• Anon (unregistered)

    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.

  • Guillaume (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.

    So's not putting "FIST!" on a first post.

  • (cs)

    He should have turned around in the bathroom and finished up in another direction, if you get my drift.

  • (cs)

    So, Michael L., how did your lawsuit for the last paycheck turn out?

  • JoPoser (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.

    Actually, it's not. I'm sure they didn't use those words but delaying a paycheck for not giving notice is entirely legal.

    They just have to produce it when a lawyer or law enforcement officer shows up to get it.

  • MindChild (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.

    Sure. It absolutely is. It also doesn't deter the real dirtbags out there either. It's just like a late paycheck... they KNOW it is more trouble than it is worth (losing your job, countless hours spent) to fight it, since there is no actual return on your side winning.

    The best this guy could do would be sue for his check, which takes months and months, lots of lawyer fees, only to get said final paycheck, plus interest at federal prime rates AT BEST

  • (cs)
    Shane, the CEO of Peripheral Maven.
    Don't you hate it when the wrong word is emphasized?
  • MindChild (unregistered) in reply to JoPoser
    JoPoser:
    Actually, it's not. I'm sure they didn't use those words but delaying a paycheck for not giving notice is entirely legal.

    They just have to produce it when a lawyer or law enforcement officer shows up to get it.

    Wrong. From the US department of Labor's website (overview section). You can get more details on your own:

    "Employers are not required by federal law to give former employees their final paycheck immediately. Some states, however, may require immediate payment. If the regular payday for the last pay period an employee worked has passed and the employee has not been paid, contact the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division or the state labor department. DOL also has mechanisms in place for the recovery of back wages."

    Pretty much, if you don't get your last paycheck by the time you would normally get it when being employed, call the US Department of Labor and they send in the dogs. The show IS spectacular.

  • (cs) in reply to MindChild
    MindChild:
    The best this guy could do would be sue for his check, which takes months and months, lots of lawyer fees, only to get said final paycheck, plus interest at federal prime rates AT BEST
    Or take it to Judge Judy.
  • Beaker (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.
    That, and wouldn't Grisoft love to know that this company is using AVG Free Edition for commercial purposes? That's kinda against the terms of their license, and I could imagine that they'd frown upon that sort of thing. This article, if true, details a bunch of civil and criminal liabilities that this company might face if the names weren't changed to protect the guilty.

    Captcha: ingenium. An element in which this "Shane" character has a severe deficiency.

  • Panos (unregistered)

    I'd just threaten the guy, even if i had to mention his family too. It would be just words (most likely), but with a bit of shouting added it could get me that last paycheck

  • (cs)

    I'd have loved to have seen the tech-head extending during the interview.

    Go go gadget head! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOOP! boyoyoing!

  • (cs)

    I don't understand why, if Shane was so intolerable, Michael didn't just skip the whole "exit documentation" phase and go straight to "F--- you, you prick, you're on your own." He had to know that he wasn't going to get a good reference either way -- this way just seems like he's unnecessarily burdening himself.

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to Adriano
    Adriano:
    Shane, the CEO of Peripheral Maven.
    Don't you hate it when the wrong word is emphasized?
    Yes - but I suspect that it was Shane's emphasis...
  • (cs)

    I've only read the first bit and I'm sure I've seen this set up before in a gay porn film.

    Err. I mean... Heard about. yes.

    This is spam. Please buy my lovely coconuts.

  • ClutchDude (unregistered)

    Failing ANY intervention at all on his part, and depending on the state, the company may have to report that check as unclaimed property to the state. The state(again, depending on which state) will then take stewardship of the money and hold it forever/escheat it. He could probably see if it's available thru the California Unclaimed property.

    Though the labor department route would be fun.

    link: http://www.unclaimed.org/

    Third try....

  • Anonymouse (unregistered) in reply to MindChild

    [quote=MindChild] The best this guy could do would be sue for his check, which takes months and months, lots of lawyer fees, only to get said final paycheck, plus interest at federal prime rates AT BEST [/quote]

    In the US, you can sue for attorney fees and court costs in addition to the pay due.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.
    Probably not. Michael broke his contract when he refused to work a notice period. That would be seen as legitimate grounds for withholding his final pay-check, at least here in the UK. You could try to argue the toss in court but it's just easier to forget about it, which is probably what he did.
  • Ricardino (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that tcpip.sys can be patched to accept more than 10 connections.

  • (cs) in reply to Panos
    Panos:
    I'd just threaten the guy, even if i had to mention his family too. It would be just words (most likely), but with a bit of shouting added it could get me arrested.

