Re: Time to Pay Again, Dinks!

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

I had no trucks whatsoever. Employees have always used their own tools &
pickups or vans. No cars were allowed unless they ran minor service
calls. However, they were properly compensated for it. I did not enforce
any quotas, and anyone can get time off with 1 days notice. The slowest
tech earned $600wk for a 5 day work week. Everyone was on rotation for
optional sat & sun jobs. At my peak, I had close to 10 1or2 man crews.

My policy was simple. The more you work, the more you make. The $600 wk
tech did great because he was under no pressure to lick it and stick it.
2 man crews generally made $1500wk for the lead tech, $500wk for his
helper/trainee. These guys really hustled and never took shortcuts. Some
even voluntarily worked until 9pm just to get the jobs done on time.

Side jobs were allowed as long as you let the schedule manager know
ahead of time, and done outside your normal work schedule. This was done
in case the employee was approached by an official lurking for
unlicensed activity. Let's face it. An employee is going to do side work
no matter what you say or do as an employer. He will use your wire and
equipment anyway. Why not just allow him to do it in hopes that the
customer will sign up for monitoring? My guys were allowed to take
whatever pulled equipment we had in stock for service calls.

I don't do mainstream installations any longer, but all those
technicians who now work for less pay and longer hours elsewhere still
continue to give me monitored accounts, drop off unwanted equipment, and
pick up equipment from me when the need arises.

If you treat them fairly, it never comes back to haunt you.

Jim Rojas




Roland Moore wrote:
> 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.
>> |
>>
>>
>
>