A new career as a pizza delivery driver!....

[system]

Yes, I am saying that. I had no information about the pay situation, so I asked pertinent questions. I consider them rhetorical, but also thought provoking. If someone chooses to answer them, then great, but at least my comments shine a light on the areas of my concern.

“seem”? “insinuate”? Your own words ‘seem’ to admit you are stretching for a favorable answer.

Accusatory? No, not in my mind. Probing and thought provoking? Definitely so.

Perhaps your scrutiny would be better focused at finding fault or loopholes in the laws I quoted, then with finding fault with the messenger.

Do you think the FLSA minimum wage laws do not require full reimbursement of mileage to minimum wage employees?

 

[Registered_Guest]

gregster:

Perhaps your scrutiny would be better focused at finding fault or loopholes in the laws I quoted, then with finding fault with the messenger.

Do you think the FLSA minimum wage laws do not require full reimbursement of mileage to minimum wage employees?

Gregster,

I think even you will admit that you are not quoting “laws”. Most of the quotes are show are coming from an extremely old manual used by the DOL employees while (I assume) performing investigations. That manual is (IMO) simply the DOL’s interpretation of laws (again, I assume).

And, here we go again with the same question - in the above quote, you ask if the FLSA min wage laws require the full reimbursement of mileage to min wage employees. Yet, you seem to agree it is okay if you choose .55 cents per mile instead. It really can’t be both. Either the law requires full reimbursement or it does not. Which one ia it?

 

[Charles]

So theoretically, you could pay your drivers 55 cents a mile and the tip minimum of $2.23 per hour (or whatever it is)?

 

[NicksPizza]

gregster:

In my opinion if you think that is an accusation, you are hypersensitive. When I say, “Should he…” I am asking a question, not making and accusation. In my saying “You Can…” I am simply offering a possible solution.

“Should” in the environment of this discussion and your useage is inflamatory and accusatory. You do not get to make that decision; the people on the other end reading the posts get to do that. If the question came out in a vaccuum, with no previous conversational history, it would be pretty neutral. To say there is not implication or accusatory history is simply revisionist. “Can” is a far less charged and seldom accusatory word.

Bottom line for me is that two people cannot carry on concurrent discussion in two forums (fora) and claim one isn’t occuring. Gregster and/or Dox47 claiming objectivity, neutrality or any lack of STRONG bias and discriminatory beliefs at this point would be, how shall I say . . . disingenuous. Given the direction and volume of accusations, aimed at particiants here and owners everywhere, those two members of this list need to understand that they have created a perception and a baseline personna that will be used to view/interpret your statements and assertions here.

 

[Dox47]

Registered Guest:

And, here we go again with the same question - in the above quote, you ask if the FLSA min wage laws require the full reimbursement of mileage to min wage employees. Yet, you seem to agree it is okay if you choose .55 cents per mile instead. It really can’t be both. Either the law requires full reimbursement or it does not. Which one ia it?

It’s not both, it’s either/or; either you pay actual cost, or if you don’t want to deal with the paperwork required for that, you pay $.55 a mile. The $.55/mile number is a courtesy from the IRS for businesses that don’t want the hassle of tracking all the paperwork necessary for determining cost, they’ve come up with a number that is good for most situations that can be used instead. Very few people would have their costs exceed $.55 a mile, so I can’t see many situations where an employee would protest that rate.

 

[Dox47]

Dewar's Pizza Bakery:

So theoretically, you could pay your drivers 55 cents a mile and the tip minimum of $2.23 per hour (or whatever it is)?

Depends upon the state, but in some you could pay as low as 2.13 an hour so long as the tips make up the difference to minimum wage and your reimbursement covers all the vehicle costs. From your previous posts however, I’d wager that you’re fully aware of the quality of drivers that you would attract with such a pay rate, and that you’d really be shooting yourself in the foot by paying that little. It would be a false savings with the high turnover rates and sub-par workers that would be willing to work for that little, since only the most desperate would agree to that.

 

[Dox47]

NicksPizza:

gregster:

In my opinion if you think that is an accusation, you are hypersensitive. When I say, “Should he…” I am asking a question, not making and accusation. In my saying “You Can…” I am simply offering a possible solution.

