jailguard81 t1_iwsxhra wrote
Wow what a bunch of scumbags. That’s crazy how they will just take money from you. That’s pretty illegal actually. And yes you are entitled to a break so u should either talk to corporate or talk to depart of labor of their illegal practices
doctorkanefsky t1_iwtd1u9 wrote
Lawyer and/or department of labor BEFORE talking to corporate. A company willing lie on time cards to violate wage and hour and child labor laws is definitely not above firing you for bringing this up to HR.
AbazabaYouMyOnlyFren t1_iwtw88r wrote
No. That's bad advice.
Do NOT talk to corporate. Go to the labor authorities first.
The company will close ranks and fire him.
Zyply00 t1_iwz9b1b wrote
I've worked for big corp before and all I can say is this isn't always the best way to go. Let a company resolve the issue internally so it can get better. Report it to your GM first then if that doesn't help go to corp HR. Their job is to protect the company from you being able to sue them so they will WANT to fix it. If they don't fix it or fire you then go the legal route because now it will just be worse for them because we have anti-retaliation laws in place.
AbazabaYouMyOnlyFren t1_iwzah7j wrote
I would agree with you if it were another business and the employee wasn't a sandwich shop worker.
Nothing against doing that kind of work, my point is that they generally treat them as expendable anyway. Someone who has resources to hire a lawyer is harder to dismiss.
HRs job is to protect the company in the easiest most cost effective way possible.
Zyply00 t1_iwzcilf wrote
Yes and it's cheaper to follow the law with this subject. Child labor laws are very serious. Back when I did sales, I wasn't even a supervisor and the deep culture was make sure minors took their lunch on time. It was sadly because of enforcement and not ethics. Adults were still able to take their lunches most of the time but it was iffy sometimes and not always as scheduled. Adults are not guaranteed lunch breaks unfortunately. With Mike's they clearly don't care so they will be punished until they get their act together and get fined over and over until they can't afford it. Fines add up quickly for that crap. You can get fined per incident in some cases.
AbazabaYouMyOnlyFren t1_iwzkhpi wrote
Let's just say that for a company like Jersey Mike's, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would turn a blind eye to this and try to sweep it under the rug. Which is exactly why you don't go to HR for something like this, you report it first to the Labor Department, and when, not if you get fired, it's clearly retaliation and that's illegal too.
Zyply00 t1_iwzmdul wrote
That's literally why you DO report it to HR. If HR sweeps it under the rug then it's built-in proof. Not sure why this is confusing. HR is extremely operational and solely based on fact. It's their job to have polices that clearly state what is expected. When the DOL comes in and talks to HR and they present their facts, that is their chance to show they followed the laws or not. If the DOL comes in and HR says they didn't know, then nothing can begin because you need to provide an opportunity to fix a problem. Companies get in trouble when there's clear neglect or no prevention measures. If DOL comes in and HR says look we resolved the situation according to law then the DOL won't fine them.
AbazabaYouMyOnlyFren t1_iwzsei4 wrote
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
I'm not confused, I don't agree with your opinion.
It's not complicated, these labor laws are as clear as obeying a traffic light. Not knowing doesn't matter, it happened and someone wasn't doing their job to ensure that the company is compliant.
The idea that you get off by saying "We didn't know"... I'm not even sure how to respond, it's a ridiculous thing to say.
Zyply00 t1_iwzsxav wrote
I think there's a misunderstanding here. It's not really my opinion since I'm just explaining the existing process as it's currently used. My opinion is pretty different from what I just explained. A company is required to prevent laws from being broken but you can't expect a company to be 100% on it because humans are humans. It's the same with calling the DOL directly. They won't know either unless it's reported that the company (HR) was knowingly breaking the law. The DOL doesn't automatically just know unless it's reported but the first thing, they do is talk to HR so why bother skipping HR in the first place? If you called DOL and they called HR then you now created a situation where they feel you'll report things that aren't even illegal, so you'll eventually be let go for something unrelated.
AbazabaYouMyOnlyFren t1_iwzygu1 wrote
This is the process currently used, according to whom?
Zyply00 t1_ix010b6 wrote
Is this a serious question? The federal DOL, state's DOL and any corporation... their website explains everything HR needs to know when it comes to employee labor laws and what they're bound to.
The DOL only gets involved when a company knowingly broke the law and didn't fix the problem or allowed obvious neglect. HR doesn't always follow through which is why the DOL is there. HR's job might be to protect the company but that does include making sure people aren't being fired for unlawful purposes and not being given their basic rights. The first thing HR does is get the facts and will terminate someone if they violated a really big policy or correct a behavior that could lead to a problem. Then they document the situation and move on.
I was personally in this situation and got HR involved when the GM was clearly mad at me for something that seemed like a clear violation, but I was never fired after the HR review because they had all the facts and knew I never did anything wrong.
AbazabaYouMyOnlyFren t1_ix01pug wrote
Yes it's a serious question.
"Knowingly"
If it's a chronic problem and not a one-off, someone in a managerial position is "knowingly" doing it.
Seriously, do you even stop to read the words you're posting?
Zyply00 t1_ix05ube wrote
Yes but management isn't HR. Mangers get fired ALL THE TIME so HR should be told asap when this stuff is happening so they know there's managers treating employees illegally. In Mike's situation it would appear HR was aware of multiple reports and didn't act in accordance with the law. By "knowingly" I'm only talking about a department that is directly responsible for dealing with this type of thing. So now question is are YOU even reading what I'm typing or just replying with a defensive emotion and not thinking about the legal process that needs to happen? Companies don't just get in trouble automatically and I think people think they do. When someone just reports things to the government and not actually work through the existing channels you waste needed resources and causes taxes to go up when it could've been resolved much quicker. That's all I'm trying to say.
AbazabaYouMyOnlyFren t1_ix06coy wrote
You don't understand my point and your assumptions here are ridiculous.
Zyply00 t1_ix06n60 wrote
What assumptions? What's your point?
AbazabaYouMyOnlyFren t1_ix07bpq wrote
Exactly.
Zyply00 t1_ix07nhn wrote
Exactly what? I heard you but your opinion wasn't aligned with the existing process in place. So I'm giving you the opportunity to explain your point again then you say nothing. You are literally making no point and not contributing to the conversation constructively.
Zyply00 t1_ix3t9id wrote
> you don't go to HR for something like this, you report it first to the Labor Department
Your original point was, " you don't go to HR for something like this, you report it first to the Labor Department, and when, not if you get fired, it's clearly retaliation" so honestly what part am I missing? It's very simple to understand your original point. But that isn't how it works, and it will just waste time and money because it creates unnecessary confusion. As for my assumptions, where am I off of thinking this is misguided? You're clearly mad at the company, which you should be, which I am as well, so you take the path of least resistance, which I just explained above because this is what everyone is told to do from companies and the DOL.
It seems you think I'm not on the victims' side or something. I'm a professional and heavily advocate for human rights but aim to provide factual information to empower people to be effective and not react in anger but with information to get results. I do think from here we've had enough back and forth where any further communication wouldn't be useful so I'll jump ship.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments