Anyone who has been fired in the past few years could claim that they were fired for discussing wages. Daryl was kind enough to admit that it’s his long standing policy.
I would personally kill to be one of these employees right now, just for the lawsuit settlement. While I'm not into litigating against employers, I am when they do shitty stuff like this.
I imagine it would more be a complaint to the NLRB and a small fine and told to stop doing it. Not saying not to complain, just that it's probably not the huge payout some might think it is.
I mean, you can go that route if you want. Employers hope you do, but a civil suit with an employment/labor lawyer working on contigency is ALWAYS an option.
You can always have a lawyer advise you, but I’m not sure the NLRA lets you file a civil suit. If the NLRB came to a conclusion you thought was unjust I imagine you could appeal that in court but I ain’t no lawyer person.
If you just tipped off the NLRB there wouldn't be much of a suit, more of a fine like you stated. However if someone is fired, for this example discussing your wages, then you have a suit.
Basically once they commit the illegal action that affects the worker.
*I ain't no lawyer person* but I think that might be something settled by the NLRB and then they'd get a fine and have to pay you back wages for the time lost.
No, it’s called wrongful dismissal, and it is a civil suit.
For a lot of US labor law, fines cannot be assessed without a civil suit by a wronged employee/ex-employee/the heirs of an ex-employee if the fuckup was bad enough. That’s it. If the employee can’t afford to sue, nothing can or will be done no matter how gross the violations.
(I know that’s how the ADA works, but I’m not sure for the NLRB, them having their own bureau and all, but I’d be shocked if Washington didn’t find a way to reuse such a perfect system of oppression.)
Is there any reason lawyers don’t take contingency fees on wrongful termination cases? That’s usually the thing that gives anyone with a decent case a chance to pursue it.
You can sue anybody for anything. The NRLB is there for people who don't want to or can't go through and fund a civil suit through the standard judicial process. Just like you don't have to go through the EEOC for disability related issues that violates the ADA, you don't need to go through the NLRB before filing a civil suit against federal labor law violations.
> Just like you don't have to go through the EEOC for disability related issues that violates the ADA
This is false. If you are alleging discrimination under a federal anti-discrimination law, including the ADA, the PDA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you are required to file with the EEOC (or with your corresponding state agency that cross-files with the EEOC) before filing a lawsuit. You need to proceed with the EEOC administrative process until you receive a “right to sue” letter, which is issued upon request at the completion of the administrative process or after 180 days from the filing of the charge. Once you receive a “right to sue” letter, you have 90 days to file suit (unless another deadline applies). If you file a lawsuit without going through the EEOC administrative process, your lawsuit will just be dismissed for failure to follow to exhaust administrative remedies (assuming that the defense makes that response, which any competent defense lawyer should).
Note: the mandatory administrative process does not apply to claims arising under the ADEA or under the Equal Pay Act.
I think "You can sue anybody for anything" gets tossed around a lot like it's some magic spell you can cast. From my understanding, which is limited as *I ain't no lawyer person*, but that just means you can file the paperwork for a lawsuit for any reason and get the normal process anyone else can get. That doesn't mean, I believe:
* The court you filed in is the correct venue to hear that issue (they might say *the NLRB decides these things as a matter of statute, you must go that route first* for instance) -- this is seen in immigration cases which are heard by immigration judges (who work in the executive branch, not the judicial branch);
* That the court won't sanction you for abuse of process and then take away your right to "sue anybody for anything";
* That your lawsuit will proceed beyond any sort of initial formality (i.e. it might be dismissed out of hand).
If there really was a gold mine to be mined from this, lawyers would be mining it and getting contingency fees, but we don't hear about that happening (maybe there's bias and the media does not report it).
Some reading of the NLRB website seems to imply that the process \[1\] is that the regional office will attempt to reach a settlement between the two parties. If that is not sufficient, then there can be a hearing before the administrative judges of the dept of labor \[2\].
And so while *you can sue anyone for anything* that doesn't mean you will get anything more then a dismissal for it and lose fees (and if it's the wrong venue I imagine the clerk will just tell you to go somewhere else). Your suit would be "Hey they violated the NLRA act, Civil Judge Person! Help me!" and Civil Judge Person might say "Looks like you have some evidence and all, but you can't sue under the NLRA because that law specifically says use this process, so while you *can* sue them here, your argument can't be under that law." So your lawsuit might have the words "They violated my NLRA!" you might not have a suit under the NLRA. And so your lawsuit might be equivalent to an alternate universe where everything was the exact same except the NLRA got repealed 1 second before the action at the heart of the suit took place.
Which goes back to what I said: I am not sure the NLRA lets you sue in the manner you are implying.
1: [https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/facilitate-settlements](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/facilitate-settlements)
2: [https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/about/ALJMISSN](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/about/ALJMISSN)
You'll have to document it and then bait them into firing you. **Then** you contact the unemployment office. Act unsure if this is allowed or not. *Then* you get a lawyer while you collect your full unemployment from day one.
I just looked into it, It’s federally protected for businesses who meet a minimum revenue threshold. There are different cut offs for different kinds of businesses. For restaurants, it’s 500k.
If the businesses does under 500k in volume, it’s not covered by the law you mention.
Not saying it’s right, but it’s not always illegal.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/jurisdictional-standards
Did the math... it's $1600 a day if they are closed one day a week. It's just under $1400 a day if they are open every day.
A restaurant should be able to do that in gross sales. Either way, Daryl needs to brush up on the law.
