(what's really funny is that i advise he hire a lawyer to re-explain what i am telling him for free. march 07)
> i know this is heavy stuff.
> anyone who i've brought it up with before has been
> either blase, complacent about the status quo,
> afraid to cause a ruckus, or they remind me that
> this is standard for the restaurant industry.
>
> however, it seems the statute of limitations for
> filing a wage claim or pursuing the issue is three
> years. i don't know where the budget would come
> from to satisfy what is tantamount to a debt going
> back for three years to any employee who has been
> un-breaked.
> any day all mandated breaks are not given, an hour
> of pay should be tacked on to the check. one 10 min
> per 4 hours (or a substantial portion thereof eg 3.5
> hours), plus lunch for shifts over 6 hrs. it is my
> understanding that anyone sytematically denied
> breaks is eligible for an hour's pay per day (250
> days x 7.5-10$ X 3 years . . .)
> so this could be very expensive if workers decided
> to pursue the matter and an immediate remedy is
> necessary.
> is payroll centralized or store by store? bc whoever
> calls it in ought to be looking at the confirmation
> checklist (or make sure it happens across the board)
> to know who did or did not receive all of their
> breaks, and be adding that bonus/penalty hour
> accordingly.
> adequate record keeping could prevent indemnifying
> circumstances.
>
> the dept of enforcement points out that the payroll
> penalty was put in place to encourage the adherance
> to the labor code. companies that operate outside
> this code have an unfair business advantage. the
> investigations theoretically can be rigorous, and
> whistleblowers are encouraged and protected and wage
> claim forms/complaints taken seriously.
>
> employment lawyers will offer briefings to assist
> businesses in understanding their obligations.
> we could also order pamphlets or print pdf files and
> have a training seminar to educate the shift leaders
> on the importance of enforcement.
>
> i received a letter today in the mail regarding a
> class action affecting all persons employed by a
> former employer in california. pretty wild stuff.
>
> jack, thanks so much for getting it! i didn't plan
> to get so in depth today. i had actually silenced
> my nagging conscience fo a while. training new
> people helped to bring the issues back up, bc it is
> a strange position to be in to have to explain . .
> . . . .
> so in my ideal world, there would be enough staff to
> even break the waiters.
> when i was a waiter in west hollywood in 2004 i
> remember one or two sips of water sufficing for a
> day . . .
> and a 15 min dinner as a barista, but i was so naive
> and in love with le XXXX and didn't even imagine the
> extent of the law
> in other places i've worked there has been a bit
> more protective cameraderie ala i'll watch your
> tables for you . . .
> anyway looking on the bright side, i think le YYYY
> is such a lovely concept and we have such an amusing
> clientele and staff.
>
> this is another subject entirely for another day . .
> .
> but what is the progress on our green restaurant
> certification? . . . i know we lag behind some of
> the new york stores . . .i would love to step up
> the recycling efforts . . .
> also perhaps someone could solicit charitable orgs
> to pick up food donations . . .i know weho donates
> to a group that comes buy a few times a week
>
> i know its all more easily said than done, but thank
> you so much for listening. i know it is an
> especially busy time.
> see you soon
> mary
> thank you again so much!
>
> http://www.losangeleslivingwagestudy.org/
>
> in researching the living wage idea, it is funny the
> mayor of chicago recently vetoed a living wage
> measure . . .
> some cities have programs that apply to only workers
> whose employers are hired or subsidized by the city
> govt (LA)
> some cities have more far reaching programs which
> affect all persons working within the city (san
> fran)
>
> http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DLSE-FAQs.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment