Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lunch breaks California

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by CO_Daisy View Post
    The proof is on the employer to prove that the employee did not work, even though the employee was clocked in. Unless the supervisor is a serious micro-manager and documents every minute of every day, the state would look at clocking in as the employee working.

    http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_MealPeriods.htm
    We know that. However, this responder STILL cannot point to an actual LAW that says that every clocked in minute must automatically be paid.
    I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

    Comment


    • #32
      I would suggest that the regular responders in this thread disregard Packard, who as far as I can tell is just trying to stir up trouble. For him, of all people, to be suggesting that the employer has the right to NOT pay for time clocked in is evidence of that.

      If he wants to post a statute or the name of a case law that supports his position he is free to do so. Until he does so, since we all know that Daisy has just summed up the correct legal position, why don't we all just call it a day?
      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


      • #33
        Easy enough answer to Packard. I would clock in early at the job site then get in my car and drive for 40 minutes to and from the site of a meeting and get paid for my drive time while performing no work. Pay for that time is called for under section 43.6.1 of the DLSE manual.

        Comment


        • #34
          A day. And a beautiful blue sky one at that.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by CatBert View Post
            Packard, if it's true you should have supporting docs...Where are they? Just because you think it's true or your friend told you it was, doesn't make it so.
            Yea I do it’s called a pay stub. Just like every American that works I get one every time I am paid. Just like most Americans I clock in prior to my shift. And just like all those other Americans that punch a time clock early my employer does not pay me for it.

            In fact if there was glitch in the computer and the employer accidentally paid it, it is my responsibility to inform them of the error.

            Comment


            • #36
              This is my last post to this thread, then I'm putting 48Packard on "ignore".

              A pay stub does not imply a law.
              I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Worriedspouse View Post
                Easy enough answer to Packard. I would clock in early at the job site then get in my car and drive for 40 minutes to and from the site of a meeting and get paid for my drive time while performing no work. Pay for that time is called for under section 43.6.1 of the DLSE manual.
                I would not advise anyone to commit a fraud on the employer. For that to work you have to have a meeting the employer scheduled you to go to other wise you are stealing. The question the poster has nothing to do with 43.6.1
                I would suggest that the regular responders in this thread disregard Packard, who as far as I can tell is just trying to stir up trouble. For him, of all people, to be suggesting that the employer has the right to NOT pay for time clocked in is evidence of that.
                How am I causing trouble??? Oh! I see if a poster does not agree with you and your attack dogs, he is causing trouble.

                If he wants to post a statute or the name of a case law that supports his position he is free to do so. Until he does so, since we all know that Daisy has just summed up the correct legal position,
                Follow the bouncing ball "jeez" that was posted by DAW on his first post. It only reinforces what I have been telling you.

                The poster of the question acknowledges he is aware of the statue for the undisturbed lunch and is following it. The question is one of reporting hours, the statute does not address that because there is no need to.

                why don't we all just call it a day?
                Nope-I am right-you are wrong. Sorry if you feel like that gives rise to banning someone or calling out your attack dogs to instigate a problem.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by 48Packard View Post


                  How am I causing trouble??? Oh! I see if a poster does not agree with you and your attack dogs, he is causing trouble.




                  Nope-I am right-you are wrong. Sorry if you feel like that gives rise to banning someone or calling out your attack dogs to instigate a problem.
                  Please do not feed the troll

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    And the ignore list is your friend.
                    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                    Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I'm expecting any minute now to be reading about the ADA from this thread. Who was that bojangles cronie that loved quoting ADA?
                      Not everything in America is actionable in a court of law. Please remember that attorneys are in business for profit, and they get paid regardless of whether or not you win or lose.

                      I offer my knowledge and experience at no charge, I admit that I am NOT infallible, I am wrong sometimes, hopefully another responder will correct me if that is the case with the answer above, regardless, it is your responsibility to verify any and all information provided.

                      Comment

                      The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                      Working...
                      X