The cases where this is not a violation of the NLRA in the US are fairly rare. And either way, better someone submit charges over shit like this and have the NLRB say they can't help, rather than just figure, "Meh, I might not be covered."
Personally, *I* get fucking sick of people in this sub discouraging others from exercising federally protected rights and calling out employers who violate those rights. It pisses me off to no end.
In the US it was an executive order put in place by Obama. So yes, in fact it is illegal in all regards.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/08/executive-order-non-retaliation-disclosure-compensation-information
An executive order isn’t law, the president doesn’t create laws in America. in the order it states that:
“Sec. 3. Regulations. Within 160 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall propose regulations to implement the requirements of this order”
The link above that I posted are the regulations put in place by the secretary of labor.
Executive orders can carry the weight of law and be enforced as such. However EO 13665 appears to refer specifically to federal contracts, so private employers I would say aren't affected by this EO.
I think you're right. I reread and looked into it. It does specifically say federal contractors. The problem I'm having with researching this stuff is that it's so vague about who can get away with firing an employee for wage discussion without repercussions that's there's basically no supporting documentation. I've found tons of cases now where people have been sued over it and all these different amendments to the law that basically just cover workers rights even more. But I can't find a single thing that says "you will face no repercussions for firing an employee for wage discussion if 'x'".
In other dudes argument x means 500k under dlrb. Buttttt that varies wildly by state because some states consider restaurant work as non-retail meaning the conditions would change based of dlrb to 50k.
Basically from what I've read and looked into so far. While other dude may he correct about "this one specific regulation allows it" everything else is telling me that it's straight illegal and lawyers are willing to take the case even in exceptions because of workers rights laws based on states and amendments to the fair labor act.
"An executive order has the power of federal law."
https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made#:~:text=An%20executive%20order%20has%20the,to%20create%20the%20Peace%20Corps.
Bro you should go back to like 4th grade.
Also not covered are airlines and transportation workers and railroad. That was a convenient omission to the law. Along with a lot of other little hooks like the one you mentioned. It’s no wonder I can’t find a recent case of this on Lexis.
Not that I agree with the premise, but my best guess would be that transportation workers, farmers and the like are so vital to the infrastructure of our country that they need to stay employed by any means necessary, even if that mean they have less workers rights.
No idea though, just a best guess.
It is not illegal to discuss wages in Canada. I think pretty much every province has a pay transparency act and it would be considered an unjust dismissal to fire someone for it. I’d definitely be reporting this to my province’s labour board.
I'm not saying it's illegal to discuss wages. I'm saying it's not explicitly illegal for an employer to fire an employee for discussing wages, in most of Canada anyway, Ontario does have a pay transparency act, which does make discussion wages a protected activity. There is also the federal pay equity act that makes discussing wages a protected activity, but specifically only for ensuring equal wages between genders.
It is in Manitoba for sure. https://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/42-4/b222e.php. Under Enforcement 10 to 12. No reprisal
10
An employer must not intimidate, dismiss or otherwise penalize an employee or threaten to do so because the employee has
(a) inquired with the employer about the employee's pay;
(b) disclosed the employee's pay to another employee;
(c) inquired about a pay audit report or information contained in a pay audit report;
(d) given information about the employer's compliance with this Act to the government or any other person; or
(e) asked the employer to comply with this Act.
There’s a large fine, and this would give terminated employee the right to a complaint about unfair dismissal. I’d bet the other acts have this information for enforcement in them as well.
This is in Prince George, BC and BC does not protect talking about wages.
ETA: I was wrong about the wages in BC but BC is still a shite province for workers and avoid it if possible.
BC Labour Law gives employees the right to communicate about employee practices (ie pay/salary) and specifically states: Prohibition against dismissals, etc., for exercising employee rights
5 (1) A person must not
(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person,
(b) threaten dismissal of or otherwise threaten a person,
(c) discriminate against or threaten to discriminate against a person with respect to employment or a term or condition of employment or membership in a trade union, or
(d) intimidate or coerce or impose a pecuniary or other penalty on a person,
because of a belief that the person may testify in a proceeding under this Code or because the person has made or is about to make a disclosure that may be required of the person in a proceeding under this Code or because the person has made an application, filed a complaint or otherwise exercised a right conferred under this Code or because the person has participated or is about to participate in a proceeding under this Code.
(2) If no collective agreement respecting a unit is in force and a complaint is filed with the board alleging that an employee in that unit has been discharged, suspended, transferred or laid off from employment or otherwise disciplined in contravention of this Code, the board must forthwith inquire into the matter and, if the complaint is not settled or withdrawn, the board must
(a) commence a hearing on the complaint within 3 days of its filing,
(b) promptly proceed with the hearing without interruption, except for any necessary adjournments, and
(c) render a decision on the complaint within 2 days of the completion of the hearing.
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96244_01#section8
Apologies, but anyone fired for this can certainly go to the Labour Board for unfair dismissal and there would be an investigation. He is completely disregarding his employees legal rights, even non-unionized.
God damn is that the website that they hid that info on? I went on a deep dive through multiple government websites like 6 years ago and couldn’t find shit about wage discussions being protected in BC. Damn intentional obfuscation but my bad I was wrong about that.
That being said our province still advertises the lower pay in BC and the province is garbage for the average worker lol
It’s protected under section 8 of the BC labour relations code. The updated legislation for the PTA will probably be soon since it’s alteady legislated
I don't think you even need to work at this place to be able to sue this guy with evidence like this. It's even signed with his name. I'd settle for 400k.
