Long working hours kill.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think a fundamental misunderstanding of MikeH is that we don't elect representatives in the hopes that they will be more knowledgable than us about our problems. It is reasonable to say that they are more knowledgable than the average citizen about governing, but in terms of personal choices then it is preposterous to say that everyone should defer to the wisdom of the mob--which is what you get when you have a democracy--when you could just as easily have a system where everyone makes choices for themselves, choices which affect nobody but themselves.

[Al B. Sure!]

I think a fundamental misunderstanding of MikeH is that we don't elect representatives in the hopes that they will be more knowledgable than us about our problems. It is reasonable to say that they are more knowledgable than the average citizen about governing, but in terms of personal choices then it is preposterous to say that everyone should defer to the wisdom of the mob--which is what you get when you have a democracy--when you could just as easily have a system where everyone makes choices for themselves, choices which affect nobody but themselves.

The dilemma here though is that there are people who are forced to work long hours when they do not want to because they don't have the luxury of being unemployed and looking for another job.

This also ignores the very real wrongs perpetuated in workplaces across America. I've told the story before about how my superiors, in order to cut costs, were mandating a specific time for hourly employees to be done cleaning. Granted, there were some employees who were cleaning slowly and milking the clock. In my mind, such actions should have been met with discipline. If it were up to me, when an employee took too long to clean, I would send them home... they would clock out and I'd have to finish the job myself and they would get a write-up the next day for "inability to complete job tasks" or something to that effect. Those who consistently could not handle it would be fired and we would try to hire someone who could get things done in the mandated time frame.

That is not how my bosses handled the situation. I was instructed to keep the employees working but their times would be edited so that they would only get paid up until the designated time. In other words, they were WORKING OVERTIME FOR FREE. When (I really should say IF) employees would notice the discrepancy, they would only then be told that they have to get the job done faster because they would only get paid up until that designated time. There was nothing they could do to recoup lost wages. Furthermore, an inability to get done would lead to discipline. I, of course, as the manager, had to tell employees "10:30? You know what that means. I need you to clock out then go back and finish your work because you will be disciplined for it not being done". Remaining work had to be done for free.

Now, this was a union job. These were union employees. It was on a college campus. The company is Sodexo, one of the world's largest employers.

By the way, even legitimate work over 40 hours would also be edited. I, even as an hourly manager, worked many 40+ hour weeks but had my time docked to 40. Otherwise, I was not a team player.

This is corporate America. This is how the world functions. This is how the majority of Americans work.

[b etor]

sodexo

[Al B. Sure!]

Sodexo is one of the largest food services and facilities management companies in the world, with 380,000 employees, representing 130 nationalities, present on 30,600 sites in 80 countries. For fiscal year 2009 (ending August 2009) revenues reached 14.7 billion euros, with a market capitalization of 6.5 billion euros. Revenues by region represent: 37% Continental Europe, 37% North America, 11% UK and Ireland, 15% Rest of World.

I can't say the whole company is like this but my little 200+ (between my department, another department, and the catering department) employee operation was like this.

[Al B. Sure!]

By the way, I contacted city government about the Sodexo stuff. It took 12 months before they contacted me to say they were beginning the preliminary investigation.

This is not relevant to the specifics of this thread but I want to see just how in touch posters here are with the average working person in America.

Now I've worked at numerous quick-service dining facilities... McDonalds, Checkers, and my Sodexo employment included me managing a Burger King, Auntie Anne's, Taco Bell, Einstein's Bagel, etc. Just out of curiosity, what do yall think happens when a cashier comes up short on a drawer? Let's say $20 short on a $400 drawer so a good amount. No accusations of stealing; these things happen. Maybe it fell out of the drawer, maybe the cashier rung up too much without realizing it, maybe a customer shorted her, maybe she accidentally gave too much change, bills stuck together, etc. A bunch of possible explanations that wouldn't point to theft or anything malicious. What do you think corporate guidelines say to handle that situation? What do you think happens in practice?

Just curious to see where people's experiences and heads are at.

[Egbert]

What do you think corporate guidelines say to handle that situation? What do you think happens in practice?

Corporate guidelines

No doubt the corporate guidelines are all fluffy and lovely and caring.

If the employees are cheap to replace and easy to replace and without a strong union they will be under very heavy pressure to pay the cash register discrepancy out of their own pockets.

