Complaint Review: KROGER GROCERY - GREENFIELD Indiana

I lived in Greenfield and I can tell you if you really need to find a job for more than $6 an hour, go to Novelty,Inc. They hire anyone on at $8 an hour and have benefits. I also previously worked at Kroger, so I was confused as why you didn't clock in, but i know circumstances do arise at all places of business.

I owe the Deacon a sincere apology for my mis directed remarks. I have been extremely tired and upset from looking for work and worrying about my babies. I hope the Deacon can accept my apology. I can't afford a car on the low paying jobs that it seems are the only ones available for me. I continually look for work and walk or ride my bicycle even in the winter time because there is no public transportation available. Since I am stuck in a small town the employment opportunities are very slim. I have filed a wage claim with the state but that will take weeks to resolve and even if they find in my favor I have no money for an attorney. Kroger just keeps giving me the run around for the checks that were due on 11-26 and 12-3 and to date still have not paid me for the entire time I worked for them. Not one dime.

I apologise to Deacon . I mis-read what was said. I am sorry for my remarks to you. My remarks should have been directed to Stephen who is attempting to mis-lead people on the law and making statements about me that he has no way of knowing about. The 10 day grace period applies only if you quit and IF you do not leave a address where to send your check. It does not apply to an employee who was fired as I was because of false accusation. The store I worked at was supposed to pay weekly not bi-weekly and all other employees got their check. I checked out the IU page but the legal clinic is in Bloomington about 70 miles away and doesn't operate in my county. I don't have a car because of the low wage jobs we can't afford the cost of upkeep, insurance.. ect and try and keep a roof over my family's head. I walk or ride a bicycle to look for and to and from work (even in the winter time) because there is no bus service in my county and since it is a small town there aren't that many opportunities. I have filed a wage claim complaint with the State Dept of Labor but even if they find in my favor it will still be up to me tohire a lawyer to sue for damages which I sure can't afford. I am not asking for anything from anyone except the pay for the 2 weeks I worked there. My parents have helped us but they are out of money as well and this is being sent from their computer.

Dude, Deacon was *defending you*. It was Steven from Kroger who was bad mouthing you. Read the other posts, man.

As of this morning Kroger still has not paid and just keeps making excuses. One check is now 21 days past due and the other is 14 days past due. Now in regards to the comments to Steven from Ft. Wayne I would advise you to go to www.in.gov and go to the department of labor- wage claim division and educate yourself about Indiana Law. 1. the specifically states that an employee who is terminated their wages are due on the on the next scheduled payday. If the employee is not paid then the employer can be subject to civil action and damages for each day the pay is not received 10% per day for every day up to a maximum of 200% in addition to court costs and the employees legal fees. They do not have a 10 day grace period 2. Employers cannot withold an employees paycheck for any reason nor can they make an employee pay for mandatory uniform. Something this store Manager tried to do but I have a signed receipt anyway showing I returned them. Also they cannot make any deductions from an employees pay except for the specified allowable deductions. 3. The manager of this store at first claimed she gave me an advance on the 1st late check which she later admitted that she put in for the advance but never gave it to me. 4. They are allowed to mail the check but they are still responsible to see that the employee receives it on time. As for comments made by the Idiot who calls himself a Judge Deacon from Iowa You have no knowledge of all of my circumstances. I do keep working and looking for work. My rent is due each week and I try the best I can to support a family of 4 and (have a child of 21 months and a child of 3 months) on 6-$6.50 an hour. I look for work everyday and I am not asking for handouts just the pay for the time I worked. We live from week to week and pay rent weekly. (You see how d**n good you can do on $6.50 an hour you moron.)an hour. When an employer does not pay then I cannot pay rent but don't insinuate I don't try to find work when you have no d**n Idea of my circumstances!!! Your statements are good reason why a person such as yourself should never be a Judge if in fact you are.

