If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   After success of just-in-time delivery, retailers now adopting just in time staffing, calling in employees for a busy hour or two, then sending them home when customers leave. "It's unfair. It's an unstable paycheque, it's an unstable life"   (cbc.ca) divider line 53
    More: Obvious, Bay Shore  
•       •       •

1891 clicks; posted to Business » on 05 Dec 2013 at 1:15 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 12:13:58 PM
She might be able to get a better job if she learned how to spell paycheck correctly.
 
2013-12-05 12:33:55 PM
This is pretty much the standard in my industry. You budget additional man-days based on when you think you'll need additional help. Sometimes things change and you end up calling in someone right away. I've gotten a few ASAP calls. Difference is, I get a minimum 8-hour guarantee. And it's not unusual to work 2 or 3 different jobs in a week.
 
2013-12-05 12:43:47 PM
Does Ontario not have minimum guaranteed hours?

I believe in Alberta, as a part-time hourly worker, you cannot be paid less than 3 hours if you work.

If your employer sends you home, you get 3 hours minimum.

You know, to avoid this exact kind of scenario.
 
2013-12-05 12:55:54 PM
Ask not what your corporation can do for you, ask what you can do for your corporation.
 
2013-12-05 01:20:34 PM

propasaurus: This is pretty much the standard in my industry. You budget additional man-days based on when you think you'll need additional help. Sometimes things change and you end up calling in someone right away. I've gotten a few ASAP calls. Difference is, I get a minimum 8-hour guarantee. And it's not unusual to work 2 or 3 different jobs in a week.


I'm assuming that "man-days" is literal, and your industry is prostitution.
 
2013-12-05 01:35:51 PM
Welcome to the world or waiters/waitresses. If it's a slow shift they will start cutting people early, though I've never seen much of calling in extra people if it's busy.
 
2013-12-05 01:37:24 PM

Rev.K: Does Ontario not have minimum guaranteed hours?

I believe in Alberta, as a part-time hourly worker, you cannot be paid less than 3 hours if you work.

If your employer sends you home, you get 3 hours minimum.

You know, to avoid this exact kind of scenario.


Ontario has exactly the same law. And the article says nothing about people working for just an hour or two.
 
2013-12-05 01:37:44 PM

skinink: Welcome to the world or waiters/waitresses. If it's a slow shift they will start cutting people early, though I've never seen much of calling in extra people if it's busy.


Or retail or child care or any other job that needs X amount of people for Y amount of commerce/service
 
2013-12-05 01:39:01 PM
On call is bullshiat. It's one thing to be in IT, and know that there is a chance that i will see that a server is down, or get a call, wrap up what I am doing and get to the office ASAP. It is quite another to have to sit at home by the phone and wait to see if I'll get the call, and not be able to make any plans until I know. If I were to get compensated, it would be different.

Being in retail, it would definitely suck. Happens pretty standard in the dining industry, but the major difference is that they schedule you, you show up, knowing when you were scheduled a week or two in advance, and then they might cut you early. The difference is that you know which days you definitely work and which days you don't. The only thing up in the air is your go home time. The only time I worked at restaurants and they tried on call shiat, I told them that $2.13/ hour wasn't worth playing their games.
 
2013-12-05 01:41:39 PM
California has regulations on minimum worked hours (basically, 2-hour minimum).

However, that doesn't matter based on this:  "So far they've put me on on-call shifts and told me that there is pretty much no way that I'm going to get called in, but I still need to be available for them," said Linthorne.

By our definitions, that's "on-call" or "standby" time and is payable at the hourly rate.  From our labor code:
On-call or standby time at the work site is considered hours worked for which the employee must be compensated even if the employee does nothing but wait for something to happen. "[A]n employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing or to do nothing but wait for something to happen. Refraining from other activities often is a factor of instant readiness to serve, and idleness plays a part in all employment in a stand-by capacity". (Armour & Co. v. Wantock (1944) 323 U.S. 126) Examples of compensable work time include, but are not limited to, meal periods and sleep periods during which times the
employees are subject to the employer's control. (See Bono Enterprises v. Labor Commissioner (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 968 and Aguilar v. Association For Retarded Citizens (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 21).


Pretty easy problem to fix, labor-standards wise.  Just enact a law similar to California's.
 
