About Those Customers Stiffing The Local Waitress . . .
08/11/2008 03:35
READER
RESPONSE:Don:
Barb Freysteinson writes:
"Did you know that when you [walk out on a restaurant bill] it’s not the bar or restaurant who takes the hit? It’s the poor minimum wage earning sap who serves you who gets stuck paying it."
Ms. Freysteinson should be aware that the Alberta Employment Standards Code (principally governing employee-employer relations in non-union workplaces) states:
Deductions from earnings
12(3) ...[A]n employer may not deduct from earnings a sum for
(a) faulty workmanship, or
(b) cash shortages or loss of property if an individual other than the employee had access to the cash or property.
While the act of Ms. Freysteinson's angel was a kind one, her employer's demand that she "take the hit" seems to me to be a clear violation of Section 12(3)(b) of the Code.
I know you disagree with me about this, Don, but this is exactly the kind of nonsense perpetrated by employers on a daily basis that proves working people need unions as much today as they did a hundred years ago.
I say Barb Freysteinson's employer owes her an apology . . . and $100!
David J Climenhaga
St. Albert
SINC SAYS:
You're right that we disagree about establishing a union to look after the problem David, but you have given Barb an option to point out to her employer the part of the act you quote. A simple discussion, not a union will solve the issue. That being said, I have two other observations. Thanks for taking the time to inform readers of their rights and my bad for yesterday's headline. It obviously should have read, "Employer Stiffs Local Waitress For $100 Tab".
READER RESPONSE II:
Don,
Re David Climenhaga’s note regarding Section 12 (3) (b) of the Alberta Employment Standards Code.
It seems to me this section of the code is very much open to interpretation. I would bet the section is intended to cover cash or property “thefts” from a business. While non-payment of a bill could loosely be interpreted as “theft” in some respects, I really question whether this section of the Code was intended to cover the types of scenarios experienced by Ms. Freysteinson.
I do know one thing for sure, though. I completely agree with you and disagree with Climenhaga in that I believe we don’t need unions in any way, shape or form – particularly in solving situations such as this.
Cheers,
Jim Starko
St. Albert
