229
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
229 points (98.7% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26669 readers
1556 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.