    FTFY. Following the legal route is definitely recommended in this case, at least in the US. As mentioned above, one can get a lawyer and sue for attorney's fees also, and one can contact the Department of Labor. Probably the latter idea should be pursued first, falling back to the litigation path if needed.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Ricardino
    Ricardino:
    TRWTF is that tcpip.sys can be patched to accept more than 10 connections.
    No, you're thinking of the limit on half-open outgoing connections. They were hitting the limit on incoming connections to the web server. These are two different things.

    [Post attempt #2]

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Anon:
    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.
    Probably not. Michael broke his contract when he refused to work a notice period.

    You're assuming he had a contract. I all but guarantee you that his employment paperwork disclaimed the formation of any contractual employment relationship -- it's standard boilerplate in the US for most (non-contractual, obviously) jobs. Companies would generally rather have you as an employee-at-will -- some create fictitious contract relationships for tax purposes, but it's not the usual thing in this type of job.

    (Third try. This is getting old.)

  • John (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous

    I'd have to wonder where this happened. In my home state (MO, USA)we have the concept of at-will employment. There is no implied contract to work for a company, so walking out is allowed. The employer must pay all your wages and earnings up to the time you left. (At least that's how I understand it). Therefore the withholding of the paycheck would be illegal. At any rate, the story is a pretty good one.

  • Mats (unregistered) in reply to teh jav

    I've only read the first bit and I'm sure I've seen this set up before in a gay porn film.

    Err. I mean... Heard about. yes.

    This is spam. Please buy my lovely coconuts.

    Best comment ever!

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Michael broke his contract when he refused to work a notice period. That would be seen as legitimate grounds for withholding his final pay-check, at least here in the UK.
    In the US, each state has its own employment laws. Many states consider employment "at will", which means that no notice is required by either employee or employer fr termination of employment. Depending on who terminated the relationship determines when final pay is due.
    Rootbeer:
    The RWTF is that the author waited until the last paragraph of the first section to mention that the events took place at a urinal.
    I don't see a urinal mentioned specifically. He may have been in a stall. At least he washed his hands.
  • Pete (unregistered) in reply to teh jav

    You, sir, win the thread.

  • ButHow (unregistered) in reply to Ricardino
    Ricardino:
    TRWTF is that tcpip.sys can be patched to accept more than 10 connections.

    Very much this. There is absolutely no difference in the TCP/IP stack of XP and the enterprisey "server OS" besides the actual number of connections it allows.

    You might be forgiven for describing XP as not being "server capable" because it doesn't come with a domain controller service, but the connection limit is just an arbitrary and artificial limit placed on the software for marketing purposes.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Kensey
    Kensey:
    Anonymous:
    Anon:
    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.
    Probably not. Michael broke his contract when he refused to work a notice period.

    You're assuming he had a contract. I all but guarantee you that his employment paperwork disclaimed the formation of any contractual employment relationship -- it's standard boilerplate in the US for most (non-contractual, obviously) jobs. Companies would generally rather have you as an employee-at-will -- some create fictitious contract relationships for tax purposes, but it's not the usual thing in this type of job.

    (Third try. This is getting old.)

    Fair enough, this is very different to how things work in the UK but I don't know much about the US system so I'm sure you're right. Sounds like a seriously bum deal for the employee though. I may be contractully obliged to work a notice period but then, my company are contractually obliged to give me a notice period if they want to get rid of me. Seems a lot safer than being an emplyee "at will".

  • Adam L (unregistered) in reply to Lars Vargas

    I should hope it was at a urinal since the boss put his hand on Michael's shoulder.

    Captcha: appellatio

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Lars Vargas
    Lars Vargas:
    Anonymous:
    Michael broke his contract when he refused to work a notice period. That would be seen as legitimate grounds for withholding his final pay-check, at least here in the UK.
    In the US, each state has its own employment laws. Many states consider employment "at will", which means that no notice is required by either employee or employer fr termination of employment. Depending on who terminated the relationship determines when final pay is due.
    Rootbeer:
    The RWTF is that the author waited until the last paragraph of the first section to mention that the events took place at a urinal.
    I don't see a urinal mentioned specifically. He may have been in a stall. At least he washed his hands.
    Alex:
    Seconds later, he felt a hand on his shoulder

    As much as I would hate for a hand to fall on my shoulder while using a urinal, I would REALLY REALLY REALLY hate for a hand to fall on my shoulder when I am in the stall.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Anon:
    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.
    Probably not. Michael broke his contract when he refused to work a notice period. That would be seen as legitimate grounds for withholding his final pay-check, at least here in the UK. You could try to argue the toss in court but it's just easier to forget about it, which is probably what he did.

