Are You Ready To Order?

[Tony]

They are legal because they are demonstrations of negligence on the part of the employee, 1, and 2, their employment contract, as signed, explicitly explained the details of how things are done, and by nature of the contract, are bound to it. By signing the contract they are, in fact, consenting to this provision.
I know the law, too. I was going to be a lawyer once, before I decided that I am too honest for such work.

I don't think one can put into a contact, something that is against the law. One's employment contract has to comply with all laws, not contradict them.

Well, you can put anything you want into a contact. It just isn't enforceable by any court. Thus, is only good to intimidate an employee (in this case to submit to illegal pay deductions) and hope the authorities never find out about it.

 

[Tony]

... , the Labor Law requires that in order for an employer to hold the employee accountable for Shortages and pilferage, the employee must have, as on Amtrak, complete control.

I don't think that any onboard Amtrak employee has complete control. That would imply that no other employee has any access to the food, at any time, through out the trip. And we all know that the entire dining car staff has access to the kitchen, and such access is part of their duties.

For that to happen, the LSA would need to be all by themselves in a locked, controlled access, room with all the food.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Most of the laws require a higher standard than I think you can assert simply by absence of the money in the till (1), and require that provisions for deduction not be bundled into any other workplace contract or document (2) -- they cannot, in the states I have been examining, be bundled into the employment contract.
Again, in most states, your remedies as employer are to ( a ) get the employee to sign away their rights without duress and in a document unbundled from any other workplace document (i.e. signing the back of the check does not indicate consent; signing the paperwork to accept the job does not indicate consent). Or ( b ) fire them. Or ( c ) sue them. In most states that I can find, if you can't build a case enough to fire them or sue them, then you eat the loss.

I am not knowledgeable about your practice or your state. This is not about you, per se. (I cannot speak to whether an intent to be a lawyer gives you any special knowledge on these affairs.)

It is about others whose employers may be using such tactics, who may read his and not know that they may have rights. This may not apply to the Amtrak discussion at hand.

David

My intention to become a lawyer was enough played out in coursework that not only did I minor in it, but 3 more credits would have let me double major. I also studied it extensively- while I don't have the ethics (or lack thereof) to be a lawyer, law still fascinates me and like a lot of other things, I study it extensively.

I used extensive cash control aspects in my business. Each cashier was required to use only their assigned register, and each cashier had their own private cash draw that only they could use. It was explained in the hiring process, written into the contract, and yes, even located in a second document entitled "Fiduciary Responsibilities to the Company". All of which were signed and witnessed.

No, I didn't make people pay for bounced checks. That would a be a responsibility of my company, not my agents. Nor do I charge them for other things that they are not responsible for. I was responsible for counting the contents in the drawer at the beginning of each day. They were responsible for double checking the count, and calling me if it was off. They were responsible for taking money in. I would count the drawer again in the evening and check it against the receipt tape. If it was off, that was their responsibility.

I am pro labor myself. I am not a draconian employer. But I do ask that people working for me take responsibilities for their avoidable mistakes. It's nothing less than I ask from myself.

As for the legality of it, I determined it to be legal. I read the laws of which you speak, and based on my interpretation, my practice was in step with them. As you should full well know, no law is written explicitly. They are written to allow for interpretation depending on circumstances. I'm, oh, 85-90% sure it would stand up in court.

I also know I am not the only business to operate this way!

 

[syntaxfactory]

Again, not interested in analyzing your practices. We'll never know if they'd stand up in court until they are tested; I think that the law could swing either way, state to state.

For example, if signing a Fiduciary Responsibilities document is conveyed as a condition of hiring, I doubt it would stand up -- even if it is not the contract itself. That would be prohibited in some states. Some.

As per Tony, "Well, [an employer] can put anything [they] want into a contact. It just isn't enforceable by any court. Thus, is only good to intimidate an employee (in this case to submit to illegal pay deductions) and hope the authorities never find out about it.") My best guess is, most employees would cough in a possibly-in-violation-of-the-law $3 shortage rather than risk losing their job (the only real teeth an employer has to use against them in some states).

Neither here nor there. Readers other than GML: You may want to investigate whether you have rights in your state. You might, you might not. [None of the law schools in my state offer any minor or an undergraduate major; they only admit students to seek the JD. So you see, things do vary by state.]

Aloha, to you, too, GG-1!

 

[amamba]

My intention to become a lawyer was enough played out in coursework that not only did I minor in it, but 3 more credits would have let me double major. I also studied it extensively- while I don't have the ethics (or lack thereof) to be a lawyer, law still fascinates me and like a lot of other things, I study it extensively.

I was unaware that people were able to "major" in law as an undergrad. One generally needs to attend law school for three years and then receive a JD, at least in my state.

 

[spacecadet]

Again, not interested in analyzing your practices. We'll never know if they'd stand up in court until they are tested; I think that the law could swing either way, state to state.

In CA and NY, at least, till underages have been held by the courts to be inevitable (as mistakes are) and are therefore considered by the courts a normal cost of doing business. Employees cannot be made to pay for predictable business costs. You couldn't ask an employee to pay for a till underage anymore than you could ask an employee to pay for the store's electricity bill.

Employers are still free to fire the employee for the mistake itself (NY is an at-will state, not sure about CA), but they cannot legally require the employee to pay for their mistake. Another analogy would be an investment banker who makes a bad investment and costs the bank $5 million. Well, the company doesn't get to make him personally pay them back that $5 million - he made a mistake while representing the company, and the company knew there was a risk that they might lose money on any given investment. They can fire him for being a bad investor, but they can't make him pay them back for his losses, unless he did something criminal.

Of course, there could still be the implication that an employee must pay in order to keep their job, but I would think that an employer would be screwing himself by making that threat explicit - firing somebody afterwards would be grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit. Bottom line is an employer can't even ask for that money if he wants to stay out of court, at least in these states. I can't speak for anywhere else.

btw somehow that sentence about being "boned" as a cashier almost made me spit out my drink in laughter.