Can an employer charge employee/contractor a processing fee for payment? I had worked for a company (whether as an employee or contractor is disputed). They would e-transfer me payments and take a small amount off to cover the cost of e-transfer. I told them I never agreed to this. They said it was in my contract and it also said so on the website we did our work from. Can an employer deduct from a payment, the cost to actually do the payment? Does it matter if it was agreed to or not? Does simply stating something on a website count as an agreement? I actually never signed the contract as it was never really discussed and it just popped up on the website and I closed it. However I've heard cases where a person implicitly agrees to a contract by attending work. If they aren't allowed to do this, do I have any recourse for such a small amount of money that isn't worth starting a law suit over?
Can an employer charge employee/contractor a processing fee for payment? No. The matter depends on whether the person qualifies as employee for purposes of the British Columbia Employment Standards Act. Your description suggests that you meet criterion (b) of the definition of employee insofar as you are (i.e., if you are) "a person an employer allows, directly or indirectly, to perform work normally performed by an employee". See section 1(1) of the Act. Section 21(1) prohibits an employer to "directly or indirectly, withhold, deduct or require payment of all or part of an employee's wages for any purpose", and item (2) prohibits the employer to "require an employee to pay any of the employer's business costs except as permitted by the regulations". There is no indication that the alleged business cost of e-transfers would be one such exception. do I have any recourse for such a small amount of money that isn't worth starting a law suit over? You have the option to file a complaint in "an office of the Employment Standards Branch". See sections 74 et seq for further details. You are not specifying the amount of the e-transfer that is being deducted from your compensation. The smaller the amount(s) at issue, the more important it will be for your complaint to persuasively explain how it is not "frivolous, vexatious or trivial". See section 76(c). Directing the employer's attention to the aforementioned statutory prohibition prior to filing a complaint tends to disprove allegations of vexation. That is because you are giving the employer an opportunity to mend its conduct and avert the proceedings that otherwise would take place. That being said, a very occasional cost of few cents is very likely to lead to a conclusion of vexation or bad faith regardless of your preliminary steps. In most other contexts, though, it is in your best interest to stay aware of the obligations that are being presented/proposed to you so that your actions do not constitute an acceptance of terms &amp; conditions you would rather reject. Not all contracts come in the form of a written document signed by the parties.
Usually, your landlord is going to deduct this from your security deposit rather than invoice you for it. As a practical matter, your options to dispute the charges are generally going to be excessively expensive relative to a $40 charge to make it worth fighting, particularly if you don't have contemporaneous evidence that is indisputable like photos that you can authenticate at a hearing, to prove that the landlord is wrong. Your testimony would be admissible to contradict the landlord's claim, and the judge would have to decide who to believe, but generally, it only makes any sense at all to litigate over small dollar amounts if you have unmistakably clear evidence that shows you should win.
