Discuss Detroit » Archives - Connections II » Another question about labor laws « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Crystal
Member
Username: Crystal

Post Number: 86
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 1:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One of our boys, 17, sometimes works until 2 AM and does not receive a paycheck, only cash payments. He works at a local restaurant. (The reason we did not know this until now is that the boy splits his time at his father's and mother's houses.)

These seem to be clear violations of Michigan's child labor laws, in addition to illegal payroll practices. Moreover, we are worried about a 17-year-old driving home at 2 AM after having worked ten hours, and it seems a no brainer to turn in the employer.

Fellow forumers, what are your thoughts about this? Is this common practice? Are child labor laws a "joke" that nobody pays attention to, or should we take this seriously? Thanks for your thoughts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 1211
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 1:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If it is not reported, it will continue, as no agency could monitor all the employers in the state. The young man probably would not thank you for reporting it and causing him to lose his job, however.

If you chose to report it, the contact is the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. I am posting the site info, and if you search around at that site, you should be able to come up with the exact information about the young man's work conditions.

http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0 ,1607,7-154-27673-39617--,00.h tml
Top of pageBottom of page

Gazhekwe
Member
Username: Gazhekwe

Post Number: 1212
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 1:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Applicable hours provision:

A minor age 16 or older shall not work before 6 a.m. or after 11:30 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays, during school vacation periods, and during periods when a minor is not regularly enrolled in school.

Note that approval may be granted for exceptions to those hours.
Top of pageBottom of page

Crystal
Member
Username: Crystal

Post Number: 88
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 2:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How would treatment of a work-related injury (a cut from broken glass or a burn come to mind as possibilities) be covered by the employer if the child is not officially on the payroll?

I am not concerned about our child (or other children employed there) losing their jobs. There are plenty of jobs for high school kids. My concern is that the employer is taking advantage of children. Am I out of line here, in thinking that the child labor laws are in place to protect children?
Top of pageBottom of page

Mackcreative
Member
Username: Mackcreative

Post Number: 151
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 2:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think labor laws are routinely violated, it seems like a good situation, with both parties avoiding taxes and paperwork, but can seriously go awry.

Many (ok, most) artists employ assistants as independent contractors even when they are clearly not; just in our circle of friends one woman's hair caught on fire in a glass shop and torched her whole back, another friend lost two fingers in a clay mixer at a ceramic studio, both were uninsured and not covered by workman's comp.

My point is, turn 'em in. Once you're 18 you can "choose" to be abused by your employer at your own risk, protect your kid while you still can.
Top of pageBottom of page

Johnnny5
Member
Username: Johnnny5

Post Number: 681
Registered: 06-2005
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 3:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

At 17 years old he's old enough to be making the call in this situation. As you have said there are many low paying jobs available and if he wanted to leave he probably would have done so already. Also while it's against the law I highly doubt that your son minds getting paid under the table.
A work related injury would require a lawsuit against the employer in order to recover damages.
Top of pageBottom of page

Frankg
Member
Username: Frankg

Post Number: 126
Registered: 08-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 3:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One other consideration to think about is to forget about your son for a moment - and consider this employer is abusing other workers, too. By not turning the employer in you are enabling the abuse of other workers. But I guess like Johnnny says, you have to balance that with your son's wishes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bigb23
Member
Username: Bigb23

Post Number: 159
Registered: 11-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 3:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Work related injury's are now well below the radar.
To save my job, I did a quick fix on my forehead in a un-regulated and unsafe shop(instead of stitches at a clinic), with duct-tape and a do-rag.
And I still was let go during a slow period a week later.
I'm 52 years old and thought I knew what the rules were. I'm wrong now.
Top of pageBottom of page

Crystal
Member
Username: Crystal

Post Number: 89
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Sunday, December 30, 2007 - 4:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Excellent point, Frankg. That came to mind right after I posted the initial inquiry. I tried to take myself and stepson out of the picture, and tried to consider the situation as objectively as I could. I came to the conclusion that the increased pay for a high school student was not worth working without the benefits and protection that a legitimate employee is entitled to.

I admit I do not have an idea of how much extra pay the stepson could be earning per week by working under the table. $20, $50, $100, I don't know.

It has occurred to us that the employer could be abusing other workers as well. We have an idea of our son/stepson's energy, stamina, and judgment, but who is looking out for the other kids?
Top of pageBottom of page

Plymouthres
Member
Username: Plymouthres

Post Number: 451
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 8:23 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Crystal-

I guess that I would add this question-

Is it worth the extra $25, $50 or $100 dollars to possibly incur an injury that could cost a hell of a lot more than that in medical expenses alone?
What if he were mopping a floor, fell and broke a leg or worse, had a fatal or catastrophic head injury? Who would cover that then?

