• @chiliedogg
    link
    391 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
      link
      71 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
        link
        141 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.

        • Lemminary
          link
          11 year ago

          I see, but the other commenter didn’t say that anybody left, that they were only playing cards.

          • @chiliedogg
            link
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes. I’m arguing that denying their pay is illegal.

            • Lemminary
              link
              11 year ago

              I’m still confused, then

              • @chiliedogg
                link
                21 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
                  link
                  11 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.