I suggest you stop using the word hearsay, as I don’t think it means what you think it does. Gregster is not repeating second hand information, which would be hearsay, but is providing verifiable links to both the law and specific cases where it was applied.
As far as I can figure out, you’re upset here that Gregster and I insist on arguing our positions effectively, and you think that’s not fair or some kind of trick…
There’s that word again! Again though I’m having a hard time interpreting what you’re trying to say here, are you implying that the settlement article that Gregster linked to was somehow faked? All those links are dummies somehow created and backdated by Gregster, that wily Svengali of the internet? Well I’d be impressed if he could do that, but I think there are far more likely explanations, most having to do with someone failing to use Wikipedia before using a new word.
no he is not providing any links to the question I asked.
He claimed that ‘Third, of the very few that get past all of those hurdles and successfully file a complaint against the big3, the big3 realize the major implications of having such a damaging class action make the news and let the cat out of the bag, or even worse go to court and eventually have to pay (5 to 10 years later likely) that they wisely (and certainly much more cheaply) agree to ‘settlements’ and simply pay the back wages and legal costs, all for the low cost to the Plaintiff of a simple “non-disclosure clause”.’
I asked if he any proof of these other settlements and he quoted - ‘non-disclosure clauses’.
So as he has no proof or examples of these other settlements this it would be ‘hearsay’.
Two definitions of hearsay are as follows:
rumor: gossip (usually a mixture of truth and untruth) passed around by word of mouth
heard through another rather than directly; “hearsay information”
I think that is very clear. I have not challanged him on any of his quotes as I have no issue that he can produce documents to support what he is saying (although his interpretation on some of these I believe is still not clear). BUT I’m happy to question and challange some of the comments he’s thrown in to justify why people don’t bring these issues up with DOL. He didn’t substantiate them so its hearsay.
I’ve asked a simply question - if this is so clear an issue why then is there no action - as yet, and with respect, all I’ve heard is excuses. I’m 100% in agreement that if someone is paying less than minimum wage then they should be penalised.
That’s him speculating on why more lawsuits never see the light of day, and is clearly marked as such by the predicate “My belief is that…” . Unfortunately, the targets of such suits aren’t likely to publish documents or comment in public that they settle wage violation law suits in order to keep their accounting practices unscrutinized, but it would be a shrewd guess to suppose that’s the reason.
Now if someone else were to quote Gregster’s opinion as evidence of why labor suits in the pizza industry are less common, that would be hearsay.
NDAs are very common when a suit is settled, especially the kind that may bring damaging publicity. He’s not claiming personal knowledge of some vast number of labor suits that were deep sixed by the Big 3, but is offering his learned guess as to what may have been going on. Again, not hearsay.
Again, your cut and pasted definition is correct, but your application of the term is still wrong, and I still suggest that you discontinue it’s use until further study. When asked to supply corroborating information that isn’t publicly available, Gregster speculated, but he didn’t quote some third party as evidence. In fact, you cut out the most important part of his post when you quoted him “My belief is that…”, prefacing his entire supposition on why there are not more lawsuits, clearly marking it as his opinion, and thus not hearsay.
By excuses, you mean reasons, anyone can use a word like “excuses” to cast aspersion on another person’s difficulties. I don’t call all of this “boo hoo we can’t afford to pay minimum wage you’re going to destroy the industry” party line I’ve been getting “excuses”, that would be too easy and lazy. I’ll argue on the merits thank you very much, and if I use loaded language than think of it as a free lesson in PR and spin, and how it can hurt you.
Maybe a little thought exercise might help make this clearer. Imagine that you own a car, and someone asks you if you’d be willing to rent it to him several times a weeks to use for his business. He says that he’ll use your gasoline and have you pay for all repairs, and he’ll reimburse you the expense. Except that what he reimburses you doesn’t cover your operating expenses, and he won’t cover any damage to your car that occurs in the course of his business. See where I’m going with this?
Take the wage and tips completely off the table, why should an employee provide a benefit (the car) to an employer at below his own operating costs? Would you take this deal as the car provider? What the employer pays the employee should be at least minimum wage + the full cost of operating the vehicle for the employer’s benefit. Tips should never even enter the equation, they are between the driver and the customer, and have no bearing whatsoever on the employer. To make this fully equitable, any taxes on the tips should be paid by the person receiving them, though the rates should be different on tipped income because the source (the customer) can’t really be expected to pay payroll taxes on them. This would be the “fairest” method of compensation, though is obviously not often the reality.
As you all well know by now, the DOL authorizes two methods for determining vehicle costs: ‘Actual costs’ (when the employer takes on the paperwork burden), and the current IRS ‘standard’ mileage of 55 cents per mile.
I use the simplest method and just go by the ‘standard rate’ of 55 cents per mile.
I suspect the majority of everyone here does not know what their actual costs per mile is either, so when push comes to shove would just use the simplest method allowed by law.
Do you think it’s right to demand to be reimbursed more than what your actual costs are? I realize that I do not know what your costs are, but I do know my vehicle costs me less than 35 cents per mile. If you don’t know what your costs are, then you may well be fighting for more reimbursment than what you are owed.
I also remember you mentioning that it would be the employers burden to prove that they paid mileage reimbursement covering actual costs(I can find the exact quote if you like), but I believe it would first be the employees burden to show they were not paid enough to cover actual costs. If you can’t show this, I don’t believe you would have anything to get the attention of the DOL.
I think it is right to follow what the law says in minimum wage situations. Wanna pay me less that the standard rate, fine, then follow the law and do the paperwork. I drive a 2002 v-6 ford explorer that I bought about 2 years ago used. My costs may well be MORE then the 55 cents per mile, I don’t know. Normally I’m an easy going guy and wouldn’t sweat a dime in either direction of my costs. I’d probably tolerate a lot more loss if I believed my employer was making a good faith effort to comply.
But when faced with what I see as industry wide ignorance (or possibly willful noncompliance) of minimum wage laws, and personal losses of thousands of dollars a year due to underpayment of mileage, I tend to get a wee bit nitpicky about it.
The DOL puts the burden of proving actual costs on the employer. That’s what the law says. That’s what I go by. Until someone shows me otherwise, it’s 55 cents per mile.
Who needs the DOL? My negotiated rate of pay is well above minimum wage. The D/C is $1.50, and I get all of it. Since I’m BUSY, I make an average of 5-7 drops per hour. The delivery radius is 4 miles.
I do 2-3x IRS rate all the time.
I wouldn’t be a delivery driver if there wasn’t good money in it.