Re: Time to Pay Again, Dinks!

["Bob La Londe" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4720a042$0$20640$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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?

Because otherwise a technician would have to drive to the office first to
pick up their service vehicle.  We went around about this when I worked for
the phone company.  It is generally accepted that the time an employee
spends getting to work is the employee's time, not the employer's time.
(Its also federal regulation.)

The benefit of a company vehicle to the employee is reduced wear and tear on
their own vehicle and often zero fuel costs.  The benefit to the company is
quicker response (potentially) to customers.  The benefit to the customer is
more time available to perform service and therefor faster service in boh
the short term as well as in the big picture.

The IRS has tried to say that the use of a company vehicle for personal use
is a taxable benefit the last time I checked.  Driving to work from home is
personal use.  I'll leave it to the tax accounts to say how that works out
in the real world.

A big benefit is reduced fuel (ZERO) costs for the employee related to
getting to work.

The benefit to humanity is reduced greenhouse gas emmissions.  (Sorry had to
throw that one in there.  LOL) because less total fuel is burnt.

One thing to consider is that their is a finite amount of time available for
all things in life to be performed.  If an employee is allowed the
priveledge of taking a work vehicle home for personal use (even limited
personal use like driving to work) it increases the amount of time they have
available for themselves as well as the amount of the amount of the
employer's time spent actually working.

You could counter that if it might average out the same for the employer
cost wise if they came to work first and then picked up a company vehicle
and drove to their first job site of the day,  True, but the employee has
not spent more time for the same amount of pay.  It somehow seems counter
that they should be given a reduced living expense by use of a company
vehicle to go to work and get paid for traveling to work also.

The rule of thumb we had to live by when I worked for the phone company was
if we had a co vehicle at home we were on our own time until we reached our
first job site.  From that second on we were on company time until we left
the last job site of the day.  The exception was if our first or last
service call was outside of our home coverage area.  For us our coverage
area was 50 miles across approximately, and yes sometimes it was the case
that we had to drive a couple hundred miles to get to or from a trouble
spot.  We were paid for that time.  We were also paid for all travel time
throughout the day.

Most companies do not charge customers for travel time inside their coverage
area.  (I don't) but they charge a flat rate mileage fee outside their
coverage area (I do).  Realistically that means that travel outside the
coverage area is paid travel time regardless of time of day, and there is a
charge for mileage to the customer.  Travel inside the coverage area is paid
travel time during the work day but not to and from work and I eat the
mileage costs, but it offset slightly because the time spent between periods
of productive time is much less.

What about on-call or overtime?  Well that is covered by overtime pay, and
many companies pay a minimum to be on-call (I do) whether the empoyee
actually works or not.  Being on-call requires remaining available and it
requires limitations of some activities that could be freely indulged if the
time were truly their own.

If I did business in Washington I would refuse to allow techs to take
company vehicles home ever because of a ruling like this.  Any benefit to me
would be out weighed by the additional expense.  Already my insurance
company charges me more for this practice.

Still, as I have always said, each person tends to think in terms of what
benefits them the most, and only think about mutually enhanced benefit to
all concerned when they take a more enlightened approach.

I suspect that Brinks may have been trying to abuse the circumstances or
that one or two greedy employees tried to get a little more than they
deserved which resulted in a negative working situation and ultimately in
the legal battle.  As is often the case I am sure the summary posted did not
reveal all the details necessary to understand everything going on.

P.S.  I don't like Brinks.  If the statutues of the state of Wa says that
all time spent in a company vehicle regardless of purpose must be paid then
they must abide by it.  Then so must all other companies.  It is a then a
level playing field on that issue.

P.P.S.  I am not a sock puppet.


--
Bob La Londe
The guy who decides who we do business with.

The Security Consultant
PO Box 5720
Yuma, Az 85366

(928) 782-9765 ofc
(928) 782-7873 fax

Contractors License Numbers
ROC103040 & ROC103047



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com