Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wages Changed suddenly, No Warning California

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Pattymd View Post
    Let me try.

    Did you work hours for which you have not been paid? If so, did those hours include "on-call" time?
    I assume the answer to that would be yes since I am on call no matter what. and he pays me reguardless if he calls me or not while on call. hope that makes sense

    Comment


    • #17
      Here's going to be your possible problem. Depending on how severely restricted your time is when you are "on call", that time MAY not necessarily have to be paid at all.

      What is involved with being "on call"?
      I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Pattymd View Post
        Here's going to be your possible problem. Depending on how severely restricted your time is when you are "on call", that time MAY not necessarily have to be paid at all.

        What is involved with being "on call"?
        I'm sorry I dont understand how or why that would even be a problem? however my time is not severely restricted in the slightest. what is involved with being on call? he expects me to be readily availble if he needs anything at all no matter how minor or major.
        Last edited by GoingNutz; 10-05-2010, 01:53 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by GoingNutz View Post
          I'm sorry I dont understand how or why that would even be a problem?
          Because most "on-call" time is not legally considered to be paid time.

          The very patient expert volunteers here are trying to find out if your on-call time falls into the "legally must be paid" category. In order to do that, they must ask you some questions. I can see that being asked questions is somehow a very frustrating experience for you, however, you should temper your frustration with the knowledge that THESE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU.

          Oh and ditch the snotty comments while you're at it.

          Comment


          • #20
            Okay, let me put it to you plainly.

            The people who respond here are volunteers. They do not get paid for this. They have lives and jobs and families and other things they could be doing. Instead, they are here trying to help people. They are not going to waste that time asking questions they do not need.

            Since it is clearly evident that you do not have even the slightest understanding of what is required by law and are interpreting all questions in the light of your very faulty belief as to what your employer is required to do, if you want help from this forum I would suggest that you simply answer the questions that are put to you whether you understand why it is being asked or not. If the answer was not needed, the question would not be asked.

            With regards to my post above when I asked you to identify which statement was correct, ONE of them has to be correct. There is no other option. You asked where I am getting any of them - they are the only possible options based on what you have told us. If you would answer that question, and some of the others that have been put to you, instead of arguing about whether we need the information or not, maybe we could help you. If you continue to debate why we need the information, we will not be able to give you any further answers because we will not have all the information we need to supply them.

            Understand that?
            The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

            Comment


            • #21
              OK. I'm going to try one more time.

              You say your time is not "severely restricted" when you are on call. That means you can go about your personal activities, such as church, a movie, grocery shopping, a picnic, the high school football game, etc. and apparently you just need to be available by phone. Correct or incorrect?

              Answer these questions. If you ARE called, do you have to go to the client's home? If so, within what period of time from the call? 15 minutes? An hour? Two hours?

              And in, say, a month's time, how MANY times are you called? Once, three times, 10 times? Give me an average.

              If you cannot or will not answer these questions, we cannot give you an educated opinion as to whether or not your on-call time must legally be paid. If such time does NOT need to be legally paid, then the fact that they ARE being paid is more than likely going to offset any actual hours WORKED for which you are NOT being paid (if any, I'm still not clear on that question either).
              Last edited by Pattymd; 10-05-2010, 06:53 AM.
              I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Pattymd View Post
                OK. I'm going to try one more time.

                You say your time is not "severely restricted" when you are on call. That means you can go about your personal activities, such as church, a movie, grocery shopping, a picnic, the high school football game, etc. and apparently you just need to be available by phone. Correct or incorrect?

                Answer these questions. If you ARE called, do you have to go to the client's home? If so, within what period of time from the call? 15 minutes? An hour? Two hours?

                And in, say, a month's time, how MANY times are you called? Once, three times, 10 times? Give me an average.

                If you cannot or will not answer these questions, we cannot give you an educated opinion as to whether or not your on-call time must legally be paid. If such time does NOT need to be legally paid, then the fact that they ARE being paid is more than likely going to offset any actual hours WORKED for which you are NOT being paid (if any, I'm still not clear on that question either).
                I am not refusing to answer any question I have a reading comphrehension problem. so i'm sorry. Patty to answer your questions and I will do my best..

                1. yes I must go to clients home. doesnt matter where I am or what im doing
                2. he wants me ASAP,
                3. in a months time he calls me 50-60 (guestimate) times even more. I have never
                really counted

                Patty also the hours I was not paid for was my on-call hours. It was agreed upon when I was hired that I would be on call when not actually at work, and that i am paid for the on call status reguardless
                if he calls for me or not or how much he calls. I hope this is better.
                Last edited by GoingNutz; 10-05-2010, 08:22 AM. Reason: forgot info

                Comment


                • #23
                  Don't have time to get into details right now, but will respond later today.
                  I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I still am not at all certain that your on-call time is legally required to be paid. Every case is looked at individually, and whether the frequency of calls you get would cause the time to be noncompensable, only the DLSE's opinion would matter.

