$10K on a WDW vacation?!?!?--VENT

[JoiseyMom]

By law, employees are either exempt or non-exempt. If she was exempt, she wasn't 'getting paid 40 hours for 50 or 60 hours of work.'

If she was non-exempt, it was against the law.

ITA!! I was a salaried employee for a Finanical company and was non-exempt. I had to be paid OT. The company I worked for (a bank btw) miscalculated and a few years after I had left I received a check for several thousand dollars in back OT pay they shorted me! This was initiated by the state btw.

OP, if you were non-expemt I would find out. And if you were, I would go after him for all the back pay he owes you!! Then take a vacation .

 

[Chicago526]

I agree.

OP, my take on your post wasn't so much that you were complaining about the cost of his trip as it was that you felt a little bit like you helped underwrite it through your free labor.

While I understand that business and personal accounts are separate, the business is what funds the owner's income (which goes into his/her personal account). The owner led the OP to believe that money was very tight (he couldn't "afford" to pay her for the extra hours). After his call, she realized that what he could "afford" was a matter of perspective and that his business was apparently doing well enough for him to afford a $10,000 vacation which was going to cost even more if his parents went too.

Plain and simple, the OP felt used. I think she was too. OP, just be glad that you aren't still working there. I'm glad things are much better at home too!

ETA: He may not have been obligated to pay her overtime, but if that was the case, he shouldn't have been saying the reason he wasn't paying her was because money was so tight in the business.

ITA! I was thinking the same thing but you put it so much better than I could have!

Business owners put up the most risk and of course should reap the biggest reward in return. But not by shorting their employees to do it. Even if what he didn't wasn't illegal (and it may have been if she was non-exempt) it certainly wasn't moral. And THEN to call and say 'I'm taking this huge $$$ trip' is just tacky.

OP, if you don't know if you were non-exempt, I'd find out. If you were, I'd see about going after him for back pay, and I'm sure your state labor board will be interested as well. If you were exempt, well...lets just say karma is a witch. He'll get what he deserves, one way or another. Remember, the best revenge is living well!!!!

 

[jlima]

Plain and simple, the OP felt used.

Been there, done that!

My 2nd job out of college was for a company that was a sole proprietorship. The man who owned the company was so cheap he made the staff turn UPS envelopes inside out and use them for regular mail. After working in that kind of environment, I was sick to my stomach when I read a few years ago that he sold the company, no joke, for $500 million.

 

[johnGorski]

10k good for him, I hate when people Brag what they spend on there vacation. I meet a lady on the riverboat in frontier land 3 trips ago braging how much her trip cost. She took herself, her husband, Her Daughter/SIL with 2 kids. Her SIL parents all stayed at the GF plus top of the line DP and the trip cost her over 25k. I had to excuse myself from that conversation and move else where.
I hope you ex boss has a bad trip lol. he should be giving you and your family a 10k trip IMHO

 

[eliza61]

Oh, my. I knew you all would understand my distress....

My now former employer is spending $10K on a WDW vacation. His kids are only 1 and 3!

He was really, really taking advantage of me at work. I was working every single weekend, being grossly underpaid and working 50 or 60 hours a week and getting paid for 40 because he, "just couldn't afford any more than that in this economy." Boy, do I feel like an idiot now! I had worked there for six years, loved the job, co-workers and customers. But, I was missing too much of my own kids lives, so I quit. We are struggling financially right now, but the kids are doing great, the house is cleaner and dinner is on the table every night. I know who my 12 y/o is hanging out with, too. That is a big plus for me. And I have actually been able to take the boys to Sunday School and church instead of having them home alone or sitting at work with me.

Anyhow, boss-man calls me up and tells me all about his WDW trip for December. He is spending $10K and is trying to talk his parents into going and will pay for their trip also.

Do you all know how many times I could take my kids to WDW for $10K? Oh, wait, you probably do!

Ok, sorry for the rant. I just wanted "someone" to listen.

Whoo,
Sorry I'm with your boss-man.

First of all his going to wdw has nothing to do with how he treats you at work. He sounds like a jerk. You made the decisions you did. If you felt used, than change the situation.

What he spends on his vacation is his business. So what!! Obviously he can afford to drop a load on his wdw vacation. What does that have to do with any thing.

