(no subject)

[bzarcher]

Well, now I'm a bit pissed.

You may recall that I had called Wooster last week because I didn't get a paycheck on Friday like I was supposed to.

So I went through and got told that the pay date had shifted because of the weekend, and I'd get it Monday.

Still no check.

Called back. Got a different person.

Was told that looking at my contract, the reason I wasn't paid was that my last paycheck was April 20th, and wasn't I told that I'd not be paid for the remaining time I worked?

According to them, that was when they paid out the full salary amount (minus taxes), and nothing else was to be paid regardless of the fact that I'd be working for another three and a half weeks.

RAGE.

I've already sent stuff to Kathy to find out what the hell is going on, and if there's something that can be done. Even if I was paid their student rate instead of my intern rate, I don't think it's right that I worked very nearly a full month for free, especially since I was given every indication that I'd be paid.

Comments

[chaoticgoodnik.livejournal.com]

Uh, yeah. That is not so cool.

Hopefully Kathy will push something through for you.

If it comes to that, in PA it costs a trivial amount to sue someone (in terms of filing costs, not counting legal fees). Might be the same in OH.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

I've got a copy of my contract in my lockbox, and I'm going to dig it out tonight. As long as it says paid THROUGH May 14th, and not through the salary, I think I'd have plenty of legal recourse.

Really, though, I'd think that Wooster'd want to just cut me a partial check or something than risk me taking legal recourse.

[chaoticgoodnik.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

Though frankly, if you were led to believe you'd be paid, that can't hurt.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

Yep. Especially the first time I called to ask them about the paycheck. You'd think that if this was visible to the person I talked to today, who's a middle level person, then when I talked to the head of the payroll department last week, she would have seen that and talked to me about it!

[doomflower.livejournal.com]

Well, one of those boneheads you talked to wasn't looking at your contract.

If you have it in writing, then it doesn't matter or not if they want to pay you. They'll need to pay you.

So no more rage. Be happy! :)

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's still rage.

Apparently they're saying that because I was paid for a full month back in 2003, that covers the money I would have been paid in 2004. So to their minds, they're fine and dandy.

[alathaniel.livejournal.com]

Paid for a full month in '03 == paid for the extra month in '04? Unless you did zero work for them in that month, and still got paid for full time work for the entire month, that makes no sense.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

They're claiming that my April paycheck should have covered the entire month of April. They're also claiming that in May '03, I only worked 3 weeks (true), and therefore paying me for 4 weeks in May '03 pays me for the 2.5 weeks in May '04.

[mephron]

You didn't volunteer to do this work. They didn't tell you it was volunteer work. Therefore, you get paid for it.

[bzarcher.livejournal.com]

We'll see. They're making some claims that I think it might honestly take a lawyer to figure out. :/

I suspect I just got shafted.