"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2016 21:09:13 -0400, Doris Night wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:45:15 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>And you totally misread what I said. She WAS on the schedule so they
>>>expected her to show up for work. But then when she did show up, they'd
>>>say
>>>that they decided they didn't need her so she should go home. That's when
>>>I
>>>told her that she should call first and confirm that she would in fact be
>>>needed. But she was told that she could not do this. And no, I did not
>>>ask
>>>the establishment about this. I know quite a few people who were employed
>>>by
>>>them. This is what they did.
>>
>> In Ontario, a shift has to be a minimum of 3 hours. If you are
>> scheduled to work, you have to be paid for that amount of time.
>> Goofing around by sending people home, as you described, isn't alowed.
>> I'm surprised that the U.S. doesn't have similar labour regulations.
>
> Most states have a law that say you need to be paid for a minimum
> amount of hours if you're scheduled to show up, but Planet Bove
> doesn't have such a law.

I have proven that we don't. This is for the state.

http://www.lni.wa.gov/workplacerights/

"There are no regulations regarding when and how workers are scheduled. A
business has the right to change a worker's schedule at any time, with or
without notice. Businesses are not required to give weekends or holidays
off."

And this:

"Is a business required to pay workers who show up for work?
No. If the workers show up for work, but the business has no work for them
and sends them home, there is no requirement for "show-up" pay. Workers must
be paid for actual hours worked. Businesses are not required to give prior
notice of a schedule change."