Approving your time punches is work so you should punch in to do it and punch out again.
Since you must be off the clock to approve your time punches you should punch in again to approve it snd then punch out again
I give your company two days tops if you, as a team, comply” with the directive
Raiden333
Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm not super inclined to give management the benefit of the doubt about much, especially after this last page of payroll fun, but is this not just the kind of thing where they are basically asking employees to verify their own punches the next time they punch in to help minimize errors? I've been subjected to time systems that "lost" punches before, or employees who missed punch in/outs.
Employees put in their time cards, managers approve it. Or employees punch in and out and managers approve that.
It’s an important checks and balances systems.
IT's also important for the employee to know whenever their punches are altered or changed. To make sure malevolent managers don't pull off wage theft BS. Employees getting a say in approving their punches helps avoid that
Yup.
My wife was getting fucked by her employer shifting her time around on her time card to shave about 3 hours off per pay period. She asked around and it was happening to everyone there.
So I told her to start making copies before turning it in. Her lawyer appreciated that.
I'll also say that we were advised that it was one of the only cases where state laws mandated that the company pays for literally everything if they go to court and they lose. Lost wages can sometimes have better protections than you think!
Employees put in their time cards, managers approve it. Or employees punch in and out and managers approve that.
It’s an important checks and balances systems.
IT's also important for the employee to know whenever their punches are altered or changed. To make sure malevolent managers don't pull off wage theft BS. Employees getting a say in approving their punches helps avoid that
I guess, and I’m sure that happens, in my experience the fuckery is almost never behind the scenes like that. It’s usually having someone clock out and then asking them to do something before they leave. Or pay them salary when they are clearly not a a manager. Every timekeeping software I've seen has built in auditing, and it is a major pain in the ass to manually re-do someones time. The whole point is usually automation. But also any employer that does that isn't going to have their employees approve their time card.
The way the software I use now works.
Employee puts in time and signs timecard. Manager approves or denies.
If manager changes the time card employee approves or redoes. And there is an audit trail.
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
edited May 2022
FWIW, It’s trivially easy for management to alter time cards without employees knowing on ADP, which is the most widely used Payroll service in the US. I had it happen frequently enough at my last job that I made a habit of checking my timecard every week.
At my new job we also use ADP, but I’ve never seen any unauthorized changes. I still check it regularly, though.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
+3
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Wage theft overall is the most common, and largest form monetarily, of theft in the United States, in fact. Almost as if it's very easy for companies to do and get away with and unbelievably difficult for workers to get any kind of restitution over such claims.
FWIW, It’s trivially easy for management to alter time cards without employees knowing on ADP, which is the most widely used Payroll service in the US. I had it happen frequently enough at my last job that I made a habit of checking my timecard every week.
At my new job we also use ADP, but I’ve never seen any unauthorized changes. I still check it regularly, though.
Yeah, we use ADP, HR tells us to have employees approve them all the time, but ultimately their approval doesn't matter at all. The only thing that's important is that I have to approve all my employees' time cards.
I found out the first time I had employees screw up their times, like transposing AM for PM on clock outs, and they didn't bother to fix it before payroll processes so I had to fix them and approve them at the last minute. The time cards weren't approved by the employees, nobody cared.
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Well, a large part of the problem is that corporate leadership sees late pay and the problems it causes for workers to be a "you" problem. A few months back, Alison Green of Ask A Manager got a letter from a manager complaining about how one of his subordinates "wasn't respectful" when the company fucked her pay up (read: stood up for herself and demanded the issue be fixed including the hardships the late pay caused her (with a very clear subtext of "I don't want to make a federal case out of his, but I will if I have to.")) The guy's response has to be read to be believed:
I’m not comfortable with one of my new staff members and how overconfident she is. Her work is great and she needed very little training but she’s got very big britches.
“Jane” has only been with us for two months. Just today she asked for a meeting with me and our payroll manager. It turns out payroll made an error entering her direct deposit information that resulted in Jane not getting paid, not once but two times.
