Paid for drive time?

[480sparky]

Think of what would happen if an employee keeps a log of hours worked to include drive time and he hasn't been paid for the time and then he goes to the labor board after a couple of years. ..........

I'm sure that's happened in the past. And I'm sure that not only that one employee would receive back pay, all employees that were treated the same would also receive back wages.

 

[tryinghard]

...You may be able to offer him a supervisors job at a salary and escape the overtime if this would work out better for you and him. Or have him take a longer lunch if he is agreeable. Now it's whatever can be worked out to stay legal.

Actually salary does not exempt OT, really salary is defined by the state labor commissioner and an employee that works more than 40 hours that is salary is entitled OT - check how it can be used for your state. Sales positions are different though. I believe you can legally negotiate comensation time off as well.

 

[iwire]

Actually salary does not exempt OT, really salary is defined by the state labor commissioner and an employee that works more than 40 hours that is salary is entitled OT - check how it can be used for your state

Not here, typically salary people work 50 to 60 hours without any 'OT'

 

[tryinghard]

Not here, typically salary people work 50 to 60 hours without any 'OT'

Check out there few snapshots (I say snapshots becuase there's more [UGH])
Exemptions from the overtime laws & CA Dept of Indust Relations Overtime
I believe compensation time off can be legally negotiated but I'm not sure - I would investigate this before tying it.

 

[dpeter]

I work for a retailer and am employed by same. The official policy is four pages long about travel alone. Seems every detail and scenario is covered and favors the comany. They require the first fifty miles be on my time and they do not care if weather or traffic or road conditions make it 45 minutes or two hours. There are no provisions for being late based on things beyond my control and if I leave early enough to cover it and if I arrive early, I just sit idle for quite awhile. Odly enough they pay mileage for the fifty miles but not the time. Go figure. No real suggestions here but just to inform about some of the different ways companies can treat travel.

 

[tkb]

I was just working for a MA contractor that paid for travel time at straight rate and not OT.
They require the guys to be on the job from 7 to 3:30 w/ 1/2hr lunch.

I am not sure, but they said they checked with the state and they said they could pay straight time for travel and 8 hrs for the work.
That would mean more than 40hrs per week at straight time.

They even said they could pay the stats minimum wage for travel if they wanted.

I don't know if any of this is legal though.

 

[tryinghard]

I no longer run my business but when I did my wife was our office manager we typically employed 15 to 24 with construction and service. I always desired to NOT pay trip back to shop or employee?s home but my wife reminded me we paid all those required to meet at the shop till end of day at the shop (portal to portal) and tech?s to home in some cases, we were located rurally and not in a city this matters. At face value this topic of where to start and stop seems cut-&-dry simple but it?s not.

In our case those required to meet at the shop were primarily service tech?s with occasional helpers. Our foremen were salary non-exempt meaning their time was still tracked they were primarily required to meet on their jobsite, and sometimes there were more than one site, but they weren?t required to meet at the shop per say although if needed they did - they determined this that?s why they?re foremen. For a time we had a purchaser that worked from the shop, he was in charge of material and tools as well and would deliver, time started and ended at shop because this was his place of work. With our type business the foremen didn?t delegate other workers to drive to get something often but they could and the times they did and the workers? pay didn?t and shouldn?t change for this.

Employees are complicated and labor laws even more complicated, sometimes you feel like your breaking two law?s to keep one, don?t make the mistake over minimizing you?ll for sure find some stuff out the hard way. Also don?t lose sight of the fact you have to remain profitable this fact adds yet more complications to labor. Bottom line is business must be profitable it will not last any other way and you?re greatest expense and time will be with employees, if you have them ? go there very carefully!

 

[hillbilly1]

You have to look at an employers perspective also, all of our work is logged by computer and GPS, we have had employees log into a call 30-45 minutes before they even left the house, and yes, the customer gets billed for this time, which makes it where our employee is stealing from the customer. We also have had employees stop by the shoe show between calls and not log out. They get PO'd about being tracked by GPS, but when they do stuff like that, is the employer just to lay down and take it? If your a small company it's easier to know which guys you can trust and treat them right, but if your a large company it's a lot harder to find bad apples!

 

[dbuckley]

As noted by 480sparky above, it is really quite important to be cognizant of and in compliance with the law. To not do so can be very expensive later.

