Charged for use of livery vehicle...

[Ultranothing]

No, Patty. You're right. The vehicle is NOT my workplace. I don't drive for a living, and I don't spend twelve hours a day IN the vehicle.

Tell ya what I'll do. I'll take it up with those who ACTUALLY know the law, and I'll let you know what happens.

You leave this thread open so I can report back, mmkay?

 

[justalayman]

No, Patty. You're right. The vehicle is NOT my workplace. I don't drive for a living, and I don't spend twelve hours a day IN the vehicle.

Tell ya what I'll do. I'll take it up with those who ACTUALLY know the law, and I'll let you know what happens.

You leave this thread open so I can report back, mmkay?

so, who is holding the bets for the time to claim the OG effect?

 

[Ultranothing]

what rules? You said they told you to drive to work and you refused.


Oh well.


Who is taking the bets for how long before the OG effect is invoked?

. oh, you are RARELY paid for waiting but you are NEVER on the clock. Do you not notice how those two "facts" are incongruent?

and why does it HAVE to be considered company time? It is also at the request of the company that you come pick up the car at the business if you want to use it but that is not company time.

If they pay you for your travel from your house to your first pickup, that is their choice. They don't have to.

Absorption of information isn't your strong suit, is it, Mr. Lame man?

I looked for the paperwork, but apparently, according to the LAW which you profess such a profound knowledge of, the "rule" that I could no longer take the car home, even though it was considered a fringe benefit, was still a vital function of my ability to perform my job duties, and they found in my favor that it was, indeed, a direct result of my employer that I could not continue my employment.

Hey, now that I think about it, since the law states that my vehicle (and the fringe benefit of taking the car home) ARE in fact required for my job, I wonder what the labor department would say about my company charging me for such things?

We'll find out, wont we?

 

[Ultranothing]

so, who is holding the bets for the time to claim the OG effect?

Well, you've already lost the last few. Are you feeling lucky?

 

[Ultranothing]

"no. apparently they are willing to allow this minimal use as a necessity."

"no. apparently they are willing to allow this minimal use as a necessity."

And charging me $25 per week for the necessity. Right, I'm being illogical. My fault.

 

[justalayman]

Absorption of information isn't your strong suit, is it, Mr. Lame man?

I looked for the paperwork, but apparently, according to the LAW which you profess such a profound knowledge of, the "rule" that I could no longer take the car home, even though it was considered a fringe benefit, was still a vital function of my ability to perform my job duties, and they found in my favor that it was, indeed, a direct result of my employer that I could not continue my employment.

Hey, now that I think about it, since the law states that my vehicle (and the fringe benefit of taking the car home) ARE in fact required for my job, I wonder what the labor department would say about my company charging me for such things?

We'll find out, wont we?

You are so full of BS I can smell you from here. The law never requires fringe benefits. That would make them (wait for it)



not fringe benefits but requirements.


Again, your logic is lacking.
the fact they altered your employment situation is why, if it actually happened, the UI office found in your favor. It is not because it is a requirement of your job.

the only thing this forced the employer to do is be charged for your UI. They could have simply accepted that and you would still be unemployed. It appears that they are now finding ways to get rid of you without having to pay UI or make it cost you to remain employed.



Your continued claims merely show your lack of any credibility.

 

[justalayman]

"no. apparently they are willing to allow this minimal use as a necessity."

And charging me $25 per week for the necessity. Right, I'm being illogical. My fault.

and there is such a simple solution: buy yourself a car and drive to the business and pick up the company vehicle in the morning and return it at the end of each workday.

 

[Ultranothing]

You are so full of BS I can smell you from here. The law never requires fringe benefits. That would make them (wait for it)



not fringe benefits but requirements.


Again, your logic is lacking.
the fact they altered your employment situation is why, if it actually happened, the UI office found in your favor. It is not because it is a requirement of your job.

the only thing this forced the employer to do is be charged for your UI. They could have simply accepted that and you would still be unemployed. It appears that they are now finding ways to get rid of you without having to pay UI or make it cost you to remain employed.



Your continued claims merely show your lack of any credibility.

It's a small wonder that you aren't an attorney. You're a GENIUS!

Fine, I'll dig up the paperwork. I'll repeat the text of it here.

Would you EVER admit that you were wrong?

 

[justalayman]

=Ultranothing;2640535]

Fine, I'll dig up the paperwork. I'll repeat the text of it here.

like that makes it believable. Since you are going to be so truthful, let me post a letter I recently received.


Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX

Thank you for the contribution of $12,000,000.00 to establish a new science building on our campus. yada yada yada...


Get the point?

Would you EVER admit that you were wrong?

Sure, when I am wrong.

 

[ecmst12]

My employer requests that I drive to the office every day so I can do my job. But I still don't get to clock in until I get there. And it would make absolutely no difference whether I was driving a company car or my personal car - normal commute does not count as work time. You will find that your "theory" that your vehicle is your work space will NOT be supported by the IRS or by the DOL. You don't get to make up your own definition of workplace, you have to use the same one that everyone else has to go by.

It is also NOT required for you to take the car home with you. It's more convenient for you to do that, but it's not required for your job. They COULD require you to leave the company car at the office. They don't, and that's a benefit. But while you have the car, they don't. That can cost them money. To encourage employees to leave the car at the office, they institute the charge. It's a nominal charge, not to make it prohibitive for the employee to take the car home, but to encourage them NOT to. This is legal, all of it. You can accept it, or not. If you fight too hard, you may just find yourself out of a job.

 

[pattytx]

See my first response (seems like decades ago) regarding imputed income for personal use of company vehicle.

 

[ecmst12]

I'm not sure your numbers are right though since the distance he is driving for commuting time is a lot less then 30 miles.

 

[Ultranothing]

"You don't get to make up your own definition of workplace, you have to use the same one that everyone else has to go by."

Well, according to the Massachusetts Smoke-free workplace law:

The Smoke-Free Workplace Law, M.G.L. Ch. 270, §22, mandates that enclosed workplaces with one or more
employees must be smoke-free. The state law’s intent is to protect workers in enclosed workplaces from secondhand
smoke exposure. The full text of the law and additional information (including DPH Regulation 105.CMR 661.000) are
available at Massachusetts Tobacco Cessation & Prevention Program.
Is smoking allowed in Taxis?
No. Not only are taxis a workplace but they are specifically mentioned within the law. Taxis are defined as
a “Public Transportation Conveyance.” As such “Smoking shall be prohibited…. upon any public
transportation conveyance.” (The Smoke-Free
Workplace Law, M.G.L. Ch. 270, §22

Now that's Massachusetts law, I know. But it's what I can find so far to substantiate my claim that the vehicle, in my industry, is considered the workplace.

 

[ecmst12]

Are you a taxi driver?

Do you live in MA?

Are you being forbidden from smoking in your work vehicle?

And really, that is SO COMPLETELY irrelevent to your situation, it's ridiculous. If you stretch any further you might break something.

 

[Ultranothing]

Am I a taxi driver? Not technically. I'm a livery driver. I do the same work, but I cannot accept cash or credit card fares. I still perform, essentially, the same task.

And yes, I am not allowed to smoke in the vehicle.

All I have to do now is find the legal definition of "workplace" as it applies to CT legislation.

If I could prove to you that indeed my vehicle is considered my "workplace", would it change anything?