Our company requires potential candidates to complete sample assignments during the interview process and we pay them an hourly contractor rate. It turns out she didn’t get paid for her assignment period, or for the next full pay cycle. The payroll employee apologized directly to Jane in an email, because it was their error in entering her information and not following up/fixing it that resulted in Jane not getting paid. Jane was able to show emails back and forth where she checked in with the payroll employee and asked if it was fixed, which they confirmed it was. Today was payday and Jane didn’t get paid. She checked with the employee again and they acknowledged that they “thought” it was fixed. It’s upsetting for Jane, I understand, but I think she was out of line about the whole thing. People make mistakes.
Neither payroll nor I knew anything about it until today. We both apologized and assured her the issue would be handled. After that, she looked at me and the payroll manager and said, “I appreciate your apology, but I need you both to understand that this can’t happen again. This has put me under financial strain and I can’t continue to work for COMPANY if this isn’t corrected today.”
The payroll manager was heavily in agreement, but I was speechless that she’d speak to management like that.
Payroll handled the whole thing and cut her a check with the okay from HR. Jane had referenced that not being paid put her in financial hardship and unable to pay bills, so HR allowed the use of the employee hardship fund and gave her $500 in gift cards so she can get groceries and gas and catch up on bills. I’m just kind of floored that she’s getting gift cards after speaking to her superiors like that. I’m also uncomfortable because why is our company responsible for her fiscal irresponsibility? Her personal finances or debts are not the company’s responsibility. I just don’t think it’s the company’s responsibility to give her more than what she’s earned (the extra $500 from the employee emergency relief fund) to fix things for her if she overspent or didn’t prioritize her bills or save smartly. We also don’t know if she is actually experiencing a financial hardship or just claiming she was.
HR allowed her paid time to go to the bank today and deposit her check. I told our HR person that while it’s not okay Jane didn’t get paid, the way she approached it was uncalled for. HR told me, “She’s right, it can’t happen again and it shouldn’t have happened at all.”
I’m getting tired of the respect gap I’m seeing with younger staff. I think Jane would be better suited in a different department. I’m not comfortable having her on my team since it’s obvious she doesn’t understand she’s entry-level and not in charge. Should I wait a while before suggesting she transfer to a different department?
To Alison's credit, her initial response was blunt and cut to the point:
I’m going to say this bluntly: you are very, very wrong about this situation, both as a manager and as a human.
Mr. Manager,
This is why you don't use Charisma as your dump stat and put 0 points in Empathy. You end up with crit failures on basic human interactions.
Employees put in their time cards, managers approve it. Or employees punch in and out and managers approve that.
It’s an important checks and balances systems.
IT's also important for the employee to know whenever their punches are altered or changed. To make sure malevolent managers don't pull off wage theft BS. Employees getting a say in approving their punches helps avoid that
I guess, and I’m sure that happens, in my experience the fuckery is almost never behind the scenes like that. It’s usually having someone clock out and then asking them to do something before they leave. Or pay them salary when they are clearly not a a manager. Every timekeeping software I've seen has built in auditing, and it is a major pain in the ass to manually re-do someones time. The whole point is usually automation. But also any employer that does that isn't going to have their employees approve their time card.
The way the software I use now works.
Employee puts in time and signs timecard. Manager approves or denies.
If manager changes the time card employee approves or redoes. And there is an audit trail.
I run into misconceptions regarding salary vs hourly often. It is perfectly acceptable to pay non-supervisory employees a salary. It is also perfectly acceptable to pay employees covered by fair labor standards ("non-exempt" as the HR term of art goes) a salary. It is much more common to pay such employees hourly, but not required.
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Well, a large part of the problem is that corporate leadership sees late pay and the problems it causes for workers to be a "you" problem. A few months back, Alison Green of Ask A Manager got a letter from a manager complaining about how one of his subordinates "wasn't respectful" when the company fucked her pay up (read: stood up for herself and demanded the issue be fixed including the hardships the late pay caused her (with a very clear subtext of "I don't want to make a federal case out of his, but I will if I have to.")) The guy's response has to be read to be believed:
I’m not comfortable with one of my new staff members and how overconfident she is. Her work is great and she needed very little training but she’s got very big britches.