Example: Carers who stay overnight in rest homes and care for the elderly facilities, so they are there if they are needed, otherwise they just get a decent night's sleep, so-called sleepover shifts. Here in New Zealand they are paid a flat rate for that activity.

Or they were.

The Court of Appeal has just ruled that whilst sleeping they are "on the job," and thus should get paid the minimum hourly rate.

I gather the going rate for a carer for a sleepover shift (9 hours) is $35, which is something under 4 bucks an hour. They should be paid at least minimum wage, which is $12.50 an hour.

Because of this ruling, a lot of people are due for a lot of back-pay, and someone is going to get a very big bill indeed.

So the question to everyone running a business that has employees is: could your business survive an employee knowing the law better than you do, taking you to court, and being award what is rightfully his?

 

[fisherelectric]

Couldn't find the exact section at the US Dept of Labor but here's a pretty good synopsis of the laws re: travel time for those who are interested: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/h_travel_time.html The links to the US DOL are outdated.

 

[stevebea]

if you report to a shop and leave in a company truck for a jobsite you are one the clock the whole time (less breaks and lunch
) until you return...if you get stuck in a two hour traffic jam on the way HOME you get paid for this time also...if you report to a shop and leave for a jobsite in a personal vehicle you are on the clock the whole time provided you return to the shop at the end of the day...if you leave the jobsite and go directly home you do not get paid for the ride home as this is considered your
"commute" which is unpaid...if you take a truck home at night you are only paid from the time you arrive at the jobsite until you leave...if a company employee picks you up in a company truck at your house and takes you to the jobsite and home at days end you are only paid for your time at the jobsite;while the driver would be on the clock from the time he reports to the shop to pick up the truck until he drops the truck off back at the shop...

We have 250 trucks on the road and it sounds like you could have written this post from our employee handbook. This is how it works at our shop.

 

[readydave8]

The problems I've had paying drive time were that it'd take too long to get to and from the job, somehow I wound up paying drive-thru and c-store time.

One particular job that took me 1 3/4 hour to drive to took the crew 2 1/4 hour. After seeing this for a few days I switched to renting nearby motel room.

If I had it to do over again I'd tackle it from a different angle, pay a lower hourly rate for drive and working time and make up the difference with incentives.

As an employee I definitely wanted to be paid for all of my time that was used by employer. But I always wanted my employer to prosper and tried to be as productive as possible.

 

[480sparky]

The problems I've had paying drive time were that it'd take too long to get to and from the job, somehow I wound up paying drive-thru and c-store time...........

Time to get GPS vehicle tracking.

 

[petersonra]

I'm not so sure he is right according to Department of Labor. I believe travel to your first stop of the day and travel from your last stop of the day to home is considered a normal incident of employment and not considered work time, whereas travel time between jobs during the day would be considered work time.

I am pretty sure this is how it is most everywhere.

It is the employee's problem to get to work.

If the employer chooses to pay for the time or expense or both involved in the employee getting back and forth to work, it is generally taxable for income tax purposes. There are some exceptions to the tax issue such as people who are on call solely for the convenience of the employer.

 

[petersonra]

The problems I've had paying drive time were that it'd take too long to get to and from the job, somehow I wound up paying drive-thru and c-store time.

One particular job that took me 1 3/4 hour to drive to took the crew 2 1/4 hour. After seeing this for a few days I switched to renting nearby motel room.

If I had it to do over again I'd tackle it from a different angle, pay a lower hourly rate for drive and working time and make up the difference with incentives.

As an employee I definitely wanted to be paid for all of my time that was used by employer. But I always wanted my employer to prosper and tried to be as productive as possible.

Maybe they just drive slower than you do or they need a potty break along the way. IMO, worrying about the difference between how long it takes you to drive somewhere and how long it takes someone else to get there when the difference is so minor is pretty petty.

Expecting them not to stop for coffee on the way also seems pretty petty to me.

 

[tryinghard]

Maybe they just drive slower than you do or they need a potty break along the way. IMO, worrying about the difference between how long it takes you to drive somewhere and how long it takes someone else to get there when the difference is so minor is pretty petty.

Expecting them not to stop for coffee on the way also seems pretty petty to me.

petersonra, there is a respectable time allocated for travel especially if wages remain, this travel issue is the main reason for staying out of town compared to travel and hiring local for out of town work - the foreman or owner has the right to be the pacesetter for travel time.