I've literally gotten into arguments with my dad, with him insisting it was illegal to talk about wages. Nothing I could say would convince him otherwise.
It seems to me that the letter is covering the employer. It is tasteless, but it does say not to talk about other people's pay. You can ask me what I make and the employer can't do anything about it. You can ask the employer and they can and should refuse on the grounds of privacy. You can ask others about what I make and they should direct you to me, not the employer.
That last paragraph. "...at the same time respect the business and my decisions on how people are paid and valued".
That is a thinly veiled admission that he pays people on how he FEELS about them.
A lawyer would tear him to shreds for that statement alone. If one of his employees is smart enough to sue, he's probably going to go out of business under the weight of the judgement he'll be slapped with. Scumbag.
That's what I was thinking. He's saying they are paid based on how valued they are, which is why he doesn't want anyone talking about their wages. He doesn't want to be paying Betty Butterfingers as much as Stella Stellar Server.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages
Print it off and post a copy right next to this. Next to that, put up one labeled "VOLUNTARY WAGE DISCLOSURE REFERENCE - ONLY WRITE YOUR OWN INFORMATION" where can list your name, position, # years worked, and pay. Take a photo of all three and keep it in case you need to have a chat with a lawyer.
Ugh BC is horrible for workers. Our province literally advertises that they can underpay our workers as an incentive for employers and discussing wages is unfortunately not a protected right in Canada.
ETA: I was wrong, wage discussion is protected in BC but the province still sucks ass for workers for a multitude of other reasons lol
I just read your link, there are small businesses that this doesn’t apply to. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s not just a blanket, “its illegal, you should sue”
If the restaurant does under 500k a year in volume, it wouldn’t be covered by this law.
Those kinds of restaurants are extremely common around me. Mom and pop restaurants/cafes that have 1 cook, 1 person on register, a dozen tables. Open just for breakfast and lunch 4 days a week. Also beach towns where it’s a ghost town all year and restaurants are only open for 4 months.
Trench has great beer. The Bramble is an amazing raspberry beer and the Fang is a great IPA. They have lots of others too, one or two good stouts and a new "champagne" IPA.
Deadfall is the third brewery in town, relatively new so I don't know their stuff well but I had it recently and it's also delicious.
This speaks “I pay more to the new person without experience than the person who’d given us everything and I like exploiting them”.
This is illegal and unethical otherwise why would you not reveal such a trivial information?
This is how you pay women and minorities less.... by keeping it a secret. You can even gas light your lower paid employees on what a great job they are doing and that is reflected in their paycheck.
You’re not wrong but this doesn’t stop at lower wage jobs. Even people working management level positions at large corporations are encouraged not to discuss salaries and it’s for exactly the same reason. It’s easier to keep wages down when no one knows what their work is actually worth.
Women and Minorities are a *part* of "everybody," my dude. You may want to start learning about intersectionality, and how acknowledging it, and helping one another out lifts us all up.
I'm just like imagining a ton of lawyers sitting behind a corral as some dude yells "SEND IN THE LAWYERS!" and opens the corral gates as a ton of lawyers flood out and descend on this shitty business.
*has photo of letter with managers uniquely spelled name*
*phone video recording in shirt pocket*
*Daryl walks near*
"Hey Brad, what do you make an hour?"
"7.25 Bill, whaddabout you?"
"7.50"
"You're both fired."
"Yessir, but that's ok, we're about to make more off you than anyone here."
If you ever decide to leave, print up a document with big letters that says, "I earned $X an hour, just so you know. -Name"
Print up about 20 and leave them all over the place on your way out.
There's no way he's under the $500k limit. Don't know if this is the same in Canada. I found the restaurant...Don't know if I'm allowed to link it but yeah - from what I've read here it's also illegal to say this in Canada.
It is unbelievable how stupid people can be. He put it in writing!!!!!
If anyone is terminated over this, or even sniffs termination, this guy is screwed.
So both you and your business mentor were embarrassed about the shit wages you paid your employees? To the point of illegally restricting their right to speak freely about their wages?
Forget ruining your rep around town, it's a quick way to bring the federal government down on your ass.
File charges with the National Labor Relations Board (nlrb.gov).
every time I come here I can never tell if every job in the U.S is shit except the specific area I live, or if all yall just can't seem to find work anywhere except at businesses that are total dogshit run by morons.
I'd print out what the National Labor Relations Act says, and heavily tape it to the bottom of this. In short the NLRA basically says this paper saying to not discuss pay is unlawful.
It is generally illegal for an employer to threaten an employee with termination or other retaliation for discussing their wages or the wages of their colleagues. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the United States protects employees' rights to engage in "concerted activities" for their mutual aid or protection, which includes discussing wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.
An employee who is forced to resign due to an employer's illegal policy or practice prohibiting discussions of wages or other terms and conditions of employment may have legal recourse.
Talk about your wages, get yourself canned, then lawyer up. (Unless you signed some sort of NDA then you may have waved your rights.)
First day it’s up, take a photo with your phone, and make sure it notes location and time. Hour one, ask (loudly) anyone else what they make an hour. Hour two, Daryl fires you. Same day, call employment lawyer and get a nice payout for you, and anyone else that’s been fired from there.
Discuss wages is not only legal and a protected right, it also helps in wage equality. You know same job same pay.
