Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:25 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

It's against the law for employers to only offer payroll cards. It doesn't matter whether the employer is happy to accept the payroll card or not, it is still against the law.

You've missed my point I think.
My question is ... if she had remained in her job, notwithstanding the separate legal position of the employer only offering one method, would the tacit agreement of accepting payment in that way have affected her attempts at redress?

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:46 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

You've missed my point I think.
My question is ... if she had remained in her job, notwithstanding the separate legal position of the employer only offering one method, would the tacit agreement of accepting payment in that way have affected her attempts at redress?

If she stayed in her job for a year and never took the complaint any further with her managers she'd have still been able to show the costs that she was forced to incur because of the companies payment method.

If she continued to work for the company but complained in writing to the company, and pointed out that they were legally obliged to comply with the law and offer other payment methods, then that clearly strengthens her case. If the company then insists that they will only pay with the payroll card it proves that the company were knowingly breaking the law.

How much compensation do you feel she's due because she quit her job after 3 weeks because of the payroll card costs?

[DaveO]

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:33 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I suspect that the lawyer got her to work at McD's for a couple of weeks then quit because he'd heard of the payment card.

Based on what evidence? Why would he need to do that given there must have been others being paid that way who he could contact and dangle the prospect of compensation in front of. As she is one party to a class action there clearly are others willing to take part.

I think she should have stayed in her job and complained in writing to the franchise management and McDonald's as well. The simple fact that it is a legal requirement in PA for employees to offer check payment should have meant it was quickly rectified.

She did complain and it wasn't rectified. On complaining she was told it was the only option.

Had she stayed employed there and the company continued to insist on paying with the exorbitant payroll cards then I would fully support the class action lawsuit and the company to fully re-reimburse every employee who has lost money because of it. I would fully agree with with a punitive punishment for the company for breaking the law.

Having been told it was the only option perhaps she simply could not afford to spend her working hours building up a case history of repeated abuse of the law that cost her money? Low wage earners can't afford $1.50 or a $1 here and $0.75 there on a regular basis.

"Gunshannon said she didn't sign the card and chose to not enroll in the payroll system offered because she felt the fees would be exorbitant and actually drop her earnings below minimum wage."

If she wasn't prepared to accept less than her wages as his her right (which is what the payroll system amounts to) what choice did she have?

It was either put up with it or leave. She chose to leave and then seek redress. This is not irrational behaviour.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:35 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If she continued to work for the company but complained in writing to the company, and pointed out that they were legally obliged to comply with the law and offer other payment methods, then that clearly strengthens her case. If the company then insists that they will only pay with the payroll card it proves that the company were knowingly breaking the law.

Are you seriously contending that a McDonalds franchisee was so ignorant of State employment law? Have you seen just what McDonalds require of their franchisees and not just in the $thousands franchise fee and working capital? They hardly encourage the 'mom & pop' type of entrepreneur

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:42 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Based on what evidence? Why would he need to do that given there must have been others being paid that way who he could contact and dangle the prospect of compensation in front of. As she is one party to a class action there clearly are others willing to take part.

Based on the the fact that she is a single mother who claims she cannot afford to cover the costs of the card, quitting the job straight away on finding her pay is through the payroll card and then going to a lawyer to see if she has a case. That doesn't seem likely to me.

If the lawyer contacts a McDonald's employee asking how they are paid then it's very likely that the employee will tell the company, alerting them to the fact he is a scam artist lawyer trying to make a fast buck off them.

She did complain and it wasn't rectified. On complaining she was told it was the only option.

She complained to a store manager and the "office" of the franchise.

So there's around $300 of her money on a payroll card. She has a job. Because of the fees she refuses to use the payroll card. She then quits her job and goes to see a lawyer to see if she has a case.

What would she have done if the lawyer had said that it was legal for her to be paid with the payroll card? Wouldn't quitting her job have been a reckless thing to do, considering she is a single mother?

Having been told it was the only option perhaps she simply could not afford to spend her working hours building up a case history of repeated abuse of the law that cost her money? Low wage earners can't afford $1.50 or a $1 here and $0.75 there on a regular basis.

"Gunshannon said she didn't sign the card and chose to not enroll in the payroll system offered because she felt the fees would be exorbitant and actually drop her earnings below minimum wage."

If she wasn't prepared to accept less than her wages as his her right (which is what the payroll system amounts to) what choice did she have?

It was either put up with it or leave. She chose to leave and then seek redress. This is not irrational behaviour.

