Ma'am, are you saying these people were so dumb that they did not know they did not have to work off the clock and could report their employer to the department of labor? Careful how you answer because to assert otherwise would fail to account for their "eventual" lawsuit.

And where did I state they did not deserve to be paid for their work? I stated they deserved ONLY the monies due had they remained on the clock and no UNDUE ENRICHMENT.

And the six month statement does factor in really - if you save money, you don't have to be desperate and take whatever somebody dishes out.

You might be surprised to know that I wasn't born with a silver spoon and found myself with a family, "underemployed", and desperate at times in life. But I saved money, no matter how little, no matter what. When I could, I worked multiple jobs and if I couldn't find ANY job, I created one for myself. I never worked for free, ESPECIALLY when I was desperate for money. Someone can take advantage of you only if you let them.

I believe they let it go on thinking they would get huge settlements and no amount of "marxist worker's party" banter will dissuade me from that opinion.

They actively participated in their employer's unlawful practices. PERIOD.

Next rebuttal

Sir, Im saying it doesn't MATTER if they 'knew' it , apparently they did for the suit to be filed

I don't see how it should be assumed they received 'undue enrichment' at 300 dollars (average) per person

and one has to MAKE money to SAVE money so that they don't have to 'accept' what is offered, its a vicious circle that way

the point here is someone WASNT ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE because they were made to pay for the work they received,,,


I believe there is a lot of assumption here about the length of time it went on and whether the should have 'known',, when the only point is

they worked, they weren't paid, it was rectified,,,,
don't know what there really is to debate about that outcome or why the workers should be in any way condemned or demonized for it,,,

I think he made his point very well actually.

Under corporatism (or Obozonomics/fascism) jobs are a scarcity. People "do" things to hang on to even the worst of positions in employment, putting family and their own sense of pride (working rather than being a burden on society) first, while others seek only to play the entitlement system.

McDonalds (as an employee) is not exactly a chosen career goal for most. Where it used to be a "starter" position for young adults building a resume and work ethic, it has now become "necessity" for many struggling Americans with families under this admin and its failed policies.

Employers taking advantage in their greed should be dealt with HARSHLY.... but that will never happen under present conditions and failed leadership favoring these corporations over the people for their own political gain/greed.

If the system wasn't so "rigged" in favor of these corporations, there wouldn't be a need for these instances, OR to be "rectified" in the first place!

NEWFLASH:

Humans can be greedy and dishonest and sneaky

Humans can feel desperate, and have misplaced self pride

it happens with some humans in all walks of life,, the poor, the rich, the middle, minimum wage workers, minimum wage employers, ceos, corporation, politicians, religious leaders,,,,etc



Humans have been this way LONG before Obama was POTUS and will be long after Obama is replaced as POTUS

he was elected TWICE< get over it,,,lol


with that in mind this was a case where an employer didn't get off scott free in his attempt to rip off his workers what they had earned

I highlighted what is distinctly labeled a 'tiny' victory for a reason


but please do continue to argue all the negative that can possibly be argued about what caused the situation,,,

and don't forget to insult the potus and the all so dangerous and privileged 'entitlement crowd' in the argument too,,k?

Is our opinion feeling threatened with facts perhaps

FACT: people spent time working for which they weren't paid
FACT: this practice and OTHERS were illegal
FACT: correction was sought and received


but I really don't want anyone to hurt themselves by deciding to just agree with those FACTS or even AKNOWLEDGE Them ,, without griping some more about the 'entitlement crowd' or the government in some way,,,

OK.... so you want everyone to just ignore the real issues and focus on fixing nothing so it will continue....got it!

Just keep throwing money we don't have at it! As long as people get paid who cares if their rights are abused!

Good liberal trollthink

I didn't ask you to throw 'your' money anywhere

I said people should be paid for their work,, PERIOD

feel free to start threads about the economy and peoples economic hardships and whose to blame

but this thread was merely about some people who were finally paid what they had EARNED,,,,

the responsible parties here were the employer and the employees

the employees upheld a responsibility to work and the employer finally upheld his responsibility to pay them


good grief, is there nothing that isn't all clouds and doom with some of yall?

Gee.... and here I thought this was a forum and the article was "about an investigation into labor fraud" by businesses that used a case involving Mickey D's as the article example....

Silly me

no problem

in lengthier pieces, the main topic is sometimes hard to discern from other included topics

the title of the thread 'tiny victory' was an attempt to make it easier


I was posting about a SPECIFIC case, although the piece did include one sentence explaining that it was part of a bigger investigation,,

Trollthink? Is such projection S.O.P. for you or is it a new thing?

