Reply With QuoteHA! This is a thinly veiled SEIU lawsuit. Go to hell SEIU!
A federal judge certified class-action lawsuits against Kaleida Health and Catholic Health Systems, paving the way for potentially millions of dollars in judgements against Buffalo’s largest health care providers.
The suits, filed by Rochester-based Thomas & Solomon LLP on behalf of thousands of current and former employees, allege that both health-care systems failed to pay workers for time they worked assisting patients during what was scheduled meal periods. The suit alleges this practice was repeated in multiple facilities and impacted thousands of nurses, aide’s and therapists.
Nelson Thomas, a partner in the firm, said because of the scope of who is eligible to participate in the suit, exact numbers won’t be known until current and former employees respond to notices being sent out, but he expects the number of plaintiff’s to reach “tens of thousands.”
Nelson said his firm specializes in these types of cases and recently won a $9 million settlement against Strong Hospital in Rochester for similar infractions.
“It’s a huge victory that is has been certified as a class (action suit),” Nelson said. “If it had not been certified and a lot of cases aren’t, then the problem is, everyone would have to file their own lawsuits.”
He said the suit was born from employees within both companies notifying his firm that these “wage theft” practices were occurring, prompting the lawsuit.
“What’s interesting, is ECMC is totally compliant and follows the law,” Nelson said of the other major health-care provider in Buffalo.
http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffa...9/daily58.html
People who wonder if the glass is half empty or full miss the point. The glass is refillable.
Unions waste our time and resources
HA! This is a thinly veiled SEIU lawsuit. Go to hell SEIU!
So, do you work during your lunch period without getting paid -- or are you one of the supervisors who demands that your staff work during lunch periods without pay?Originally Posted by buffy
Question #1 - Answer: What paid lunch period?
Question #2 - Answer: No, not a supervisor
I'm the average non-union privately employed worker
Ah, so, jealousy raises it ugly head once again. Well, go enjoy your no lunch period.
uh, ok teacher's federation bully
I don't belong to the BTF.
Aside from that, I do believe you protesteth too much, madame:
That stinks of either self-interest (as in being a manager/administrator who's responsible for this kind of thing) or outright jealousy that you don't dare assert your rights because you know you'll get booted. Nowhere in the entire article is the SEIU or any union mentioned.This is a thinly veiled SEIU lawsuit. Go to hell SEIU!
BTW, the reason that the class action suit can go forward is because there's a violation of state and/or federal law. Maybe you can argue that so you do get some time for lunch without getting fired from that wonderful non-union job you enjoy so much.
Another person who thinks the world would stop without unions.
Last edited by Dougles; October 29th, 2009 at 06:30 PM.
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
FYI, I resigned from a union job to take the job I currently have. I've always hated the union mentality; it eats away at members like a disease.
Doesn't NYS labor law state that an employee working an 8 hour shift is required to have at least 1/2 hour for lunch break? Paid or unpaid, it doesn't matter.
I know for a fact that El-Kaleida routinely breaks labor laws.
GO GREEN ... plant a garden!
I remember getting canvassed in the mail to join the law suit. The problem is trying to actually prove this in most cases.
As for ECMC hahahahahaha! Chyeah!
"Oh, you're not mandated to stay, you're just on hold."
"Can I leave?"
"No. You have to stay until some one volunteers to stay."
"So, then, I'm mandated."
"No, you're on hold."
I did get paid. I got no lunch or break, but I did get paid for being on hold.
First Amendment rights are like muscles, if you don't exercise them they will atrophy.
Imagine that! Expecting employers to obey state law! That's just a "union mentality"!
What impact if any will this potentially have on insurance premiums,,,ps I pay my own premiums they are not part of any employment contract union or otherwise...jealous...hell yeah!
That's how they get around the law. Notice that the article didn't they say they treated their employees fairly, just that they were "in compliance", which usually means they do just enough to meet the letter of the law if not the spirit. At least it's more than the employees at Kaleida and CHS get -- no lunch time and no pay, either.
Yes: http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerp...yer/meals.shtm
Section 162 of the New York State Labor Law provides as follows:
Time allowed for meals
Every person employed in or in connection with a factory shall be allowed at least sixty minutes for the noonday meal.
Every person employed in or in connection with a mercantile or other establishment or occupation coming under the provisions of this chapter shall be allowed at least thirty minutes for the noonday meal, except as in this chapter otherwise provided. The noon day meal period is recognized as extending from eleven o'clock in the morning to two o'clock in the afternoon. An employee who works a shift of more than six hours which extends over the noonday meal period is entitled to at least thirty minutes off within that period for the meal period.
Every person employed for a period or shift starting before eleven o'clock in the morning and continuing later than seven o'clock in the evening shall be allowed an additional meal period of at least twenty minutes between five and seven o'clock in the evening.
Every person employed for a period or shift of more than six hours starting between the hours of one o'clock in the afternoon and six o'clock in the morning, shall be allowed at least sixty minutes for a meal period when employed in or in connection with a factory, and forty-five minutes for a meal period when employed in or in connection with a mercantile or other establishment or occupation coming under the provision of this chapter, at a time midway between the beginning and end of such employment.
The commissioner may permit a shorter time to be fixed for meal periods than hereinbefore provided. The permit therefore shall be in writing and shall be kept conspicuously posted in the main entrance of the establishment. Such permit may be revoked at any time.
In administering this statute, the Department applies the following interpretations and guidelines:
Employee Coverage. Section 162 applies to every "person" in any establishment or occupation covered by the Labor Law. Accordingly, all categories of workers are covered, including white collar management staff.
Shorter Meal Periods. The Department will permit a shorter meal period of not less than 30 minutes as a matter of course, without application by the employer, so long as there is no indication of hardship to employees. A meal period of not less than 20 minutes will be permitted only in special or unusual cases after investigation and issuance of a special permit.
One Employee Shift. In some instances where only one person is on duty or is the only one in a specific occupation, it is customary for the employee to eat on the job without being relieved. The Department of Labor will accept these special situations as compliance with Section 162 where the employee voluntarily consents to the arrangements. However, an uninterrupted meal period must be afforded to every employee who requests this from an employer.
Not all possible meal period questions can be anticipated and, therefore, these "Guidelines" may not cover all situations that might arise. For additional information or assistance, contact the nearest office of the Division of Labor Standards.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions