That’s inaccurate (IMO) and there’s nothing saying the minimum ‘accrual period’ for earnings is weekly as an exempt employee. Potentially differs by state and I’d be interested to learn of any where it is different, please cite?
It’s quite normal to see people start Tuesday on payroll, finish on Thursday, and they don’t get paid those whole weeks. They typically get those days paid, even if for example you “offboard” by lunchtime on your last day of work.
I don't know of any that are different, but salary law is consistent enough to know that the salary starts when the employee begins work, so in this case, moving the start date up is what is happening even if the employer isn't acknowledging it. The same goes if the employer says the start date is 1/1 but you only show up at 1/2. The salary starts when the work starts, and doesn't stop so long as you show up once a week or so.
From California but similar everywhere:
> Pursuant to California law, an exempt employee must receive his or her full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work without regard to the number of days, or hours worked.
That’s a good citation (thanks!) but it covers the period of time when you’re legally an employee, thus if you start Tuesday you’re not one Monday, and if you finish Thursday you’re not one on Friday.
In this case with OP, my guess is that left them two choices:
1/ Accelerate start and then as you note, pay the whole period even though it sounded like this occurred before Christmas, was only a few calls then a vacation.
2/ Pay an invoice, which is mucky since it’ll probably involve supplier setup via AP, they’re clearly a W-2 equivalent person so perhaps this complicates other things like tax or benefits, etc.
If the person is “unencumbered” (not currently employed or subject to something contractual like garden leave which prevents them assuming the new employment) and if there was real value to having them participate in the calls then certainly the easiest would be (1.) - and IME, this is how larger employers would do it.
They may certainly claim that he wasn't a employee, however he would be working under their explicit direction to accomplish a task they asked him to complete. It doesn't matter one whit how the company classified him, he is a employee from the second he dials into that call. I can't tell you to put a paper hat on and flip burgers then not pay you since "you don't really work here until next week, just thought you might want to get ahead on the burger project."
Consider this, I don't know what this software does but a lot of the conversations around software are confidential. Did they just invite a random stranger into a call with potentially privileged information?
A copyright holder will already have earned money on it during a fixed time period.
Your argument is a straw man. Why should author's have a different right to provide for their children more so than other professions?
There's something inherently unjust in protecting the works based on the death of the original author. A 25 year old will, on average, enjoy a significantly longer period of protection than a 75 year old.
So the 25yo with a wife and child finishes a book, signs with a publisher, and dies.
The book sells a million copies and the publisher refuses to pay the widow and child anything because the work is now in the public domain. Justice has been done?
I think a simple period of time, like 7 or 14 years, or even 50, makes more sense.
If money was already made, then it should go to descendants. However, I see no reason why further copies made after death should get taxed in favour of descendants for 70 years. What do they have to do with it anymore? What value do they provide to justify the compensation?
What value do they provide? Their existence is in all likelihood one of the reasons the author put pen to paper in the first place. It is rewarding the author and encouraging creative work to be able to pass on ownership of creative works just like other belongings.
I think I worded my original post poorly. I am completely in favour of having a fixed time for already created works regardless of the time of the authors death.
In regards to your example, the publisher has a contractual obligation with the author, which is obviously part of the estate.
My argument is that even if the author has a deal with a publisher for a particular book, that should not prevent others from being able to create new books, movies, games, etc based on that book.
As a counter example, imagine a 25 year old, with a wife, who would have been able to create the best game ever in 2010. Unfortunately he dies in 2015.
The game would have sold millions of copies if it was published, but unfortunately the character of Mickey Mouse is integral to it, so because of copyright the game cannot be made until 2024 - 58 years after Walt Disney's death and 96 years after the first appearance of the character.
The widow and child get a pension, just like all other widows of non-authors. Widows and children of other people don't get the right to receive wage from work perpetually so it's insane that we're supposed to pay wages to authors families for decades and decades.
What you are saying is that all of the benefit goes to the publishing company, not the public. Not really.
The reality of normal people is that a big part of the reason they work is in order to provide for the people they love. This is why copyright exists in the first place—to protect the motivation to produce creative work, knowing that the benefit won’t be stolen from you. Knowing that if you die, the benefit to your children is immediately forfeit actually reduces the willingness for people who aren’t misanthropes to take on that risk.
