Re: Time to Pay Again, Dinks!

["Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I used to let employees drive company vehicles. I never had that many
vehicles (about 5 I guess) versus about 30 employees. I did it because the
employees usually parked them in a more secure spot than the office parking
lot. The purpose of any business is to turn a profit. I would think any
business decision would be based on that, including decisions about
employees use of company vehicles.

"Crash Gordon" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4721f952$0$3580$815e3792@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Went through the same thing with my employees a few years ago...so we took
> the trucks away from them...and then there were more tears. Oh,
well...guess
> you can't have it all your way.
>
>
>
> --
> Crash Gordon
> -------ouch------
>
> <I feel like I'm diagonally parked in a parallel universe>
> "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3294aa002b8040c57eb454132a5cd596@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> | >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.
> |
> | I looked up the court's opinion.  I think these Brink's employees
screwed
> | up a good thing for their co-workers.  This was a voluntary program.
> |
> | As Bob pointed out, there are definite advantages for employees who live
> | some distance from the shop.  By driving directly to the first job of
the
> | day, and driving straight home from the last job, their commuting time
is
> | reduced, and they don't have to spend money on personal vehicle
commuting
> | expenses.  In exchange, Brink's gets more work out of them.  For an
> | installer who lives two blocks from the shop, there's little benefit.
But
> | for an installer who lives 25 miles from the shop, it's a real benefit.
> |
> | Anyway, according to the Washington Supreme Court, here's the story.
> | Brink's gave their techs a choice.  Techs could drive their own cars to
> the
> | Brink's office on their own time, pick up a company truck, and get paid
> for
> | all the travel time in a Brink's truck.  Or, a tech could choose the
home
> | dispatch program:  take the company truck home at night, pick up their
> | calls by voice mail or computer, and travel to their first job (and home
> | from their last job) on their own time.  They got paid for all travel
time
> | between jobs during the day.  If the first or last job was over 45
minutes
> | from the tech's home or Brink's, the tech got paid for the excess time.
> |
> | A group of techs sued back in 2002, claiming Brink's should have paid
them
> | for the travel time under Washington law, which says that 'hours worked"
> | means all hours where the employee is required to be on duty at the
> | employer's premises or at a prescribed work place.
> |
> | The court said the employees were on duty during the drive time because
> | Brink's strictly controls their use of the company trucks.  Company
policy
> | says the trucks can only be used for company business, and may not be
used
> | to run personal errands.  Non-Brink's employees are not allowed in the
> | trucks.   Techs must remain available to handle other calls while
driving
> | to and from jobs, plus they must spend time writing down the day's calls
> | and planning their route.  Company policy also requires techs to do all
> | their paperwork either at a customer's home or in a company truck.
> |
> | Based on all that, the court ruled that the truck is their "prescribed
> work
> | place" and that they were on duty, and deserved to be paid.  The court
> also
> | awarded attorney's fees and costs.
> |
>
>