He is 17 and in your care(at least some of the time!). I would be worried that having knowledge of the fact of the terms of his employment and the obviously illegal usage of his work hours would somehow infer that you were part of the problem, particularly if you have to sue this restaurateur for his blatant disregard of the labor laws in the event that your son is injured on said job.

No amount of money would let me allow my kid to subject himself to that type of job or potential abuse.

Also, if the employer is willing to go to the length that he abuses even the under-the- table/hours issues, where would he draw the line at asking to do things that could be much worse?

Good luck with this one. It is a difficult topic.
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 808
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 3:54 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An employer can only pay someone 600 dollars per fiscal year "under the table". Which there really is no such thing, they are considered outside labor. This an old scam, if he's telling your son it's "under the table". Over 600 dollars your son will be getting a 1099 for his tax liability at the end of the year. The employer is not going to eat the tax on it. He has to show where those receivables went. Unless he's just going to outright lie about it to the IRS. (Or he's not even a licensed business i.e. no 38 number). And thats always possible. Most employers won't take that risk, when it's easier to hand someone a 1099.

You do say he's paying in "cash" instead of check, so he's probably just a crook. Tell your son to find another job.

There is nothing illegal about the straight cash pay arrangement, but it needs to be understood by both parties from the onset. If someone offers to pay you cash and does not intend to file a 1099, they are doing something illegal or just plain dumb.

As far as the hours go, your son would be 18 by the time the state got involved. They basically don't care.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1503
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 - 5:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'd agree with SS Tashmoo, look for a 1099. Without it, your son has no proof to file a claim (should it be warranted). Unfortunately this will have tax implications for your son, but allowing him to start his work-life not paying taxes is not helping him learn how to earn.

It is up to you to look out for the welfare of the child. Why would you expect the State to step in if the family allows this to continue?

If he does not get one, being a guardian you should demand one. It will be your 'Ace in the Hole' should you discover that he cannot be working that late, and allow you to pursue further actions that would protect his rights.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 3267
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 2:42 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

From personal experience, most employers doing this won't file 1099s. Typically the business income is large enough to hide such cash payments without drawing attention to anything. Only a detailed audit by the IRS or state would find it.

HOWEVER, if someone was to call the state and feds to let them know that this business was paying under the table as well as violating other tax and labor laws, one of the entities would probably check them. Aside from potential employee abuse, if 1099s aren't filed neither the state nor the Feds are receiving the tax monies they should be. It's also possible the business isn't carrying the worker's compensation insurance the state requires. BTW, aside from the comp/injury potential, this situation also means your son won't be able to collect unemployment if he ever became otherwise eligible.
Top of pageBottom of page

East_detroit
Member
Username: East_detroit

Post Number: 1386
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 7:18 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ahhh... I was right. I knew it was a stepson when you called him "the boy"
Top of pageBottom of page

Crystal
Member
Username: Crystal

Post Number: 92
Registered: 05-2007
Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 8:47 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks, everyone, all good thoughts.

My husband and I explained to son/stepson that his employer was taking advantage of him by not putting him on the payroll, and that tax evasion is illegal for both him and the employer.

We explained that 17-year-olds may work until 11:30 PM on Friday and Saturday nights, but not until 2 AM or 3 AM. We emphasized that the biggest risk is if he gets hurt at work, his employer's workman's comp insurance does not cover him, because he is not on the payroll. Son replied that his employer is giving him a "really good deal" at $6 an hour plus tips.

We told him we disagreed strongly with that, and that the employer does not care about him, only about the employer's own profits. The employer is saving himself money by not paying payroll taxes or insurance for the son, in exchange for putting him at risk.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936

Post Number: 2537
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 3:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't worry that your 17-year old has a head like a brick. In twenty-five years or so, he'll be using your arguments against HIS 17 year old.

:-)
Top of pageBottom of page

Kathinozarks
Member
Username: Kathinozarks

Post Number: 1011
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 9:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Amen, Ray!
Top of pageBottom of page

Sstashmoo
Member
Username: Sstashmoo

Post Number: 889
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 2:21 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Any employer that doesn't carry workmen's comp is just asking for it. If the son get's hurt, he'd own that business. Comp insurance is not that expensive. Around 1500/yr. If they can't afford that they don't need to be in business anyway.

I can't imagine why an employer that would risk an audit, fines, interest, and potential jailtime for tax evasion, to risk paying someone under the table. I mean, why would they? Just pay them, get their Social and send them a 1099 at the end of the year. If they're doing it any other way they are totally dumb. If the employee isn't making much annually, he wouldn't owe that much tax anyway. And all it's going to take is one disgruntled kid to report them to the IRS and it's all over.

Some owners are just idiots when it comes to this stuff. I dealt with one, they would give me an invoice made out to me and asked if I'd write them a check made out to them personally. If he or I get audited... IRS has two things, money and time. It's just not worth the risk.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.