    Except this is, I suspect, the US and most likely at-will employment is in effect in the state; you can tell your employer to shove it any time you feel like. They can also do the same to you.

    That is unless there was a specific contract in place stating otherwise. I got the impression there wasn't. Whilst the agreement at the end could be construed as a contract - at least in the UK - Michael did make a reasonable effort to fulfil it, his employer was the making unrealistic demands.

  • Griphon (unregistered) in reply to John
    John:
    I'd have to wonder where this happened. In my home state (MO, USA)we have the concept of at-will employment. There is no implied contract to work for a company, so walking out is allowed. The employer must pay all your wages and earnings up to the time you left. (At least that's how I understand it). Therefore the withholding of the paycheck would be illegal. At any rate, the story is a pretty good one.

    The article states that it occurred in California, which is not an at-will state. However, that won't stop the legal forces or DOL from recovering his back pay.

  • Tom Woolf (unregistered) in reply to Aaron

    It was California. California has some VERY strict laws concerning delivery of final paychecks. If you are fired or laid off, you must get your final pay within 48 hours. If you quit, your employer has 72 hours. (Although I have not worked in payroll for over a decade, those were the rules we had to live by then, and my current clients with employees in California told me they are pretty much the same now.)

    No lawyer is needed - all he had to do was walk into the nearest State Labor office and report the violation.

  • (cs) in reply to Kensey
    Kensey:
    I don't understand why, if Shane was so intolerable, Michael didn't just skip the whole "exit documentation" phase and go straight to "F--- you, you prick, you're on your own."

    Ideally that one sentence would have been the whole content of his "Helpful tips for the next guy" document.

  • longmethodnameguy (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Seems a lot safer than being an emplyee "at will".

    An employer still can't fire you for no good reason though. Obviously signing an explicit employment contract is another matter, you're both bound by the terms.

    Although we also have "right to work" laws in a lot of states. Imagine having to sign a contract that prevents you from working for a competitor for a year after leaving the company. I actually had to sign a contract like that one time. Since I live in a "right to work" state such a clause is completely invalid and unenforceable.

  • James S (unregistered) in reply to MindChild
    MindChild:
    Anon:
    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.

    [snip] The best this guy could do would be sue for his check, which takes months and months, lots of lawyer fees, only to get said final paycheck, plus interest at federal prime rates AT BEST

    While I don't doubt that the company might stonewall, at least the law is well on the side of the worker. The story says it took place in California. See CA DOL Labor Code Section 202, 203: (You can do a Google search on "California Dept of Labor" Look for "Paydays" "Final Wages"

    http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Paydays.htm

    "An employee without a written employment contract for a definite period of time who quits without giving 72 hours prior notice</am> must be paid all of his or her wages, including accrued vacation, within 72 hours of quitting." [emphasis added]

    And as far as only getting paycheck plus some interest, that's just not true:

    "An employer who willfully fails to pay any wages due a terminated employee (discharge or quit) in the prescribed time frame may be assessed a waiting time penalty. The waiting time penalty is an amount equal to the employee's daily rate of pay for each day the wages remain unpaid, up to a maximum of thirty (30) calendar days. Mamika v. Barca (1998) 68 Cal.App4th 487"

    So, I think in this case, where an employer willfully and tauntingly refuses to pay, and said employer is batshit crazy, it would be worth it to remind them of the law... say, on day 29.

    ~~James
  • Carl (unregistered)

    Oh come on. All that mysterious setup about the security cameras and then the doors didn't even auto-lock when he tried to leave. I want a refund!

  • JoLoCo (unregistered) in reply to NSCoder
    NSCoder:
    I'd have loved to have seen the tech-head extending during the interview.

    Go go gadget head! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZOOP! boyoyoing!

    I never use "LOL" but I did just laugh out loud.

    Boy, I'd love to work for that guy! The story just got much more interesting if you read it this way.

  • (cs) in reply to Kensey
    Kensey:
    I don't understand why, if Shane was so intolerable, Michael didn't just skip the whole "exit documentation" phase and go straight to "F--- you, you prick, you're on your own." He had to know that he wasn't going to get a good reference either way -- this way just seems like he's unnecessarily burdening himself.
    It's the professional thing to do. When you take a sys-admin, or any IT, roll, it is assumed that you'll take the time to at least document your work for whomever comes later. This could be passwords for the next person, obscure configurations, comments in code, etc.