“Should” in the environment of this discussion and your useage is inflamatory and accusatory. You do not get to make that decision; the people on the other end reading the posts get to do that. If the question came out in a vaccuum, with no previous conversational history, it would be pretty neutral. To say there is not implication or accusatory history is simply revisionist. “Can” is a far less charged and seldom accusatory word.

Well, depending upon who’s right about the law, it might not be your decision at all. That seems to be the crux of the arguments here, who’s interpretation of the law is correct, and frankly that one’s in the hands of the government. We’re all arguing about what we think the law means, but since the DOL has so far not clarified itself no one can really prove their viewpoint one way or the other. And it does seem a little over sensitive to read so much meaning into a word like “should”, I think if Gregster had really wanted to be “inflammatory and accusatory” he could have easily accomplished that in a much more straightforward way.

NicksPizza:

Bottom line for me is that two people cannot carry on concurrent discussion in two forums (fora) and claim one isn’t occuring. Gregster and/or Dox47 claiming objectivity, neutrality or any lack of STRONG bias and discriminatory beliefs at this point would be, how shall I say . . . disingenuous. Given the direction and volume of accusations, aimed at particiants here and owners everywhere, those two members of this list need to understand that they have created a perception and a baseline personna that will be used to view/interpret your statements and assertions here.

Are you referring to Gregster’s and my participation in both this forum and TTPG? Because we’ve been pretty up front about what we’re here about and where our sympathies lie, it’s not like we’re claiming to have no agenda here. Our “strong bias and discriminatory beliefs” are simply not those shared by many on this board, but this board is far from neutral on the same issues either. We have a different viewpoint on things given our experience, that does not mean that we lack objectivity, certainly compared to many of the people disagreeing with us. We don’t have a problem with store owners, we have a problem with exploitation, something that I haven’t accused anyone on here of. If me simply talking about the ways that employees are often taken advantage of by the restaurant industry makes you uncomfortable, maybe you ought to explore why that is.

I for one am not content to be a one trick pony, which is why you see my imprint on various topics here, if I know something useful I want to contribute it. Where I stand on minimum wage is pretty obvious, but that is far from the only thing I have an opinion on where I can make a contribution to the site. It’s useful to get a variety of inputs on things, and long time drivers see a side of the business that’s often invisible to management. Too often we get brushed off as “just a driver” though, and our potentially valuable information is put to waste, a lost resource. Here, if I have a valuable suggestion someone might actually try it, no need to brush off a good idea because it came from an employee. Yes, if I think something isn’t fair or legal, I’m going to let you know about it, that’s just how I am, but I’m not some sort of mad dog looking for a fight either.

 

[NicksPizza]

Dox47:

Well, depending upon who’s right about the law, it might not be your decision at all. That seems to be the crux of the arguments here, who’s interpretation of the law is correct, and frankly that one’s in the hands of the government. We’re all arguing about what we think the law means, but since the DOL has so far not clarified itself no one can really prove their viewpoint one way or the other.

Revisionist. Arguments and copy/paste jobs from at least one party in the ad nuauseum FLSA and min wage arguments have been posited as definitive proof of what the law does or does not say. This was not a simple “I think”, nor was it a hypothetcal. There were posts made claiming expertise, and broad accusations. Let’s not lose track of what did and did not happen.

DOX47:

And it does seem a little over sensitive to read so much meaning into a word like “should”, I think if Gregster had really wanted to be “inflammatory and accusatory” he could have easily accomplished that in a much more straightforward way.

Could have . . . didn’t. Chose the sardonic road this time. I frequently know passive-agessive when I see it . . . we can smell our own.

Dox47:

Are you referring to Gregster’s and my participation in both this forum and TTPG? Because we’ve been pretty up front about what we’re here about and where our sympathies lie, it’s not like we’re claiming to have no agenda here. Our “strong bias and discriminatory beliefs” are simply not those shared by many on this board, but this board is far from neutral on the same issues either. We have a different viewpoint on things given our experience, that does not mean that we lack objectivity, certainly compared to many of the people disagreeing with us. We don’t have a problem with store owners, we have a problem with exploitation, something that I haven’t accused anyone on here of. If me simply talking about the ways that employees are often taken advantage of by the restaurant industry makes you uncomfortable, maybe you ought to explore why that is.