It would be rational behaviour to go see a lawyer while you were still working, to see if it was legal. It is not rational to quit your job and then go and see if you have a case.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:50 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Based on the the fact that she is a single mother who claims she cannot afford to cover the costs of the card, quitting the job straight away on finding her pay is through the payroll card and then going to a lawyer to see if she has a case. That doesn't seem likely to me...

So, no evidence to support your speculation at all.

Mind, I am appreciating your, in effect, attempts to smear the victim.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:14 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Are you seriously contending that a McDonalds franchisee was so ignorant of State employment law? Have you seen just what McDonalds require of their franchisees and not just in the $thousands franchise fee and working capital? They hardly encourage the 'mom & pop' type of entrepreneur

I have seen figures about how much it costs to run major franchises like McDonald's. Of the top of my head a McDonald's restaurant will cost between $700k and $1.5m.

Obviously the people running numerous McDonald's restaurants will be people with access to serious cash. But that doesn't mean that they have up to date management skills or knowledge of the minute details of employment laws in the states they operate.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:30 pm  

Mintball wrote:

So, no evidence to support your speculation at all.

Mind, I am appreciating your, in effect, attempts to smear the victim.

I think the major victim here is McDonald's Corporation. They are victims of a rabid, biased press and the willing consumers of that press.

But that's the cost of franchising to people who might make stupid errors. I think they are more than adequately compensated.

I think that the woman was a minor victim of managerial incompetence. I think that she should have corrected that incompetence through clear correspondence, not running off to a lawyer to see if she was due a payout.

I think that the fees that accompany that card are excessive and should result on them not being used. I think that the franchise will compensate any employee who has suffered excess charges and offer payment through other means.

I hope your "victim" gets a cheque to cover the wages she has earned and a $5 gift voucher to cover the fees she found so offensive.

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:54 pm  

You think the multi-billion pound corporation paying its employees barely liveable wages and its business partners breaking the law to squeeze a few cents more out of their barely paid employees are the victims because the person whose legal rights were infringed exercised her right to legal recourse.

[DaveO]

Re: The "Free" Market and how you may be paid : Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:01 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Based on the the fact that she is a single mother who claims she cannot afford to cover the costs of the card, quitting the job straight away on finding her pay is through the payroll card and then going to a lawyer to see if she has a case. That doesn't seem likely to me.

That is not evidence it's opinion based on putting two and two together and coming up with five.

If the lawyer contacts a McDonald's employee asking how they are paid then it's very likely that the employee will tell the company, alerting them to the fact he is a scam artist lawyer trying to make a fast buck off them.

What? Your not serious. Very likely that the employee will tell the company? Do you ring your bank up every time you get a cold call asking you to claim for miss-sold PPI to let your bank know there is a scam artist lawyer trying to make a fast buck off them? Or do you just put the phone down?

In any case solicitation of class action clients is not as simple as that kind of ambulance chasing. Defence lawyers in the US will always try and get such cases thrown out on the merest hint of lawyers inventing class actions.

She complained to a store manager and the "office" of the franchise.

And?

"Gunshannon said she had taken her concerns to the main office of the franchise holder - Albert and Carol Mueller, trading as McDonald's, in Clarks Summit. "

As its the franchisee who is her employer imposing the card and its the franchisee being sued who should she have taken it to? Seems she went to the right place to me.

So she certainly followed one course of action you think right. She tried to get the company to obey the law before she quit when they would not.

So there's around $300 of her money on a payroll card. She has a job. Because of the fees she refuses to use the payroll card. She then quits her job and goes to see a lawyer to see if she has a case.

What would she have done if the lawyer had said that it was legal for her to be paid with the payroll card? Wouldn't quitting her job have been a reckless thing to do, considering she is a single mother?

It's not legal so why do you ask? I would imagine it's common knowledge in the US you can ask to be paid in cash or by cheque. If she feels having these amounts deducted from her wages meant she could not live off the wage how could she stay as an employee?

It would be rational behaviour to go see a lawyer while you were still working, to see if it was legal. It is not rational to quit your job and then go and see if you have a case.

As I said I'd expect it to be common knowledge of your rights on how you can get paid just as you know many of your employment rights here.

The lawyer may even have advised against perusing a case despite the card payment being illegal but that doesn't mean she should still have carried on working their does it?

I don't know what your issue is. If she had carried on working there she was going to try and seek redress and as others have said accepting the terms might have made that difficult. You seem offended she decided to quit.