Is there a minimum of 40 hours when working out of town

[Suzanne54]

What is the name of your state? VA to CT. If an employee is sent out of town to a job, and the customer has said that they are not ready for our employee to come in, am I required to pay him for that day? He is free to go about his day anyway he chooses.
In a second scenario, the customer say that they are not quite ready, but stand by and we will call you when we are ready. This scenario, I believe, is compensable.
The other I am wishy washy on.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? VA to CT. If an employee is sent out of town to a job, and the customer has said that they are not ready for our employee to come in, am I required to pay him for that day? He is free to go about his day anyway he chooses.
In a second scenario, the customer say that they are not quite ready, but stand by and we will call you when we are ready. This scenario, I believe, is compensable.
The other I am wishy washy on.

How good are the employees and how much do you want to keep them? They are not "free to go about their day" when they have been sent out of town to work. They can't stay home and eat what's in the fridge and do whatever needs to be done at home. You have effectively tied up their day whether they are working or not.

I would quickly look for another job if an employer sent me out of town and then didn't pay me because I couldn't do the work, through no fault of my own.

 

[Suzanne54]

This is why I am posing the question. I don't think I would want to go on out of town assignments myself. But on the other hand, I am paying for his lodging, I am paying him for meals, I am paying for his vehicle, etc. And what if I am in Hawaii or someplace exotic? In that case I would be happy to not get paid. I'm on a free vacation.................

 

[xylene]

There was a very similar thread to this recently.

 

[LdiJ]

This is why I am posing the question. I don't think I would want to go on out of town assignments myself. But on the other hand, I am paying for his lodging, I am paying him for meals, I am paying for his vehicle, etc. And what if I am in Hawaii or someplace exotic? In that case I would be happy to not get paid. I'm on a free vacation.................

That is YOUR PERSONAL opinion of such a situation. Most people don't think that way when they have bills to pay. They cannot afford to have an unpaid day just because their boss wants to be miserly.

Plus, there should be contingencies in your contacts with your clients to cover costs if they are not ready for the work that they scheduled with you.

 

[justalayman]

But the question is:

Do they have to pay the guy in either scenario.

First scenario: no

Second scenario: it depends on the restrictions you place or don’t place on the employer. If they are engaged to wait, you pay them. If they are waiting to be engaged: no pay.

 

[HighwayMan]

This is why I am posing the question. I don't think I would want to go on out of town assignments myself. But on the other hand, I am paying for his lodging, I am paying him for meals, I am paying for his vehicle, etc. And what if I am in Hawaii or someplace exotic? In that case I would be happy to not get paid. I'm on a free vacation.................

So who are you in this? The employer or the employee?

 

[justalayman]

So who are you in this? The employer or the employee?

Given the terms used in the original post, the op is the employer.

 

[LdiJ]

But the question is:

Do they have to pay the guy in either scenario.

First scenario: no

Second scenario: it depends on the restrictions you place or don’t place on the employer. If they are engaged to wait, you pay them. If they are waiting to be engaged: no pay.

I completely disagree about the first scenario. They sent the guy out of state to do a job which he couldn't do through no fault of his own. To not pay him would be a horrible business practice. The better business practice is to build contingencies into the customer contracts so that they bear the cost if the are not ready for the service they scheduled.

 

[justalayman]

I completely disagree about the first scenario. They sent the guy out of state to do a job which he couldn't do through no fault of his own. To not pay him would be a horrible business practice. The better business practice is to build contingencies into the customer contracts so that they bear the cost if the are not ready for the service they scheduled.

He isn’t working or being required to wait to be called to work therefore he gets no pay,

Using your argument; , at what point is he not due pay given he is there 24 hours per day? Using your argument he would be owed pay 24:hours per day. Are you really trying to suggest he would be owed pay 24 hours per day?


And whether it is a horrible business practice or not is irrelevent. The only question important here is whether the employer is legally required to pay the guy.

 

[quincy]

When the employer sends an employee out of state to meet with a customer/client, the employee is on the employer's time and should be compensated for this time and for all expenses incurred by the employee as a result of this travel that are reasonable and necessary expenses - unless there is a contract between the employer/employee that states otherwise.

Food and lodging and transportation costs for the employee should be covered or reimbursed by the employer. These expenses should be documented. The employee should be compensated for his workday (whatever is typical for the position).

Out of state travel for work is not a vacation. It is work and should be treated as such.

 

[cbg]

LdiJ, I completely agree with you that it's a bad business practice, given this particular fact pattern. But that was not the question. The question is whether the employer is legally required to pay him. And the answer, in the first scenario, is No. The employer is not required by law to pay him. Whether ethically or morally they should do is not the question.

 

[justalayman]

When the employer sends an employee out of state to meet with a customer/client, the employee is on the employer's time and should be compensated for this time and for all expenses incurred by the employee as a result of this travel that are reasonable and necessary expenses - unless there is a contract between the employer/employee that states otherwise.

Food and lodging and transportation costs for the employee should be covered or reimbursed by the employer. These expenses should be documented. The employee should be compensated for his workday (whatever is typical for the position).




Out of state travel for work is not a vacation. It is work and should be treated as such.

Morally, I don’t disagree. Legally I do.

In this case it appears the employer is paying all expenses other than wages.

An employer is not obligated to pay for anything this employer has though. In fact, in many cases employees pay their own expenses.





On a side note: the employee is due pay while traveling if it is during his normal working hours. All the employee had to do to be owed pay is head home.

 

[quincy]

The law is not as clear cut as your answer indicates, cbg.

One question to ask is: Is the travel to benefit the employer or the employee?

 

[cbg]

I may be prepared to backtrack slightly, but I want clarification from the OP on which state the employee is traveling to before I do.