Posted on 01/15/2009 3:34:39 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
The news that the Gannett Company--the nation’s largest newspaper publisher, flagship USA Today--is forcing thousands of its employees to take unpaid leave is the latest, shocking, evidence of the ill health of the old media.
But for present purposes, let's focus on this odd nugget: Gannett has informed its employees that pursuant to federal and state law, they [emphasis added]:
must not work while on an unpaid leave. That includes reading or responding to e-mails, calling or responding to calls from colleagues and being on site at your location at any time during your furlough days.
Can't you just imagine the scenario? A conscientious furloughed Gannett employee is at home trying to stay current by reading some emails, when suddenly comes a battering at the door: "FBI! Put down the mouse and step slowly away from your computer!"
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Put down the mouse ping to Today show list.
This is proof that liberal, one sided journalism, doesn’t work!!
What I don’t understand is why they cannot see this.
in a way it’s a good think that Gannett has furloughed itself. no more junk to contribute to the MSM.
There is nothing at all odd about this "nugget." It is a long established policy of this country (Federal law) that you cannot do work 'off the clock.' Companies are sued for such behavior.
It might be long-established law, but the notion that people aren’t free to volunteer their services to help save their employer and their jobs strikes me as odd.
Are they unionized?
No, they are furloughed. That means their are still employed and they can’t work off the clock.
If you as the employee work off the clock “voluntarily,” your employer is still legally obligated to pay you. You get paid if your employer allows you to work. It doesn’t matter a hoot what sort of agreement there is between the employer and employee.
For instance, many of us have had a boss say “no overtime,” but also say, “you must get this done before tomorrow morning’s Executive meeting.” So what do you do? You work the time and get the job done. The boss is probably hoping that you just do the work for free. But even if you agreed to no overtime and then worked overtime anyway, the employer MUST pay for all time that was actually worked.
The only way an employer can really stop an employee from working is to send the employee home. I repeat, the only way an employer can really stop an employee from working is to send the employee home.
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/hoursworked/sufferpermit.asp
Know your labor laws. Let Gannet suffer this result, the libs basically wrote them.
Many thanks, EBH—you obviously have real expertise in the area. The rule does strike me as strange!
“What I don’t understand is why they cannot see this.”
They do. The editors are all former 60’s radicals, so it is agenda driven. The publisher is wealthy. He could care less. The printers are all union. If the paper closes they all get paid off. The only writers left are wealthy.
The only ones significantly afected by a closure are the sales people, support staff and any moron who still has investments in the company. And you think the publisher gives a crap about them?
A
I don't know about that one, but I'd sure be looking for a new job. They basically screwed their employees by making it a “furlough,” instead of a layoff. Layoff=compensation. Furlough=$0.00
Gannett just still might find themselves in court for this stunt.
I’ve updated at NewsBusters, crediting you. Thanks again.
Don’t (wink, wink) “officially” work off the clock (wink, wink)
I bet if anyone obeys this command, they will be looking for a job.
Yes, and the problem doesn't arise out of those who care enough about their jobs to be willing to conduct business even without pay. It arises from those that decide to throw a surprise at their employer by keeping a notebook on all the extra hours they worked and then wanting overtime/back pay for it. If the employer doesn't make it as clear as possible, and sometimes even force people to leave, it is considered to be a tacit approval for which the employee can expect to be paid.
Another case of the dirt bags hurting the folks who are willing to do what it takes to make them and their company successful, even in hard times.
I bet if they found some major dirt on Bush or another Republican they would call off the Furloughs, go into overtime and call in extra troops to get the dirt into print, and probably give away free papers so they can get more people to read about it.
Wow. Thanks, wasn’t looking for that. But if enough people don’t understand the labor laws they may just find their ‘good intentions’ get their beloved employer in more trouble.
It just seemed more odd to me that this was not understood by all. I mean we’ve all seen the Walmart trouble for ‘working off the clock.’ The law doesn’t only apply to Walmart folks.
Are you so sure about that?
I took a job for an agreed upon wage. That wage is the promise of the employer to pay me for my efforts.
If said employer fails to manage the business appropriately and fails to pay my wage, at what point should I be trying to save his business?
not really. Most of us can work from home quite effectively via the internet.
I took a job for an agreed upon wage. That wage is the promise of the employer to pay me for my efforts.
If said employer fails to manage the business appropriately and fails to pay my wage, at what point should I be trying to save his business?
Your wage depends upon you being there and doing what the employer wants WHEN the employer directs you to be there. If you decide to put in a lot of hours of overtime, without being asked/directed to do it, the employer doesn't owe you for it, unless they were aware of it and did nothing to stop it. If the employer says they have to furlough you or lay you off, and you decide to work anyway, the employer is not responsible to pay you for your efforts - in fact that would be counter to the intention of the furlough/layoff. Same for overtime - unless the employer directs you to put in overtime, you cannot expect pay for your decision to put in the extra.
As far as why you should do it, there can be a number of reasons. It may be a great company going through a hard spell and fighting for it's life. If there are real manpower cuts in the offing, it may help designate you as one who deserves to be part of the smaller team. Some time ago, Southwest folks took a pay cut to continue working - that's not much different than working more hours without the extra compensation, except legally.
Heck, I enlisted in the military for an agreed on wage, opportunity to be promoted, health benefits, retirement, etc. In the end, the government decided that my health care for life would no longer be "free", but I now have to pay for health care insurance and even co pays. If the government can't/won't keep it's promises, and it meddles in things that affect my company, why expect my company to do better? Sometimes discretion is a deciding factor - where are you as far as employment/retirement opportunities compared to what would happen if you bailed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.