2013-12-05 01:43:33 PM
It's been ubiquitous for 15 years.  It makes the standard GOP answer ("just get a second/third job") pretty much impossible.  It also explains why someone with a kid might not work in today's most-common employers even when there are 'jobs around' (and for those employers, if crazy-flex-hours mean that parents can't work there, so much the better in their opinion).
 
2013-12-05 01:44:49 PM
And just before someone mentions it - the same standby time ruling can be applied to off-site standby depending on the restrictions the employer is placing on the employee.

"These factors, set out in a federal case, Berry v. County of Sonoma (1994) 30 F.3d 1174, include whether there are excessive geographic restrictions on the employee's movements; whether the frequency of calls is unduly restrictive; whether a fixed time limit for response is unduly restrictive; whether the on-call employee can easily trade his or her on-call responsibilities with another employee; and whether and to what extent the employee engages in personal activities during on-call periods."
 
2013-12-05 01:45:45 PM

Mikey1969: Being in retail, it would definitely suck. Happens pretty standard in the dining industry, but the major difference is that they schedule you, you show up, knowing when you were scheduled a week or two in advance, and then they might cut you early. The difference is that you know which days you definitely work and which days you don't. The only thing up in the air is your go home time. The only time I worked at restaurants and they tried on call shiat, I told them that $2.13/ hour wasn't worth playing their games.


TFA is describing a situation where the employee in fact DOESN'T know when they're actually going to work:

"So far they've put me on on-call shifts and told me that there is pretty much no way that I'm going to get called in, but I still need to be available for them," said Linthorne.
 
2013-12-05 01:52:24 PM
I am usually very much a "shut the fark up and do you job" type, but that is a bullshiat policy...I can almost, ALMOST understand the sending people home when it's slow bit (and if fact have had to put up with that in my former work life), but if you want me to hang around a phone waiting for you to call me in....fark you, pay me!
 
2013-12-05 01:53:14 PM

Arkanaut: Mikey1969: Being in retail, it would definitely suck. Happens pretty standard in the dining industry, but the major difference is that they schedule you, you show up, knowing when you were scheduled a week or two in advance, and then they might cut you early. The difference is that you know which days you definitely work and which days you don't. The only thing up in the air is your go home time. The only time I worked at restaurants and they tried on call shiat, I told them that $2.13/ hour wasn't worth playing their games.

TFA is describing a situation where the employee in fact DOESN'T know when they're actually going to work:

"So far they've put me on on-call shifts and told me that there is pretty much no way that I'm going to get called in, but I still need to be available for them," said Linthorne.


Maybe you missed the part where I said that that was "the major difference"? I have helpfully highlighted it above for you.
 
2013-12-05 01:56:11 PM
Minimum wage employers love to shake up the schedule.  It keeps the majority their employees from trying to better themselves by taking classes or taking other jobs.
 
2013-12-05 01:57:41 PM
My first job was IT at a small hospital that was measuring cash on hand in hours.  They called nurses in as people were admitted and sent them home as they were discharged.  Just couldn't afford to have them around.

The mood was TENSE to say the least.

Some major overhauls to the financials and the billing methods and systems turned it around but my first 6ish months were a real trial by fire in how to walk on eggshells around other departments having a shiatty day.
 
2013-12-05 02:00:17 PM
<insert prostitutes did it first joke>
 
2013-12-05 02:01:27 PM
my last few month working fast food they tried this shiat i told them to go to hell as it cost me more in gas than i'd make when i was called in.
 
2013-12-05 02:03:49 PM
Shrug, I'm effectively on call 24/7 at my job.  Big Customer blows up in the middle of the night and I'm still sober enough to answer the phone?  Time to work for a couple hours.  Of course they pay me pretty well though.

Michelle Linthorne, 19, says she was recently hired by H&M at the Bayshore Shopping Centre in Ottawa and considered it a dream job.

Did you not discuss hours during your interview?  How is it that you're biatching about your "dream job" this quickly after starting?  Maybe dream a little higher next time.
 
2013-12-05 02:04:43 PM

grimlock1972: my last few month working fast food they tried this shiat i told them to go to hell as it cost me more in gas than i'd make when i was called in.


back when I was working fast food Min Wage was 5.15 an hour. I stepped back and looked at the employee expense per hour.

