Time to Pay Again, Dinks!

Brinks has to cut costs somehow in order to offer $99 systems. Maybe they will finally get a clue and just offer in house financing like ADT does.

I remember a several years ago when Ranger American was doing the same thing. They even went as far as paying each technician piece work wages. After the state investigated, each technician was working almost 80 hours and received 40 hours pay. Nice guys huh?

Jim Rojas

secure15 wrote:

What kind of Mickey Mouse stuff is this? If you're in a company vehicle, driving to a job site why wouldn't you be getting paid? I bet the customer is getting billed for travel time. And what's this crap about letting the employee drive a company vehicle just because Brink's is magnanimous about it and now it may have to stop? Please! If Brinks wasn't making or saving a buck for Brinks in some way by doing it, it wouldn't be done in the first place. And now Brinks is saying other security companies are going to get hurt? We'll see. Maybe ADT and a few other giants that push their own interests at employee's expense? Now what's really too bad for Brinks is that they are not entitled to a refund from their lawyers for receiving faulty legal advice. I wonder how much less than 1.4 million dollars this settlement would have been if they would have taken care of this case back in 2002 when they obviously should have. Since the Brinks attorney on this case is still whining and saying he is right and the State Supreme court is wrong, maybe ALL current attorneys working for Brinks should dig deep and pony up a refund for Brinks? Yes I am sure that is likely to happen.

An attorney was sitting in his office late one night, when Satan appeared before him. The Devil told the lawyer, "I have a proposition for you. You can win every case you try, for the rest of your life. Your clients will adore you, your colleagues will stand in awe of you, and you will make embarrassing sums of money. All I want in exchange is your soul, your wife's soul, your children's souls, the souls of your parents, grandparents, and parents-in-law, and the souls of all your friends and law partners."

The lawyer thought about this for a moment, then asked, "So, what's the catch?"

Roland Moore wrote:

Because otherwise a technician would have to drive to the office first to pick up their service vehicle. We went around about this when I worked for the phone company. It is generally accepted that the time an employee spends getting to work is the employee's time, not the employer's time. (Its also federal regulation.)

The benefit of a company vehicle to the employee is reduced wear and tear on their own vehicle and often zero fuel costs. The benefit to the company is quicker response (potentially) to customers. The benefit to the customer is more time available to perform service and therefor faster service in boh the short term as well as in the big picture.

The IRS has tried to say that the use of a company vehicle for personal use is a taxable benefit the last time I checked. Driving to work from home is personal use. I'll leave it to the tax accounts to say how that works out in the real world.

A big benefit is reduced fuel (ZERO) costs for the employee related to getting to work.

The benefit to humanity is reduced greenhouse gas emmissions. (Sorry had to throw that one in there. LOL) because less total fuel is burnt.

One thing to consider is that their is a finite amount of time available for all things in life to be performed. If an employee is allowed the priveledge of taking a work vehicle home for personal use (even limited personal use like driving to work) it increases the amount of time they have available for themselves as well as the amount of the amount of the employer's time spent actually working.

You could counter that if it might average out the same for the employer cost wise if they came to work first and then picked up a company vehicle and drove to their first job site of the day, True, but the employee has not spent more time for the same amount of pay. It somehow seems counter that they should be given a reduced living expense by use of a company vehicle to go to work and get paid for traveling to work also.

The rule of thumb we had to live by when I worked for the phone company was if we had a co vehicle at home we were on our own time until we reached our first job site. From that second on we were on company time until we left the last job site of the day. The exception was if our first or last service call was outside of our home coverage area. For us our coverage area was 50 miles across approximately, and yes sometimes it was the case that we had to drive a couple hundred miles to get to or from a trouble spot. We were paid for that time. We were also paid for all travel time throughout the day.

