ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (CoolWill), 23 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#156500 05/16/05 04:55 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 57
R
Member
For starters, there's no law against lowering someone's pay. Forget about docking, just reduce their pay.

As far as paying an employee to drive a company owned vehicle between home and the worksite, that is not a requirement of federal labor law or any law I could find. I just got off the phone with an HR attorney and he said it was not necessary to pay for this activity.

Latest Estimating Cost Guides & Software:
#156501 05/16/05 08:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,429
L
LK Offline
Member
"he said it was not necessary to pay for this activity."

Your comp insurance, covers your employee while he is driving, should he have an accident on the way home, and he is off the payroll, you have big problems, trying to save a few bucks, can cost you everything.

#156502 05/17/05 07:58 AM
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,064
D
Member
That is not a true statement Rick.

Guys take company vehicles home for a variety of reasons, one being convienence of both the employee and the employer.
Some employers reward their employees by letting them use the company truck instead of burning their own fuel, and in return the employee doesn't have to drive 45 minutes to work, just to get in a truck, and then drive 45 minutes to the job site. Sometimes it is a win-win situation for both, and the employer is doing nothing illegal in regards to not paying the employee from the time he gets in the vehicle, until the times he gets out.
I would not suggest the guys out there driving a company vehicle, to start complaining to your boss about getting paid for this, as it may backfire against you.

Lk is correct on the insurance issue, that is why usually only the best, most responsible guys in the shop are given this privelage.

Dnk....

#156503 05/17/05 09:07 AM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 57
R
Member
LK, Comp insurance covers the employee while he's working, automobile insurance covers risks associated driving your vehicles on his own time.

It's not about "saving a few bucks". Employees are never paid for driving to and from work. This idea about paying employees to drive your truck to the jobsite is pure urban myth. Please cite the code that requires this.

#156504 05/17/05 03:25 PM
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 91
S
Member
I was told by my previous employer that I were to get into an accident while driving a company vehicle ( I had a van ) that the other party could sue my employer's business liability insurance.

I gave an elderly gentleman a ride to the car dealership to get a new key made for his car ( he had locked his keys inside ) and I gave him a ride back. My employer understood why I did it and told me not to do it again. If I was involved in an accident, my fault or not, the gentleman could have sued by employer's business liability insurance.

#156505 05/17/05 04:07 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 57
R
Member
Anybody can sue anybody, so that's not news. Most GL insurance policies specifically exclude automobile accidents. The auto insurance company would be sued, but that's what auto insurance id for. By the way, an actual law suit rarely happens, things are negotiated in a settlement agreement.

While we're on the subject, if you're in an accident, *you* can sue his insurance company. But that doesn't stop him from letting *you* drive the vehicle.

Typical scary story told by the boss in order to (and righly so) disuade his employees from using the vehicles in a fashion that they're not intended for.

#156506 05/17/05 06:06 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,429
L
LK Offline
Member
There is no code, Your commercial truck insurance DOES NOT cover injury to the driver, your comp insurance does, this is why your employee is covered under comp while driving.
Check with your insurance carrier, here in New Jersey it is a state law, and no company will write an injury policy for commercial coverage.
You can put your driver on salary pay, and define his work, but if he is an hourly employee, then he had better be on the clock, while operating the truck.

sparky,
You are correct, your employeer, has no coverage for the passanger, unless that passanger is another employee, covered under his comp insurance.


"Typical scary story"
Yes it is very scary, to find contractors, that expose themself, to such finincal dangers, there are many fly by night contractors out there, taking chances every day.


[This message has been edited by LK (edited 05-17-2005).]

#156507 05/17/05 07:10 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 57
R
Member
Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer, you DON'T have to pay employees to drive the truck home. The employees are not involved in any work related activities.

What about employees who receive a car allowance but choose to drive their own car? Must they be paid to drive to the workplace and drive back home?

If insurance is a concern, buy gap insurance.

Driving the truck home is not a work related activity, and the employee is not entitled to wages for this activity.

Here's proof from the California Chamber of Commerce website (sent to me by a real attorney):

Travel Time
====================

Time spent in home-to-work travel by an employee in an employer-provided vehicle is not "hours worked" and therefore does not have to be paid.

The same is true of activities performed by an employee that are incidental to the use of the vehicle for commuting, such as filling the fuel tank. These provisions apply only if:

The travel is within the normal commuting area for the employer's business; and

The use of the vehicle is subject to an agreement between the employer and the employee (or the employee's representative).

See Mandatory Mode of Transportation for an important exception to this rule created by the California Supreme Court in 2000.

--------------------------------
That's my proof. Where's yours?

#156508 05/17/05 07:22 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 57
R
Member
Here's where I've saved the page THAT CLEARLY states that you DO NOT have to pay for driving to work: http://haskinselectric.com/page/visit.cfm.htm

The page required a password from my HR attorney, so it was a one time view, I saved it to my web server so that people could read it AND LEARN FROM IT.

#156509 05/17/05 07:37 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 57
R
Member
Got real quite around here. Anyway, Electricians should not dispense legal advice, even moderators. When I need legal advise, I never ask an Electrician, Lawyers cost money, but in this case, consulting a lawyer would have saved thousands of dollars in unnessesary payroll.

'Nuff said!

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5