Boss: Now Sam, we are really concerned about this $20 shortfall. We couldn't possibly keep on a cashier who doesn't have an accurate till. We are really understanding and all, but this is costing us.
Sam: Boss, I'll pay it in out of my own pocket.
Boss: Oh why thank you, how deliciously sweet of you.

[Al B. Sure!]

Corporate guidelines

No doubt the corporate guidelines are all fluffy and lovely and caring.

If the employees are cheap to replace and easy to replace and without a strong union they will be under very heavy pressure to pay the cash register discrepancy out of their own pockets.

Boss: Now Sam, we are really concerned about this $20 shortfall. We couldn't possibly keep on a cashier who doesn't have an accurate till. We are really understanding and all, but this is costing us.
Sam: Boss, I'll pay it in out of my own pocket.
Boss: Oh why thank you, how deliciously sweet of you.

ding ding ding.

Corporate guidelines are usually pretty tough, actually. If the amount is significant enough or it has happened repeatedly, it's like any other disciplinary incident, and it's a termination. Of course, because people don't want to be fired, you get what you described as being routine. I have witnessed cashiers being short (and I myself have been short) probably at least 100 times and never once did it not go down as you described with the cashier paying it. It actually was so routine that I initially thought that was corporate policy to make the cashier pay until I found out that that is actually illegal.

Of course, it doesn't matter if it's illegal if the cashier doesn't report... and the cashier won't report it because the cashier doesn't want to lose their job...

which takes us right back to the entire point of this thread. 'Exploitation' is a harsh word but, at the very minimum, the average worker is in no position to dictate their terms of employment.

KH or Kuci or Darius or whoever else has a PhD, a bachelor's from CMU, and a law degree, etc. can say whatever they want but what applies to them, the freedoms their positions, educations, skills, etc. afford them, are not available to the majority of people.

[Solomwi]

Incentivizing cashiers to avoid mistakes that take money directly from the till.

MikeH:

Even when you and your legislator are equally clueless about which choice would be better for you, you, unlike the legislator, have the incentive to make the better choice. You're the one who reaps the reward of the right choice or pays the price of the wrong choice. That's not to say you'll always make the better choice, but you'll make the better choice more often than the guy who isn't affected by it.

[Al B. Sure!]

Incentivizing cashiers to avoid mistakes that take money directly from the till.

Dude, it's illegal. No employer can demand payment from an employee, unless it is specifically described in the employment contract. Do you realize the labor implications of allowing this?

You work to make money. Not PAY money to the employer.

And see how you like it if you **** up and you're making minimum wage.

[Al B. Sure!]

Anyway...

KH or Kuci or Darius or Solomwi or whoever else has a PhD, a bachelor's from CMU, and a law degree 2x, etc. can say whatever they want but what applies to them, the freedoms their positions, educations, skills, etc. afford them, are not available to the majority of people.

[Hauldren Collider]

That is so missing the point, alby. Even without a world-class education, people have choices in careers and jobs. EVERYONE can decide how hard they want to work.

Oh, and speaking of CMU, I recently was accepted to Carnegie Mellon University!

[Solomwi]

Dude, it's illegal. No employer can demand payment from an employee, unless it is specifically described in the employment contract. Do you realize the labor implications of allowing this?

You work to make money. Not PAY money to the employer.

And see how you like it if you **** up and you're making minimum wage.

We have plenty of stupid laws that make things illegal when they shouldn't be. That it's illegal is not germane to the point. Neither is whether I would like being on that end of it. Obviously, I wouldn't like it. Just as obviously, it would be a powerful incentive for me not to **** up, and would lead to me ****ing up less. That's a good thing. By the way, if $100,000 of a client's money goes missing from my trust account, I not only have to pay it out of my pocket, but face disciplinary action up to and including disbarment, as well. A cashier who just has to make the till right herself gets off easy.

[Solomwi]

That is so missing the point, alby. Even without a world-class education, people have choices in careers and jobs. EVERYONE can decide how hard they want to work.

Oh, and speaking of CMU, I recently was accepted to Carnegie Mellon University!

I think he was talking about Central Michigan.

[Al B. Sure!]

Hey Solomwi:

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/034/chapter9/subchapAtoc.html

§ 9.1. Authorized deductions.

The following deductions from wages are authorized for the convenience of employes in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Wage Payment and Collection Law (43 P. S. § 260.3).