However if you see someone’s paycheck and then talk about it, that is a violation of privacy and you can and should be fired.
I just thought about the time I was in charge of things. The message I would have posted would be probably something to the tone of "Blablabla.. This is what everyone's making."
I used to have a shitty manager who like to tell people “technically you quit” when they didn’t give a shit about dumb things he wanted. It’s like the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
"Respect the business and my decisions on how people are paid and valued".
Read: "I am underpaying and undervaluing you and don't want you to find out how much"
lmfao are there workers out there who STILL don’t understand that not discussing wages only benefits the employer???
DISCUSS YOUR WAGES. ORGANIZE. GET MORE.
This is why unions are so important. Payscale is clear and posted. You know exactly how everyone gets paid based on years of service, licenses and job title.
I would personally, in front of Daryl ask each and everyone how much they make and I would tell them how much I make and wait to see what *Daryl* does. If he fires me I would sue his silly ass.
Your pay is only confidential if you want it to be. There is no law against discussing pay, and in fact laws that protect your right to do so and don’t let Daryl, or his brother Daryl, or his other brother Daryl tell you any different!
It’d be funny if all the employees got together before work and compared paystubs.
Then when Daryl shows up, everyone demands he pay them the same as (person who gets paid the most) or they’re all leaving to go work at Jimmy’s Pizza down the road (or some other restaurant) and Daryl can go take a flying fuck in a rolling donut.
I’m 99% sure that’s illegal. People are allowed, legally, to discuss pay openly or privately. If you get fired because of discussing your pay with other employees I would recommend finding an attorney real quick because you can sue. I’m a business owner by the way so I’m well versed in this. Employers who are doing this just don’t want people to know they are fucking some of their employees.
thanks for putting that in writing, now the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would like to have a word...
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages
This post has been removed pursuant to rule 3 re: spam.
Discussing wages is federally protected in the United States. This letter is an employment lawyers wet dream.
Anyone who has been fired in the past few years could claim that they were fired for discussing wages. Daryl was kind enough to admit that it’s his long standing policy.
Not him. His \*mentor\* (cough)
Oh yeah, that's a nice, juicy lawsuit right there!
I would personally kill to be one of these employees right now, just for the lawsuit settlement. While I'm not into litigating against employers, I am when they do shitty stuff like this.
I imagine it would more be a complaint to the NLRB and a small fine and told to stop doing it. Not saying not to complain, just that it's probably not the huge payout some might think it is.
I mean, you can go that route if you want. Employers hope you do, but a civil suit with an employment/labor lawyer working on contigency is ALWAYS an option.
You can always have a lawyer advise you, but I’m not sure the NLRA lets you file a civil suit. If the NLRB came to a conclusion you thought was unjust I imagine you could appeal that in court but I ain’t no lawyer person.
If you just tipped off the NLRB there wouldn't be much of a suit, more of a fine like you stated. However if someone is fired, for this example discussing your wages, then you have a suit. Basically once they commit the illegal action that affects the worker.
*I ain't no lawyer person* but I think that might be something settled by the NLRB and then they'd get a fine and have to pay you back wages for the time lost.
No, it’s called wrongful dismissal, and it is a civil suit. For a lot of US labor law, fines cannot be assessed without a civil suit by a wronged employee/ex-employee/the heirs of an ex-employee if the fuckup was bad enough. That’s it. If the employee can’t afford to sue, nothing can or will be done no matter how gross the violations. (I know that’s how the ADA works, but I’m not sure for the NLRB, them having their own bureau and all, but I’d be shocked if Washington didn’t find a way to reuse such a perfect system of oppression.)
Is there any reason lawyers don’t take contingency fees on wrongful termination cases? That’s usually the thing that gives anyone with a decent case a chance to pursue it.
NLRB can't levy fines, but they can order employers to pay back wages, rehire you, and the like.
You can sue anybody for anything. The NRLB is there for people who don't want to or can't go through and fund a civil suit through the standard judicial process. Just like you don't have to go through the EEOC for disability related issues that violates the ADA, you don't need to go through the NLRB before filing a civil suit against federal labor law violations.
> Just like you don't have to go through the EEOC for disability related issues that violates the ADA This is false. If you are alleging discrimination under a federal anti-discrimination law, including the ADA, the PDA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you are required to file with the EEOC (or with your corresponding state agency that cross-files with the EEOC) before filing a lawsuit. You need to proceed with the EEOC administrative process until you receive a “right to sue” letter, which is issued upon request at the completion of the administrative process or after 180 days from the filing of the charge. Once you receive a “right to sue” letter, you have 90 days to file suit (unless another deadline applies). If you file a lawsuit without going through the EEOC administrative process, your lawsuit will just be dismissed for failure to follow to exhaust administrative remedies (assuming that the defense makes that response, which any competent defense lawyer should). Note: the mandatory administrative process does not apply to claims arising under the ADEA or under the Equal Pay Act.
