They do that here too. I called because I was willing to serve but wanted to see if I could sit in a wheelchair to keep my leg up. I know they let jurors in wheelchairs serve and there was a place in the jury box for wheelchairs in the courtroom I’d been in previously. They told me not to bother coming in, they just asked for some documentation. I finally got a letter from the doctor just a day before the summons date and emailed a picture of it to the jury commissioner’s office. I was prepared to go there with a crutch and a brace on my leg in the first place and on the summons date just in case I didn’t get that letter. I don’t expect they’d do anything if I never provided a letter but I didn’t want to end up of list and get worse treatment next time.
I’d not mind jury duty now as a retiree but haven’t gotten a notice in years. I was working in Italy for 5+ years and got reassigned to Oklahoma (ruralish and like a different planet), registered to vote and got summoned regularly every 3 months. I’d show up and fill out a questionnaire; promptly get dismissed. “You work for the Ammunition Center? They’ll challenge you, you folks are too smart.” Depressing.
That’s not always the case. We often have several jurors with advanced degrees. Personally, I like smart jurors. They can detect the flaws in the other side’s case.
How does that work for a salesman on straight commission?
Maybe salesmen on straight commission is itself an evil idea. It certainly creates all sorts of perverse incentives to have the salesman place their interests ahead of both the customer’s and their employers.
Well yeah, but doesn’t every sales job do that? A good salesman balances all those interests. A salesman who will earn continuing commissions after an initial sale has far more incentive to protect the customer than the company and any career salesman has to protect his reputation with the customer more than his employer. It’s far better than many positions where an employee is totally removed from the customer and has no concerns for them at all.
Well, one could argue that every employee places their own interests first, from a welder to a bank teller to a nurse to a software designer. As in, “I need to finish this task and do it well, or I won’t have a job tomorrow.” After all, why do most people work in the first place? It’s to take care of themselves and their families, not to enrich their employer.
Sorry to carry on the hijack.
In the UK, you have to provide evidence that you are not being paid by your employer to get the £64.95 a day allowance (increased to £129.91 after 10 days) There is also a meal allowance (no receipt required - bring sandwiches) of £5.71,
Travel expenses can be claimed at various rates: Bicycle @ 9.6p per mile, Car@ 31.4p per mile for example. Public transport at cost.
The one time I served on a jury, when people said they would not get paid for jury duty, the judge asked the employer name, and seemed to be writing it down. I figured he was either going to check that against a list of employers known for paying for jury duty or to call the employers to encourage them to start to do so.
They pay you an amount equal to your average pay from last period.
The harder question is, "how does it work for self employed people? " At some level, someone is losing that time.
I was excused while self employed twice here in Rhode Island and once in New York. A second time in New York was right after a scandal revealing celebrities and the wealthy were never being summoned or excused without an appearance so they had to make a show of not excusing anyone. The defense didn’t want me on the jury so that was the end of that anyway.
I was on a jury for a week this summer. A few self-employed people on the jury mentioned they were simply losing money – in some cases thousands. This seemed a perverse incentive to hurry toward a verdict, although I didn’t see evidence of that during deliberation.
When working, my company continued salaried pay throughout jury duty, with no obvious upper limit. They wanted juror pay if we bothered to collect it. Since collecting involved waiting in line after court and filling out forms, it never happened.
During the voir dire part, one prospective juror said he couldn’t be on the jury because his employer had threatened to fire him if he was selected. The judge asked him to come forward for a private conversation about it. I was seated next to an attorney during this (potential juror, not part of the trial), and he quietly chuckled. I asked him what was happening and he said the guy’s employer might be having an unpleasant conversation soon. I wonder - What can a judge actually do in that situation?
I assume firing someone for serving on a jury is illegal?
What the judge can actually do might depend a lot on jurisdiction - but I’d bet that it’s illegal to fire someone for serving on a jury anywhere in the US , so at the least, the judge might remind the employer that if the person is fired, the employer can expect to hear from the Dept of Labor/Attorney General’s office.
You lose $, Thats why they often excuse you if needed.
I was on a jury panel a year-ish ago. It was a big trial (murder 1) and the jury selection process took three days for what was expected to be a 2-week trial. I was willing and available (and would be paid by my employer with no issues) but I not make the final cut for reasons unexplained to me.
Early on one fellow said more or less
I’m a dentist in solo practice. I have 5 employees between hygienists, office staff, and dental assistants. None of whom can work without me there. I’m booked up about 3 months in advance. If I’m on the jury the shop is closed for however many days, I make no revenue, my hourly workers don’t get paid, and all those patients get to wait an extra 3 months for their dental care.
I can afford to do the trial, but you’re causing a lot more people than just me quite a lot of inconvenience.
He was released.
You are ex-military (IIRC) and in a position of authority in your job. You are probably also a middle aged white guy. The lawyers see you as a potential leader in the jury room. Each party is trying to identify leaders, and strike ones that would be against them, or might be against them. You can’t take a chance with a leader. You’d rather have none than a bad one. The decision are made quickly, with less than full information. (I probably know more about you than they did, and we’re all antonymous here). Sometimes we bump someone who might be okay simply because the next in line looks perfect for us. Sometimes we leave someone on we’re concerned about because the next person in line looks even worse.
In Florida - not exactly a hotbed of labor perfection - it isn’t a crime to fire an employee for serving, but it is illegal to fire the employee or threaten them with firing. Compensatoryand punitive damages are available.
I’m not following you here. I think there’s a typo