Side Work

When I was distributing tile, employees that wanted to go out on their own were encouraged to do so as long as they didn't go after my customers. I had reached the limit of the vollume I wanted my roofing company to do (liability wise) in this climate, but wanted to grow the distribution company, so if they were upfront about it, I worked with them.

The thing was, they thought I was the one making the big bucks off them at the roofing company, then when they were on their own, they thought I was the one making the big bucks off of them selling them materials, even though I was at or below other distributors prices. But virtually everyone of them later wanted to come back and work for my roofing company. Letting them try it on their own can make them appreciate what they have as employees.>>>

Jesse, that is totally unacceptable! Thats a strong referral lead stolen from your company by your own employee! This violates 1 of my 2 main rules concerning side work. The lead can not come from the companys job or other sources and you can not work on your side job during the week unless we have no work for you or it was agreed upon beforehand. Woody, your post before the one above made me bust out laughing! ( the last post on page 2 ) lol But guys just remember this issue will never go away. At least half the time i hire a company to do something around my house at least one of their employees will try and get me to hire them for something. Heck i even called a taxi one time and the cab driver offered to pick me up for the return trip in his own car "off the record" for half price. ITs a part of life my friends! :)>>>

3rd thing Willie----- use your own tools. They will never price correctly until they do :laugh:>>>

I have a real interesting question to add to this post.......I have recently seen a trend of legit companies conducting buisiness on a cash basis..."a cash job"...is what they call it. It seems the most legit companies are lowering thier standards to compete with others. Anybody in thier right mind will never admit to taking such an action, but it is taking place.

I wonder how a wrong can be so right through these times.>>>

Might be a good separate thread Robby.

50% cheap-azz materials & 50% labor prfit & o/Head w/ the dumpster sometimes inclded is what I am guessing as the new going out of business" rate. KASH Contracting? I can't prove it. But where there is smoke....

Anyway, a lot of bankruptcies will take place this fall & winter. Just in time for them to return next roofing season :angry:>>>

I have coffee every morning with a guy that used to own the biggest roofing company in town. He is retired now but goes into the shop most every day. He said that last weekend his son (who now runs the business) was driving around town and saw some of of his guys working on a flat roof. The son went up on the roof and they were putting down a rubber roof with the same kind of rubber that the company uses and no one else in town has. I wonder where they got the rubber? I think the owner of the company was thinking the same thing. Easy to do work cheap when you don't have to buy the materials!

The rubber is "cheap" The accesories are what are really espensive. Anyone bought any cover tape or glue lately? Theives, I hate them!>>>

Naiveness is clearly obvious, in all the previous comments. Consider the following scenario: Several employees are doing side jobs on week-ends and/or slow periods. They are employed by a church recomended by one of their members and do minor repairs for several years, for which they are paid directly by check. While reroofing the main sanctuary, the building catches on fire, despite preventative measures, including CO2 bottles, etc. Their employer has absolutely no knowlege of their activities, but lo and behold, 1-2 years later he is served w/ a lawsuit exceeding $1,000,000. The employer has never received compensation or participated in anyway with these "side jobs". Now what is your reaction if you were in his shoes.>>>

Did that happen to you?>>>

My reaction would be F/U buddy. Not my job.>>>

I believe it is called the "deep pockets" syndrome. The others didn't have insurance and though "Deep pockets" wasn't involved he does have money to cover the difference. I would bet that the insurance company that got stuck paying the bill is the one that tried to "spread" the liability. Been there and done all of that. Life sucks!>>>

Mike H Yes it did, and it was obviously a gross miscarriage of justice.>>>

That's a distressing story alright. There are times when I think the legal system in all of its parts and incarnations rolled into one single entity must think of itself as floating on a sea of human irresponsibility (I'm cutting them a lot of slack here) and with little hope to make any real sense of anything, the minute they/it catch a whiff of any possibly responsibly entity, they make like hell for it as if it were the only dry land left on earth. Still, the pathological opposite of naivete is paralyzing disillusionment. That and cynicism, which I assure you I am not accusing you of. Yet I must insist that to base all our actions and beliefs on worst-case possibilities is a serious mistake. If every action we take is dominated by the fear of having our abundance stolen from us, we will end up merely stealing it from ourselves to no good end. I modify this by saying it is incumbent upon us to look carefully at the issue of aiding and abetting, keep the paper trail spotless, and act from a position of honorable intent. Some lawyers will always try to twist every possible meaning to suit their own purposes. They actually consider that a legitimate part of their job and that is why we tend to despise them so thoroughly.>>>

El Cid, What were the the dynamics? What was the outcome? How the hell are you as an employer responsible for what your employees do on their own time?>>>

Jed: The leading law firm in the city refused to represent the church insurance company based on the merits of the case. Also, when 10 of the 12 jurors have a commonality w/ the church, what kind of verdict would you expect. Old School is correct, lawyers only go after firms w/ "deep pockets" i.e. had we operated naked as many companies do, instead of carrying adequate liability insurance, we would have never been subject to this. Technically, your employees might be considered your "agents" by the public, and guess who has to bear the burden of their defense. .>>>

El Cid,

Fortunately, we don't operate "naked". I see my written policy as one line of defense, it's reasonable, but prohibits them doing a job that is out of their league and open to significant liability.

Your case reminds me of one we had. An employee was killed at 2:00 am on a Sunday morning after closing up a bar with a buddy.

He was in the buddies car. The buddy has no affiliation with HRI in any way. The buddy was driving. Came over a rise, with a small curve, hit the guardrail, fishtailed out of control, hit the opposing guard rail head-on, flipped over the guardrail, threw my employee out of the window and the car landed on top of him. I delivered his eulogy. Helped the family through the diffculty. Got them the max life insurance available through our company plan.

Two years later am served with a lawsuit.

The family collected about $800K through out "uninsured motorist" policy because it was not written to specifically EXCLUDE employees while off the job.

Sometimes the world makes little sense.>>>