Went to the labor board

[Radu]

Which message boards would be good for this?

 

Ideally one where you can't read the forum unless you register, so the contents do not appear on google searches, and ideally register with a unknown and unpublicised email address [you would be surprised what you can learn with that one].

 

Or you could just call a lawyer and make an appointment, most will talk to you for free for 30min.

You can probably expose your issue in 30min.

 

Look for those that want repeat business, not just business.

[Star Gazer]

But it still makes no sense that I'd have to pay for her lawyer to attend a labor board conference. I am not suing her. If money is due, it's due. If not, then oh well, I tired. But why would I have to pay for her lawyer for that?

 

If she actually sues you in court, it's possible, depending on the authority and theory on which she relies, and she prevails, it's very possible you'd be responsible for her attorney's fees and costs.

 

You keep saying she's threatening you with a lawsuit. She obviously thinks she has some sort of cause of action against you. What for? It sounds like there's pieces missing from this puzzle.

[pink_sugar]

I have no intention of going to the court, just to the labor commissioner to resolve differences...but she thinks she is going to court and that's what she means by "filing a lawsuit when this "lawsuit" is over for attorney fees". But it is not a lawsuit.

 

Also a lawsuit for taxes to be withheld from my paycheck. But it was her responsibility to withhold those from my check.

[Star Gazer]

If in CA, if you win at the Labor Board, and she appeals that decision and then she wins the appeal, you WILL be responsible for her attorney's fees and costs.

[carhill]

Also, I'm giggling that you're taking her to the LB when you were getting paid under the table. You're very well opening a big can of worms for yourself, audit wise.

 

That's a good point. Technically, if the employees were being contracted off-the-clock ('side work') and not paid via payroll, the action isn't directly related to their employment and it's unclear if the LB would be proper venue, presuming the disputed amount isn't official payroll. Further, if the employee/contractor has significant non-payroll receipts, it's possible for the payor to 1099 them for those monies and they could have issues if those monies aren't reported on their state and federal tax returns as income.

 

It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out. IMO, knowing what my lawyer/law firm charges per hour, I wouldn't touch this and would walk away with a 200.00 lesson in dealing with clients, which is technically what this ex-boss was for 'side work', if I'm understanding the original post correctly. At best, if there were a paper trail, like invoices, purchase orders, etc, small claims would be the path I'd use. Hope it works out.

[liquid_amber]

She's a lay person. Her misunderstanding isn't idiotic or moronic. The end result of a Labor Board hearing or a court judgement are the same to an employer: money due or not due to an employee, with fines.

 

 

-------

 

Also, I'm giggling that you're taking her to the LB when you were getting paid under the table. You're very well opening a big can of worms for yourself, audit wise.

 

this is not true! i went to the labor board for unpaid wages at a past job in which i was getting paid under the table, and the labor board did not care about anything except making sure i got my wages plus penalties for not being paid in a timely manner. they do not concern themselves with taxes. the woman has no idea how it works, and she is only trying to scare you by talking about taxes. taxes are the IRS's concern, not the labor board's. she is hoping she can scare you enough that you'll drop the case, and then she'll never have to pay you. that's why you need to follow through, and show the labor board documentation of her threats.

Edited April 8, 2013 by liquid_amber

[carhill]

It appears that the dispute would revolve around what is 'employment' and what is 'contract for independent work' and what evidence each side has to support their claims.

 

For example, if I ask an employee to come to my house at their convenience and work on a project similar to their 'employee' use of their skillset and pay them in cash, they are a contractor and I am a customer, even though I'm also their employer. They can refuse my request without prejudice to their job and they work at a time of their convenience and are being paid outside of payroll. That's 'independent'.

[Star Gazer]

this is not true! i went to the labor board for unpaid wages at a past job in which i was getting paid under the table, and the labor board did not care about anything except making sure i got my wages plus penalties for not being paid in a timely manner. they do not concern themselves with taxes. the woman has no idea how it works, and she is only trying to scare you by talking about taxes. taxes are the IRS's concern, not the labor board's.

 

You're not understanding my point.

 

All it takes is a phone call to the IRS to say, "Hey, I know some folks who've been working under the table for cash... You might wanna see if they've been paying their taxes."

 

Piss off the ex boss, and you motivate her to initiate a stream of drama.

[UpwardForward]

You're not understanding my point.

 

All it takes is a phone call to the IRS to say, "Hey, I know some folks who've been working under the table for cash... You might wanna see if they've been paying their taxes."

 

Piss off the ex boss, and you motivate her to initiate a stream of drama.

 

Ex boss would be in trouble as well.

Edited April 9, 2013 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
fixed code

[2sure]

The IRS would be much much more concerned with who was paying someone off the books than who was receiving it. If they had the manpower to take anonymous phone calls about hourly workers, which they don't.

