Technology

59770 readers

3380 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

777

Nothing is requiring employees to be in the office five days a week (www.theverge.com)

submitted 3 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

213 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] esc27@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

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

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] kamen@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Wow. Now I don't want to go to the US even harder than before.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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]

[–] Teepo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

Scumbags all.