4 employees not counting the manager and a line of customers out the door.. so... for 20$ an hour, they made thousands. ahhh slave labor
 
2013-12-05 02:10:37 PM

Mikey1969: On call is bullshiat. It's one thing to be in IT, and know that there is a chance that i will see that a server is down, or get a call, wrap up what I am doing and get to the office ASAP. It is quite another to have to sit at home by the phone and wait to see if I'll get the call, and not be able to make any plans until I know. If I were to get compensated, it would be different.

Being in retail, it would definitely suck. Happens pretty standard in the dining industry, but the major difference is that they schedule you, you show up, knowing when you were scheduled a week or two in advance, and then they might cut you early. The difference is that you know which days you definitely work and which days you don't. The only thing up in the air is your go home time. The only time I worked at restaurants and they tried on call shiat, I told them that $2.13/ hour wasn't worth playing their games.


There are very few times when oncall should be used in retail. Normally I would say during major weather issues which might cause a surge in business.   other than that is is abusing employees
 
2013-12-05 02:14:45 PM

ToastTheRabbit: grimlock1972: my last few month working fast food they tried this shiat i told them to go to hell as it cost me more in gas than i'd make when i was called in.

back when I was working fast food Min Wage was 5.15 an hour. I stepped back and looked at the employee expense per hour.

4 employees not counting the manager and a line of customers out the door.. so... for 20$ an hour, they made thousands. ahhh slave labor


Cool, so you used this information to start your own franchise?
 
2013-12-05 02:19:13 PM

serial_crusher: Shrug, I'm effectively on call 24/7 at my job.  Big Customer blows up in the middle of the night and I'm still sober enough to answer the phone?  Time to work for a couple hours.  Of course they pay me pretty well though.


That's different. You're already paid full time, and then they ask you to work extra here and there. You know how much money you're getting on your next pay day. The people in the article are part-timers who don't know whether they're going to work three or 20 hours that week. Makes it hard to pay your bills.
 
2013-12-05 02:23:38 PM
i.cbc.ca

Wait... is this policy for the employees or the mannequins?
 
2013-12-05 02:24:01 PM

You're the jerk... jerk: ToastTheRabbit: grimlock1972: my last few month working fast food they tried this shiat i told them to go to hell as it cost me more in gas than i'd make when i was called in.

back when I was working fast food Min Wage was 5.15 an hour. I stepped back and looked at the employee expense per hour.

4 employees not counting the manager and a line of customers out the door.. so... for 20$ an hour, they made thousands. ahhh slave labor

Cool, so you used this information to start your own franchise?


Nope... lucked into a job that pays about 4 times what i was making.
 
2013-12-05 02:27:55 PM
 The local fast food restaurants around here are abusing their teenage employees this way as well.

 "Say there, come in and work 11-1 for the lunch rush, then go home for 3 hours and we might call you back at 4 to come in and work the dinner rush - if you dont answer the phone you're fired."

How about "fark you?, does fark you work for you?"
 
2013-12-05 02:28:38 PM

Waldo Pepper: There are very few times when oncall should be used in retail. Normally I would say during major weather issues which might cause a surge in business.   other than that is is abusing employees


Yeah, you can pretty accurately determine trends within a week...besides, if it turns out to be really slow, that's when you cut the floor and people go home, with their minimum of "X" hours that most states require(Also Toronto, since it's part of the story). This "hang out by the phone" bullshiat definitely sucks.
 
2013-12-05 02:32:51 PM

ToastTheRabbit: grimlock1972: my last few month working fast food they tried this shiat i told them to go to hell as it cost me more in gas than i'd make when i was called in.

back when I was working fast food Min Wage was 5.15 an hour. I stepped back and looked at the employee expense per hour.

4 employees not counting the manager and a line of customers out the door.. so... for 20$ an hour, they made thousands. ahhh slave labor


Yeah, it's not quite THAT easy though... I was friends with a lot of people who worked back office over the years that I worked in the restaurant business, including working for a restaurant that had only 2 locations. A good liquor/food cost to make a business function is around 24% to 26%. Even with this "slave labor", it's hard to maintain that cost. There's a reason that the majority of new restaurants crash and burn. It's not an easy business to be profitable in, even WITH the low wage. And this is coming from someone who supports the increase in minimum wage, as well as moving servers to 'real' minimum wage.