[Got it]

Thanks for this. I've contemplated dropping it entirely, because it doesn't seem worth $205 that she owes us for such a huge hassle. Worse case scenario is she makes a lawsuit with taxes we owe to be withheld. She said she wouldn't do that if we cancelled the case. What do you think?

 

PS - it doesn't mean even if you drop it the DOL will drop it. Monies are owed to the government that were not taken out. They want their money as well.

[Star Gazer]

Ex boss would be in trouble as well.

 

Said boss doesn't have to be concerned about this year's tax payments to these folks until 2014. Said employees who've been being paid under the table, likely were paid under the table for years, and their income vs. tax returns will reflect that. The IRS has and does care. Those auditors have easy quotas to fill and access to more information than you realize.

 

I'm not talking out of the side of my butt here. I speak from experience.

[pink_sugar]

Update.

Meeting with boss at labor board went well a few weeks ago. Ex boss said absolutely nothing about taxes and did not bring a lawyer. Guess she figured out that she couldn't pull that one without exposing herself. Her whole argument was an over payment to me she never mentioned to me, which was for a gift card (which I have records of) that she had me buy and use for company marketing. When I said what that amount was for and that I had records, she immediately told the labor commissioner she "wasn't sure" and "had to check her records". Labor commissioner gave her a funny look and said "You were so sure of yourself before." It went downhill from there for ex boss.

 

The labor commissioner had some issues with how she was paying us and a payment delay for which she would have owed big penalties if it went to court. It's against labor code to withhold pay for mistakes made on the job. The look on her face when the labor commissioner told her the amount of penalties she'd most likely face if it went to court, boy was she eager to pay up and wrote both of us checks that same day to settle.

[MuscleCarFan]

After Pink's discussion with the labor commissioner, it went completely down hill for our ex-employer from there.

 

I could have gotten her for $1,185.03, but I took the $65 should owed me because I am not greedy. Although I should have asked for more just because she violated labor laws by 1) not paying me within 3 days after quitting and 2) withholding pay for a mistake on the job.

[Star Gazer]

After Pink's discussion with the labor commissioner, it went completely down hill for our ex-employer from there.

 

I could have gotten her for $1,185.03, but I took the $65 should owed me because I am not greedy. Although I should have asked for more just because she violated labor laws by 1) not paying me within 3 days after quitting and 2) withholding pay for a mistake on the job.

 

You went through all that trouble for $65 that she owed you? Wow.

 

If you weren't planning on sticking her with penalties, I would have just kept quiet and used her for a good reference.

[Mme. Chaucer]

You went through all that trouble for $65 that she owed you? Wow.

 

If you weren't planning on sticking her with penalties, I would have just kept quiet and used her for a good reference.

 

I know. I'm all for people standing up for themselves and what's right, but … for $65? I bet the OP & spouse had to take off work to the tune of $65 in order to recoup that amount.

 

Also, in this situation, usually the employed are all onboard with being paid under the table … until things don't go their way. And the employment only went on for one month.

 

If it'd been me, I would have just moved on with lesson learned.

[UpwardForward]

You went through all that trouble for $65 that she owed you? Wow.

 

If you weren't planning on sticking her with penalties, I would have just kept quiet and used her for a good reference.

 

Yes, and additionally - In Calif it doesn't have to go to court. Labor Board will award penalties upon employee's request.

[MuscleCarFan]

You went through all that trouble for $65 that she owed you? Wow.

 

If you weren't planning on sticking her with penalties, I would have just kept quiet and used her for a good reference.

 

I didn't start work till later in the afternoon, so it wasn't too big of a deal. Pink only had to leave at lunch time.

 

Seeing the look on her face when she lost miserably was worth it in itself.

[pink_sugar]

Yes, and additionally - In Calif it doesn't have to go to court. Labor Board will award penalties upon employee's request.

 

The labor commissioner was trying to get her to pay up and settle the claim prior to court. If I wanted her to pay penalties and she declined, it would have had to move to court and the labor commissioner previously advised us that process can take up to a year as of right now.

 

You went through all that trouble for $65 that she owed you? Wow.

 

If you weren't planning on sticking her with penalties, I would have just kept quiet and used her for a good reference.

 

It's the principle of the matter. If we didn't speak up, it just means she could continue to screw over some other sucker who works for her. She has learned a valuable lesson as have we. We did not leave on good terms (she was screwing us over) so why would I trust her reference?

 

I'm not out to get anyone. I'm reasonable. Pay what you owe and I'm good. If she read the print in her notice, she could have easily sent the money prior to the meeting and the claim would have been automatically cancelled and no one's time wasted.

Edited June 6, 2013 by pink_sugar