<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: California Supreme Court Decides Lump Sum Expense Reimbursement is OK</title> <atom:link href="http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2007/11/06/california-supreme-court-decides-lump-sum-expense-reimbursement-is-ok/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2007/11/06/california-supreme-court-decides-lump-sum-expense-reimbursement-is-ok/</link> <description>Employment Law Firm Blog</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:33:21 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Bri</title><link>http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2007/11/06/california-supreme-court-decides-lump-sum-expense-reimbursement-is-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-33034</link> <dc:creator>Bri</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:13:04 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2007/11/06/california-supreme-court-decides-lump-sum-expense-reimbursement-is-ok/#comment-33034</guid> <description>Hi,
I worked for Pennysaver in the 200&#039;s and I am quite familar with the policy.
At the time Pennysaver paid about 6% commissions.  The &quot;expenses&quot; for sales were considered to be included as part of your salary-- those were the exact words I heard from my sales manager in the early 2000&#039;s.
Pennysaver&#039;s sales salaries are competitive thus it is a bit of a drag to have $500-$100 month of your salary to be considered expenses.
Pennysaver is &quot;legal&quot; to a fault with their employees.  They actually make everyone sign a form for tax purposes when you receive a christimas gift from a company-- you have to pay taxes on the gift they give you.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p><p>I worked for Pennysaver in the 200's and I am quite familar with the policy.</p><p>At the time Pennysaver paid about 6% commissions.  The "expenses" for sales were considered to be included as part of your salary-- those were the exact words I heard from my sales manager in the early 2000's.</p><p>Pennysaver's sales salaries are competitive thus it is a bit of a drag to have $500-$100 month of your salary to be considered expenses.</p><p>Pennysaver is "legal" to a fault with their employees.  They actually make everyone sign a form for tax purposes when you receive a christimas gift from a company-- you have to pay taxes on the gift they give you.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Donald O.</title><link>http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2007/11/06/california-supreme-court-decides-lump-sum-expense-reimbursement-is-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-26723</link> <dc:creator>Donald O.</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:52:47 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.calemployeerightsblog.com/2007/11/06/california-supreme-court-decides-lump-sum-expense-reimbursement-is-ok/#comment-26723</guid> <description>Property Owners  now have the right to hire local help by the     hour and not be responsible for their wages.!
According to a San Bernardino County small claims case (onken vs. shepherd 8/21/08)
The local hired help that did work on the property is not entitled to any compensation for the work done because the worker did not have a contractors license. The judge ruled against the plaintiff in favor of the absent defendants.
This is Great News for Property Owners,
Bad News for Local Hired Help!
Hopefully the ethics of property owners are better than the justice that is served in San Bernardino County.
Soon the property owner will not have the right to hire local help and be able to hire only licensed contractors. (California Business and Professions code section 7044)
The laws are being changed while the public sleeps</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Property Owners  now have the right to hire local help by the     hour and not be responsible for their wages.!</p><p>According to a San Bernardino County small claims case (onken vs. shepherd 8/21/08)<br
/> The local hired help that did work on the property is not entitled to any compensation for the work done because the worker did not have a contractors license. The judge ruled against the plaintiff in favor of the absent defendants.</p><p>This is Great News for Property Owners,<br
/> Bad News for Local Hired Help!</p><p>Hopefully the ethics of property owners are better than the justice that is served in San Bernardino County.</p><p>Soon the property owner will not have the right to hire local help and be able to hire only licensed contractors. (California Business and Professions code section 7044)</p><p>The laws are being changed while the public sleeps</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced

Served from: www.calemployeerightsblog.com @ 2012-02-07 09:57:02 -->