/Still not sure why that Amy's Baking Company is still in business though.
 
2013-12-05 02:44:19 PM

serial_crusher: Shrug, I'm effectively on call 24/7 at my job.  Big Customer blows up in the middle of the night and I'm still sober enough to answer the phone?  Time to work for a couple hours.  Of course they pay me pretty well though.


If you're free to get drunk, you're not on call.

If you had to sit by the phone ready to work 24/7, I imagine you'd change your tune.
 
2013-12-05 02:48:34 PM
DNRTFA
DNRTFT

learn a trade

join the army

marry somebody with a job and earn your keep in the bedroom and the kitchen
 
2013-12-05 02:52:32 PM
Mesa airlines did that with their gate agents in the 90s. Showed at  0530 and left for  the day for good around 830 pm. Which was exactly what my pilot duty day was.

.
 
2013-12-05 03:01:44 PM

Getting called in on short notice isn't new for part-time or casual workers, but Canadian Labour Congress executive vice-president Barb Byers said keeping part-time employees in a sort of on-call limbo is a regular complaint right across Canada in the retail sector.
...
Ontario Labour Minister Yasir Naqvi said he would look into the practice.

"This is the first time I've heard about that kind of employment condition. I will seek advice to what kind of practice this is and what kind of impact it has on employees," said Naqvi.


O_o


"That's absolutely unfair," said Byers. "It's an unstable paycheque, it's an unstable life and furthermore a lot of those part-time workers are young and mostly women."


So does that make it more unfair or less unfair? How about just saying it's unfair and leaving it at that?
 
2013-12-05 04:03:57 PM

Fizpez: The local fast food restaurants around here are abusing their teenage employees this way as well.

 "Say there, come in and work 11-1 for the lunch rush, then go home for 3 hours and we might call you back at 4 to come in and work the dinner rush - if you dont answer the phone you're fired."

How about "fark you?, does fark you work for you?"


I'm not sure I have as much a problem when this is happening to kids in their first job, a little abuse about how the world works might be good for them.  now for the adults who might need to schedule their part job around their full time job this might make it difficult.
 
2013-12-05 04:07:18 PM
ToastTheRabbit:
back when I was working fast food Min Wage was 5.15 an hour. I stepped back and looked at the employee expense per hour.

No, you didn't. You just added up the obvious per hour wage and multiplied that by the number of workers. There's taxes, various insurance costs, and management overhead (the payroll department's costs have to come from somewhere).

As a rule of thumb, "employee cost per hour" is about twice the actual wage. So that $5.15/hour is closer to $10/hour.

4 employees not counting the manager and a line of customers out the door.. so... for 20$ an hour, they made thousands. ahhh slave labor

A line of customers out the door for about three hours a day. Meanwhile, those same four employees get paid even if the store is empty. You know, like the times between 2 PM and 5 PM, or the last hour or so of the day.

On the other hand, the profit margin on the food is a lot lower - a really busy fast food joint sells about $2000/hour during a lunch rush (and less than 1/10 of that for most of the rest of the day), but actual profit is closer to $500/hour, and closer to $50/hour when it's slow. And yes, the manager's pay comes out of that. - they aren't free. This is for a McDonald's-size store, though, so the costs are much higher (at least eight to ten workers, and some of those are making at least $10-$11/hour).

Yeah, a bunch of money - but then you start looking at how much the place costs, and you see not-too-great profit margins when compared to the millions it takes to set up a McDonald's or a Burger King.

That's why you see idiots like the stores in the article. They think that cutting wages like that is a good idea - but they get worse employee performance and a good chance at a big pile of negative publicity. They'd be better off with a larger pool of potential on-call people, with guarantees of full-day work when called in.
 
2013-12-05 04:40:53 PM
The worst part is her being forced to work there under those intolerable conditions. Just awful.
 
2013-12-05 04:46:43 PM

cirby: ToastTheRabbit:
back when I was working fast food Min Wage was 5.15 an hour. I stepped back and looked at the employee expense per hour.