All of the knowledge I have of you comes from your prior posts, which were enquoted in full. Read them. Then look me in the eye and tell me one reason why I should think you any different than I have portrayed you. "...if you were a deacon at my church, then the pastor would fire your butt before you could blink for how sacrilegiously and degradingly you have spoken to a fellow parishioner." I have less than no interest in what your Pastor does or doesn't do, I am quite sure they act at all times with their parishioners best interest at heart. My statement needed saying. There was and is no way to sugar coat it. "...seems like something a judge, or even [sic] decent person, should withstand[sic] from saying unless he be at the same level as someone "lower down on the evolutional scheme of things" is..." Do you mean "refrain from saying"? Once again, It needed pointing out. While we are discussing acting lower down on the scheme of tings, bear in mind that I am NOT the one that told the original poster that they got what they had coming, in as few words. "I thought judges were to gather all the facts before passing judgement[sic]. And if I were standing before your bench, you would powerless to do anything cause last time I checked it was still legal to have a different opinion then the judge." If your firm is illegally withholding this person's pay, that is against the law, your esteemed opinion not withstanding. If they had the proof to back up what is said (Payroll records and W2 forms) I would gladly act in just the manner I have depicted. If the reports were untrue, then C can be dealt with just as severely for speaking falsehood. That door swings both ways. "I may use only assumptions when I say something else is probably going on with C, but so are you when you take his statement and assume it tells the whole truth." C. simply said they did not receive their pay. That is an unambiguous statement. You either receive it or you don't. C isn't the one that said "you must have gotten pretty shitty with them or done something to warrant Kroger's unwillingness to pay you." That sounds like an assumption to me. C did not go on to say "Hey, if you have the time and money to waste on line[sic] complaining while you could be working, it can't be that bad, right?" That sounds like an assumption to me. The truth is that you did say those things. Do you deny it? It's right there, for all to see. To justify wrong with wrong is vile and low. From where I am sitting it looks as though you are trying to draw the attention from yourself and focus it elsewhere. I do not make excuses for what I have said, because I don't want to be "excused" for saying it. I stand by it, for the above reasons. If what I have said draws down consequences that so be it. I wouldn't bother saying it if I didn't intend to back it.

Tim, I hear what you're saying and I'm sure the clinic would be the best option for this guy. I know that an experienced lawyer will oversee but that might not overcome the fact that law students will do most the work. But I guess even the best lawyers were students at one point though. The Deacon, I quote: "You are an utter and unapologetic disgrace to human decency. I am quite ashamed to belong to the same species as you, although I suspect you are rather lower down on the evolutional scheme of things than most of us." "God have mercy on your soul, because I can't muster up any." Well, all i can say is that if you were a deacon at my church, then the pastor would fire your butt before you could blink for how sacrilegiously and degradingly you have spoken to a fellow parishioner. (Also seems like something a judge, or even decent person, should withstand from saying unless he be at the same level as someone "lower down on the evolutional scheme of things" is.) "Were you standing before my bench I would clap you in the penitentiary so fast your ears would ring. You would remain therein until I felt like letting you out, but I suspect I would simply swallow the key." I thought judges were to gather all the facts before passing judgement. And if I were standing before your bench, you would powerless to do anything cause last time I checked it was still legal to have a different opinion then the judge. I may use only assumptions when I say something else is probably going on with C, but so are you when you take his statement and assume it tells the whole truth. C's statement sets up some dominos well for those, who don't know the Kroger company, to believe they are giving him the shaft. But working in a Kroger store for years, not seeing anything even remotely similar to this happening, I can not see the dominos falling as C has set them up. It just doesn't add up.