You're probably making an “international transfer” here, but that doesn't mean it is illegal. The GDPR has a very broad concept of “personal data” and of “processing”. Per Art 4(2), ‘processing’ means any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction Which I would summarize as: pretty much anything you do with the personal data counts as “processing”. So yes, your non-EU servers would be processing the personal data in HTTP requests, even when those servers aren't directly storing the personal data. Chapter V of the GDPR applies to Any transfer of personal data which are undergoing processing or are intended for processing after transfer to a third country […] Per this definition, the question whether an international transfer occurred is inextricably linked with the question whether the data is being processed in the destination country. The generally accepted interpretation here is that mere transfer through a country does not constitute processing. For example, if your requests happen to take a network route through other countries, that wasn't an international transfer. But your HTTP server is definitely doing processing, even if it doesn't store the data persistently. If the HTTP server is in a non-EU country, then you have to consider how this transfer of data is protected. You're supposed to uphold the high GDPR data protection standards regardless of where the processing occurs. Some countries have been granted an EU adequacy decision, meaning that their data protection laws are sufficiently similar to EU laws and no extra bureaucracy is needed for that transfer. The transfer still needs to be noted in your privacy notice (compare Art 13(1)(f)). In other cases, you may be able to rely on “standard contractual clauses” (SCCs), which are pre-formulated contracts provided by the EU that translate relevant GDPR aspects into a private contract between the data exporter and data importer. However, you as a data controller must make sure that the data importer is legally able to enter into that contract. For example, the terms of these SCCs are incompatible with US national security laws, meaning that US companies might not be able to enter into the SCCs. There are a couple of other ways to authorize international transfers, but they are mostly relevant for multinational groups of companies, or in exceptional situations. In any case, other GPDR requirements like the need to have a suitable contract with your data processors remain unaffected. Also unaffected is the obligation to implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to ensure the compliance and security of your processing activities (e.g. see Art 24 and Art 32 of the GDPR). For example, this may imply the need to implement suitable encryption. In the wake of the Schrems II ruling that struck down the EU–US “Privacy Shield” adequacy decision, the EDPB published recommendations on extra compliance measures that could allow SCCs to remain valid for EU–US data transfers. But it's not easy to defend data processing activities when potential adversaries include literally the NSA, and measures such as end-to-end encryption (E2EE) are incompatible with cloud services that are more interesting than backup storage. Practically speaking, I would reconsider an architecture that would allow failover of EU data processing operations to non-EU locations, unless those target countries are covered by an adequacy decision. If you need a high availability setup for EU activities, it may be more appropriate to maintain multiple deployments within the EU.
There is no fixed definition in the law of &quot;outside activities&quot; that is applied generally. This will depend entirely on how the employment agreement defines it, and/or how the management of your company defines it. There may be a useful definition in the agreement, ideally there will be. In the far too common case that the agreement leaves this key term undefined, you will have to ask them how they define it. While it is true legally that when they draft the contract and it is ambiguous, you may adopt any reasonable definition, as a practical matter, if you do not disclose something and they consider it an &quot;outside activity&quot; They may claim this is grounds for discharge. If the employment contract requires you to disclose outside activities, you must disclose them or be in breach of that contract, which is surely grounds for discharge, and possibly grounds for a breach of contract suit. Even if it is not part of the contract, saying that you have no such activities when you in fact do is arguably fraud. Saying that you decline to inform management of your outside activities is probably legal, but might well cause them to cancel the offer of employment. If you do inform management, and the activities are approved, there would be no automatic transfer of any existing IP rights. No transfer could occur without an agreement saying so. Some companies, in their employment agreements (or other related agreements) demand that an employee transfer the IP of any project created or worked on using company resources (such as a company computer or network). Some demand a transfer for any project worked on during the employee's working hours. Some demand a transfer for any project done during the period of employment, but they must clearly specify this for it to be effective. That last is unusual, because many employees dislike it enough to go elsewhere as soon as they can, which tends to be bad for the employer. But in no case can a transfer of IP for a project unrelated to the employer's business, not using company equipment or resources, and not done during work hours, be effective without a specific agreement to this effect.
The criteria used by the IRS suggest that for federal tax purposes, the cashier would be properly classified as a contractor. Behavioral Control: A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the work performed by the worker, even if that right is not exercised. There is probably some training involved here, but it seems negligible. Has the company actually retained the right to direct and control the cashier? Is he obligated to use their register, as they tell him to use it? Is his work evaluated for compliance with those instructions? I'd guess that in most cases, the company doesn't actually care about any of this. As long as the company got all the money it was owed, would it really care if the cashier just stuck the money in his pockets until the end of the day? I'd also argue that it isn't really the employer controlling the when and where of the contractor's work, but rather the circumstances. Classifying him as an employee because he has to be at the event doesn't really make any more sense than saying your plumber is an employee because he has to come to your house to do the job. Financial Control: Does the business have a right to direct or control the financial and business aspects of the worker's job? The investment in the cash register seems relatively nominal. The company probably does not reimburse the cashier for expenses incurred in getting the job done. The cashier is presumably free to offer his services to others. The cashier is presumably being paid a one-time, flat fee. As you noted, though, the fact that there isn't much profit-loss opportunity is one factor pointing in the other direction. Relationship: The type of relationship depends upon how the worker and business perceive their interaction with one another. The fact that this is a single, hours-long job is probably the strongest evidence that the cashier is a contractor. Further, the cashier's job is not a key part of the business, as it is only a minor portion of an event that the company has never performed before and has no apparent intention of repeating. I assume that the company is not providing health benefits, sick time, etc., and that any contract with the cashier includes no language suggestive of an employer-employee relationship. Conclusion: The employee-contractor distinction is pretty fact-intensive, but based on what you've provided, there seems to be a much stronger argument that the cashier would be a contractor.