(1) Contributions to and recovery of overpayments under employe welfare and pension plans subject to the Federal Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.).

(2) Contributions authorized in writing by employes or under a collective bargaining agreement to employe welfare and pension plans not subject to the Federal Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.). These include group insurance plans, hospitalization insurance, life insurance, provided such insurance policies are written by companies certified by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, and group hospitalization and medical service programs offered by nonprofit hospitalization and medical service organizations and medical group plans.

(3) Deductions authorized in writing for the recovery of overpayments to employe welfare and pension plans not subject to the Federal Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.).

(4) Deductions authorized in writing by employes or under a collective bargaining agreement for payments into the following:

(i) Company-operated thrift plans.

(ii) Stock option or stock purchase plans to buy securities of the employing or an affiliated corporation at market price or less provided such securities are listed on a stock exchange or are marketable over the counter.

(5) Deductions authorized in writing by employes for payment into employe personal savings accounts such as the following:

(i) Payments to a credit union.

(ii) Payments to a savings fund society, savings and loan, or building and loan association.

(iii) Payments to the savings department of banks for Christmas, vacation or other savings funds.

(iv) Payroll deductions for the purchase of United States Government bonds.

(6) Contributions authorized in writing by the employe for charitable purposes such as the United Community Fund and similar organizations.

(7) Contributions authorized in writing by the employe for local area development activities.

(8) Deductions provided by law, including but not limited to deductions for Old Age and Survivors Insurance (Social Security taxes), withholding of Federal or local income or wage taxes or occupation privilege taxes and deductions based on court orders.

(9) Labor organization dues, assessments and initiation fees, and such other labor organization charges as are authorized by law.

(10) Deductions for repayment to the employer of bona fide loans provided the employe authorizes such deductions in writing either at the time the loan is given him or subsequent to such loan.

(11) Deductions for purchases or replacements by the employe from the employer of goods, wares, merchandise, services, facilities, rent or similar items provided such deductions are authorized by the employe in writing or are authorized in a collective bargaining agreement.

(12) Deductions for purchases by the employe for his convenience of goods, wares, merchandise, services, facilities, rent or similar items from third parties not owned, affiliated or controlled directly or indirectly by the employer if the employe authorizes such deductions in writing.

(13) Such other deductions authorized in writing by employes as in the discretion of the Department is proper and in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Wage Payment and Collection Law (43 P. S. § § 260.1—260.12).

Note what's missing... nothing about deduction for cash shortages. Deductions for cash shortages are not permissible under Pennsylvania state labor law.


I also checked some case law. Saw this in California... I can't get a hold of the actual case summary but found this from an employment law website:
http://ced.blr.com/b/compensation-benefits-leave/archive/2003/09/02/wage-and-hour-paycheck-deductions-to-compensate-for-cash-shortage-found-illegal-when-you-can-and-can-t-dock-wages.aspx

At Earl Scheib Inc. of California, an automotive paint shop chain, most sales transactions are in cash, and only shop managers are authorized to handle cash. If there's an unresolved discrepancy between the shop's bank deposit records and cash transactions, the manager is asked to sign an "acknowledgment of reimbursement" agreeing to reimburse the company because his or her willful acts caused a loss to the company. The company then deducts the shortage from the manager's wages.

Franklin Edwards, an Earl Sheib shop manager, claimed cash shortages were illegally deducted from his paycheck on three occasions. Each time he had signed a reimbursement form, and altogether $1,615.36 was deducted from his wages.

Employee Sues; Consent Invalid

Edwards filed a claim against Earl Scheib alleging that state law barred deductions from employee wages for cash shortages, breakage, loss of equipment, and other losses resulting from an employee's simple negligence.

A California Court of Appeal ordered Earl Scheib to reimburse Edwards for the deductions. The court explained that some cash shortages, breakage, and loss of equipment are inevitable in any business operation, and the employer must bear such losses as expenses. However, employers can withhold wages for cash shortages caused by the employee's dishonesty, willful act, or "culpable negligence."

There was no evidence here the cash shortfalls stemmed from any- thing other than simple negligence, so Earl Scheib couldn't deduct the missing money from Edwards' wages. And, Edwards' signed authorization for each deduction had no effect because an employer cannot force an employee to agree to an illegal deduction.

[Solomwi]

Hey, Albie:

We have plenty of stupid laws that make things illegal when they shouldn't be. That it's illegal is not germane to the point.