You're viewing a single thread.
Docked an hour of our pay because, after we'd caught up on all of our tasks and had no chores or customers to handle, we played a bit of cards in the gift shop office to kill a bit of time. Corporate didn't like that we weren't doing stuff, despite the fact that we had literally nothing else to do, so they retroactively took away an hour of our pay.
I've already emailed the labor board about this since, looking into it, pay can only be docked before the time is worked, not after.
You were also being "engaged to wait" if you had nothing to do.
You weren't free to go home, so you were on the clock.
Can playing a game of cards that you can drop in a second be reasonably said to not be "engaged to wait"? I mean, they were literally waiting with cards in their hands for something to happen but nothing did. It's not like they had left the premises, were unreasonably distracted or negligent.
I think you misunderstood.
"Engaged to wait" simply means that you aren't free to leave and must be paid. If you're required to be at work, you need to be paid - even if you're killing time playing cards.
I see, but the other commenter didn't say that anybody left, that they were only playing cards.
Yes. I'm arguing that denying their pay is illegal.
I'm still confused, then
I think you're agreeing with me.
I'm saying it's illegal to deny them their pay because they were required to be at work. "Engaged to wait" basically means "Having nothing to do, but still on the clock."
If they showed up to work 20 minutes early to play cards or we're playing cards during their lunch break, then they'd be "waiting to be engaged" which wouldn't require payment because they're free to leave.
Yeah, I don't think I was disagreeing, I only wasn't sure what you meant but I think I get it now.