“Jane” has only been with us for two months. Just today she asked for a meeting with me and our payroll manager. It turns out payroll made an error entering her direct deposit information that resulted in Jane not getting paid, not once but two times.
Our company requires potential candidates to complete sample assignments during the interview process and we pay them an hourly contractor rate. It turns out she didn’t get paid for her assignment period, or for the next full pay cycle. The payroll employee apologized directly to Jane in an email, because it was their error in entering her information and not following up/fixing it that resulted in Jane not getting paid. Jane was able to show emails back and forth where she checked in with the payroll employee and asked if it was fixed, which they confirmed it was. Today was payday and Jane didn’t get paid. She checked with the employee again and they acknowledged that they “thought” it was fixed. It’s upsetting for Jane, I understand, but I think she was out of line about the whole thing. People make mistakes.
Neither payroll nor I knew anything about it until today. We both apologized and assured her the issue would be handled. After that, she looked at me and the payroll manager and said, “I appreciate your apology, but I need you both to understand that this can’t happen again. This has put me under financial strain and I can’t continue to work for COMPANY if this isn’t corrected today.”
The payroll manager was heavily in agreement, but I was speechless that she’d speak to management like that.
Payroll handled the whole thing and cut her a check with the okay from HR. Jane had referenced that not being paid put her in financial hardship and unable to pay bills, so HR allowed the use of the employee hardship fund and gave her $500 in gift cards so she can get groceries and gas and catch up on bills. I’m just kind of floored that she’s getting gift cards after speaking to her superiors like that. I’m also uncomfortable because why is our company responsible for her fiscal irresponsibility? Her personal finances or debts are not the company’s responsibility. I just don’t think it’s the company’s responsibility to give her more than what she’s earned (the extra $500 from the employee emergency relief fund) to fix things for her if she overspent or didn’t prioritize her bills or save smartly. We also don’t know if she is actually experiencing a financial hardship or just claiming she was.
HR allowed her paid time to go to the bank today and deposit her check. I told our HR person that while it’s not okay Jane didn’t get paid, the way she approached it was uncalled for. HR told me, “She’s right, it can’t happen again and it shouldn’t have happened at all.”
I’m getting tired of the respect gap I’m seeing with younger staff. I think Jane would be better suited in a different department. I’m not comfortable having her on my team since it’s obvious she doesn’t understand she’s entry-level and not in charge. Should I wait a while before suggesting she transfer to a different department?
To Alison's credit, her initial response was blunt and cut to the point:
I’m going to say this bluntly: you are very, very wrong about this situation, both as a manager and as a human.
What's funny to me is that HR clearly understands how massive a problem that is while the direct manager has just completely no understanding of the issue.
"I'm getting of the respect gap I'm seeing with younger staff" is how you very quickly find yourself without staff when people don't take your bullshit.
After getting laid off for the company to save money and predictably getting instantly rehired due to the company being immediately engulfed in metaphorical fire and me being their chief expert fire-putter-outer, I went to HR and was like "hey so I wasn't given any new paperwork or anything, do you guys just still have all my info and are continuing it like nothing happened?" and she was like "Yep, totally"
Here we are when I'm expecting my first paycheck since returning, PayChex is showing me a paystub and saying it should have been deposited on Friday (for the past 10 years our office has always deposited pay on Friday if the 1st or 15th falls on a weekend), and I'm still unpaid. And rent is due. FUCK.
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Well, a large part of the problem is that corporate leadership sees late pay and the problems it causes for workers to be a "you" problem. A few months back, Alison Green of Ask A Manager got a letter from a manager complaining about how one of his subordinates "wasn't respectful" when the company fucked her pay up (read: stood up for herself and demanded the issue be fixed including the hardships the late pay caused her (with a very clear subtext of "I don't want to make a federal case out of his, but I will if I have to.")) The guy's response has to be read to be believed:
I’m not comfortable with one of my new staff members and how overconfident she is. Her work is great and she needed very little training but she’s got very big britches.