If a delay in compensation is due to ommissions of the employee, i.e. not turning in proper forms on time, then sure, the employee is probably out of luck. Also, the employer is permitted a brief administrative period to get your file up and running. In most cases, however, this means that an employee will be paid on the payday immediately following the first payday after he started working. That sentece was probably more complicated than it needed to be, just read it really slow and you'll get it (I'm not being condescending, just having a hard time putting a simple concept in simple words). On the other hand, if the delay in compensation is due to the negligence of the business' administration, or worse, the intentional bad faith of the administration, then the legal result would be quite different. By the way, if I was trying to promote a law clinic, I would promote my own, not one with which I am completely unafilliated. Most law schools run these clinics, and the idea that you obtain substandard legal service from them is just wrong and must be refuted. First, for many people it is the only legal assistance they can afford (as it's free). As such, even if the assistance were to be less than what Johnny Cochrane might be able to deliver, you're still better off. Second, while the leg-work in these clinics is performed by students, it is overseen and carefully scrutinized by some of the greatest legal minds in the country. Only the best lawyers get gigs as law professors, and these are the people who will be overseeing your case if you go to a law school clinic. So to say that you will receive substandard assistance from a bunch of "Newbies" is just plain wrong. You will receive compassionate help from people who have not yet been tainted by the harsh real world of law practice, supervised by brilliant attorneys with decades of experience.

C, Go to court. Take your facts, and only your facts. Tell the court, in as few words as can be said, what went down, and you are sure to get satisfaction. Keep it short and sweet-judges (as a rule) don't like pontificating blather and excuses. Also call the Labor relations board in your state. If they can't help you they will know who can, and this kind of thing is right up their alley. There will be depositions you will have to swear, and people to interview, but they may be a great help. Steven, You are an utter and unapologetic disgrace to human decency. I am quite ashamed to belong to the same species as you, although I suspect you are rather lower down on the evolutional scheme of things than most of us. I quote: "And for them to say they claimed you got a pay advance, well I would say that you must have gotten pretty shitty with them or done something to warrant Kroger's unwillingness to pay you." That is no less than low-down sneaky theft. Theft of the worst sort, because it is perpetrated against someone who trusted your beloved corporation to do what was right, something they seem to have clearly failed at doing. "You make it sound like Kroger has a vendetta against couples with babies to feed. Hey, if you have the time and money to waste online complaining while you could be working, it can't be that bad, right?" Did the thought ever cross your infantile mind that this individual may be at some library or employment centre looking for work? Could the search be at a slow point, and could not the individual be seeking to warn others about a nasty little habit the corporation you dearly love clings to? I thought not. Your ilk is so secure in your ignorance, and collective self-delusion that you miss what is right in front of you. God have mercy on your soul, because I can't muster up any. Were you standing before my bench I would clap you in the penitentiary so fast your ears would ring. You would remain therein until I felt like letting you out, but I suspect I would simply swallow the key.

Paid weekly comment: Kroger cannot process a check for ANY employee until all information is given to management. Period. Many businesses pay bi-weekly; therefore it is easier to get checks ready for first-time employees. With only one week, if you don't have your papers signed, and they have sent a copy of your State ID and your SS card to headquarters they will give no check to any one until they know you are allowed work in the US. Certain Payday: If his check was not ready, Kroger will always give you a pay advance, even that first week. I am by no way saying he will not get paid weekly because someone decides they don't want to pay him. If his check is still not ready, Kroger will give him a pay advance each and every week that his check has not arrived. After the first check, he will receive a check each and every week thereafter. 10 days Compensation: I was not partially correct for this statement. I read your reply and you are right on this point as long as he told the manager in person, over the phone, or in writing that he quit. Pay advance: I am not saying they didn't like him so that's the reason they claimed he received a pay advance, or that I would use this statement in a court of law. I am saying that he probably did something to warrant management's behavior. Not saying it was right for them to claim that he got an advance (that's if he didn't actually get one) if he didn't. I was more just trying to imply he was either lazy or a d**k. You may think that's an outrageous statement but time theft is the same as theft; and if he was a d**k, all I can say is that everything comes back to you eventually.