Most companies do not charge customers for travel time inside their coverage area. (I don't) but they charge a flat rate mileage fee outside their coverage area (I do). Realistically that means that travel outside the coverage area is paid travel time regardless of time of day, and there is a charge for mileage to the customer. Travel inside the coverage area is paid travel time during the work day but not to and from work and I eat the mileage costs, but it offset slightly because the time spent between periods of productive time is much less.

What about on-call or overtime? Well that is covered by overtime pay, and many companies pay a minimum to be on-call (I do) whether the empoyee actually works or not. Being on-call requires remaining available and it requires limitations of some activities that could be freely indulged if the time were truly their own.

If I did business in Washington I would refuse to allow techs to take company vehicles home ever because of a ruling like this. Any benefit to me would be out weighed by the additional expense. Already my insurance company charges me more for this practice.

Still, as I have always said, each person tends to think in terms of what benefits them the most, and only think about mutually enhanced benefit to all concerned when they take a more enlightened approach.

I suspect that Brinks may have been trying to abuse the circumstances or that one or two greedy employees tried to get a little more than they deserved which resulted in a negative working situation and ultimately in the legal battle. As is often the case I am sure the summary posted did not reveal all the details necessary to understand everything going on.

P.S. I don't like Brinks. If the statutues of the state of Wa says that all time spent in a company vehicle regardless of purpose must be paid then they must abide by it. Then so must all other companies. It is a then a level playing field on that issue.

P.P.S. I am not a sock puppet.

-- Bob La Londe The guy who decides who we do business with.

The Security Consultant PO Box 5720 Yuma, Az 85366

(928) 782-9765 ofc (928) 782-7873 fax

Contractors License Numbers ROC103040 & ROC103047

"secure15" a écrit dans le message de news: o30Ui.1277$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe12.lga...

of course they wont pursue further....

they are hoping to get the 1.4 millions from Jim ;-)

They'll probably seize all the Brinks panels and keypads in his yard, and then turn around and sell them anonymously on eBay. :-)

I looked up the court's opinion. I think these Brink's employees screwed up a good thing for their co-workers. This was a voluntary program.

As Bob pointed out, there are definite advantages for employees who live some distance from the shop. By driving directly to the first job of the day, and driving straight home from the last job, their commuting time is reduced, and they don't have to spend money on personal vehicle commuting expenses. In exchange, Brink's gets more work out of them. For an installer who lives two blocks from the shop, there's little benefit. But for an installer who lives 25 miles from the shop, it's a real benefit.

Anyway, according to the Washington Supreme Court, here's the story. Brink's gave their techs a choice. Techs could drive their own cars to the Brink's office on their own time, pick up a company truck, and get paid for all the travel time in a Brink's truck. Or, a tech could choose the home dispatch program: take the company truck home at night, pick up their calls by voice mail or computer, and travel to their first job (and home from their last job) on their own time. They got paid for all travel time between jobs during the day. If the first or last job was over 45 minutes from the tech's home or Brink's, the tech got paid for the excess time.

A group of techs sued back in 2002, claiming Brink's should have paid them for the travel time under Washington law, which says that 'hours worked" means all hours where the employee is required to be on duty at the employer's premises or at a prescribed work place.

The court said the employees were on duty during the drive time because Brink's strictly controls their use of the company trucks. Company policy says the trucks can only be used for company business, and may not be used to run personal errands. Non-Brink's employees are not allowed in the trucks. Techs must remain available to handle other calls while driving to and from jobs, plus they must spend time writing down the day's calls and planning their route. Company policy also requires techs to do all their paperwork either at a customer's home or in a company truck.

Based on all that, the court ruled that the truck is their "prescribed work place" and that they were on duty, and deserved to be paid. The court also awarded attorney's fees and costs.

I am still not sold on the "employee benefit". It may be a benefit, but it is definitely a limited one. If I am in my own vehicle I can do what I want when I want. If I am in a company vehicle and I am directed to a new location, I feel like it is understood that is exactly where I am headed, and not necessarily where I choose to go next. Maybe I want to run errands before or after work Maybe when I want a raise in pay, I get the use of the company sled instead? I still think the policy benefits the compnay more than the employee.

