Comments on: Who won this case: When do you have to pay for commutes?

By: Lois R.

Lois R. — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:00:19 +0000

The case does say that they were required to carry the files. I believe they should be compensated by their employer. This situation does not compare to carrying one’s own briefcase, in my opinion, because I can choose to leave that in my car or take it into a restaurant or bar if I want. This case implies that the employees must go straight to work from home and straight home after work. That is not always convenient for most of us and that interferes with their free time. Also, how effective is it really to say “no” to your employer in cases like this, where they require a number of people to carry files? Most employers would tell them to do it or quit. I would want to be compensated for lugging files back and forth and having to go straight to work and straight home each day.

By: Susan L

Susan L — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:31:31 +0000

I agree with the decision. According to the FLSA, time spent traveling between home and work is engaged in normal work to home travel and is not compensable. Also, “as an enforcement policy the Division will not consider as work time that time spent in travel away from home outside of regular working hours as a passenger on an airplane, train, boat, bus, or automobile.” So those people who are lugging around briefcases are in not much different than say that person who has to carry a briefcase, laptop, etc (in addition to their luggage) who has to fly from New York to Chicago for a business meeting.
I have some other questions regarding this case though. Why do the employees have to carry these files with them in the first place? Having employees carrying documents with them on public transportation is a better security measure than locking them in a file in the office? The case above notes that the employer is asking them to do this, doesn’t say that it is a requirement so can the employee say no?
Just how heavy are these briefcases anyway that would cause an employee to miss the transporation that they would normally take and by how much time are they missing it? How much time do they normally have to get from the office to catch their ride and do they NEVER miss it when they do not carry any files? I am sure that many of these factors were taken into consideration when this judgement was made.

By: Susan

Susan — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:51:34 +0000

I agree with Mike and Angel. The employees are providing a service to the employer by providing a security service and transporting items which they have responsibility for en route. The employer would have to make other arrangements to secure the data if the employees did provide the service. The employees can always say “no” and if their employment depends on fulfilling this task…then it is part of the job requirements and should be compensated for, if not in hourly wages then the base pay should reflect the level of responsibility placed upon them as part of their job description.

By: RWA

RWA — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:29:54 +0000

I agree with the ruling, however I do not agree with what the employer was asking the employees to do. An employer should provide their own security for the files and not depend on the workers to take it home and protect them their. The employer has to be responsible. This should have been resolved well before making it to court.

I don’t think the additional time could not have been significant, however it definitely must have been a hassle. I wouldn’t want to do it. But they are not really doing significant work, just carrying something with them while doing something they normally do, plus the distance varies for each persons home and each person would have to be thus compensated differently. I have problems paying someone to carry something extra during something that they do normally. But I don’t like asking the employee to do that, either.

By: Angel M

Angel M — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:48:04 +0000

I agree with Mike, it seems that these employees were still under some control by their employer during their commute.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:55:02 +0000

I do think that the courts got this one wrong. The employees were providing a “security function” with the files and were directed to go “straight home to secure the files” before they could use the time as they see fit. Further, your article implies that the files were cumbersome and required physical effort to transport making public transportation more difficult. So besides the “security” function, the employee was providing a “shipping and handling” function.

If they had to use the restroom while on this commute were they expected to take the files with them or could they have someone else look after them? If someone else looked after them and they were “stolen” would the employee be fired for failing to provide adequate security?

I can see if the files were on a zip disk and and the employee just had to keep this on their person until it was locked at home, then I see that there is no work being performed. This case seems to be a different situation.