It is reference the disingenuos tone taken here when there is another forum receiving scathing reports and rather unflattering rants about the community here. To claim and receive credibility here will more than likely require integrity and transparency. To try to pose as rational and professional here and then post on another site the things that have been copied over . . . no so much the stand-up way to roll if you want to be taken seriously here.

 

[Registered_Guest]

Dox47:

Dewar's Pizza Bakery:

So theoretically, you could pay your drivers 55 cents a mile and the tip minimum of $2.23 per hour (or whatever it is)?

Depends upon the state, but in some you could pay as low as 2.13 an hour so long as the tips make up the difference to minimum wage and your reimbursement covers all the vehicle costs. .

See, even you are doing it. Is it “all the vehicle costs” or is it 55 cent per mile?

If it is all vehicle costs, can you tell me what is included in all vehilcle costs, how those costs are amortized over what period, etc., etc.? And I assume the driver is responsible for providing to me documentation of those costs so I can make sure I pay appropriately?

I mean, how do I know for sure if the IRS rate is actually enough?

 

[system]

Here is “the law”

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/ … 531.35.htm
[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 29, Volume 3]

[Revised as of July 1, 2006]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 29CFR531.35]

[Page 168]

                         TITLE 29--LABOR



     CHAPTER V--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

PART 531_WAGE PAYMENTS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938–Table

of Contents

                    Subpart C_Interpretations

Sec. 531.35 Free and clear'' payment; kickbacks.‘’

Whether in cash or in facilities, ``wages'' cannot be considered to

have been paid by the employer and received by the employee unless they

are paid finally and unconditionally or ``free and clear.‘’ The wage

requirements of the Act will not be met where the employee ``kicks-

back’’ directly or indirectly to the employer or to another person for

the employer’s benefit the whole or part of the wage delivered to the

employee. This is true whether the ``kick-back’’ is made in cash or in

other than cash. For example, if it is a requirement of the employer

that the employee must provide tools of the trade which will be used in

or are specifically required for the performance of the employer’s

particular work, there would be a violation of the Act in any workweek

when the cost of such tools purchased by the employee cuts into the

minimum or overtime wages required to be paid him under the Act. See

also in this connection, Sec. 531.32(c).

By letting an employer use a drivers vehicle for less than it costs, the employee is giving a ‘kick back’ to the employer. It doesn’t matter if the kick back is cash, unreimbursed uniforms or under reimbursed vehicle expenses. It is against the above “LAW” plain and simple.

The DOL field handbook explains two acceptable methods for someone who needs to calculate vehicle expenses to check for compliance with minimum wage laws… Actual expenses or the current IRS rate. It’s as simple as that.

Want to read more of the actual law?

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr- … html#page1

Title 29 is labor. Have at it.

If the FLSA minimum wage applies to a business, the business must fully reimburse the employee for ANY business expense that would reduce the employees’ net pay below minimum wage. Period.

 

[system]

Registered Guest:

See, even you are doing it. Is it “all the vehicle costs” or is it 55 cent per mile?

If you can verify actual costs you can use them, if not .55 will do. Of course if you pay your people well, rather than just the least possible, you don’t have to worry about that do you?

I wouldn’t mind going by actual costs. I’ll start looking for one of these to deliver in:

http://images.highperformancepontia...006_POCI_convention_ontario+1972_trans_am.jpg

:lol:

I’d really like it if I could leave the parking lot sideways. Habitual stiffer’s cheese could all flow like lava to one side of the box. Oops! :lol:

 

[NicksPizza]

gregster:

By letting an employer use a drivers vehicle for less than it costs, the employee is giving a ‘kick back’ to the employer. It doesn’t matter if the kick back is cash, unreimbursed uniforms or under reimbursed vehicle expenses. It is against the above “LAW” plain and simple.

