• @Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      828 days ago

      So glad I live in California. A faulty security gate once prevented me from leaving my job on time. Which pushed me past 12 hours on shift, which automatically meant I was earning twice my hourly wage while I waited. Plus it required a mandatory additional meal break, which I couldn’t take. Since I couldn’t take it, I was automatically given an additional full hour’s wage, as required by state law.

      • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        328 days ago

        I’m glad I don’t work for a company that forces me to go through a security gate, and I’m glad we don’t track hours. I get paid salary, and I rarely work more than 8 hours in a given day, and my average hours worked per week is usually under 40.

        It’s nice you had some protections, but those protections really shouldn’t be necessary.

        • @EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          428 days ago

          You’re lucky. Many people on salary end up working overtime with no pay increase.

          Once again, there are good managers & (far too frequently) bad (Elon loving cockwomble) managers

    • kamen
      link
      fedilink
      English
      628 days ago

      Wow. Now I don’t want to go to the US even harder than before.

    • @BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      If I’m reading that right, the decision was reversed by the 9th circuit.

      The District Court originally dismissed the case, ruling that the security checks were made after the regular work shift and therefore not “an integral and indispensable part” of the job. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, ruling that the checks were necessary to the principal work of the job.[2][3]

      • @Teepo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        227 days ago

        The US Supreme Court then reversed the Ninth Circuit ruling. You’re quoting the background that gives context to the case in the lixned article.