If the employment contract treats base pay as an advance on future commissions when an employee has not earned the minimum number of units, then the company is probably entitled to repayment of advances not earned out. On the other hand, if it treats the base pay as a guaranteed minimum, the company would not be entitled to a refund. The specific wording of the contract will be vial here. There may also be state laws regulating such an arrangement. Under Nebraska Revised Statute 48-1230.01 commissions not earned when an employee leaves must be paid: on the next regular payday following the employer's receipt of payment for the goods or services from the customer from which the commission was generated.
I've litigated cases like these before. The IRS enforcement reaction is swift and severe. Penalties for the employer are heavy and rarely waived. It would be rare for a business like this to stay operational long enough to issue a W-2. A business like this would probably be shut down by the IRS and have the people responsible for the payroll function, at a minimum, promptly burdened with tax liens, within four to six months. These cases also constitute a significant share of all criminal tax prosecutions. The odds of someone doing this spending several years in federal prison is high. Generally speaking, if the wrongdoing is fully on the part of the employer without the collusion or knowledge of the employee, the IRS will not force the employee to double pay the taxes that should have been withheld by the employer in this situation. Instead, this IRS will try to recover the amounts that were withheld from the employees but not delivered to the IRS. It will seek to recover these amounts from the employer and also from other responsible persons in the organization (and from outsourced professionals) with the authority to pay the IRS who did not do so. There may be circumstances, if push comes to shove, where the IRS could collect from the employees in a case like this one (I've never had occasion to need to research that issue), but that would be the rare exception and not the rule, in practice. On the other hand, if the employer simply does not withhold taxes or prepare W-2s at all, and either 1099s people who should have been classified as employees (or files no information tax returns at all), the IRS will generally insist that the employee pay income taxes on the full amount owed and that they pay the employee part of payroll taxes. It will also pursue the employer for the employer's share of payroll taxes. The employer will also be jointly and severally liable for any taxes that should have been reported and subjected to withholding that are not paid by the employee (perhaps because the employee spent all the money). Sometimes cases like this are also criminally prosecuted, but it is less common to do so.
There are not enough facts to draw a conclusion First, it’s not clear that the document you signed amounts to a contract. For example, what consideration did the school give you in return for the permission you gave them? Providing you with an education doesn’t count - they were legally obliged to do that already. If it is a contract then whether and how it can be revoked would depend on the terms of that contract witch I’m guessing you don’t have a copy of. Notwithstanding, as a minor, you have the right to void the contract until a reasonable time after you turn 18. Even if it is now many years since that happened, it might be reasonable since you only just discovered the website. If it isn’t a contract, then it would be revocable at any time. Practicalities Make a fuss and they may take the photos down even if they are not obliged to. They presumably have plenty of photos of kids who aren’t you and aren’t complaining and if you make it so it’s easier to change the website than to deal with you, thy’ll change the website. I suspect their inertia is because they once paid a web developer to create the site, it has never since been updated, they don’t know how to do it, and they don’t want to have to pay someone to find out. Otherwise, why would they have photos of ex-students rather than current students? If so, an offer by you to cover the costs, might solve your problem.