Side Work

Hello everyone, I know I have not been around lately with any impute on what everyone else is doing. I have been lurking and keeping up with what is going on. I had a employee come to me today and tell me he was in trouble. He started this roof on the side and the township shut him down because he is not licensed or have permit to do the job. He was doing on the weekend and at night. I did not know he was doing side work. Then I come to find out that a few other guys were also there working with him. Now he has this roof torn off and needs to get it done. He asked me if we could help him out. I was wondering on what everyone's policy with their employee's are when it come to doing side work. We do not have policy on side work but from here on we will have a policy about employees doing side work. >>>

That makes sense if you find out or catch them. Most "employees" that do that just steal it and you never know until you go and look for the stuff that yoiu knew you had. Gone! I hate thieves!>>>

What about requiring your employees to sign a Hold-Harmless Agreement stating that IF they do any side work that You and Your Company are NOT RESPONSIBLE and they Accept Any and All Liability for Their Own Actions. Furthermore, I would add that if they steal any materials from you or use your tools, employees or any equipment that they will have to pay a 50% surcharge on the stolen materials plus a $__ per hour rental fee for the used tools and/or equipment. Or face criminal prosecution for their actions.>>>

I am in support of Jed 150%. Whatever a person does on their own time is their business. Period. Though I would definitely have the all my "suspect" employees run around to make sure they are healthy so that the Work Comp premiums do NOT go up. :)>>>

They should have stabbed the whole bunch and when they were all dead, there wouldn't have been any payout.>>>

Just for the record, several times I have observed people without insurance (who DID have assets) NOT getting brought into a suit simply because they didn't have any.>>>

That story is even worse than Sid's! If this thread keeps up like this, I'm gonna have to stop hanging around here. What I love is the poetry of it. Law is founded on the principle that rational living requires objectivity, so therefore law attempts to establish meanings objectively, wanting each word to have one and only one interpretation. No swiveling and no hinging if at all possible. In other words, no equivocation. So just to prove that everything in the world is circular, they go ahead and take objectivity to such extreme lengths that it merges right back into subjectivity, the exact place from whence it started.>>>

El Cid,

Fortunately, we don't operate "naked". I see my written policy as one line of defense, it's reasonable, but prohibits them doing a job that is out of their league and open to significant liability.

Your case reminds me of one we had. An employee was killed at 2:00 am on a Sunday morning after closing up a bar with a buddy.

He was in the buddies car. The buddy has no affiliation with HRI in any way. The buddy was driving. Came over a rise, with a small curve, hit the guardrail, fishtailed out of control, hit the opposing guard rail head-on, flipped over the guardrail, threw my employee out of the window and the car landed on top of him. I delivered his eulogy. Helped the family through the diffculty. Got them the max life insurance available through our company plan.

Two years later am served with a lawsuit.

The family collected about $800K through out "uninsured motorist" policy because it was not written to specifically EXCLUDE employees while off the job.

Sometimes the world makes little sense.>>>

Jed: The leading law firm in the city refused to represent the church insurance company based on the merits of the case. Also, when 10 of the 12 jurors have a commonality w/ the church, what kind of verdict would you expect. Old School is correct, lawyers only go after firms w/ "deep pockets" i.e. had we operated naked as many companies do, instead of carrying adequate liability insurance, we would have never been subject to this. Technically, your employees might be considered your "agents" by the public, and guess who has to bear the burden of their defense. .>>>

El Cid, What were the the dynamics? What was the outcome? How the hell are you as an employer responsible for what your employees do on their own time?>>>

That's a distressing story alright. There are times when I think the legal system in all of its parts and incarnations rolled into one single entity must think of itself as floating on a sea of human irresponsibility (I'm cutting them a lot of slack here) and with little hope to make any real sense of anything, the minute they/it catch a whiff of any possibly responsibly entity, they make like hell for it as if it were the only dry land left on earth. Still, the pathological opposite of naivete is paralyzing disillusionment. That and cynicism, which I assure you I am not accusing you of. Yet I must insist that to base all our actions and beliefs on worst-case possibilities is a serious mistake. If every action we take is dominated by the fear of having our abundance stolen from us, we will end up merely stealing it from ourselves to no good end. I modify this by saying it is incumbent upon us to look carefully at the issue of aiding and abetting, keep the paper trail spotless, and act from a position of honorable intent. Some lawyers will always try to twist every possible meaning to suit their own purposes. They actually consider that a legitimate part of their job and that is why we tend to despise them so thoroughly.>>>

Mike H Yes it did, and it was obviously a gross miscarriage of justice.>>>

I believe it is called the "deep pockets" syndrome. The others didn't have insurance and though "Deep pockets" wasn't involved he does have money to cover the difference. I would bet that the insurance company that got stuck paying the bill is the one that tried to "spread" the liability. Been there and done all of that. Life sucks!>>>

My reaction would be F/U buddy. Not my job.>>>

Did that happen to you?>>>

Naiveness is clearly obvious, in all the previous comments. Consider the following scenario: Several employees are doing side jobs on week-ends and/or slow periods. They are employed by a church recomended by one of their members and do minor repairs for several years, for which they are paid directly by check. While reroofing the main sanctuary, the building catches on fire, despite preventative measures, including CO2 bottles, etc. Their employer has absolutely no knowlege of their activities, but lo and behold, 1-2 years later he is served w/ a lawsuit exceeding $1,000,000. The employer has never received compensation or participated in anyway with these "side jobs". Now what is your reaction if you were in his shoes.>>>