But . . that’s not what is said in the text you quoted. you provided extra ‘interpretation’ of the 198 law. There my be more current language in the many updates to this act, but that is not what we were given. Delivery Vehicles aren’t actually menitoned in the “LAW”. It does not say that there is a provision for cutting into the minimum wages or overtime wages trequired under other articles of the law.

Language in laws are precise and clear. The words have meaning as they are written. Attorneys and judges will be needed to provide interpretation beyond waht is clearly written. Even if DOL has some handbook somewhere . . . the field handbook is NOT always law nor always legally binding unless passed by the legislature, or until upheld in a court of law. Executive branch is not empowered to legislate or interpret legislative intent.

 

[Dox47]

Registered Guest:

See, even you are doing it. Is it “all the vehicle costs” or is it 55 cent per mile?

The way I’m reading it, $.55/mile is considered by the IRS to be the average cost of operating a vehicle, actual cost might vary signifigantly from vehicle to vehicle, but they average out to around $.55, so that is the baseline they use to calculate owed reimbursement. If you wanted to pay an employee less, I’d imagine you could ask them to provide documentation and vice versa, but the onus is on you to make sure you are covering the cost.
Registered Guest:

If it is all vehicle costs, can you tell me what is included in all vehilcle costs, how those costs are amortized over what period, etc., etc.? And I assume the driver is responsible for providing to me documentation of those costs so I can make sure I pay appropriately?

I mean, how do I know for sure if the IRS rate is actually enough?

Guess again… Personally, I think you’d be all right if you stuck with the $.55 a mile and kept up with the IRS adjustments from year to year, though theoretically it is up to you to make sure you are meeting the minimum obligations for each employee. I just can’t see someone trying to keep the sort of meticulous records necessary to pay less than the average mileage figure, and the work required to do so would probably negate the savings anyway.

 

[system]

NicksPizza:

gregster:

By letting an employer use a drivers vehicle for less than it costs, the employee is giving a ‘kick back’ to the employer. It doesn’t matter if the kick back is cash, unreimbursed uniforms or under reimbursed vehicle expenses. It is against the above “LAW” plain and simple.

But . . that’s not what is said in the text you quoted. you provided extra ‘interpretation’ of the 198 law. There my be more current language in the many updates to this act, but that is not what we were given. Delivery Vehicles aren’t actually menitoned in the “LAW”. It does not say that there is a provision for cutting into the minimum wages or overtime wages trequired under other articles of the law.

Language in laws are precise and clear. The words have meaning as they are written. Attorneys and judges will be needed to provide interpretation beyond waht is clearly written. Even if DOL has some handbook somewhere . . . the field handbook is NOT always law nor always legally binding unless passed by the legislature, or until upheld in a court of law. Executive branch is not empowered to legislate or interpret legislative intent.

Nick, if you feel the quotes I gave are not accurate, please post evidence to the contrary. It seems to me you are trying to discredit me instead of the information I quoted.

Please quote where it is acceptable for an employer who is subject to the FLSA to not reimburse drivers for the full cost of vehicle expenses, or the IRS rate of minimum wage.

I am fully aware that there are loopholes that allow some small businesses an exception to the FLSA law. If you feel like the FLSA does not require full reimbursement of employees business expenses, I’d love to hear why.

 

[Dox47]

NicksPizza:

Revisionist. Arguments and copy/paste jobs from at least one party in the ad nuauseum FLSA and min wage arguments have been posited as definitive proof of what the law does or does not say. This was not a simple “I think”, nor was it a hypothetcal. There were posts made claiming expertise, and broad accusations. Let’s not lose track of what did and did not happen.

Unless someone has come up with something I missed, the cut and pastes and links do detail what the law in fact says, the argument seems to be about the interpretation. No one has been able to find any laws on the books that contradict Gregster’s posts, merely various court cases and opinions that muddy the waters about what they actually mean and when they apply. Regardless, I’ve been personally quite scrupulous about not accusing anyone specifically of anything, addressing my complaints to “the industry”, or sometimes the Big 3. If this is causing pangs of conscience in some people, perhaps they should examine their business practices.