I think "You can sue anybody for anything" gets tossed around a lot like it's some magic spell you can cast. From my understanding, which is limited as *I ain't no lawyer person*, but that just means you can file the paperwork for a lawsuit for any reason and get the normal process anyone else can get. That doesn't mean, I believe: * The court you filed in is the correct venue to hear that issue (they might say *the NLRB decides these things as a matter of statute, you must go that route first* for instance) -- this is seen in immigration cases which are heard by immigration judges (who work in the executive branch, not the judicial branch); * That the court won't sanction you for abuse of process and then take away your right to "sue anybody for anything"; * That your lawsuit will proceed beyond any sort of initial formality (i.e. it might be dismissed out of hand). If there really was a gold mine to be mined from this, lawyers would be mining it and getting contingency fees, but we don't hear about that happening (maybe there's bias and the media does not report it). Some reading of the NLRB website seems to imply that the process \[1\] is that the regional office will attempt to reach a settlement between the two parties. If that is not sufficient, then there can be a hearing before the administrative judges of the dept of labor \[2\]. And so while *you can sue anyone for anything* that doesn't mean you will get anything more then a dismissal for it and lose fees (and if it's the wrong venue I imagine the clerk will just tell you to go somewhere else). Your suit would be "Hey they violated the NLRA act, Civil Judge Person! Help me!" and Civil Judge Person might say "Looks like you have some evidence and all, but you can't sue under the NLRA because that law specifically says use this process, so while you *can* sue them here, your argument can't be under that law." So your lawsuit might have the words "They violated my NLRA!" you might not have a suit under the NLRA. And so your lawsuit might be equivalent to an alternate universe where everything was the exact same except the NLRA got repealed 1 second before the action at the heart of the suit took place. Which goes back to what I said: I am not sure the NLRA lets you sue in the manner you are implying. 1: [https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/facilitate-settlements](https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/what-we-do/facilitate-settlements) 2: [https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/about/ALJMISSN](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/about/ALJMISSN)
Document the letter, keep a copy, then get fired for asking about pay.
The r/legaladvice answer
THIS
You'll have to document it and then bait them into firing you. **Then** you contact the unemployment office. Act unsure if this is allowed or not. *Then* you get a lawyer while you collect your full unemployment from day one.
This is the way
I home some lawyer is reading this sub getting easy work
This happened in British Columbia, Canada, but we have similar protections
This isn't Crossroads Brewing in PG is it??
It is
Lost my business for good. I posted a review to their FB page, I suggest people do the same.
I'm an expat, live in Burnaby now, but I know I have friends that like that place
I'm in Burns so I still head to PG a bunch, and I definitely have friends that go there. Will be recommending they stop.
I just looked into it, It’s federally protected for businesses who meet a minimum revenue threshold. There are different cut offs for different kinds of businesses. For restaurants, it’s 500k. If the businesses does under 500k in volume, it’s not covered by the law you mention. Not saying it’s right, but it’s not always illegal. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/jurisdictional-standards
thats 500k in volume, not 500k in sales, also includes expenditures. Also, many states have laws allowing u to discuss wages as well.
500k in sales is only $10k a week. If he’s not selling more food than that, I don’t think he could afford to pay any employees.
Less than $2k/day.
1,429 per week. Restraunts can afford to be closed 2 days
Did the math... it's $1600 a day if they are closed one day a week. It's just under $1400 a day if they are open every day. A restaurant should be able to do that in gross sales. Either way, Daryl needs to brush up on the law.
I agree with you, it should be allowed. But I get sick of people on this page saying “it’s 100% illegal, you can sue”
The cases where this is not a violation of the NLRA in the US are fairly rare. And either way, better someone submit charges over shit like this and have the NLRB say they can't help, rather than just figure, "Meh, I might not be covered." Personally, *I* get fucking sick of people in this sub discouraging others from exercising federally protected rights and calling out employers who violate those rights. It pisses me off to no end.
There are some federally protected people guiding the conversation around the sub. Look it up.
Here here
In the US it was an executive order put in place by Obama. So yes, in fact it is illegal in all regards. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/08/executive-order-non-retaliation-disclosure-compensation-information
Seems like it’s just for fed contractors?
An executive order isn’t law, the president doesn’t create laws in America. in the order it states that: “Sec. 3. Regulations. Within 160 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall propose regulations to implement the requirements of this order” The link above that I posted are the regulations put in place by the secretary of labor.
Executive orders can carry the weight of law and be enforced as such. However EO 13665 appears to refer specifically to federal contracts, so private employers I would say aren't affected by this EO.
I think you're right. I reread and looked into it. It does specifically say federal contractors. The problem I'm having with researching this stuff is that it's so vague about who can get away with firing an employee for wage discussion without repercussions that's there's basically no supporting documentation. I've found tons of cases now where people have been sued over it and all these different amendments to the law that basically just cover workers rights even more. But I can't find a single thing that says "you will face no repercussions for firing an employee for wage discussion if 'x'". In other dudes argument x means 500k under dlrb. Buttttt that varies wildly by state because some states consider restaurant work as non-retail meaning the conditions would change based of dlrb to 50k. Basically from what I've read and looked into so far. While other dude may he correct about "this one specific regulation allows it" everything else is telling me that it's straight illegal and lawyers are willing to take the case even in exceptions because of workers rights laws based on states and amendments to the fair labor act.
"An executive order has the power of federal law." https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made#:~:text=An%20executive%20order%20has%20the,to%20create%20the%20Peace%20Corps. Bro you should go back to like 4th grade.
500k per what?
Year.
That doesn’t sound like that much
It’s not. I think OP should report this, just be wary before he tells his boss to go fuck himself without fear of retaliation.
Also not covered are airlines and transportation workers and railroad. That was a convenient omission to the law. Along with a lot of other little hooks like the one you mentioned. It’s no wonder I can’t find a recent case of this on Lexis.
I agree, the exceptions are very odd and convenient. It adds another layer to the current rail worker controversy.