“Jane” has only been with us for two months. Just today she asked for a meeting with me and our payroll manager. It turns out payroll made an error entering her direct deposit information that resulted in Jane not getting paid, not once but two times.
Our company requires potential candidates to complete sample assignments during the interview process and we pay them an hourly contractor rate. It turns out she didn’t get paid for her assignment period, or for the next full pay cycle. The payroll employee apologized directly to Jane in an email, because it was their error in entering her information and not following up/fixing it that resulted in Jane not getting paid. Jane was able to show emails back and forth where she checked in with the payroll employee and asked if it was fixed, which they confirmed it was. Today was payday and Jane didn’t get paid. She checked with the employee again and they acknowledged that they “thought” it was fixed. It’s upsetting for Jane, I understand, but I think she was out of line about the whole thing. People make mistakes.
Neither payroll nor I knew anything about it until today. We both apologized and assured her the issue would be handled. After that, she looked at me and the payroll manager and said, “I appreciate your apology, but I need you both to understand that this can’t happen again. This has put me under financial strain and I can’t continue to work for COMPANY if this isn’t corrected today.”
The payroll manager was heavily in agreement, but I was speechless that she’d speak to management like that.
Payroll handled the whole thing and cut her a check with the okay from HR. Jane had referenced that not being paid put her in financial hardship and unable to pay bills, so HR allowed the use of the employee hardship fund and gave her $500 in gift cards so she can get groceries and gas and catch up on bills. I’m just kind of floored that she’s getting gift cards after speaking to her superiors like that. I’m also uncomfortable because why is our company responsible for her fiscal irresponsibility? Her personal finances or debts are not the company’s responsibility. I just don’t think it’s the company’s responsibility to give her more than what she’s earned (the extra $500 from the employee emergency relief fund) to fix things for her if she overspent or didn’t prioritize her bills or save smartly. We also don’t know if she is actually experiencing a financial hardship or just claiming she was.
HR allowed her paid time to go to the bank today and deposit her check. I told our HR person that while it’s not okay Jane didn’t get paid, the way she approached it was uncalled for. HR told me, “She’s right, it can’t happen again and it shouldn’t have happened at all.”
I’m getting tired of the respect gap I’m seeing with younger staff. I think Jane would be better suited in a different department. I’m not comfortable having her on my team since it’s obvious she doesn’t understand she’s entry-level and not in charge. Should I wait a while before suggesting she transfer to a different department?
To Alison's credit, her initial response was blunt and cut to the point:
I’m going to say this bluntly: you are very, very wrong about this situation, both as a manager and as a human.
What's funny to me is that HR clearly understands how massive a problem that is while the direct manager has just completely no understanding of the issue.
"I'm getting of the respect gap I'm seeing with younger staff" is how you very quickly find yourself without staff when people don't take your bullshit.
This is because HR knows the law, and knows that Jane would be well within her rights to have just gone to the local Department of Labor office and file a complaint that the company would have no defense against, so her seeking an internal resolution is her doing the company a favor. Meanwhile, the manager literally ends the letter with "so, what is the appropriate amount of time to wait before engaging in illegal retaliation against her?"
And there are a lot of managers who see loyalty and respect as a one way issue - you're a subordinate, you'll take what we give you and like it. Part of it is a generational gap, but a large part is just that a lot of managers learned bad habits from older managers.
Honestly, we need a revisit off the whole holiday thing. Ironically, many employers being super eager to be bigots to non-Christians in the US is likely costing them a ton of business opportunities. Sure there are some holidays where because of cultural traditions, you probably have to write them off as a time where the business is closed. That said, if they were so fucking inflexible and eager to fuck over non-Christians. They'd probably find that they could work something out where the business is open more days in the year because if you give your Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist, atheist and other non-Christian employers and hell you're non-super religious Christians some flexibility on holiday leave. Well, you'd find that if those people could take time to celebrate their religious holidays or have an equal amount of time off for 'religious holidays' if they religious or super into religion. Then suddenly, they might be quite willing to work days that the office used to be closed.