No, you didn't. You just added up the obvious per hour wage and multiplied that by the number of workers. There's taxes, various insurance costs, and management overhead (the payroll department's costs have to come from somewhere).

As a rule of thumb, "employee cost per hour" is about twice the actual wage. So that $5.15/hour is closer to $10/hour.

4 employees not counting the manager and a line of customers out the door.. so... for 20$ an hour, they made thousands. ahhh slave labor

A line of customers out the door for about three hours a day. Meanwhile, those same four employees get paid even if the store is empty. You know, like the times between 2 PM and 5 PM, or the last hour or so of the day.

On the other hand, the profit margin on the food is a lot lower - a really busy fast food joint sells about $2000/hour during a lunch rush (and less than 1/10 of that for most of the rest of the day), but actual profit is closer to $500/hour, and closer to $50/hour when it's slow. And yes, the manager's pay comes out of that. - they aren't free. This is for a McDonald's-size store, though, so the costs are much higher (at least eight to ten workers, and some of those are making at least $10-$11/hour).

Yeah, a bunch of money - but then you start looking at how much the place costs, and you see not-too-great profit margins when compared to the millions it takes to set up a McDonald's or a Burger King.

That's why you see idiots like the stores in the article. They think that cutting wages like that is a good idea - but they get worse employee performance and a good chance at a big pile of negative publicity. They'd be better off with a larger pool of potential on-call people, with guarantees of full-day work when called in.



You explained exactly why fast food companies barely made a profit last year. Oh, wait....
 
2013-12-05 04:52:04 PM
Did no one ever work a split when they were tending bar or waiting tables? Work lunch, leave when it gets quiet, nap and work the first half of the dinner crowd to get them through the rush then leave before the late sitting / bar crowd. It was common as dirt when I worked restaurants in Ontario, but that was some years ago. I didn't mind it because I could nap, shop etc. during the afternoons and still stay up to a reasonable hour at night. Of course, I knew when the shifts would be scheduled...
 
2013-12-05 05:40:06 PM

Rev.K: Does Ontario not have minimum guaranteed hours?

I believe in Alberta, as a part-time hourly worker, you cannot be paid less than 3 hours if you work.

If your employer sends you home, you get 3 hours minimum.

You know, to avoid this exact kind of scenario.


From the Ontario Employment Act:


Employees Sent Home After Working Less Than Three Hours: The
Three-Hour Rule*
When an employee who regularly works more than three hours a day is required to report to
work but works less than three hours, he or she must be paid whichever of the following
amounts is the highest:

• three hours at the minimum wage,
or
• the employee's regular wage for the time worked.

For example, if an employee who is a liquor server is paid $10.00 an hour and works only two
hours, he or she is entitled to three hours at minimum wage (e.g., $8.90, the liquor servers
minimum wage as of March 31, 2010, x 3 = $26.70) instead of two hours at his or her regular
wage ($10.00 x 2 = $20.00).

*Note: The rule does not apply to:

• students (including students over 18 years of age);
• employees whose regular shift is three hours or less;
• where the cause of the employee not being able to work at least three hours was beyond
the employer's control.


Really, it should be four hours.
 
2013-12-05 06:19:03 PM

Mikey1969: /Still not sure why that Amy's Baking Company is still in business though.


I thought the Fark consensus on that was that her husband was probably using it to launder money.
 
2013-12-05 06:33:34 PM
And this, young, libertardian neckbeards, is why your great-grandparents bled to establish unions.
 
2013-12-05 07:09:41 PM
Hmm. Sounds like a totally shiatty job. Too bad you're forced to work there.
 
2013-12-05 07:26:57 PM
Huh. Is it because it's Canada that no one is in here going "Omg why doesn't she just get a better job?"

Because I seriously expected more snark than this. . .
 
2013-12-05 07:43:48 PM
It's just bad management. Period. No one seems to know how to manage a company, motivate employees, or make the customer happy. Tons of money gets spent on market research to understand shoppers' patterns of behavior. They should have a good idea of when the shoppers come and how much they need.
 
2013-12-05 07:56:10 PM
She so really wants to work at H&M but hates the on-call thing. Wah.

Maybe she could go apply for some other retail job. Y'know, shop around for an employer who doesn't suck.

