• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    You were also being “engaged to wait” if you had nothing to do.

    You weren’t free to go home, so you were on the clock.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can playing a game of cards that you can drop in a second be reasonably said to not be “engaged to wait”? I mean, they were literally waiting with cards in their hands for something to happen but nothing did. It’s not like they had left the premises, were unreasonably distracted or negligent.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you misunderstood.

        “Engaged to wait” simply means that you aren’t free to leave and must be paid. If you’re required to be at work, you need to be paid - even if you’re killing time playing cards.

              • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think you’re agreeing with me.

                I’m saying it’s illegal to deny them their pay because they were required to be at work. “Engaged to wait” basically means “Having nothing to do, but still on the clock.”

                If they showed up to work 20 minutes early to play cards or we’re playing cards during their lunch break, then they’d be “waiting to be engaged” which wouldn’t require payment because they’re free to leave.

                • Lemminary@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah, I don’t think I was disagreeing, I only wasn’t sure what you meant but I think I get it now.