Chad Brown wow 😳
 

and I always thought help on the backside were on salary per day or week or hoss. $1.6 million is a lot of bread to owe the help.

Maybe they were entiitled to a % of the winnings. Even if there is more to the story, not a good look.

Is that not a ton of bread to owe workers who are making less than a grand a week ? To be that much money awarded in the judgement, it has to be a lot of workers that got screwed a bunch of money, over an extended period.

It will be interesting to see if he was doing anything different from most other trainers with big operations. We will see if he is the only one nailed for this, or if a bunch more of these cases are coming against other trainers.

For anyone that hasn't seen the article, here it is:
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...or-violations/

Nearly every barn in NY is dealing with this in varying degrees.

Some of the comments after that article are laugh out loud funny. I always thought Alabama Stakes was the dumbest guy on the internet. I was clearly wrong.

Administrative Judges aren't IMPARTIAL.

Nobody save a few people very close to the case know the facts.

People employed in the industry realize it's not an 8 hour a day job, no different than an UBER driver expecting to make an hourly wage. The difference is racing lobby has not lobbied well enough to set the standards.

Not sure how a guy can have the most successful operation in NY and not have happy (for the most part) high-quality help that feels good about their compensation? Maybe but unlikely.

Smells like a setup.

Smart people like Brown obviously can make mistakes too, and when you are growing attention to detail other than winning clients and races can wain, but we will see?

On the issue of worker satisfaction, the complaint was brought by the US Secretary of Labor (unclear if this was based on worker complaints or not). Most of the allegations are a result of poor record keeping by Brown. The DOL then used Brown’s own records to demonstrate that he didn’t pay his employees the proper amounts. The actual backpay awarded was around $1.2 million ($100,000+ in civil penalties, almost $300,000 in liquidated damages.)

The time frame is also over a 32-month period for 150 employees. Do the math and you’ll realize it’s not a huge amount per day for each employee - but it’s a lot of employees over a long time frame.

It doesn’t seem like this was a mistake by Brown. It seems like it’s industry-wide practice but the federal DOL has decided to crack down on it.

I get it I have been there. I am currently engaged in such with NLRB I know way too much about this stuff. I am shocked Brown has decided to pay the entire award. I guess he just wants to get on with doing what he does best.

My opinion remains the same the industry has done trainers no favors in educating labor depts on how things work. None of that exonerates trainers for doing wrong by workers, but labor depts are notoriously shortsighted

Sounds like they're giving you a hard time you probably deserve. :rolleyes:

What do you know about Freddy or his case? I'll answer....nothing.

I'll take my chances that Freddy, who is about as generous a person as anyone would ever hope to meet, is not intentionally taking advantage of others.

I'm wondering how a rush to judgement works for people, overall, in their lives. My guess is not well.

It's a long story but its public record so if you wish to read about it on NLRB site you can. The case is NYC Guided Tours LLC. You be the judge. The guy worked 15 shifts for us. they awarded him 105,000, he made 18 bucks an hour plus tips (which he never reported on a tax return). He is a great client for NLRB he has filed 4 cases with them in 7 years. Your taxpayer dollars at work. But hey you want to invest some time to recognize how deranged these things can be, go to school NLRB.gov

be sure to get back to us after you have done your due diligence

Certainly not surprising, because this isn't just an issue for the racing industry. Dept. of Labor's changes to what constitutes a position that can qualify for salary, what constitutes management, etc. have made it no easier on employers.

The agenda seems clear. Someone at NLRB and Department of Labor believes there is a rampant problem with workers not being paid overtime when it is due.

I'm not sure they have data to support that -- but that certainly is driving a lot of this.

Brown and NYRA
 

Serious question.. Could Brown face any discipline or scrutiny from NY commissioners? When you think about some of the charges against Duttrow (filed by owners not drug test related) just wondering if they would view this as bad actions while he is hosted mainly at their tracks

I highly doubt it. The DRF article said that tons of other trainers are going to have to pay fines for the same issues. It said that Linda Rice already paid her fine. But her fine was much smaller.

What no H&R Block's in NYC?
IF the laws are not clear, time to hire someone.
Like millions of other small businesses do all the time.

I think this is more of a case of the government deciding that they are going to start enforcing laws that they haven't enforced in the past. If they wanted to, they could do the same thing to millions of Americans. For example, most of us have had a housekeeper. Assuming that the housekeeper comes once a week or even once every two weeks, you are supposed to verify that she may legally work in the United States. The reality is that a high percentage of housekeepers are not here legally. The government could technically come after anyone who has employed a housekeeper that is not here legally.

In addition, you are technically supposed to withhold Social Security and Medicare tax from your housekeeper. Practically nobody does that. The government could come after you for that if they wanted to.

Anyway, if the government starts enforcing something out of nowhere, it's going to catch everyone off guard. I think that is the case with these trainers.