C, Don't think for a second that Steven has given you an accurate picture of your rights. First, he states "It matters not that Kroger chooses to pay employees every week when this is not required by law." I disagree with this statement on a moral level, and I think a court of law would disagree with it on a legal level. Regardless of how the law allows you to structure your compensation delivery, you are not permitted to create an expectation in an employee, by way of paying everybody else weekly, that he will be paid weekly, and then arbitrarily decide to pay him in a different fashion. In a moral sense this is wrong because the employee RELIES on weekly payment and will fashion a budget accordingly. What happens when you decide not to pay him this week? He is unable to come up with rent money because he spent his money on groceries, thinking that he had a paycheck coming. In a legal sense this would probably fall under the concept of estoppel. In contract law, estoppel comes into play where there isn't a valid contract provision on point (i.e. no contractual promise was made that the employee would be paid every week), but the employee acts in "reasonable reliance" according to his reasonable belief that a certain event will materialize (i.e. getting paid on Friday). The question, of course, is whether his reliance was reasonable. If the basis for reliance on a certain payday was the fact that everybody else was getting paid that day, this would probably be sufficient based on the general knowledge within the company that employees are paid every Friday. If a member of management, or somebody who probably had authority to tell C when he would get paid, told him he would be getting paid on Firday, then I would say that the prerequisites for estoppel are definitely met. I know this is a tricky concept. Right now there are thousands of first year law students across the country trying to beat it into their heads for their upcoming contracts exams. The bottom line is this: while the law allows you to pay your employees up to two weeks after the completion of work, it DOES NOT allow you to make them think that they will be paid sooner then that and then decide they will be paid only according to what the law "requires." The second point, that "by law Kroger has ten days to deliver final compensation," is also only partially correct. The purpose of this law is to force employers to pay employees within ten days of completion of work if the normal period is longer than that, not to allow employers to extend the normal pay period. If employees are normally paid weekly, you must still deliver the final compensation per the weekly schedule. If employees are paid bi-weekly, compensation must be delivered within ten days instead of two weeks. You are permitted to mail the check instead of offer hand delivery, but the employee should still receive it within ten days (seven days for a week's pay period plus three days for mailing time). Next: "And for them to say they claimed you got a pay advance ... you must have ... done something to warrant Kroger's unwillingness to pay you." Are you prepared to raise that as a contract defense in a court of law? "We didn't like the guy, so we decided we didn't have to pay him?" Not only would you be subject to the normal contractual damages for not paying out of spite, but you could probably get smacked with some punitive and statutory charges as well. If you didn't like the guy, so be it, it looks like he isn't working there anymore anyways. But you still have to pay him! C, it sounds to me like they really worked you over. It also sounds to me like you may have a very viable lawsuit on your hands. If you suffered losses as a result of their failure to timely compensate you, such as an eviction, utilities shut off, car repossessed, whatever, you could potentially be entitled not only to the payment due you, but to compensation for these "consequential losses" as well. The Indiana University School of Law (Indianapolis) operates a clinic for indigent clients. They may be able to help you out. Check out their website for more information. Best of luck!

I work at a Kroger store and deal with all employees and their checks. Kroger is only obligated, by law, to pay an employee every two weeks for work. It matters not that Kroger chooses to pay employees every week when this is not required by law. The manager does not turn in hours for employees, this is done automatically by computer when Central headquarters gets all the information they need from the EMPLOYEE as well as the manager. In most cases at my store, it is the employee. Even though Kroger is supposed to give you a check, if you would have demanded pay after the first two week period Kroger would have given you a pay advance(which would suffice until your check made it there) if you given them a good reason. They would have given you money after the first week if you needed it too. Plus Kroger has a ten day period (by law)to pay you after you demand your compensation for labor (after the first two weeks you worked). If you no longer work in the store, it is Kroger's right to mail you your check rather than pick it up. And for them to say they claimed you got a pay advance, well I would say that you must have gotten pretty shitty with them or done something to warrant Kroger's unwillingness to pay you. You make it sound like Kroger has a vendetta against couples with babies to feed. Hey, if you have the time and money to waste online complaining while you could be working, it can't be that bad, right?