Some people are struggling financially does that mean the people who aren't can't spend their hard earned wages the way they want or are they supposed to bargain down their vacations simply because you feel it's excessive.

Op, you probably want to vent about a cretin of a boss and that's cool, I've had some bosses that would make Freddie kruger look like prince charming but his money is his money. He gets to spend it they way he wants.

 

[brenalexacamp]

Is this his 1st trip there? How much planning did he do? He'll probably be one of those people that come home and complain there was nothing to do because they had to wait so long for rides.

Just burns you because you appreciate the value of a dollar and are loyal to your employers. hang in there

 

[lillygator]

Oh, my. I knew you all would understand my distress....

My now former employer is spending $10K on a WDW vacation. His kids are only 1 and 3!

He was really, really taking advantage of me at work. I was working every single weekend, being grossly underpaid and working 50 or 60 hours a week and getting paid for 40 because he, "just couldn't afford any more than that in this economy." Boy, do I feel like an idiot now! I had worked there for six years, loved the job, co-workers and customers. But, I was missing too much of my own kids lives, so I quit. We are struggling financially right now, but the kids are doing great, the house is cleaner and dinner is on the table every night. I know who my 12 y/o is hanging out with, too. That is a big plus for me. And I have actually been able to take the boys to Sunday School and church instead of having them home alone or sitting at work with me.

Anyhow, boss-man calls me up and tells me all about his WDW trip for December. He is spending $10K and is trying to talk his parents into going and will pay for their trip also.

Do you all know how many times I could take my kids to WDW for $10K? Oh, wait, you probably do!

Ok, sorry for the rant. I just wanted "someone" to listen.

I agree that it was in poor taste to call you and brag about his expensive vacation. But you do realize that there is a separation between the man's business finances and his personal finances, don't you? I don't know a single business owner who combines both in the same place or who uses funds from one to support the other.

exactly.

 

[rumrunnergirl]

.

 

[Marionnette]

I really dont understand the mentality that a business owner should sacrifice his own income in order to maintain the status quo for his employees. If business is bad he has every right to make the cuts he needs to make in order to keep his income at the same level. Thats the benefit of being the owner. The guy who put up the capital and took all the risks gets to call the shots. If that guys goes out and buys a vacation home and furnishes it with wall to wall mink carpeting thats his business. He has no obligation to share the wealth. This aint no communist country.

 

[rumrunnergirl]

.

 

[mrsklamc]

DH is supposed to be salaried, but when he turns in less than 40 hours he gets paid hourly. If he turns in more than 40 hours he's salaried.

This is against the law. Unless he is a manager, construction employees cannot legally be salaried employees.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17p_construction.pdf

 

[rumrunnergirl]

.

 

[Marionnette]

It's not that - it's "don't lie to your employees and tell them you have to cut their pay and you can't pay them overtime because the economy sucks" when in truth it's not that at all. No one likes being lied to.

IMO if a boss cares about his company and it's income drops to the point of him "having" to cut employee pay, then his pay should drop as well - he should do ALL that is necessary to keep the business afloat. Shouldn't he want that, instead of milk it to death? That's not in his best interest. It's not "sharing the wealth" at all.

Like your siggie says . . .

So your saying that the boss should take a pay cut instead of the people who took no risks and put no money into a business. How is that fair? The employees get to keep their jobs, their pay and their benefits and the owner has to take the hit to his income? Sorry. Thats not how a capitalistic society works. Payroll cutbacks are a way to keep a struggling business afloat during tough times. Its not considered running it into the ground. But I do believe that no one should be forced to work additional hours for no pay. Thats a good reason for a lawsuit because there are laws against that sort of business practice. But your not going to convince me that any business owner should put his employees income and profit ahead of his own.

 

[rumrunnergirl]

.

 

[luvsJack]

So your saying that the boss should take a pay cut instead of the people who took no risks and put no money into a business. How is that fair? The employees get to keep their jobs, their pay and their benefits and the owner has to take the hit to his income? Sorry. Thats not how a capitalistic society works. Payroll cutbacks are a way to keep a struggling business afloat during tough times. Its not considered running it into the ground. But I do believe that no one should be forced to work additional hours for no pay. Thats a good reason for a lawsuit because there are laws against that sort of business practice. But your not going to convince me that any business owner should put his employees income and profit ahead of his own.