                    Now, if you were NOT a state employee, I would recommend filing a claim with the DLSE for ALL the hours you worked or were "on call" and let the DLSE make the determination. In this case, if I were the employer, I would argue that your on-call time did NOT have to be paid and therefore, if you were short pay for any hours actually worked (not on-call hours), they would be more than offset by pay for on-call time that was not legally required to be paid.

                    You're saying the DLSE told you that you could not file a wage claim because you were a state employee? If so, call them and ask for a supervisor. If you get the same answer, ask the supervisor what are your options in lieu of a wage claim.

                    Good luck.
                    I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Thank you Patty, I will do that. I guess i should have worded things differently. obviously to some it didnt come out right. LAw is confusing to me anyways.

                      Maybe you can help clear this too:

                      I was told that an employer can not change your hours or dock your pay for personal reasons, or vendetta, etc. is this true?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        No. It is not true.
                        The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by GoingNutz View Post
                          I was told that an employer can not change your hours or dock your pay for personal reasons, or vendetta, etc. is this true?
                          We need to be careful here. You are trying to reword the law into saying something that it does not. But you may have an issue. Lets just loose the buzzwords and focus on what the actual law says.

                          Employees are paid based on actual time worked. If Bob works 40 hours this workweek, and Bob is non-exempt, then I must pay Bob for 40 hours. The presence or absence of a vendetta does not change this. The employer changing or not changing the timesheet does not change this. You keep bringing up extra points that have nothing to do with the law.

                          You (very likely) must be paid for actual hours worked. Period. If you are not, file a wage claim. It works or it does not.

                          Now, you have gotten that same answer several times already and you apparently do not like it. But no matter how you change your question, that is the answer.

                          --------

                          Past that agreed with Patty on "on call". This is a complicated subject. Under law, "on call" determines whether or not an hour is work. If under CA law, any particular on call hour qualifies, then it is an hour worked. If not, not. There is nothing under federal law that says an employee must be paid just because they are on call. The rule is "sufficently restricted" under federal and something similar but different under CA.

                          Again, file a wage claim. It works or it does not. But be clear that if you are claiming on call, then you are claiming that the employer has "sufficently restricted" your off duty time to the point where a court would agree it is no longer accessable by you. Say a tow truck driver who has to arrive at an accident within 20 minutes of receiving a phone call. There are actual laws here and sixty plus years of court and administrative action. If you really want to research CA law, download the following and key word search "on call". But CA (and federal) law does not say what you seem to think that it says.
                          http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Manual-Instructions.htm
                          "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                          Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Just to clarify:

                            The law does not specifically address scheduling. The law does not tell the employer what hours he is or is not required to give the employee. The law does not limit the employer's right to change the schedule of his employees.

                            Before it would be illegal for an employer to change your schedule or schedule you for fewer (or more) hours, he would have to be making those changes for a reason SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED by law. It would be illegal to change your hours or give you fewer hours BECAUSE OF your race or gender, for example. He cannot just suddenly decide to give all the hours to men, or women, or Caucasians, or Hispanics BECAUSE they are men, women, Caucasians or Hispanic. That is because race and gender are protected characteristics.

                            However, there is no law that prohibits an employer from changing your hours, or giving you fewer hours, because he has a personal beef with you. There is no law that prohibits him from giving you fewer hours or changing your schedule EVEN IF he is at the wrong end of that personal beef. To be quite specific, there is nothing in the law that prohibits him from giving you fewer hours because he thinks you did not communicate with him about some time off you were taking for personal reasons, EVEN IF HE IS WRONG. You have been told that before too, so evidently you do not like that answer. However, that is the legal answer nonetheless.
                            The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by cbg View Post
                              Okay, let me put it to you plainly.

                              The people who respond here are volunteers. They do not get paid for this. They have lives and jobs and families and other things they could be doing. Instead, they are here trying to help people. They are not going to waste that time asking questions they do not need.

                              Since it is clearly evident that you do not have even the slightest understanding of what is required by law and are interpreting all questions in the light of your very faulty belief as to what your employer is required to do, if you want help from this forum I would suggest that you simply answer the questions that are put to you whether you understand why it is being asked or not. If the answer was not needed, the question would not be asked.

                              With regards to my post above when I asked you to identify which statement was correct, ONE of them has to be correct. There is no other option. You asked where I am getting any of them - they are the only possible options based on what you have told us. If you would answer that question, and some of the others that have been put to you, instead of arguing about whether we need the information or not, maybe we could help you. If you continue to debate why we need the information, we will not be able to give you any further answers because we will not have all the information we need to supply them.

                              Understand that?
                              Look you dont have to be so rude. someone please just delete this thread and forget I was even here. i regret i asked for help now. you assume i reword the law when i dont even know what the law even is. you assume i dont like the answer and thats not it either. and then i get told im making snotty remarks and i didnt do that either. I flat out said I didnt understand. i try to clarify even more of whats going on and get told im repeatedly asking the same question. im not good with my words, i dont comphrehend very well and for that im sorry. please close this thread and delete it. im sorry I came here.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X