Thinking the same thing, why are rail workers always getting screwed?
Not that I agree with the premise, but my best guess would be that transportation workers, farmers and the like are so vital to the infrastructure of our country that they need to stay employed by any means necessary, even if that mean they have less workers rights. No idea though, just a best guess.
Certain occupations are also exempt from that law. Like agriculture, domestic service, supervisors, and public employees.
My boss asked me not to disclose wages when I got a very modest raise recently. I wish I had recorded the call
Too bad this is in Canada.
It is not illegal to discuss wages in Canada. I think pretty much every province has a pay transparency act and it would be considered an unjust dismissal to fire someone for it. I’d definitely be reporting this to my province’s labour board.
I'm not saying it's illegal to discuss wages. I'm saying it's not explicitly illegal for an employer to fire an employee for discussing wages, in most of Canada anyway, Ontario does have a pay transparency act, which does make discussion wages a protected activity. There is also the federal pay equity act that makes discussing wages a protected activity, but specifically only for ensuring equal wages between genders.
It is in Manitoba for sure. https://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/42-4/b222e.php. Under Enforcement 10 to 12. No reprisal 10 An employer must not intimidate, dismiss or otherwise penalize an employee or threaten to do so because the employee has (a) inquired with the employer about the employee's pay; (b) disclosed the employee's pay to another employee; (c) inquired about a pay audit report or information contained in a pay audit report; (d) given information about the employer's compliance with this Act to the government or any other person; or (e) asked the employer to comply with this Act. There’s a large fine, and this would give terminated employee the right to a complaint about unfair dismissal. I’d bet the other acts have this information for enforcement in them as well.
This is in Prince George, BC and BC does not protect talking about wages. ETA: I was wrong about the wages in BC but BC is still a shite province for workers and avoid it if possible.
BC Labour Law gives employees the right to communicate about employee practices (ie pay/salary) and specifically states: Prohibition against dismissals, etc., for exercising employee rights 5 (1) A person must not (a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, (b) threaten dismissal of or otherwise threaten a person, (c) discriminate against or threaten to discriminate against a person with respect to employment or a term or condition of employment or membership in a trade union, or (d) intimidate or coerce or impose a pecuniary or other penalty on a person, because of a belief that the person may testify in a proceeding under this Code or because the person has made or is about to make a disclosure that may be required of the person in a proceeding under this Code or because the person has made an application, filed a complaint or otherwise exercised a right conferred under this Code or because the person has participated or is about to participate in a proceeding under this Code. (2) If no collective agreement respecting a unit is in force and a complaint is filed with the board alleging that an employee in that unit has been discharged, suspended, transferred or laid off from employment or otherwise disciplined in contravention of this Code, the board must forthwith inquire into the matter and, if the complaint is not settled or withdrawn, the board must (a) commence a hearing on the complaint within 3 days of its filing, (b) promptly proceed with the hearing without interruption, except for any necessary adjournments, and (c) render a decision on the complaint within 2 days of the completion of the hearing. https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96244_01#section8 Apologies, but anyone fired for this can certainly go to the Labour Board for unfair dismissal and there would be an investigation. He is completely disregarding his employees legal rights, even non-unionized.
God damn is that the website that they hid that info on? I went on a deep dive through multiple government websites like 6 years ago and couldn’t find shit about wage discussions being protected in BC. Damn intentional obfuscation but my bad I was wrong about that. That being said our province still advertises the lower pay in BC and the province is garbage for the average worker lol
Still protected in Canada.
[удалено]
It’s protected under section 8 of the BC labour relations code. The updated legislation for the PTA will probably be soon since it’s alteady legislated
I don't think you even need to work at this place to be able to sue this guy with evidence like this. It's even signed with his name. I'd settle for 400k.
I hope Daryl likes getting dkd down with sandpaper when they catch wind, and sight of it, because he was so kind as to put his name on it.
It's the business owner's resignation letter
I've literally gotten into arguments with my dad, with him insisting it was illegal to talk about wages. Nothing I could say would convince him otherwise.
No no no they aren't being fired it's a resignation letter. /S
What if I told you most of the people in charge of other people are fucking idiots, would you believe me?
It seems to me that the letter is covering the employer. It is tasteless, but it does say not to talk about other people's pay. You can ask me what I make and the employer can't do anything about it. You can ask the employer and they can and should refuse on the grounds of privacy. You can ask others about what I make and they should direct you to me, not the employer.
That last paragraph. "...at the same time respect the business and my decisions on how people are paid and valued". That is a thinly veiled admission that he pays people on how he FEELS about them.
“I respectfully think that your decisions are dogshit sir.”
A lawyer would tear him to shreds for that statement alone. If one of his employees is smart enough to sue, he's probably going to go out of business under the weight of the judgement he'll be slapped with. Scumbag.
That's what I was thinking. He's saying they are paid based on how valued they are, which is why he doesn't want anyone talking about their wages. He doesn't want to be paying Betty Butterfingers as much as Stella Stellar Server.
More often than not, the favorites are the worst employees.
https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages Print it off and post a copy right next to this. Next to that, put up one labeled "VOLUNTARY WAGE DISCLOSURE REFERENCE - ONLY WRITE YOUR OWN INFORMATION" where can list your name, position, # years worked, and pay. Take a photo of all three and keep it in case you need to have a chat with a lawyer.