Like, if you accommodate people. Suddenly, it becomes possible to say have the office open or building open on Easter Sunday because it's just another fucking Sunday as far as the non-Christians are concerned. Kind of the same deal with Sunday in general for many places. There are plenty of people that would have no issue working that day, provided they are allowed two days off for the week regardless of what days they work.
Of course, I suspect it'll get the same resistance as work from home because for many shitty employers and managers, their big thing outside of profits, is having control. Accommodating non-Christians would mean that they'd have to cede power and concede that not everyone is like them.
Honestly, we need a revisit off the whole holiday thing. Ironically, many employers being super eager to be bigots to non-Christians in the US is likely costing them a ton of business opportunities. Sure there are some holidays where because of cultural traditions, you probably have to write them off as a time where the business is closed. That said, if they were so fucking inflexible and eager to fuck over non-Christians. They'd probably find that they could work something out where the business is open more days in the year because if you give your Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist, atheist and other non-Christian employers and hell you're non-super religious Christians some flexibility on holiday leave. Well, you'd find that if those people could take time to celebrate their religious holidays or have an equal amount of time off for 'religious holidays' if they religious or super into religion. Then suddenly, they might be quite willing to work days that the office used to be closed.
Like, if you accommodate people. Suddenly, it becomes possible to say have the office open or building open on Easter Sunday because it's just another fucking Sunday as far as the non-Christians are concerned. Kind of the same deal with Sunday in general for many places. There are plenty of people that would have no issue working that day, provided they are allowed two days off for the week regardless of what days they work.
Of course, I suspect it'll get the same resistance as work from home because for many shitty employers and managers, their big thing outside of profits, is having control. Accommodating non-Christians would mean that they'd have to cede power and concede that not everyone is like them.
One thing my company did was take a traditional holiday (day after thanksgiving) and made it ... not, and then gave 1 other day with it that you can use as an optional holiday on any number of otherwise not "off" holidays (presidents day, etc), or any religious observance or your birthday. Not keen on day after thanksgiving not being an auto holiday, but... that day tends to be quiet anyhow for me.
Honestly, we need a revisit off the whole holiday thing. Ironically, many employers being super eager to be bigots to non-Christians in the US is likely costing them a ton of business opportunities. Sure there are some holidays where because of cultural traditions, you probably have to write them off as a time where the business is closed. That said, if they were so fucking inflexible and eager to fuck over non-Christians. They'd probably find that they could work something out where the business is open more days in the year because if you give your Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist, atheist and other non-Christian employers and hell you're non-super religious Christians some flexibility on holiday leave. Well, you'd find that if those people could take time to celebrate their religious holidays or have an equal amount of time off for 'religious holidays' if they religious or super into religion. Then suddenly, they might be quite willing to work days that the office used to be closed.
Like, if you accommodate people. Suddenly, it becomes possible to say have the office open or building open on Easter Sunday because it's just another fucking Sunday as far as the non-Christians are concerned. Kind of the same deal with Sunday in general for many places. There are plenty of people that would have no issue working that day, provided they are allowed two days off for the week regardless of what days they work.
Of course, I suspect it'll get the same resistance as work from home because for many shitty employers and managers, their big thing outside of profits, is having control. Accommodating non-Christians would mean that they'd have to cede power and concede that not everyone is like them.
For anything customer facing the question really becomes will customers come in. Like jokes about Jews eating Chinese food on Christmas not withstanding, if it was worth it to force staff in to work on Easter/Christmas what have you- they'd be doing it. For example I had friends who worked Christmas at movie theaters, cause apparently that's a huge thing for some families. Plus there's a marginal utility issue, where for each business that has 30% of its staff keeping the business open when 70% of the population is not going to come in it becomes less valuable to each business. Each "third shifter" bar dilutes the limited customer pool.
And in white collar offices, the utility of being open say Sunday isn't necessarily all that high. Your vendors are probably closed, your customers(other businesses) are probably closed. Yes, "No one else is here to bother/distract me" can be productive on an individual level, but like dealing across wide time zones it causes issues too, and it's another day of lights/climate/etc that need to be run. It's the opposite of places running four tens which after doing it for almost a year is the way. Though really four eights is a much better idea.
