Ever been forced back to work by a former employer?

Just curious.  I know someone who received a letter threatening unspecified "legal action" if they did not contact their former employer and arrange to finish some tasks they decided needed to be done.  This was an hourly worker, not salary, not an independent contractor.  It is my understanding that the ex-employer considers this work to be the responsibility of the former worker and will not be paying any compensation...  This seems altogether wrong on several levels to me.  First, I never heard of someone being compelled or coerced to perform work before, at least not like this.  Second, I thought hourly employees were always to be paid for their time worked, no matter what.  I did a quick read on the State of Michigan website, and the posted rules seem to align with my belief that no one in the state is a slave and hourly workers are to be paid for every hour worked.  Anyone ever hear of something like this before?

not in all my years. I think it would be worth a consult with a real lawyer to see what they say.

That sounds crazy and not at all legal. 

I'd probably pay the few hundred to speak to a real lawyer and get them to send a letter back that essentially says, "Pound sand."

Nope, and I take with me anything that I developed after hours using my own phone, plan and computer without compensation. 

Strange.  Sounds odd.  Sounds scammy.  My first inclination is to believe we have too little detail to make a wise answer.  

Another thought...agree to come back and do the work but at an outrageous price/rate/per-hour.    

I'm no lawyer, but I do know that you can basically never compel someone to work because of the 13th amendment, regardless of any other agreement or contract that may have been in place. 

Unless the completion of this work is specified in a legally binding contract, I'd say the employer in question is off his nut.

He should name and shame this batE36 M3 crazy employer for our collective amusement and education.

Send this to askamanager.org - this employee may be in the running for Worst Boss of the Year on that site. I can't see the forced to come back being legal without some sort of unusual contract, and the no pay part is even less likely to fly. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like an appropriate response would be to print out every "How about no?" Internet meme he could find and mail that back.

In reply to 1988RedT2 :

Even if there was a contract, they can seek other damages but cannot compel him  to complete the work.

Keep in mind that this person was paid hourly and on track to earn under 30K this year from this employer (probably low twenties is more realistic).   There is not a lot to give here... and hiring lawyers is not typically something a person in this kind of job can afford to do.  Any "damages" or other payments back to the employer seem like a form of retroactive slavery since it will ultimately mean that this individual worked some hours for free.  The situation seems to be very abusive to me.  If this is how things are these days, we obviously need far more worker protections in MI. 

In reply to (not) WilD (Matt) :

I can’t see anyone being compelled to work, especially someone being paid so little. A polite Go berkeley yourself is likely the right answer.

Maybe take this route:

• Get the threat in writing.
• Return to the former workplace and begin the work even of just for 10 minutes.  This allows the employer to complete the threat (return or else.)
• Major windfall from lawsuit.

If your friend is anything other than a white male the lawsuit will be even larger. 

I would call the MI AG office and see what they say.

What was the nature of the employee leaving the employer? That's just curiosity. Either he quit or they fired him and no one owes anyone anything. Even without notice he would be owed whatever wages he had earned up to the point of his departure, pay cheques being delayed one pay period..

Short of walking out in the middle of an organ transplant I can’t see what dire situation could let you force someone to finish anything, or why you’d want to. If I was doing something against my will under threat I’m sure it wouldn’t be done well.

A "wait, your serious, let me laugh even harder" response in order.  Secondly, a copy of said letter accompanying a complaint to the state Attorney General/Department of Labor may be in order. 

"I'm drunk, and since I am unemployed I plan to stay that way. I can't drive to work for you in my current state but if you send someone to pick me up I probably won't get hurt at your workplace and sue you. Probably."

Alternately:

"I'd be happy to come back in under contract to help you through this trouble.  My contract rate is $200 per hour, same as my lawyer."

You guys are touching on several things I find... odd.  This person is no longer an employee, and doesn't want to be one, so you are going to force them to enter your facility and have access to protected customer data?  Also, you are threatening legal action, presumably for some form of damages, but you are already saying this work has no value since you will not pay for it.  At most, it was worth the $X an hour you were paying this person, but even that is a bit of a stretch I suppose.  It's all very confusing and makes my brain itch.

If it were me, I would be doing several things differently, principally because I wouldn't be able to resist asking them point blank just what they think is owed.

In reply to John Welsh :

Sounds like he does have it in writing. 

rsinn said:

A "wait, your serious, let me laugh even harder" response in order.  Secondly, a copy of said letter accompanying a complaint to the state Attorney General/Department of Labor may be in order. 

^^^ this

spitfirebill said:

In reply to John Welsh :

Sounds like he does have it in writing. 

Well, a threatening letter exists, but it is vague.  It makes reference to an employment agreement and required completion of certain tasks.  It is not signed or dated, it simply directs the former employee to contact their former supervisor by phone to make arrangements as soon as possible or there could be "further legal action".  The nature of the work they want performed and the impression it was expected to be done free of further compensation is based on prior verbal communications.  Since this employee was hourly, I had previously offered my opinion that their employer was stealing from them by directing documentation be completed off the clock if it could not be completed during their scheduled hours, which was one of the reasons they found a new job.   I still feel this is wage theft (not a lawyer), but the brazen and aggressive nature of their actions has taken me aback.    

Furious_E said:

I'm no lawyer, but I do know that you can basically never compel someone to work because of the 13th amendment, regardless of any other agreement or contract that may have been in place. 

This.  The only entity that compel "specific performance" is the government (think military service), everyone else is limited to monetary damages.

codrus said:

Furious_E said:

I'm no lawyer, but I do know that you can basically never compel someone to work because of the 13th amendment, regardless of any other agreement or contract that may have been in place. 

 

This.  The only entity that compel "specific performance" is the government (think military service), everyone else is limited to monetary damages.

Sure, but if relatively low paid hourly employees are liable for damages to their employers for refusing to work, what's the practical difference?  It's a false choice between involuntary servitude or life crippling debt.  Everything I've ever been told or read stated that hourly employees had to be paid for the hours they work.  I've never heard of an hourly employee owing "damages" for refusing to continue working.  I thought termination was what hourly employees should be afraid of, not lawsuits and ongoing debt.  I've always thought people were better off working than not, but I'm starting to see that taking a low paying job may not be worth the risk.

This is all very hypothetical at this point, but still, it's all so crazy to me.

Thinking about this, if he was contracted to do a specific job and paid for completion but had never actually finished it I could see them asking what happened to the thing they paid for.  As an hourly employee I don't think that would fly, but if they had documentation from him that something was done and they can't find or access it I could see them crafting something like that to get him to cough up whatever it was. 

As to why they can't find or access something,  if it's because they aren't capable of opening a password protected file or biometric device without him that's relatively benign.  If he stole, hid, or destroyed something they paid him to do and he claimed to have done then he may be in trouble.   I would expect that trouble to be $ trouble,  but they might be extending him an olive branch by letting him fix the issue.