My mom and I did. You have to have your employees to keep the business running. Unless you are ready, willing and able to do it all yourself; it behooves you to keep your employees. I did cut hours at times, but I took a cut with my employees.

The owner is the one who gets the most benefit when the business is running great; he/she is also the one who takes the biggest hit when its not doing well. Taking funds from the business (even in the form of a salary) to pay for vacations or anything personal will run a business in the ground.

 

[Chicago526]

So your saying that the boss should take a pay cut instead of the people who took no risks and put no money into a business. How is that fair? The employees get to keep their jobs, their pay and their benefits and the owner has to take the hit to his income? Sorry. Thats not how a capitalistic society works. Payroll cutbacks are a way to keep a struggling business afloat during tough times. Its not considered running it into the ground. But I do believe that no one should be forced to work additional hours for no pay. Thats a good reason for a lawsuit because there are laws against that sort of business practice. But your not going to convince me that any business owner should put his employees income and profit ahead of his own.

Not to put words in other posters mouths, but the point I think was being made wasn't that the owner should cut his (or her) pay before they cut their employees, but that if cuts are needed, he/she should take a cut too. Legally, there is nothing that says the owner HAS to take a cut, nor should there be. But it's the moral thing to do, IMO.

Now, in the OP's case, she wasn't paid for OT, which may infact be illegal. If she was exempt, then legally what he did was fine, but morally...I have a problem with an owner that tells their employees they can't pay for OT because business is so bad and THEN calls that (now former) employee and brags about a $10k trip.

 

[mrsklamc]

Thanks, I'll check it out. He's supposed to be a supervisor and he works in the field. He has a 'helper' but he can't do any hiring or firing. It's very aggravating for him to work 1/2 day Saturday and not get paid for it, then to work 4 hours the following Monday and not get paid for the other four hours.

Yeah that's totally not legal. You have to supervise at least 3 employees or something like that. I would contact the DOL or your state labor board.

 

[eliza61]

I really dont understand the mentality that a business owner should sacrifice his own income in order to maintain the status quo for his employees. If business is bad he has every right to make the cuts he needs to make in order to keep his income at the same level. Thats the benefit of being the owner. The guy who put up the capital and took all the risks gets to call the shots. If that guys goes out and buys a vacation home and furnishes it with wall to wall mink carpeting thats his business. He has no obligation to share the wealth. This aint no communist country.

My mom and I did. You have to have your employees to keep the business running. Unless you are ready, willing and able to do it all yourself; it behooves you to keep your employees. I did cut hours at times, but I took a cut with my employees.

The owner is the one who gets the most benefit when the business is running great; he/she is also the one who takes the biggest hit when its not doing well. Taking funds from the business (even in the form of a salary) to pay for vacations or anything personal will run a business in the ground.

But the point is, it's his business. He has the perfect right to make stupid, illogical decisions. I'm with Marionette on this. Yes, it absolutely sucks when the little people get the brunt of economic down turns but as long as an owner legally pays employess what was contracted out as a salary and the follow all state labor laws, an owner has the right to go out and blow the company earnings on red bubble gum.
This is the slippary slope we're on now, government telling people what they can and cannot earn.

If op was shafted money she should definitely persue her legal options but if the owner wants to blow HIS company profits on disney world, he has that right. If he fells cuts have to be made he has every right to cut salaries and furlough people. It's not nice but he has that right.

 

[rumrunnergirl]

.

 

[tinkarooni]

This has turned into an interesting conversation. I think that many PP are right that the business person who starts a business, invests the capitol and takes the risk deserves the benefits when it is doing well, and doesn't necessarily have to absorb the losses when it is not doing well. However, legal or not it is in my humble opinion, immoral to cry poverty and than take fancy smancy vacations and gloat about it to the employees he can't pay because he's so busy crying poverty.

I'm not saying a business owner can't take fancy smancy vacations or do anything else he wants to with his money, that's his business. But he ceased keeping it his business when he called OP and gloated about the price of his vacation. That was in extremely poor taste and doesn't sound to me like a business owner who will get very far in business. Good business people treat their employees and customers with respect. I'm not saying necessarily giving them everything they want I'm just saying a little respect goes a long way.

By the way OP you made one good choice by leaving this job and bad situation. You were so lucky to be able to do that. My advice is to stop taking his calls and enjoy your new life and family.