Went through the same thing with my employees a few years ago...so we took the trucks away from them...and then there were more tears. Oh, well...guess you can't have it all your way.

It clearly benefits both and there are limitations to both. Hopefully now you don't see it as totally one sided though.

LOL. Ok Frank. I guess we have to let you have that one. You drew an actual out loud laugh from me.

Bob La Londe I am not a sock puppet.

I'd have a hard time justifying parking a bunch of trucks at our office. For one thing, there's no fence (it's a Strata "Business Park"). Security would be a nightmare. To top it all off, we've just been nailed with a big levy from the Greater Vancouver Regional District that's decided to tax the parking spaces each business is allocated. It's not based on the actual number of available slots either. They're using a formula that uses the square footage (based on the total paved area including laneways) divided by the number of businesses in the complex. I was looking at our license wall the other day. We have to have two (or 3) business licenses in each municipality we service (they "ding" us for "installation", "service", and "contractor"). I count 27 of the suckers. The cheapest one is $107.00.

Bitch, bitch, bitch... :-)

There are other benefits to the company. If the employee were to first drive his own vehicle to work the company would then have to pay for his time drivng to the job site, provide parking for his vehicle on company property, etc.

If the job sites were all within a short commute from the employees' homes it might be fair to consider time driving to the sites as personal time. Unfortunately for the employees, this is not always the case. Some jobs may be a long drive away. Shouldn't the employer cover that time? What about when there are several sites to visit in a given day? Brinks is infamous for offering the absolute minimum protection so employees can do more than one job in a day. Do they pay for time driving company vehicles from job A to B?

Phone company employees have had these types of plans due to strong unions. Brinks might not play by the same rules.

During the years I ran an alarm company we had both subs and employees. We were a small company so we didn't offer company vehicles. We did provide tools and training to employees. Subs provided their own tools. Our policy was to pay for driving time plus mileage outside a 20-mile radius from the office or the employees' home if they were driving directly to a site. Within our regular service area payment began upon arrival at our office or the job site, whichever was first.

Regards, Robert L Bass

I used to let employees drive company vehicles. I never had that many vehicles (about 5 I guess) versus about 30 employees. I did it because the employees usually parked them in a more secure spot than the office parking lot. The purpose of any business is to turn a profit. I would think any business decision would be based on that, including decisions about employees use of company vehicles.

well...guess

I had no trucks whatsoever. Employees have always used their own tools & pickups or vans. No cars were allowed unless they ran minor service calls. However, they were properly compensated for it. I did not enforce any quotas, and anyone can get time off with 1 days notice. The slowest tech earned $600wk for a 5 day work week. Everyone was on rotation for optional sat & sun jobs. At my peak, I had close to 10 1or2 man crews.

My policy was simple. The more you work, the more you make. The $600 wk tech did great because he was under no pressure to lick it and stick it.

2 man crews generally made $1500wk for the lead tech, $500wk for his helper/trainee. These guys really hustled and never took shortcuts. Some even voluntarily worked until 9pm just to get the jobs done on time.

Side jobs were allowed as long as you let the schedule manager know ahead of time, and done outside your normal work schedule. This was done in case the employee was approached by an official lurking for unlicensed activity. Let's face it. An employee is going to do side work no matter what you say or do as an employer. He will use your wire and equipment anyway. Why not just allow him to do it in hopes that the customer will sign up for monitoring? My guys were allowed to take whatever pulled equipment we had in stock for service calls.

I don't do mainstream installations any longer, but all those technicians who now work for less pay and longer hours elsewhere still continue to give me monitored accounts, drop off unwanted equipment, and pick up equipment from me when the need arises.

If you treat them fairly, it never comes back to haunt you.

Jim Rojas

Roland Moore wrote: