Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:
You had previously said: "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."
So exactly how is he supposed to contact these injured parties to get them their rightful justice?
You really have lost the plot now. You said:
"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."
I responded to that suggesting this was highly unlikely an
employee would do any such thing. Now you are talking about the lawyer contacting potential clients!!!
Which could happen in this case.
It could be thrown out but if it progresses then all your protestations about it being a deliberate scam will have been unfounded.
If I wanted to be fobbed off after working for a company for a couple of weeks, I'd call on the phone whining that I wanted to be paid with a cheque and not the payroll card they'd given me. If I wanted the issue sorted I'd be writing a registered letter outlining my issues and pointing out the fact it was against the law to not offer cheque or direct debit.
What don't you understand about the fact she complained and was fobbed off having complained?
It's not an issue most people will have ever thought about. Most places will have simply paid their employees by cash, cheque or direct deposit and it is only recently that the payroll card has been introduced.
The point is US employees will be very familiar with their rights to be paid by cheque or cash in the same way you are familiar with many of your employment rights in the UK (although I see below you are claiming ignorance as a defense of your position - good one.)
In the US cheques are still prevalent and it's also cash based society far more than here. It's a cultural thing. I actually worked for the worlds largest cheque printing company, Delux, until they sold off their IT arm when they decided to go back to their core business off printing cheques! They expected a decline in cheque usage so got into IT but the decline didn't happen so they got out again. I mention this to try and illustrate to you an important cultural difference between the US and here. I will pay electronically whenever I can. I like to be paid that way to. If I were a US citizen particularly one living outside the big cities I probably would not. Having a card based wage payment like this imposed even if it were legal would go down like a lead balloon over there.
She cannot afford to live on around $200 - a $5 fee, but she can afford to live on $0?
That is not what I said. And where is she living off $0? The article makes no mention of her income since leaving and given she isn't going to be able to live off $0 I suggest she is now receiving an income without the transaction charges deducted.
I lived and worked in the USA for 6 years.
Well you could have fooled me because you don't seem to have much understanding of the culture.
I've worked in the UK about 15 years. I've never really had any issue with any employers, so I know practically NOTHING about employment law. I've never felt mistreated so I've never paid it any attention.
That doesn't transfer to other people and clearly this woman on minimum wage understood her rights. Most less well off people do in my experience. They have to in order not to get shafted.
But just imagine that Pennsylvania state law said that payment through the payroll card was perfectly valid, and no other payment options needed to be offered. Wouldn't her quitting her job over the transaction fee be a spectacularly stupid thing to do?
No lets not imagine anything. Lets stick to the facts and the law as it stands. Why would I want to discuss and imaginary legal position?