    If Micheal didn't keep up with it the whole job (most IT guys don't) it's reasonable to as a matter of professional ethics, to catch up with that before he leaves.

    It doesn't matter what Shane deserves, for a couple of reasons. The first is that ethical behavior is provided mostly for yourself. It makes Micheal a better person. The second reason is that it would make Micheal's replacement's life easier, not Shane's.

    While a ultra-capitalist may have demanded a bonus for doing so (after all, it has some value to Shane), I prefer to live in a world where I don't have to watch out for everyone screwing me all the time... hence a world with ethical standards.

  • (cs) in reply to Kensey
    Kensey:
    I don't understand why, if Shane was so intolerable, Michael didn't just skip the whole "exit documentation" phase and go straight to "F--- you, you prick, you're on your own." He had to know that he wasn't going to get a good reference either way -- this way just seems like he's unnecessarily burdening himself.
    It's the professional thing to do. When you take a sys-admin, or any IT, roll, it is assumed that you'll take the time to at least document your work for whomever comes later. This could be passwords for the next person, obscure configurations, comments in code, etc.

    If Micheal didn't keep up with it the whole job (most IT guys don't) it's reasonable to as a matter of professional ethics, to catch up with that before he leaves.

    It doesn't matter what Shane deserves, for a couple of reasons. The first is that ethical behavior is provided mostly for yourself. It makes Micheal a better person. The second reason is that it would make Micheal's replacement's life easier, not Shane's.

    While a ultra-capitalist may have demanded a bonus for doing so (after all, it has some value to Shane), I prefer to live in a world where I don't have to watch out for everyone screwing me all the time... hence a world with ethical standards.

  • DeepThought (unregistered)

    As an employer I can say unequivocally that withholding an employee's final paycheck is a big no-no except in the most egregious cases of theft or fraud on the part of the employee and even then an employer may have to defend their action in the courts. Michael has a very good case against Peripheral Maven and should report this company to the State authorities.

  • (cs) in reply to longmethodnameguy
    longmethodnameguy:
    Seems a lot safer than being an emplyee "at will".

    An employer still can't fire you for no good reason though.

    Actually that's exactly what at-will employment means -- they can fire you for any reason (except legally-prohibited reasons like race), or for no reason at all. (The exceptions are, as you noted, contractual relationships, and many at-will states do recognize various types of implicit contracts, complicating the whole issue.)

  • EatenByAGrue (unregistered)
    Despite being a heckuvaguy, there was a LOT of turnover with his IT staff.

    Awoooga! Awoooga! Beep beep beep beep...

    Sorry, that was my "Don't take the job" alarm going off. Of course, I can tell you having been in the same position as Michael (broke and unemployed) that the correct thing to do is take the bad job but keep yourself on the job market, and tell the heckuvaguy to shove it as soon as possible.

    Also, one could argue that interrupting a guy in a urinal is sexual harassment. That combined with the withholding pay could be a fairly significant claim. Of course, the DoL route is much cheaper.

  • mr_smith (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Anon:
    "Last paycheck no longer available"? Ooooh, that one's a little.. y'know... illegal.
    Probably not. Michael broke his contract when he refused to work a notice period. That would be seen as legitimate grounds for withholding his final pay-check, at least here in the UK. You could try to argue the toss in court but it's just easier to forget about it, which is probably what he did.

    The USA has almost no protection for workers. Most employment is at will which means they can let you go for any reason without notice. On the flip side, you can leave at any time without notice. I find two weeks notice thing more than a bizarre convention here.

    I'm originally from Canada where you had to give notice (and the employer had to give you notice).

  • (cs)
    I need step-by-step instructions on how to fix any problem that that could come in the future.
    1 GOOGLE IT
2 POST AN AD ON CRAIGSLIST
3 GOTO 1
  • Lego (unregistered) in reply to Capt. Obvious
    Capt. Obvious:
    Kensey:
    I don't understand why, if Shane was so intolerable, Michael didn't just skip the whole "exit documentation" phase and go straight to "F--- you, you prick, you're on your own." He had to know that he wasn't going to get a good reference either way -- this way just seems like he's unnecessarily burdening himself.
    It's the professional thing to do. When you take a sys-admin, or any IT, roll, it is assumed that you'll take the time to at least document your work for whomever comes later. This could be passwords for the next person, obscure configurations, comments in code, etc.

    If Micheal didn't keep up with it the whole job (most IT guys don't) it's reasonable to as a matter of professional ethics, to catch up with that before he leaves.