Also I think you are overstating the Sunday is just a day bit. Working a schedule that doesn't lineup with the standard weekend kinda sucks, because that is when the majority of people schedule social things. The only real upside is having a open weekday makes scheduling appointments and such so much easier.
#JeffBezosDrinksDogsBlood
+6
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Employees put in their time cards, managers approve it. Or employees punch in and out and managers approve that.
It’s an important checks and balances systems.
IT's also important for the employee to know whenever their punches are altered or changed. To make sure malevolent managers don't pull off wage theft BS. Employees getting a say in approving their punches helps avoid that
I guess, and I’m sure that happens, in my experience the fuckery is almost never behind the scenes like that. It’s usually having someone clock out and then asking them to do something before they leave. Or pay them salary when they are clearly not a a manager. Every timekeeping software I've seen has built in auditing, and it is a major pain in the ass to manually re-do someones time. The whole point is usually automation. But also any employer that does that isn't going to have their employees approve their time card.
The way the software I use now works.
Employee puts in time and signs timecard. Manager approves or denies.
If manager changes the time card employee approves or redoes. And there is an audit trail.
I run into misconceptions regarding salary vs hourly often. It is perfectly acceptable to pay non-supervisory employees a salary. It is also perfectly acceptable to pay employees covered by fair labor standards ("non-exempt" as the HR term of art goes) a salary. It is much more common to pay such employees hourly, but not required.
Yes you can, but you have to pay them overtime at time and a half. And every employer I know that puts a clearly non-exempt employee on salary does it to not have to pay overtime. It's the most common form of fuckery I see.
Although my experience is field specific. And you all are saying that timesheet fuckery is very common, and I believe you because employers are terrible, especially the "venerated" small businesses, just not a thing I've seen generally. HR incompetence I see a lot, all the time.
Posts
I don't know what they expect from us, we can't and shouldn't force employees tondo this. Due to the nature of the approval it would need to be off clock as well.
Steam: Feriluce
Battle.net: Feriluce#1995
Being as this is the (unspecified) Labor thread, we can have all of those discussions at once. We are not limited to one narrow path down which all the discourse must flow, so long as it broadly touches upon Labor at large. That's why I made the OP a bit loosey goosey about specific parameters of discussion, so we wouldn't waste time with needless claims that such things were "off topic" or "against the natural flow of conversation."
Fuckers. I hate that shit.
Cool, except you were doing it specifically in reply to a given topic of conversation. You clearly also didn't read the rest of my post(s) where I have indicated that if we want to have the other conversations, let's have them, just replying with conversation A to conversation B is... unhelpful. This is kind of the last I'll say on this specific thing, I've made my stance abundantly clear.
Absolutely need more teeth in payroll laws along this. I'm also two paychecks into missing a pretty decent on-call stipend. There is absolutely no reason a company shouldn't be able to cut a check within 1 business day (and that's being incredibly generous).
Our company is particularly bad in riding roughshod over CA pay laws, I assume they found some kind of loophole for being a small business. They delay paychecks by an entire period. Like, this check I was expecting to be deposited this weekend was from me working from the 1st-15th of this month. Despite having returned to work on the 4th, I haven't seen a single dollar since my "severance" payment back in mid-march.
But that's just how companies roll these days *shrug emoji*
Yep. If your landlord can assess a $50 per day late fee on your rent, I see no reason why your job shouldn’t owe you an extra $50 per day if they can’t get their shit together to pay you on schedule.
My main point, which you dismissed because you apparently didn't like it's tone and decided that the whole post was invalid. Was that yes, we can and have had cases where the law isn't adequate. That sometimes those laws are intentionally inadequate because someone with lots of influence so to it. Like if Amazon totally didn't have a hand in rigging the system so that they wouldn't be in violation of the law, then it is on them to prove otherwise because their current track record is fucking garbage. They made their reputation and it is on them to salvage it if they don't like the blowback it's getting them now. This is my second point, that even if Amazon is in the clear legally, people by no means give up their right to be mad about a situation that is very likely bullshit.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The company I work for now. If the direct deposit fucks up (and shit happens on occasion). They cut a check that Friday or Monday at the latest.
