• You999@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is incorrect in most states.

      Employers can require an employee to be “on-call” and available to work on an emergency or as-needed basis. Employers are generally not required to pay employees who are “on-call,” unless the employee is actually called to duty. However, if an employer places significant restrictions on how an employee spends their time while on-call, this time may need to be compensated as hours worked.

      The tenth circuit of appeals came up with this test to determine if the employers restriction constitutes on call hours as hours worked.

      Where the employee is not required to remain on the employer’s premises, the critical inquiry is whether the employee is able to use the time effectively for his or her own purposes. Here, the report requirement necessarily entailed that the employee could not drink alcohol, must be able to dress in uniform, and must be able to travel to the airport, park, and pass through security within one hour of a call. She was not able to make or attend doctors’ appointments for herself or her children, do her weekly shopping, nor go on field trips with her children. The court compared these circumstances with many FLSA cases presenting similar, or even more restrictive, circumstances involving availability by pager, inability to drink alcohol, and ability to report within 30 minutes or one hour. In the FLSA cases, it was determined that the employees’ activities were not so curtailed as to require the on-call time to be considered compensable working time. The court followed this precedent.

  • SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    6 months ago

    Depending on the country/state that could obligate the company to pay for devices if they’re going to require they have them.

    Not to mention possible “on call” pay could apply as well.

    I wonder if people who make these things (if real) even think of throwing them by HR or some professional who could help them avoid the legal implications of these kinds of things.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is probably by some small time business owner who never heard of HR, since preventing this liable shit is exactly HR’s job.

    • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s basically all of the content on r/antiwork after that community decided to throw itself off the golden gate bridge over an awkward interview that didn’t even fucking matter, on Fox “news” of all places

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        People are still bleating about that interview like it was death of all. Talk about writing the enemy’s propaganda for them…

        • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah, I still can’t believe after all this time that people haven’t gained some perspective on that. Like, Fox News viewers were never going to respect an antiwork community regardless.

          I can’t help but think that part of it is based on subconscious transphobia about the mod who gave the interview, especially considering all the blatant misgendering and disproportionate rage directed at them by the community.

          It was a really disturbing outcome, and the interview itself was insignificant compared to the behavior of the users. I’ve never seen such a large community implode over something so small. That was one moment I realized that … maybe I shouldn’t really be on reddit.

          • Taleya@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            I mean the fact that people seem to think that a growing global movement on workers rights was derailed by one debacle of a fox news interview of a reddit mod is…not a good look overall. I legit got attacked on lemmy a couple of days ago for pointing out hey notice how a right wing fuckhead getting pwned doesn’t destroy their reputation? Ya wanna think about that and why you’re doing their propaganda for them?

            it really felt like a purity politics moment. Bug fuck insane when you’re talking about change.

            • LinkOpensChest.wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              Yeah, I’ve heard of making a mountain out of a molehill, but this was more like making an anthill into Mt. Everest. And anyone who tried to approach the situation rationally was immediately shouted down by angry mobs. It was hugely disappointing to see.

    • Tash@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yeah, this is a pretty sad bait for Internet points. The AI BOTs are getting lazy.

      Official company policy being printed and posted on the refrigerator… totally legit. SMH

    • MadBigote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Some some people may not believe this shit is actually ilegal in mexico. There’s a limited list of cases where firing an employee is actually justified, without obligations for the employer. Otherwise you’re entitled to a 3month compensation.

      There are, of course, employers who decide to challenge this and drag payments, but still…

      • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        There’s a very large difference between something being illegal and the crime being enforced, but legally recognizing that it’s illegal goes a long way, even if only because people radicalize easily when they see the boss/company owner blatantly committing crimes.

  • an_onanist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    6 months ago

    ‘…voluntary mandatory shift coverage.’

    Someone should be gifted a dictionary for Supervisor Appreciation Day.

    • Farid@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      I totally understand the overall ridiculousness of this, but I suspect that “mandatory” and “voluntary” apply to 2 different people in this case. Person 1 has a “mandatory shift” and person 2 is supposed to voluntarily cover that person’s mandatory shift.