I kind of see it like car milage. If I use my car to take my children to school then drive out of town for a business meeting. They should compensate me for the wear and tear of my vehicle and gas for the use of business. I wont be incurring anything more extra since my car is paid off. I am still using my personal property for the benefit of the business.

Mr. Baker: The employer is requiring the employees to fund a portion of its overhead. The employees must now be careful not to exceed the minutes they intended to buy but also the minutes the employer is forcing them to use. The employer is saving the cost of the phones and the use of the phones and requiring the employees to subsidize the employer's operating costs. An employer must provide employees with the tools they need to do their jobs.

I agree with Ms. Spencer. In a limited minute plan, minutes equal money. If the employer requires the employee to use valuable minutes, it is taking the employee's money to finance its own operation.

But the statute addresses reimbursing the employee for his/her costs not forcing the employer to compensate the employee for every contribution to overhead and the distinction makes a difference in this case. The employer has agreed to compensate for over the limit minutes. The plan pre existed employment. therefore the costs incurred are not directly related to employment.. If you take a very broad reading of the statute, the employee cold win, but everyone seems to be assuming he/she wins and I am not so sure as I read the statute.


 
Robert P. Baker
Law Offices of Robert P. Baker
723 Ocean Front Walk
Venice, California 90291
Tel:(310) 450-6092 Fax: (310) 399-7040
www.bakerjustice.com

Justitia nemini neganda est



>
>
>

But the statute addresses reimbursing the employee for his/her costs not
forcing the employer to compensate the employee for every contribution
to overhead and the distinction makes a difference in this case. The
employer has agreed to compensate for over the limit minutes. The plan
pre existed employment. therefore the costs incurred are not directly
related to employment. If you take a very broad reading of the statute,
the employee cold win, but everyone seems to be assuming he/she wins and
I am not so sure as I read the statute.


 
Robert P. Baker
Law Offices of Robert P. Baker
723 Ocean Front Walk
Venice, California 90291
Tel:(310) 450-6092 Fax: (310) 399-7040
www.bakerjustice.com

Justitia nemini neganda est



>
>
>

Respectfully, we just disagree.

Here is the issue in a nutshell. The one item that every educated,  employed person has is a cell phone. Not even a car is so universally owned as many in NYC and DC as well as other cities pass on auto ownership.

An employer can expect an employee to have  and bring to work a cell phone, paying only for extra costs related to the job.

By way of analogy, when I started as a young lawyer, I was required to wear clothes to work.I was not compensated for them. In fact, I was required to wear suits and was neither reimbursed nor entitled to a tax deduction. Cell phones have become like clothes. If an employer requires feather boas, those get comped- hence extra minutes are reimbursed.


 
Robert P. Baker
Law Offices of Robert P. Baker
723 Ocean Front Walk
Venice, California 90291
Tel:(310) 450-6092 Fax: (310) 399-7040
www.bakerjustice.com

Justitia nemini neganda est



>
>
>

Here is the issue in a nutshell. The one item that every educated, 
employed person has is a cell phone. Not even a car is so universally
owned as many in NYC and DC as well as other cities pass on auto
ownership.

An employer can expect an employee to have  and bring to work a cell phone, paying only for extra costs related to the job.

By
way of analogy, when I started as a young lawyer, I was required to
wear clothes to work.I was not compensated for them. In fact, I was
required to wear suits and was neither reimbursed nor entitled to a tax
deduction. Cell phones have become like clothes. If an employer requires
feather boas, those get comped- hence extra minutes are reimbursed.


 Robert P. Baker
 
Robert P. Baker
Law Offices of Robert P. Baker
723 Ocean Front Walk
Venice, California 90291
Tel:(310) 450-6092 Fax: (310) 399-7040
www.bakerjustice.com

Justitia nemini neganda est



>
>
>

Mr. Baker: My view differs from yours and is based on my analysis of the Labor Code, Wage Orders, DLSE Enforcement Manual, case law, and DLSE Statement of the Basis.

Well discussions like this are what make law interesting. I went back and read the question again to consider the matter further. What the asker is saying is that since his bill does not itemize his calls there was no way to determine the portion of his bill that was allocable to his work, so the employer "now" will only reimburse $20 if he goes over his minutes.

So, let me ask you. What are the direct costs due to employment that the employer should reimburse under your theory? There is no way to determine the minutes used for work, apparently. The employee arbitrarily wanted $20. What makes that a cost directly attributable to employment?

If the employee bought cell phone insurance and accessories, does he get to put in for part of the cost of those and of the phone too? What about the cost of  the electricity to recharge the phone? That might be the closest comparison, because as in the case of the minutes there is a monthly bill but no way to determine how much relates to the phone or to the portion of it used for work..

The asker could have kept a minutes log and presented that to the employer. Dear Employer: I made 8 calls totaling 50 minutes. This is half of my 100 minute allotment for the month. Please reimburse 1/2 of my monthly bill.


But, he did not do that--and it seems to have figured in to the employer's decision not to reimburse him if you read the question closely. Absent that he would only pay if the minute limit were exceeded.

There might be some ruling out there that just resolves this in favor of the employee. But I am not seeing the logic of this so clearly that everyone should just assume, in the absence of such, that he will recover.

I certainly would not counsel him to become adverse to his employer over this. 

I do respect your opinion though. I believe you do mostly or entirely this kind of work, and I am more of a generalist



 
Robert P.. Baker
Law Offices of Robert P. Baker
723 Ocean Front Walk
Venice, California 90291
Tel:(310) 450-6092 Fax: (310) 399-7040
www.bakerjustice.com

Justitia nemini neganda est



>
>
>