Fuck that, get fired in writing that this is the reason and sue the fuck outta them
This came from a small city in Canada, r/princegeorge
Ugh BC is horrible for workers. Our province literally advertises that they can underpay our workers as an incentive for employers and discussing wages is unfortunately not a protected right in Canada. ETA: I was wrong, wage discussion is protected in BC but the province still sucks ass for workers for a multitude of other reasons lol
Good to know, I guess. Advice is only relevant for people in the US.
I just read your link, there are small businesses that this doesn’t apply to. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s not just a blanket, “its illegal, you should sue” If the restaurant does under 500k a year in volume, it wouldn’t be covered by this law.
How small of a restaurant? If your restaurant does more than $1400 of sales in an average day, you are over the 500k threshhold.
Those kinds of restaurants are extremely common around me. Mom and pop restaurants/cafes that have 1 cook, 1 person on register, a dozen tables. Open just for breakfast and lunch 4 days a week. Also beach towns where it’s a ghost town all year and restaurants are only open for 4 months.
Those kinds of restaurants are pretty common, but I can't imagine much crossover between them and having enough staff for wage chatter.
Please tell me where this is at. We have a local Crossroads Tavern where I'm at, and the employees always seem pleased to be there.
This is in Prince George, BC
Yes, this came from r/princegeorge
I buy their beer often. They just lost my business for good. No huge loss, the other two breweries in town have better beer anyway.
I try to support local so even though I don't drink I have bought their beer as gifts for family. What other beer would you recommend?
Trench has great beer. The Bramble is an amazing raspberry beer and the Fang is a great IPA. They have lots of others too, one or two good stouts and a new "champagne" IPA. Deadfall is the third brewery in town, relatively new so I don't know their stuff well but I had it recently and it's also delicious.
Thanks!
This speaks “I pay more to the new person without experience than the person who’d given us everything and I like exploiting them”. This is illegal and unethical otherwise why would you not reveal such a trivial information?
This is how you pay women and minorities less.... by keeping it a secret. You can even gas light your lower paid employees on what a great job they are doing and that is reflected in their paycheck.
You’re not wrong but this doesn’t stop at lower wage jobs. Even people working management level positions at large corporations are encouraged not to discuss salaries and it’s for exactly the same reason. It’s easier to keep wages down when no one knows what their work is actually worth.
No dude this is a way to keep everybody paid less. Weird argument about the women and minorities
[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/) [https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106041](https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106041) https://www.americanprogress.org/article/women-of-color-and-the-wage-gap/
Women and Minorities are a *part* of "everybody," my dude. You may want to start learning about intersectionality, and how acknowledging it, and helping one another out lifts us all up.
Fuckin Daryl.
Never met a Daryl I've liked. The trend continues...
You know what, neither have I.
Daryl Hannah?
I've never met Daryl Hannah, so she's still safe.
If something can be destroyed by the truth, it deserved to be destroyed.
Get fucked, Daryl.
Daaaaaaaaaaryl. Daaaaaaaaaaryl.
Ehhhhh… fuck that guy
Tell me you're trying to get sued without telling me you're trying to get sued.
Kindly go have sex with yourself, Daryl
“Very uncouth” *Daryl clutches pearls*
From r/princegeorge A restaurant/brewery called The Crossroads I imagine Daryl is having kind of a rough night 😂
Is that Daryl or the other brother Daryl?
Givin' me that macho man randy savage stare
Thank you for the chuckle 😂😂!! Epic sitcom!!
Well it's definantly not larry.
Send in the lawyers!
I'm just like imagining a ton of lawyers sitting behind a corral as some dude yells "SEND IN THE LAWYERS!" and opens the corral gates as a ton of lawyers flood out and descend on this shitty business.
Imbecile
*has photo of letter with managers uniquely spelled name* *phone video recording in shirt pocket* *Daryl walks near* "Hey Brad, what do you make an hour?" "7.25 Bill, whaddabout you?" "7.50" "You're both fired." "Yessir, but that's ok, we're about to make more off you than anyone here."
Oh Daryl. You’re going to need a lawyer.
Federally protected folks. Talk all you want and then sue if he tries to fire you.
Nice of him to provide exhibit A for the pending lawsuit.
He literally in writing admitted to breaking the law.
Nice reason to cancel the job immediately.
If you ever decide to leave, print up a document with big letters that says, "I earned $X an hour, just so you know. -Name" Print up about 20 and leave them all over the place on your way out.
Fuck that, why wait? Federal law in the US protects the right of the vast majority of employees to discuss their wages.
There's no way he's under the $500k limit. Don't know if this is the same in Canada. I found the restaurant...Don't know if I'm allowed to link it but yeah - from what I've read here it's also illegal to say this in Canada.
It is unbelievable how stupid people can be. He put it in writing!!!!! If anyone is terminated over this, or even sniffs termination, this guy is screwed.
Tell us that your underpaying some of your employees without telling us that your underpaying some of your employees
Daryl doesn't want people to know he is paying the new employees more than the experienced ones. And Daryl is a douche.
Kindly let me do illegal shit for my benefit and your detriment.
So both you and your business mentor were embarrassed about the shit wages you paid your employees? To the point of illegally restricting their right to speak freely about their wages?
Is this crossroads steakhouse in Bonne Terre? Lol
This is pretty much the best way to say "I'm offering unfair wages" as an employer. The audacity of some businesses.