Yes a great demonstration of the case in point as a matter of fact, but you need to add stupidity and entitled.

And what makes them facts, your word. That is very all inspiring.

Fact: People were free to use their labor as they saw fit. Nobody held them against their will. If you sit around waiting for work, that is their problem but no one forced them. There are others that would like to have the opportunity. So that would make your fact a fiction, but I would prefer to call it what it truly is, a lie.

Fact: Illegal means absolutely nothing, it is but the "color of law" practiced against those that know no better by an unlawful corporate entity. So again, no fact, just a lie.

Fact: There was no correction, just coercion at the point of a gun but then when fictitious entities are envolved there can only be "color of law", another fiction. In fact worse than fiction, pure fraud.

But then the entitlement crowd doesn't need real facts, they just make things up and pretend and then wonder why they keep being the victim.

Please read posts for content. I clearly stated they deserved only the monies due them had they remained on the clock. Not exorbitant awards. Here is where I needed to take my own advice as I reread your post and learned that they received only the money and interest derived by the number of hours they worked off the clock and nothing more. So that much is settled.

The matter that they knew it was wrong yet continued for a period of time before filing suit is another thing. The courts do not allow one to walk in and say, "yeah, I worked 40 hours off the clock". You have to have documented every minute in such a fashion as to serve as proof of the claim. I am not saying it didn't happen, this type of thing happens in every industry and at every level, every day. It is illegal and should not occur. I am saying that the way for the worker to avoid falling victim to this practice and achieve victory is to not participate in the illegal activity. A "victory" in my estimation would have been just compensation for any worker terminated for refusing to work off the clock.

Furthermore, the statement that they had to be paid to save money is not entirely valid. They were paid, just not for a small portion of time the worked off the clock. Yet, in the vein of personal responsibility, I believe you infer that the minimum wage worker is incapable of saving money. There is an old adage that illustrates this concept: "can't never could do anything". If you are capable of having cable, satellite, internet service, cell phone, higher rent than you can afford, you have opportunities to save. Shed the unnecessary until you can afford it with money left over. It is the principle of living within your means. I encourage others to live BELOW their means. Does it make life difficult? Yes. Does it allow one to become as successful as they are able? Yes. To rally people with the false hype that they should not have to give up luxuries in life to get ahead instills an entitlement mindset that is a disservice to them.

Don't misconstrue my comments about entitlement as me begrudging anyone a hand up. I do, however, begrudge anyone receiving a hand out. It is not the short term to balance one's finances it is the long term, often generational, career recipient that offends.

I extend you this olive branch:

I will call this a victory for the worker if you will agree that they had a duty to themselves to not actively participate in their own mistreatment.

What work, there was no work, just a disillusion on your part. If they don't like it, let them open their own establishment or get some other employment.

There are no rights of employment by another. The only right of employment is to work for yourself unencumbered by another. If you except pay for your labor from another, you have agreed to do their bidding. There are no entitlement except under "color of law".

Sir you are misunderstanding the issue but that is to be expected if you follow the entitlement line, but that is not the real story.

The real story, gained from reading multiple accounts from different sources is the way the stores work.

First, McDonalds has developed software that tracks revenue against employee costs. The manger is alerting when labor is too high for the revenue allowing them to start having workers clock out and stop work. But they can hang around outside the store in case sells pick up where they can clock back in.

But now comes the lawyers and they have filed class suits, trying for class action, that mean huge fees from an entity as large as McDonalds. There are suits pending in 3 states, California, New York and god knows why, Michigan. Some lawyers will be bilking millions in fees. Welcome to the fascist states of America, courtesy of your state BAR association (oh, did I mention that the judges belong to the BAR in almost all courts). What a racket, a license to steal and the means to enforce it.

But the OP is about the lovely city of New York where the outlaw government has coerced the $500,000 out of one franchise owner that owns multiple stores. Coerced because to defend against the fascist city would require more that a million and would likely result in paying another million of taxpayer splurged city taxpayer money. Cheaper just to pay $500,000 and walk away.

Sure you do, consistently. It's the entitlement mentality, that those that don't have, have the right to take from those that do have.

But the real irony is that those that really have are immune from these false presumptions and life goes on.

Only for those incapable of thinking and the assuming they can think because something clicks with what they are told to thing, the entitlement crowd.

Is sarcasm a way of saying that thinking is not required so a sarcastic remark would cover that up?