• Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      93
      ·
      6 months ago

      One would hope that a message THAT tone deaf wouldn’t have even made it to the keyboard before realizing what a catastrophically bad idea it was.

    • ares35@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      73
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      there’s a lot of stupid, ignorant assholes running small businesses all over the place that think they own their employees and can boss them 24/7. this could totally be a legit posting somewhere.

      if you want me answering my phone 24/7, you’re paying me 24/7–and providing the phone you want me to answer.

      • sibannac@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’ve seen shit like this working in an understaffed restaurant. It was understaffed because the management decided to drug test and most of the staff was let go. Then whined the entire time about people unable to cover shifts and pulled shit like this. I promptly left after coming back from being sick.

    • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yes, of course there are plenty of workplaces this bad, but they still wouldn’t write “voluntary mandatory”

    • You999@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is incorrect in most states.

      Employers can require an employee to be “on-call” and available to work on an emergency or as-needed basis. Employers are generally not required to pay employees who are “on-call,” unless the employee is actually called to duty. However, if an employer places significant restrictions on how an employee spends their time while on-call, this time may need to be compensated as hours worked.

      The tenth circuit of appeals came up with this test to determine if the employers restriction constitutes on call hours as hours worked.

      Where the employee is not required to remain on the employer’s premises, the critical inquiry is whether the employee is able to use the time effectively for his or her own purposes. Here, the report requirement necessarily entailed that the employee could not drink alcohol, must be able to dress in uniform, and must be able to travel to the airport, park, and pass through security within one hour of a call. She was not able to make or attend doctors’ appointments for herself or her children, do her weekly shopping, nor go on field trips with her children. The court compared these circumstances with many FLSA cases presenting similar, or even more restrictive, circumstances involving availability by pager, inability to drink alcohol, and ability to report within 30 minutes or one hour. In the FLSA cases, it was determined that the employees’ activities were not so curtailed as to require the on-call time to be considered compensable working time. The court followed this precedent.

  • SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    ·
    6 months ago

    Depending on the country/state that could obligate the company to pay for devices if they’re going to require they have them.

    Not to mention possible “on call” pay could apply as well.

    I wonder if people who make these things (if real) even think of throwing them by HR or some professional who could help them avoid the legal implications of these kinds of things.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is probably by some small time business owner who never heard of HR, since preventing this liable shit is exactly HR’s job.

    • MadBigote@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Some some people may not believe this shit is actually ilegal in mexico. There’s a limited list of cases where firing an employee is actually justified, without obligations for the employer. Otherwise you’re entitled to a 3month compensation.

      There are, of course, employers who decide to challenge this and drag payments, but still…

      • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        There’s a very large difference between something being illegal and the crime being enforced, but legally recognizing that it’s illegal goes a long way, even if only because people radicalize easily when they see the boss/company owner blatantly committing crimes.

  • an_onanist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    6 months ago

    ‘…voluntary mandatory shift coverage.’

    Someone should be gifted a dictionary for Supervisor Appreciation Day.

    • Farid@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      I totally understand the overall ridiculousness of this, but I suspect that “mandatory” and “voluntary” apply to 2 different people in this case. Person 1 has a “mandatory shift” and person 2 is supposed to voluntarily cover that person’s mandatory shift.