New poster here so be gentle. I’m not sure whether this issue has ever come up, but if anyone can offer insight, it would be most appreciated.
I recently finished a job at a call-center, where I was employed from 8am-5pm. With an hour for lunch that worked out to 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week. In order to “clock in” at the start of each day, it was necessary to be at my work station by 7:52 or so, in order to activate the computer, log into various programs and such, so that I could be working at 8am on the dot. Likewise, it was impossible to leave at 5pm on the dot, as there were various shut down procedures that I had to adhere to in order to log out, so the earliest I could get out was 5:08.
When I questioned my boss about being paid for these minutes in which I was clearly on the clock in spirit, if not officially, he basically told me that life is tough, and being required to be at my desk for a few minutes either side of my work period was no different than the time spent commuting to work, and thus I shouldn’t be paid for this time.
I know it may seem incredibly petty to argue over an extra fifteen minutes a day having to sit in that cubicle, but over a week, that’s easily an extra hour of work, and over the course of a year… well, it adds up.
I guess my question is, do I have a legal leg to stand on? Can an hourly employee cry foul at being required to be at work and not get paid? (Of course, the flip side is that if I got to my desk at 8am, I wouldn’t be logged in until 8:08 and I would indeed be docked the time.)
Is it really the same thing as not getting paid for driving to work? Is set up and break down time, which I am required to do, my “donation” to the company?