>Your argument is a straw man. Why should author's have a different right to provide for their children more so than other professions?
I'm pretty sure that people from other professions can leave their property to their children as well, and that property does not suddenly become a public good a set amount of time afterwards.
I'm sure Levi's wouldn't mind a small license fee every time you wore jeans, but fashion designers - and most other professions - actually don't get the same privileges.
so now that we're off the real estate analogy - you picked Levis - a clothing brand and fashion design? It seems a weird argument to make that authors shouldn't have copyright on their books while using as the counterpoint another industry that is also protected by copyright https://copyrightalliance.org/education/qa-headlines/copyrig...
> The way that design elements are cut and pieced together is not protected by copyright. The U.S. Supreme Court recently addressed this topic in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, stating that copyright affords “no right to prohibit any person from manufacturing [clothing] of identical shape, cut, and dimensions.”
Levi's in particular has distinct cuts that they are famous for. Should we start embedding RFID tags in jeans to collect licensing fees every time you wear them in public?
since you just quoted the part saying that is one of the things not covered by copyright I guess the answer would be no?
I'm sorry but are you under the impression that everything an author does is covered by copyright, that is to say there is nothing an author does that they will be unable to copyright?
but I guess in whatever wonderful country you live in there are no such things as landlords, or perhaps its a dystopian hellhole because there isn't any government enforced property rights so warlords just grab whatever real estate they want? Just trying to get my head around this analogy you were making.
on edit: I see you completely changed your comment from being an example with real estate to being something with Levi's.
Real estate works the same way. Why are you not paying builders a license fee every time you enjoy the fruits of their labor that protect you from rain and wind? Builders get only a microscopic fraction of the value that their commercial building or a factory produces over its lifetime. Is this fair or unfair?
I don't follow this argument. If a copyright holder can earn money for their work for a fixed period of time, they can use that income to acquire things like property
Unless copyright holders are somehow prohibited from obtaining property or passing it on to their relatives I don't think that's a meaningful comparison
>I don't follow this argument. If a copyright holder can earn money for their work for a fixed period of time, they can use that income to acquire things like property
it should be relatively clear, copyrighted works are a form of property that people have and pay taxes on, the same way that they pay taxes on stock they own, or the improvements they did to their land when they built a house on it, and so forth. It's all a form of property.
>they can use that income to acquire things like property
yes, if a master carpenter makes a table and never sells it they can pass it on to their children as a form of property. but they can also sell it and use the money to obtain other forms of property and pass that on to their children. Or just let them inherit the money. Not sure what the point here is, except that for a lot of people's arguments to work here it is beneficial to ignore that copyrighted works are also a form of property.
Now someone will make the point that written works don't work the same as a table made by a carpenter and therefore it is unfair, even though stocks and bonds do not work the same as a small family mom and pop store which does not work the same as a table made by a carpenter which does not work the same as a painting by a famous painter which does not work exactly the same as the insurance business, and so on and so forth.
The fact is that there are many forms of business and property and they do not all work exactly the same, although their local differences tend to get smoothed out by the effects of accounting.
Obviously part of the way that the writing business works is formed by the laws and regulations pertaining to it. You would like to change that, but it seems disingenuous to argue that it should be changed because copyrighted works are not property. They function like property now that the owners lose after a variable amount of time, and even if the changes you wanted would be put in place they would still function like property - but with much less time before being changed to a public good.
Try Glaswegian. I'm from the south of England and on occasion hitch-hiked in Scotland. Got a lift from Aberdeen where they speak perfectly understandable English to Glasgow with a Glaswegian building contractor. I don't think I understood more than half of what he said along the way.
We once had an employee from Westinghouse from the Netherlands over at our house for Thanksgiving. The poor man could understand everybody in the family except for my grandfather. He finally asked us what he was doing wrong. We all laughed and simply pointed out that the problem was my grandfather's accent, not his English and that a significant portion of America wouldn't be able to understand my grandfather, either.
That wouldn't apply as you need a moped license for those back when they were allowed and a tractor license now. There is no "only this type" revocation in the law in the Netherlands and you lose all your licenses. And yes that means driving drunk in your car on Sunday as a truck driver can cost you your job.