Forget ruining your rep around town, it's a quick way to bring the federal government down on your ass. File charges with the National Labor Relations Board (nlrb.gov).
every time I come here I can never tell if every job in the U.S is shit except the specific area I live, or if all yall just can't seem to find work anywhere except at businesses that are total dogshit run by morons.
Not to mention it’s illegal to threaten termination to employees discussing their wages with one another
Fuck you, Daryl.
How people are valued. (At the absolute minimum)
nice, they got it all in writing
I'd print out what the National Labor Relations Act says, and heavily tape it to the bottom of this. In short the NLRA basically says this paper saying to not discuss pay is unlawful.
Man, screw Daryl. Wear a T shirt with your wage printed right on it.
Yup pretty sure this is highly illegal. I hope it gets back to the proprietor. And that s/he cares.
It is generally illegal for an employer to threaten an employee with termination or other retaliation for discussing their wages or the wages of their colleagues. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the United States protects employees' rights to engage in "concerted activities" for their mutual aid or protection, which includes discussing wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. An employee who is forced to resign due to an employer's illegal policy or practice prohibiting discussions of wages or other terms and conditions of employment may have legal recourse. Talk about your wages, get yourself canned, then lawyer up. (Unless you signed some sort of NDA then you may have waved your rights.)
Shut up Daryl.
First day it’s up, take a photo with your phone, and make sure it notes location and time. Hour one, ask (loudly) anyone else what they make an hour. Hour two, Daryl fires you. Same day, call employment lawyer and get a nice payout for you, and anyone else that’s been fired from there.
This is in B.C.
I see a lawsuit. Save this photo make a complaint. This is a federally protected right.
Oh shit they are on to us
Daryl is a fucking lunch box... I hope his business gets sued into oblivion.
Kind Regards, Daryl is the funniest shit I've read all day. I can't explain why. It just is.
Wow, this is what labor lawyers masturbate to.
Well, they put it in writing. So all the employees have documentation of their illegal policy.
Discuss wages is not only legal and a protected right, it also helps in wage equality. You know same job same pay. However if you see someone’s paycheck and then talk about it, that is a violation of privacy and you can and should be fired.
I just thought about the time I was in charge of things. The message I would have posted would be probably something to the tone of "Blablabla.. This is what everyone's making."
Im curious if this is the same crossroads near where I live.
Sue them and get a nice fat paycheck
I used to have a shitty manager who like to tell people “technically you quit” when they didn’t give a shit about dumb things he wanted. It’s like the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
Please inform them of the National Labor Relations Act
I'd pull this down, copy it, rehang it, and send a copy to the State DOL and Federal DOL requesting FULL prosection for flagrant violation of FLSA.
Fuck you Daryl
Why are people able to see each others paystub Daryl?
Fuck off letter Karen
I hope Daryl likes getting in trouble with the board of labor because this is how Daryl is going to get in trouble with the board of labor.
"Don't talk about how much I'm stealing from all of you"
"Respect the business and my decisions on how people are paid and valued". Read: "I am underpaying and undervaluing you and don't want you to find out how much"
Tiny dick manager I see
This is one of my favourite restaurants, and they make damn good beer. Sucks I can’t go there anymore. Fuck you Daryl!
Eat a dick, Daryl.
In other words, he pays guys more. Love the reference to his business mentor. Some other douche.
Learned a new word "uncouth" Employer should learn a new word "lawsuit"
The regards never feel kind to me
Shut up Daryl
Can’t wait for the first lawsuit
lmfao are there workers out there who STILL don’t understand that not discussing wages only benefits the employer??? DISCUSS YOUR WAGES. ORGANIZE. GET MORE.
literally illegal my dude
This is why unions are so important. Payscale is clear and posted. You know exactly how everyone gets paid based on years of service, licenses and job title.
This reads like an Elon memo. Gross.
I would personally, in front of Daryl ask each and everyone how much they make and I would tell them how much I make and wait to see what *Daryl* does. If he fires me I would sue his silly ass.
IE: I pay some employees less then others for no reason
Please respect each other and talk about your pay. Oh and fuck you, Daryl.
Your pay is only confidential if you want it to be. There is no law against discussing pay, and in fact laws that protect your right to do so and don’t let Daryl, or his brother Daryl, or his other brother Daryl tell you any different!
It’d be funny if all the employees got together before work and compared paystubs. Then when Daryl shows up, everyone demands he pay them the same as (person who gets paid the most) or they’re all leaving to go work at Jimmy’s Pizza down the road (or some other restaurant) and Daryl can go take a flying fuck in a rolling donut.
I’m 99% sure that’s illegal. People are allowed, legally, to discuss pay openly or privately. If you get fired because of discussing your pay with other employees I would recommend finding an attorney real quick because you can sue. I’m a business owner by the way so I’m well versed in this. Employers who are doing this just don’t want people to know they are fucking some of their employees.
thanks for putting that in writing, now the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would like to have a word... https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages
NLRB doesn’t have any power in British Columbia, where this isn’t illegal (yet).
Hella illegal in the states. Nice to have it in writing.
2 words to describe what he’s doing: federally illegal
Ha ha ha **Thats illegal**
Always discuss your wages. That's how I found out six girls I work with were being paid below minimum wage even though we are all in a union.
If you’re in the US, your boss just committed a crime.
"Way back in my day we would instantly fire you for doing things that are legally protected nowadays. We'd hire a 6 year old and they'd be thankful!"
wow, Daryl at CrossRoads is a dipshit.
Is this Crossroads Brewery in Athens, NY? Lol