Brown fined $1.6 million after government investigation

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I have a question for you - what's DHF stand for? Over my head.

In this case I believe it is Die Hard Fans..

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

In this case I believe it is Die Hard Fans..

wouldn't have guessed that in a million years - thanks.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

You shouldn't use the word "cheater." It has a whole other meaning when it comes to racing. This is not one of those cases.

I thought about that. And know what you are saying.

However, if you cheat a certain group of people, like your employees, try to get over on them.....you don't think that might cross over to doing the same thing in *other areas*?

it's like liars. Do you think they only lie to their wives? Or do you think they might lie to others as well?

Just thinking out loud.

Somebody with a very well-anchored "sense of fairness" wouldn't cheat their employees, right?

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by clicknow

I thought about that. And know what you are saying.

However, if you cheat a certain group of people, like your employees, try to get over on them.....you don't think that might cross over to doing the same thing in *other areas*?

it's like liars. Do you think they only lie to their wives? Or do you think they might lie to others as well?

Just thinking out loud.

Somebody with a very well-anchored "sense of fairness" wouldn't cheat their employees, right?

I would not call him a cheater in this respect.

What I didn't say explicitly in my oh-so-very-exciting (LOL) discourse on payroll is that all it takes is one or two grooms either innocently or maliciously ignorant to drop a dime to an eager labor authority or attorney. Think every barn has at least one of these types? Yep.

And then it starts rolling and gets out of control and causes a lot of collateral damage.

[showonly]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

wouldn't have guessed that in a million years - thanks.

Fantastic Dan is right on.

[clicknow]

^^^ also considered somebody might have it out for him.

But heck, we've all had people try to slay you then step over your dead body to "get the corner office with the great view of the bay" and will find a way to try to find an infraction, illegality, etc. to bring you down.

The antidote to that is stay clean and develop a reputation for doing things fair n' square and on the level when it comes to laws, rules, etc..... and conduct yourself and your business accordingly. Shortcuts have a way of refluxing on you.

When your detractors can't find a "chink" to exploit, that means you've armed yourself in the best way possible way.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Unless the law was different in the 1970s, this was not a salary/exempt eligible position, meaning you should have been paid hourly.

The laws have changed quite a bit, and from state to state. It keeps the lawyers in business, that's for sure!

Here's a very plausible but simplified example of why trainers are in a really tough position, adapted from my own similar experience.

Say up until now, you pay your grooms $150 a day, flat, no matter how many hours. Now you have to comply with strict labor law and pay them hourly.

Groom A is awesome, a real team player, gets there an hour earlier than he needs to be and stays until his last animal is fed and bedded. Helps everyone else, runs errands he's not obligated to, etc. Let's say he works 12 hours a day.

Groom B is Mr. Bare Minimum. Does a fine enough job but doesn't work a minute longer than absolutely required.

If Trainer X pays them both the same hourly rate, let's say close to minimum wage, Groom A will make more than the old "day rate" due to OT. Groom B may not even make his day rate if he doesn't work enough hours. No matter what Groom A will always make more than Groom B.

So now what?

Does the trainer want to make sure everyone gets paid the same?
Does Groom B know why he makes less (he WILL find out, that's for sure), and is he a douche that will start rabble-rousing?
Does the trainer have to tell Groom A to scale back his hours so as to not accrue as much OT pay?
Does the trainer go to a system where everyone gets paid a different hourly rate?

ANy choice you (the trainer) makes in this scenario has its ups and downs, and in the end you cannot fully control what your employees will perceive and act on.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by clicknow

The one thing that social media and internet does well is shine a flashlight. Sometimes, that's good and just.

Another thing it does is allow people completely ignorant about situations to spout off and make shameful accusations about people they know nothing about.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

The laws have changed quite a bit, and from state to state. It keeps the lawyers in business, that's for sure!

Here's a very plausible but simplified example of why trainers are in a really tough position, adapted from my own similar experience.

Say up until now, you pay your grooms $150 a day, flat, no matter how many hours. Now you have to comply with strict labor law and pay them hourly.

Groom A is awesome, a real team player, gets there an hour earlier than he needs to be and stays until his last animal is fed and bedded. Helps everyone else, runs errands he's not obligated to, etc. Let's say he works 12 hours a day.