That’s how it should be. We do some donkey shit but that we do well.
Now I’ve seen companies that can’t make payroll, and that’s a big problem. Hydropolo, you may want to start the documentation process and maybe discuss the issue with your states department of labor. Because it’s first in first paid for payroll claims.
CA payroll laws do not have a loophole for small business that I'm aware of and have high penalties. I'm not sure you'd have a job if you pursue them though. You can try keeping track of issues and then go to a lawyer if you leave or get fired.
They have TYPICALLY been good about paying things on time, and they admitted to where process broke down when I brought it up (our payroll department is essentially being replaced), so I'll give them till this next paycheck. But yeah, I've already looked up what L&I here says and basically it starts with a copmlaint with them and I have the link. Fortunately, unlike Raiden, my company has a pretty reasonable history of these things.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time here except to say you are dramatically misreading what I wrote. If you want to discuss further I'll happily take it up in DMs but I've derailed here myself enough.
*sigh*
Well, a large part of the problem is that corporate leadership sees late pay and the problems it causes for workers to be a "you" problem. A few months back, Alison Green of Ask A Manager got a letter from a manager complaining about how one of his subordinates "wasn't respectful" when the company fucked her pay up (read: stood up for herself and demanded the issue be fixed including the hardships the late pay caused her (with a very clear subtext of "I don't want to make a federal case out of his, but I will if I have to.")) The guy's response has to be read to be believed:
To Alison's credit, her initial response was blunt and cut to the point:
My union penalizes employers who fail to pay on time. Each pay period that you're late on adds an additonal 10% to the tab. It's baked into all our contracts and Letters of Agreement as a mandatory provision because my industry has a rather ignominious history regarding touring companies trying to skip town without footing the bill.
I'd say something like that should be enshrined in law, but at this point I don't trust US lawmakers farther than I can throw the entire lot of them.
"what's the appropriate amount of time to wait to retaliate in a completely unlawful fashion?"
should just forward that email to the labor board, tbh
There are motherfuckers out there still in the strong belief that they are the betters of society and are owed a deference by their lessers.
These people can, as the parlance goes, get rekt
Woefully unprofessional manager that doesn't get something as basic as contractual obligations being non-optional, will likely cause people to quit before he gets fired. If that ever happens.
I have two really good prospects on new jobs that will likely get me the same or higher pay long before my severance runs out however I get the impression that both have certain issues with middle managers who think they are Very Important.
Which I can deal with but at the same time... ugh
I can all but guarantee you that if the company made an error in your favor, they wouldn't wait till your next paycheck to make it right, they'd be reversing the deposit immediately, and if you are lucky they'll tell you.
Approving your time punches is work so you should punch in to do it and punch out again.
Since you must be off the clock to approve your time punches you should punch in again to approve it snd then punch out again
I give your company two days tops if you, as a team, comply” with the directive
@Raiden333
Edit:We also changed systems
So far it's caused issues a grand total of zero times in 2+ years.
Employees put in their time cards, managers approve it. Or employees punch in and out and managers approve that.
It’s an important checks and balances systems.
IT's also important for the employee to know whenever their punches are altered or changed. To make sure malevolent managers don't pull off wage theft BS. Employees getting a say in approving their punches helps avoid that
Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm not super inclined to give management the benefit of the doubt about much, especially after this last page of payroll fun, but is this not just the kind of thing where they are basically asking employees to verify their own punches the next time they punch in to help minimize errors? I've been subjected to time systems that "lost" punches before, or employees who missed punch in/outs.
Yup.
My wife was getting fucked by her employer shifting her time around on her time card to shave about 3 hours off per pay period. She asked around and it was happening to everyone there.
So I told her to start making copies before turning it in. Her lawyer appreciated that.
I'll also say that we were advised that it was one of the only cases where state laws mandated that the company pays for literally everything if they go to court and they lose. Lost wages can sometimes have better protections than you think!