If a crew lags even a half hour past what’s normal and acceptable take time to add this crew's total wages, don't forget the burdens, multiply this result times quantity of trips the result is not petty it's profit loss. A crew that functions like this needs to be let go! Others with good work ethic are trying hard to produce effectively, they feel good about positive job recaps, they won’t appreciate the selfish gut shooting the project labor either.

Travel should be scrutinized - just like installing an item - workers should know this and be prepared to explain if it takes longer than normal or expected.

 

[petersonra]

petersonra, there is a respectable time allocated for travel especially if wages remain, this travel issue is the main reason for staying out of town compared to travel and hiring local for out of town work - the foreman or owner has the right to be the pacesetter for travel time.

If a crew lags almost a full hour past what’s normal and acceptable take time to add this crew's total wages, don't forget the burdens, multiply this result times quantity of trips the result is not petty it's profit loss. A crew that functions like this needs to be let go! Others with good work ethic are trying hard to produce effectively, they feel good about positive job recaps, they won’t appreciate the selfish gut shooting the project labor either.

Travel should be scrutinized - just like installing an item - workers should know this and be prepared to explain if it takes longer than normal or expected.

We do not know the actual circumstances of the travel taking longer. If the owner is only willing to pay for 1.75 hours of travel versus the 2.25 hours the employees are actually taking, he should just say so to his employees, rather than whining about it on a forum.

To me, it is a no brainer to pay for a motel when the one way travel time is this long. I bet the guy doing the complaining would expect his employees to share a room too.

I bet he will complain about how much they spend on food on his nickle too.

The thing is that IMO it is the job of the employer to determine the work standards that employees are to follow and clearly communicate them to the employees. It is unfair to not set such standards and then whine about it after the fact.

if the employer is too cheap to pay for the time the employees might spend stopping along the way for coffee or potty breaks, he should say so up front.

To me it would be more than fair for the employer to agree he will pay 1.5 hours each way of travel time, since it does not appear like there is any requirement he actually pay anything at all. OTOH, there has to be some kind of inducement that will encourage his employees to actually do this. 90 minutes each way seems fair to me.

I would point out that with paying 3 hours a day of extra pay, the employer is getting into an issue with OT being an issue. Instead of paying it out as X number of hours, he might want to just declare it as a fixed bonus amount per day, so that he does not have to pay OT on those hours.

 

[tryinghard]

?if the employer is too cheap to pay for the time the employees might spend stopping along the way for coffee or potty breaks, he should say so up front?

If you?ve ever done contract work as the owner with staff you?d know what I?m talking about if you haven?t you cannot understand. It has virtually nothing whatsoever to do with cheap and everything to do with what the market will bare. This topic is entirely different in service ?billable hours? type contracts. But either case requires good work ethics.

In our trade we understand how long a particular item like a fixture or circuit should take to install, installers should expect to be questioned when longer and in construction it?s usually the foreman questioning! Travel should not be exempt of this questioning, it's a cost like an item installed! In construction contract there may be 2000 to 25000 man hours to use this scrutiny seems more important with the 25000 MH?s but in truth the 2000 won?t reveal the misuse quick enough but again in either case ethical staff under the scrutiny of a good leader (foreman or owner) is a good mix.

 

[petersonra]

This is not about ethics. It is about making it clear to employees exactly what is expected of them.

I doubt there are many owners who will prohibit employees who are driving to a job site on company time from stopping along the way to take a leak or get some coffee.

I don't see anything really wrong with the owner saying he is not going to pay for those kind of breaks, but IMO, he should make that clear upfront. It seems petty to me, and probably will seem petty to the employees, but petty is not the same thing as wrong.

Just who is at fault for the employees not knowing what their employer expects of them? Are breaks on the job site paid? if so, why would breaks getting to the job site not also be paid?

What happens on the days when it snows? Or there is unusual traffic? Or a guy just gets lost? Are those the employee's fault too? Or is that a part of doing business?

I once worked with a crew where the nearest rest room facilities were a good 15 minutes away up on top of a roof. The crew only got a 15 minute break in the mronign and it would not have been possible to make it to the men's room and get back during their alloted 15 minutes. Guess what they used the roof for?

 

[480sparky]

..........Just who is at fault for the employees not knowing what their employer expects of them? Are breaks on the job site paid? if so, why would breaks getting to the job site not also be paid?.........

Because they're taking TWO breaks, not the one they are allowed.