Groom B is Mr. Bare Minimum. Does a fine enough job but doesn't work a minute longer than absolutely required.

If Trainer X pays them both the same hourly rate, let's say close to minimum wage, Groom A will make more than the old "day rate" due to OT. Groom B may not even make his day rate if he doesn't work enough hours. No matter what Groom A will always make more than Groom B.

So now what?

Does the trainer want to make sure everyone gets paid the same?
Does Groom B know why he makes less (he WILL find out, that's for sure), and is he a douche that will start rabble-rousing?
Does the trainer have to tell Groom A to scale back his hours so as to not accrue as much OT pay?
Does the trainer go to a system where everyone gets paid a different hourly rate?

ANy choice you (the trainer) makes in this scenario has its ups and downs, and in the end you cannot fully control what your employees will perceive and act on.

1) You can't treat a groom as a salary exempt employee on track. At a farm, I suspect you can apply the ag exemption.

2) Honestly, I don't even see the point of your example. How is it different from running a landscaping business? Some employees work harder than others. The lazy ones are either fired or the good ones make a higher hourly rate.

3) To avoid fines, hire a reputable payroll processor and install a time and attendance system. Perhaps CB had a poor bookkeeping system. I have no idea.

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

1) You can't treat a groom as a salary exempt employee on track. At a farm, I suspect you can apply the ag exemption.

2) Honestly, I don't even see the point of your example. How is it different from running a landscaping business? Some employees work harder than others. The lazy ones are either fired or the good ones make a higher hourly rate.

3) To avoid fines, hire a reputable payroll processor and install a time and attendance system. Perhaps CB had a poor bookkeeping system. I have no idea.

I think you mis-read my post. I know you have to pay hourly. I am going to suspect that someone who use to get paid a flat $150 per day, day in and day out, might be confused when transitioning to hourly and if they're a jerk, might complain about it. Especially if some of his cohorts, all of whom used to get a flat $150, now make amounts commensurate with the hours they actually work.

I've always used an A+ payroll company, and way back in the day they'd play along when we would sometimes back-time someone's work hours into an hourly rate in order to fake a day rate. Often differing each day of the week! NOBODY in the reputable payroll business will do that anymore.

[Robert Fischer]

This is all way outside my competence, but hey this is what the internet is for, right?

My best guess is that the issue has been clouding around racing for a long time, in a wide-spread manner, and that Brown was selected because of his prominence in such a system and not for egregiousness. There is a market for the enforcement and standards, and that incentive will drive this.

but, like I said, this is B.S.
I don't know anything about this.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Unless the law was different in the 1970s, this was not a salary/exempt eligible position, meaning you should have been paid hourly.

I had no clue. I wasn't there for the money. I was a teenager that loved betting on horses and wanted to see how the inside worked. It was loads of fun. The best part of it in hindsight is that Mark Casse worked in the same barn. His father owned some horses that were trained by David Sazer. We are a couple of years apart and were friendly for that summer. Even though I doubt he would remember me, he'd surely remember the horses (Papa Pia and Status). I think I even lent him "Picking Winners" I'm happy for his success.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I had no clue. I wasn't there for the money. I was a teenager that loved betting on horses and wanted to see how the inside worked. It was loads of fun. The best part of it in hindsight is that Mark Casse worked in the same barn. His father owned some horses that were trained by David Sazer. We are a couple of years apart and were friendly for that summer. Even though I doubt he would remember me, he'd surely remember the horses (Papa Pia and Status). I think I even lent him "Picking Winners" I'm happy for his success.

I understand - you weren't there for the money and it sounds like you had a great experience.

[Trips]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

This is all way outside my competence, but hey this is what the internet is for, right?

but, like I said, this is B.S.
I don't know anything about this.

From what keeps getting posted it’s obvious you are not alone sir.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Another thing it does is allow people completely ignorant about situations to spout off and make shameful accusations about people they know nothing about.

I made no shameful accusations.

But the United States Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division investigators, who found willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act at Chad C. Brown, Inc., did.

I just read the articles about their findings.

Is Mr. Brown going to appeal the findings?


And sorry, I disagree with PA about not using word "cheating". Not paying your workers what they rightfully earned is "cheating" them. That makes you a cheater if you do that.