The way the software I use now works.
Employee puts in time and signs timecard. Manager approves or denies.
If manager changes the time card employee approves or redoes. And there is an audit trail.
At my new job we also use ADP, but I’ve never seen any unauthorized changes. I still check it regularly, though.
Yeah, we use ADP, HR tells us to have employees approve them all the time, but ultimately their approval doesn't matter at all. The only thing that's important is that I have to approve all my employees' time cards.
I found out the first time I had employees screw up their times, like transposing AM for PM on clock outs, and they didn't bother to fix it before payroll processes so I had to fix them and approve them at the last minute. The time cards weren't approved by the employees, nobody cared.
Mr. Manager,
This is why you don't use Charisma as your dump stat and put 0 points in Empathy. You end up with crit failures on basic human interactions.
I run into misconceptions regarding salary vs hourly often. It is perfectly acceptable to pay non-supervisory employees a salary. It is also perfectly acceptable to pay employees covered by fair labor standards ("non-exempt" as the HR term of art goes) a salary. It is much more common to pay such employees hourly, but not required.
What's funny to me is that HR clearly understands how massive a problem that is while the direct manager has just completely no understanding of the issue.
"I'm getting of the respect gap I'm seeing with younger staff" is how you very quickly find yourself without staff when people don't take your bullshit.
This is because HR knows the law, and knows that Jane would be well within her rights to have just gone to the local Department of Labor office and file a complaint that the company would have no defense against, so her seeking an internal resolution is her doing the company a favor. Meanwhile, the manager literally ends the letter with "so, what is the appropriate amount of time to wait before engaging in illegal retaliation against her?"
And there are a lot of managers who see loyalty and respect as a one way issue - you're a subordinate, you'll take what we give you and like it. Part of it is a generational gap, but a large part is just that a lot of managers learned bad habits from older managers.
Like, if you accommodate people. Suddenly, it becomes possible to say have the office open or building open on Easter Sunday because it's just another fucking Sunday as far as the non-Christians are concerned. Kind of the same deal with Sunday in general for many places. There are plenty of people that would have no issue working that day, provided they are allowed two days off for the week regardless of what days they work.
Of course, I suspect it'll get the same resistance as work from home because for many shitty employers and managers, their big thing outside of profits, is having control. Accommodating non-Christians would mean that they'd have to cede power and concede that not everyone is like them.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
One thing my company did was take a traditional holiday (day after thanksgiving) and made it ... not, and then gave 1 other day with it that you can use as an optional holiday on any number of otherwise not "off" holidays (presidents day, etc), or any religious observance or your birthday. Not keen on day after thanksgiving not being an auto holiday, but... that day tends to be quiet anyhow for me.
For anything customer facing the question really becomes will customers come in. Like jokes about Jews eating Chinese food on Christmas not withstanding, if it was worth it to force staff in to work on Easter/Christmas what have you- they'd be doing it. For example I had friends who worked Christmas at movie theaters, cause apparently that's a huge thing for some families. Plus there's a marginal utility issue, where for each business that has 30% of its staff keeping the business open when 70% of the population is not going to come in it becomes less valuable to each business. Each "third shifter" bar dilutes the limited customer pool.
And in white collar offices, the utility of being open say Sunday isn't necessarily all that high. Your vendors are probably closed, your customers(other businesses) are probably closed. Yes, "No one else is here to bother/distract me" can be productive on an individual level, but like dealing across wide time zones it causes issues too, and it's another day of lights/climate/etc that need to be run. It's the opposite of places running four tens which after doing it for almost a year is the way. Though really four eights is a much better idea.
Also I think you are overstating the Sunday is just a day bit. Working a schedule that doesn't lineup with the standard weekend kinda sucks, because that is when the majority of people schedule social things. The only real upside is having a open weekday makes scheduling appointments and such so much easier.
#JeffBezosDrinksDogsBlood
Although my experience is field specific. And you all are saying that timesheet fuckery is very common, and I believe you because employers are terrible, especially the "venerated" small businesses, just not a thing I've seen generally. HR incompetence I see a lot, all the time.