Are you f ing kidding me?
“Most of us have had a housekeeper? “ really ? I thought most of us cleaned our own freaking house. It’s not that difficult unless you’re a total f ing lazy slob or have money to burn. To insinuate that housekeepers are illegal aliens because that’s their profession is disrespectful. It is good honest work. Furthermore, to suggest that those employing said housekeepers knowingly break the law in doing so is absurd.

Is the defense here, “ oh, I didn’t know ? “ or simply, it’s the way it’s always been done.

Really? How about if you would just rather spend your time doing other things than cleaning the house? "money to burn"? If you bet on horses, is that having "money to burn"? Personally, my wife and I would rather pay someone $50 to spend 2-3 hours cleaning our house than do it ourselves.

I agree. For sure it's "good honest work". And Rupert's "high percentage of" should have been "some".

Where did Rupert say anything about those employers "knowingly" breaking the law?

When he said practically no one holds back social security or Medicare tax, knowing that they should. To me that is knowingly . They know they should , but don’t.p

I think this is a case of going after the "big or bigger fish." I doubt that the Department of Labor has enough personnel to go after private citizens that knowingly break the law in this instance. Seems like I remember some US Representatives or Senators or Supreme Court Justices that got in trouble for this sort of thing, but can't remember who they were.

Except that Rupert didn't say that at all. What he said was:

"In addition, you are technically supposed to withhold Social Security and Medicare tax from your housekeeper. Practically nobody does that."

There's no "knowingly" implication that I can see.

Practically everyone I know has a housekeeper.

Are there some American housekeepers out there. Yes, absolutely. But where I live (in Los Angeles), practically all the housekeepers are either from Mexico or Central America. Some of them are legal aliens, but most of them are illegal aliens.

I never said it wasn't honest work.

Do most people who employ illegal aliens know that they are illegal? I would say in most cases the answer is yes. I don't think that most people ask and I don't think that most people care. They just want an employee who is honest and who will do a good job.

I think most people know that it is technically illegal to have an illegal alien working for them. But it's obviously not enforced. There are around 12-15 million illegal aliens working in the US.

Do most people know that if they have a housekeeper that comes once a week that they pay cash, that they technically are supposed to withhold Social Security and Medicare? I would say that most people probably do not know that.

By the way, the employer is not always required to pay social security. The law is strange. If the worker brings their own supplies and decides on their own how to do the job, then you don't need to pay. But if they use your supplies and you tell them how to do the job, then you do have to pay. Most people do not know that.

"A housekeeper is self-employed if she works for more than one client, sets her own schedule and provides her own supplies. She works under her own direction – you might tell her you’d like her to clean the bathrooms, but you don’t tell her how to accomplish the task. She might advertise her services to an array of clients, and she chooses what work to take and when to fit the work into her schedule." In this case you would not have to pay her Social security.

"Someone is your employee if you set her schedule, dictate her duties and provide the supplies she uses. If your housekeeper has regular hours in your home, you provide the cleaning supplies, and you dictate her duties and how they are to be accomplished, you are acting as the housekeeper’s employer. As an employer, you need to withhold Social Security and Medicare tax from your employee’s wages." In this case you would need to pay her Social security.

https://work.chron.com/tax-rules-emp...per-10188.html

Someone who comes every couple weeks to clean your house or cut your grass or whatever isn’t your employee. He/she is an independent contractor responsible for their own taxes. Rupert is confused with someone that is there every day and you are their only customer.

Sorry I'm just some poor guy who knows more housekeepers than people who have em. My bad.

It all makes sense now.

Jim, That's not true. Read the article that I linked. Even if the housekeeper only come once every two weeks, you are still responsible in some cases. The article explains which cases. A person could always try to make the argument that their housekeeper (who comes once every two weeks) is an independent contractor. But the law is pretty specific as to under what circumstances a housekeeper is an independent contractor versus when she is an employee. I'm sure most people think that their housekeeper (who comes once every week or two) is independent, but as the article shows, in many cases they are not.

If you think that only rich people have housekeepers (that come once every week or two), you are totally out of touch with the real world.

:tro::tro::tro:

Brace yourself....I agree with you. I read his post this morning and avoided it because I knew nothing good was going to come of it.

I have an idea of what he’s trying to say, he just can’t help how it comes out though.

Maybe your world, not mine. We actually mow our own lawns, shovel snow, and clean our own house like our parents required us to do growing up.

You obviously had no idea of what I was trying to say. My point was simple. My point is that the government can go after anyone they want to. Millions of people are technically breaking the law all the time. If the government decides that they are going to start enforcing something out of the blue, practically anyone could be in trouble for something. That was the point, period.

Don’t bother me right now. I’m busy cleaning my house.

I don't think one way is better than the other. I wouldn't judge someone either way. Some people enjoy doing their own gardening. Other people leave it up to a gardener. It's a personal choice.