Re: Time to Pay Again, Dinks!

[Jim Rojas <jrojas+tech-man.com>]

An attorney was sitting in his office late one night, when Satan
appeared before him. The Devil told the lawyer, "I have a proposition
for you. You can win every case you try, for the rest of your life. Your
clients will adore you, your colleagues will stand in awe of you, and
you will make embarrassing sums of money. All I want in exchange is your
soul, your wife's soul, your children's souls, the souls of your
parents, grandparents, and parents-in-law, and the souls of all your
friends and law partners."

The lawyer thought about this for a moment, then asked,
"So, what's the catch?"







Roland Moore wrote:
> What kind of Mickey Mouse stuff is this? If you're in a company vehicle,
> driving to a job site why wouldn't you be getting paid? I bet the customer
> is getting billed for travel time. And what's this crap about letting the
> employee drive a company vehicle just because Brink's is magnanimous about
> it and now it may have to stop? Please! If Brinks wasn't making or saving a
> buck for Brinks in some way by doing it, it wouldn't be done in the first
> place.
> And now Brinks is saying other security companies are going to get hurt?
> We'll see. Maybe ADT and a few other giants that push their own interests at
> employee's expense? Now what's really too bad for Brinks is that they are
> not entitled to a refund from their lawyers for receiving faulty legal
> advice. I wonder how much less than 1.4 million dollars this settlement
> would have been if they would have taken care of this case back in 2002 when
> they obviously should have. Since the Brinks attorney on this case is still
> whining and saying he is right and the State Supreme court is wrong, maybe
> ALL current attorneys working for Brinks should dig deep and pony up a
> refund for Brinks? Yes I am sure that is likely to happen.
>
> "secure15" <secure15@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:o30Ui.1277$yU7.396@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>   Lesson from Brink's case: Check your state's wage laws
>> By Martha Entwistle, managing editor - 10.25.2007
>>
>> OLYMPIA, Wash.-- Last Thursday's Washington State Supreme Court decision
>> that said Brink's Home Security technicians should be paid for driving
>> company trucks to and from their homes to job sites, will have
>> repercussions for other security companies in the state of Washington,
>> and companies in other states as well, according to an industry attorney.
>>
>> Mark Neuberger, an attorney concentrating on labor and employment law
>> with Buchanan, Ingersoll, PC, noted that a Federal Fair Labor Standards
>> Act regulates these issues on a federal level. He surmised that this
>> case would not have been decided in the employees' favor under the
>> federal law, but pointed out that many states, including Washington,
>> "have more protective wage-hour laws."
>>
>> "Any employer in the industry in the state of Washington will want to be
>> very familiar with this case...[and employers in other states] will want
>> to check with their state's wage-hour laws to see what it says about
>> this kind of activity," Neuberger said.
>>
>> The Oct. 25 decision on the Brink's workers, upheld a lower court
>> decision that awarded $1.4 million in back pay, attorneys' fees and
>> interest, to 70 Brink's Home Security technicians. The case was
>> originally filed November 2002.
>>
>> Justice Susan Owens wrote in the majority 7-2 decision that the
>> technicians were on duty and in a prescribed workplace while driving the
>> trucks, and therefore were protected under the state's wage-hour laws.
>>
>> Neuberger cautioned that cases dealing with wage-hour claims "are the
>> hottest area being litigated by employees." In states with protective
>> minimum wage-hour laws, such as California, "there are entire groups of
>> lawyers who are filing these cases," he said, because all they need to
>> do under the federal law is "prove that there was one hour of unpaid
>> wages and they're entitled to receive attorneys' fees."
>>
>> Brink's does not intend to pursue further legal challenge, said Rod
>> McDonald, vice president, secretary and general counsel of Brink's Home
>> Security. He said Brink's was "naturally disappointed in the Court's
>> decision, which we believe is not an accurate interpretation of the
>> statutory requirements or judicial precedent."
>>
>> McDonald said Brink's believes the ruling is "ultimately detrimental not
>> only to employers, but also to employees who may no longer receive the
>> benefit of using company-provided vehicles under certain circumstances."
>>
>> He surmised that other security companies may be affected by this case
>> as well as
>>
>> "any company that offers, or would like to offer, its employees the
>> voluntary use of company-owned vehicles for commuting and work purposes."
>>
>> The practical result is that "Brink's can no longer provide its
>> Washington employees the voluntary home dispatch option, and it is
>> likely that there are a great many other companies doing business in
>> Washington that are also re-evaluating similar programs," he said.
>>
>>
>> SDN Newswire 10.25.2007
>
>