    It doesn't matter what Shane deserves, for a couple of reasons. The first is that ethical behavior is provided mostly for yourself. It makes Micheal a better person. The second reason is that it would make Micheal's replacement's life easier, not Shane's.

    While a ultra-capitalist may have demanded a bonus for doing so (after all, it has some value to Shane), I prefer to live in a world where I don't have to watch out for everyone screwing me all the time... hence a world with ethical standards.

    Uh, what planet did you say you were from Captain?

  • Loopy (unregistered)

    California? Just go to the state labor board. You're an employee, you work, you get paid. Worked for me when a dirtbag employer decided to stop payment on my second to last paycheck, and not pay at all on the last one.

    Also, AVG is only free for personal use. I'd call the BSA and put in for the reward on this dirtbag (I usually despise the BSA, but hey, fight scum w/scum).

  • Bim Job (unregistered)

    I've never understood what the point of a "Network Administrator" is, anyway (apart from, maybe, Sarbannes-Oxley). Train a couple of monkeys up on the Cisco command line, and that's about it.

    Come to that, I've never understood what the point of a "Systems Administrator" is, either. If "Systems Administration" was a real job, then I'd never be woken up at 2am on a Sunday morning and asked to put a remote fix in to the latest catastrophe.

    I can just about understand the point of a "Database Administrator." The job spec for a "Database Administrator" ought to be the following:

    (1) Preview all schemas and stored procedures to ensure that they are secure, and efficient within the parameters of available resources. (2) Stop management from issuing unconstrained SQL queries "because I need that report yesterday."

    It's got to be a tough job, being a Database Administrator: composed in equal parts of nut-nibbling boredom and machiavellian political intrigue. This may explain why I've met Database Administrators who are excellent at either (1) or (2), but never both. I've worked with significantly more who do neither.

    The key word here is Administration. It used to be that CS graduates avoided Administration, because, y'know, your ass gets owned by The Man, and stuff.

    Now, unfortunately, we have this whole heap of worthless scumbags who ought to be running the paper-clip reclamation department in Albuquerque ... but suddenly they're on our turf.

    This is about the first TDWTF where my eyes glazed over after the first couple of paragraphs ... and, in the end, I really didn't give a shit whether the baddie was shot with the Winchester 73, or else married the maiden aunt of the love interest. I mean, WTF? You work in that sort of urinal, you expect nothing more than piss. (OK, I did read the first paragraph.) For some reason, the only bit that caught my eye was:

    "We've been an XP shop for years now. We made the investment in software when we upgraded from Windows 2000 years ago."

    It's hard to explain how much contempt I have for anybody who can say something as ridiculous as this without their nose suddenly turning in to a novelty beanpole.

  • (cs) in reply to Capt. Obvious
    Capt. Obvious:
    If Micheal didn't keep up with it the whole job (most IT guys don't) it's reasonable to as a matter of professional ethics, to catch up with that before he leaves.

    It doesn't matter what Shane deserves, for a couple of reasons. The first is that ethical behavior is provided mostly for yourself. It makes Micheal a better person. The second reason is that it would make Micheal's replacement's life easier, not Shane's.

    But counterbalancing that is the likelihood that (as in fact actually happened), Shane would just try to get free work out of Michael.

    In fact I have to question Shane's logic even absent the above: here's a guy who's so pissed off that he told you to get bent and was walking out the door -- and you keep him around? Yes, give him a chance to be tempted to get even by stealing your merchandise, or just deliberately doing a totally incompetent job on his docs so that the first time things break, you break them worse in the process of trying to fix them.

    I have walked out of two jobs (my first two, actually) -- one I walked out of the office after being shouted at in my ear by a co-worker, returned the next day and they let me go. The other, I left a resignation letter on my boss's desk over a weekend, cleaned out my stuff and left -- that one I'd been threatened with my job over ridiculous issues like not wanting to work overtime for a personal project my boss had arrogated into the company. Granted those are more serious issues than Michael's, but I don't feel there's anything unethical in him saying (professionally, if we must), "I cannot tolerate your behavior and I'm ending this relationship as of now." The risk that tasks or documents may not be complete at that point is really his employer's to deal with unless Michael was just egregious about it.

  • eric76 (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Probably not. Michael broke his contract when he refused to work a notice period. That would be seen as legitimate grounds for withholding his final pay-check, at least here in the UK. You could try to argue the toss in court but it's just easier to forget about it, which is probably what he did.
    It would not be in the United States.

    He shouldn't need a lawyer for this. In California, visit http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/HowToFileWageClaim.htm, file a claim, and let the state take care of it.

Leave a comment on “Peripheral Maven”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article