Nothing is requiring employees to be in the office five days a week
Nothing is requiring employees to be in the office five days a week
CEO Carl Pei says remote work “is not compatible” with the company.
You're viewing a single thread.
I wanna see them pay for office hours AND commute hours. In a big city you easily have 1+ hour a day irrevocably lost to commuting.
Companies don't even have to pay people for the time spent going through their own required security checks... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity_Staffing_Solutions,_Inc._v._Busk
So glad I live in California. A faulty security gate once prevented me from leaving my job on time. Which pushed me past 12 hours on shift, which automatically meant I was earning twice my hourly wage while I waited. Plus it required a mandatory additional meal break, which I couldn't take. Since I couldn't take it, I was automatically given an additional full hour's wage, as required by state law.
I'm glad I don't work for a company that forces me to go through a security gate, and I'm glad we don't track hours. I get paid salary, and I rarely work more than 8 hours in a given day, and my average hours worked per week is usually under 40.
It's nice you had some protections, but those protections really shouldn't be necessary.
You're lucky. Many people on salary end up working overtime with no pay increase.
Once again, there are good managers & (far too frequently) bad (Elon loving cockwomble) managers
Being salaried doesn't remove you from those protections, at least in Europe. You get overtime, which is either 1.5x pay or you accumulate PTO.
In the US most salaried positions are not eligible for overtime. Unfortunately, California has yet to close that loophole.
The next job above me is salaried. If I were to get a promotion, I'd be making about 2/3 of my current income because I would lose all of the hourly protections I have. Despite a higher base pay.
Wow. Now I don't want to go to the US even harder than before.
If I'm reading that right, the decision was reversed by the 9th circuit.
The District Court originally dismissed the case, ruling that the security checks were made after the regular work shift and therefore not "an integral and indispensable part" of the job. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, ruling that the checks were necessary to the principal work of the job.[2][3]
The US Supreme Court then reversed the Ninth Circuit ruling. You're quoting the background that gives context to the case in the lixned article.
Scumbags all.