NicksPizza:

Could have . . . didn’t. Chose the sardonic road this time. I frequently know passive-agessive when I see it . . . we can smell our own.

You’re still reading an awful lot of meaning into one fairly innocuous little word. Gregster himself claims that he didn’t mean anything accusatory by it, and he’d be in a better position to know what he meant by it.

NicksPizza:

It is reference the disingenuos tone taken here when there is another forum receiving scathing reports and rather unflattering rants about the community here. To claim and receive credibility here will more than likely require integrity and transparency. To try to pose as rational and professional here and then post on another site the things that have been copied over . . . no so much the stand-up way to roll if you want to be taken seriously here.

Are you referring to me personally, or to the general tone of things over at TTPG? Because if you’re implying that I’m talking a bunch of trash over there and then coming here and acting differently, I challenge you to come up with the posts of mine proving it. I’ve made no efforts to conceal who I am and what I represent here, if subterfuge had been my goal don’t you think I would have at least changed my user name? There are plenty of people on TTPG who go a bit overboard in heaping abuse on the industry in general, and yes sometimes pizza shop owners as a group. It’s also true that I’ve seen disparaging comments about pizza drivers as a group from members here, but I refrain from tarring a whole group with the same brush, because that would be counter-productive. TTPG is a site at least partially designed for drivers to blow off steam when they’re off shift, a necessary function considering the what some of us have to put up with. Just the same, things said there aren’t always meant seriously, and shouldn’t be taken as the gospel on how all drivers think.

If I “come off” as rational and professional, it’s because I am rational and professional, I just also happen to have a different set of priorities than many of the members here. I can’t help but feel that I’m being attacked because I’m saying things that people don’t want to hear, not because I’m actually doing anything wrong. If I lacked credibility I doubt I’d be seeing this level of vitriol in some of the replies to my posts, it would seem that some people are unhappy that I’m airing these things in public. Also, by attacking me personally rather than attacking my arguments, I think these people are only enhancing my credibility, since to the layman it appears that they have something to hide.

 

[Registered_Guest]

Dox47:

Personally, I think you’d be all right if you stuck with the $.55 a mile and kept up with the IRS adjustments from year to year, though theoretically it is up to you to make sure you are meeting the minimum obligations for each employee. I just can’t see someone trying to keep the sort of meticulous records necessary to pay less than the average mileage figure, and the work required to do so would probably negate the savings anyway.

Dox,

See, here is where we differ - you say “keep the sort of meticulous records mecessary to pay LESS than the average mileage figure…”.

No, you are misunderstanding my point. I don’t want to pay less than .55 cents per mile - I WANT TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT .55 CENTS PER MILE IS ACTUALLY ENOUGH.

I’ll spell it out very clearly in one last attempt to get a clear answer from either you or Gregster:

IF the driver is not keeping these meticulous records, AND IF no one is clear on what costs are included in “vehicle expenses” AND how those costs are amortized over WHAT time period - exactly how is the employer to know if they are paying the driver above minimum wage?

I am not asking about this in an attempt to pay less than .55 cent per mile. I am asking about this in an attempt to make certain that IF I AM PAYING 55 CENTS PER MILE that I CAN PROVE TO THE DOL WHEN THEY COME KNOCKING that .55 cents per mile is more than the actual costs.

 

[system]

Last I looked the law required the employer to keep those actual cost records, not the driver.

 

[NicksPizza]

You guys are really a hoot. A hoot.

 

[system]

NicksPizza:

You guys are really a hoot. A hoot.

Good. If the driver makes you smile because he was funny or amusing to you or your kids, you should tip more. :lol:

 

[Registered_Guest]

LoneStar:

Last I looked the law required the employer to keep those actual cost records, not the driver.

What law are you looking at that says that?

Let’s assume that there is such a law. How in the world could it be possible for the employer to keep those actual cost records? Is the employer supposed to be a mind reader and know that Lonestar spent $180 for new brakes? Or that Lonestar spent $32 for a fill up today?

Surely you can see that it would be impossible for the employer to keep those records UNLESS they were supplied by the employee who is actually incurring those costs.

Note I’m not talking about it being a pain in the butt - I’m saying it is not possible.