Honestly, I can't understand why some people think that work has a right to make them miserable, or that their employer has no need to actually earn their respect. Why does anyone stay with a shiatty situation for even one whole day?
 
2013-12-05 08:03:13 PM

Contents Under Pressure: It's just bad management. Period. No one seems to know how to manage a company, motivate employees, or make the customer happy. Tons of money gets spent on market research to understand shoppers' patterns of behavior. They should have a good idea of when the shoppers come and how much they need.


Of course they know their basic staffing needs.  It's not even a restaurant that might not track every football game or nice weather day.

It's common enough to be pathological.  The companies want only the most desperate workers.  Are they motivated? By desperation and by trying to outmaneuver other workers for hours.  Does it make the customer happy?  Look... we're not talking Neiman Marcus upselling here.  The damn $30 sweaters are selling themselves or not, really pretty much regardless of the employee attitudes. Walmart has inurred the average consumer to not expect any kind of 'service' at all.  People are even distrustful of it any more.

In a tighter labor market, yes, these companies would be getting bottom-of-the-barrel workers.  In the 21st century, they will get 1500 applicants with bachelor's degrees for every positions.  So, making them jump through dumb hoops is a winnowing mechanism and apparently brings glee to someone.
 
2013-12-05 08:03:26 PM

skozlaw: Wait... is this policy for the employees or the mannequins?


Paging Kwami...
 
2013-12-05 08:06:32 PM

CokeBear: cirby: ToastTheRabbit:
back when I was working fast food Min Wage was 5.15 an hour. I stepped back and looked at the employee expense per hour.

No, you didn't. You just added up the obvious per hour wage and multiplied that by the number of workers. There's taxes, various insurance costs, and management overhead (the payroll department's costs have to come from somewhere).

As a rule of thumb, "employee cost per hour" is about twice the actual wage. So that $5.15/hour is closer to $10/hour.

4 employees not counting the manager and a line of customers out the door.. so... for 20$ an hour, they made thousands. ahhh slave labor

A line of customers out the door for about three hours a day. Meanwhile, those same four employees get paid even if the store is empty. You know, like the times between 2 PM and 5 PM, or the last hour or so of the day.

On the other hand, the profit margin on the food is a lot lower - a really busy fast food joint sells about $2000/hour during a lunch rush (and less than 1/10 of that for most of the rest of the day), but actual profit is closer to $500/hour, and closer to $50/hour when it's slow. And yes, the manager's pay comes out of that. - they aren't free. This is for a McDonald's-size store, though, so the costs are much higher (at least eight to ten workers, and some of those are making at least $10-$11/hour).

Yeah, a bunch of money - but then you start looking at how much the place costs, and you see not-too-great profit margins when compared to the millions it takes to set up a McDonald's or a Burger King.

That's why you see idiots like the stores in the article. They think that cutting wages like that is a good idea - but they get worse employee performance and a good chance at a big pile of negative publicity. They'd be better off with a larger pool of potential on-call people, with guarantees of full-day work when called in.


You explained exactly why fast food companies barely made a profit last year. Oh, wait....


McDonalds made $1.5 billion profit last quarter. Say $6 billion for the year. But they got that from 34,000 restaurants worldwide. That's $176k profit a year. Or less than $500 a day. $32 an hour profit (assuming say 15 hours trading) It's a decent profit, but it's not "thousands per hour"...
 
2013-12-05 08:11:01 PM

Contents Under Pressure: It's just bad management. Period. No one seems to know how to manage a company, motivate employees, or make the customer happy. Tons of money gets spent on market research to understand shoppers' patterns of behavior. They should have a good idea of when the shoppers come and how much they need.


Exactly. Good managers can predict how many staff they will need depending on time of year, day of week, weather forecast, holidays etc and plan schedules ahead with reasonable accuracy. If you are a bit quieter than predicted you ask anyone if they want to go home early or get them to restock/tidy up. If you are busier you just cope. Maybe customers have to wait a couple of minutes longer and restocking doesn't get done as quickly as it should. It's not the end of the world.
 
2013-12-05 08:36:56 PM
Just more bullshiat employers saying/thinking "We own 100% of your time"

The solution, which would never be passed by our congress, would be a law saying that being 'on-call' requires payment of a minimum of 50% of the employee's base wages.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report