If a employers supposed to calulate drive time pay with your weekly gross pay
"Reimbursements for business expenses are generally not taxable, but the commute from home to the job and back is not considered business travel and if they're paying for that it is taxable income. I don't think carpooling changes that, but I am not a tax lawyer or accountant. The rest of your questions seem to be company policy issues. There is no ""should"" here. You aren't required to pick up the other guys, but he isn't required to reimburse those miles (or employ you) so think carefully about your priorities before pushing back. Never invoke what thou canst not banish." "You're getting paid by the job, not by the hour, so I don't see why you think the employer is obligated to pay you for the drive time.  The only way that might be true, as far as I can see, is if he were avoiding paying you minimum wage by structuring your employment this way.  It looks like to me you're over the minimum wage based on what you wrote.  At maximum ""unpaid"" drive time (59 min each way) and maximum length of job (4 hours as you stated it), gives your minimum hourly rate of $8.83/hr. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25/hr, so you're over that.  A quick search online suggests that NV does have a higher minimum at $8.25/hr under some conditions, but you're still over that too. The fact that you're required to pick-up the helpers and that you have a company car at home probably does mean that you're ""on the clock"" from the moment that you leave your house, but, again, you're not actually being paid by the clock.  As long as no other law is being broken (and it appears from your telling that there isn't), then the employer can set any policy for how to compute the compensation that he wants. Regarding taxes, the employer probably has no discretion there.  You're making what you're making, and the employer needs to tax it in total.  Since you're driving a company vehicle from home, I don't think that you're entitled to any reimbursement (vs. wages) that would not be taxed unless maybe you pay for gas yourself.  The gas money, if applicable, should be reimbursable as a business expense and that generally would not be taxed."
"IANAL, but I had heard (and would appreciate someone more qualified commenting on this) that one reason these things were often found unenforceable is that there is no consideration.  The contract is to bind you for your work each day, but once you stop working, they allege you have a continued obligation that transcends your time at the company.  Claiming that your day-to-day compensation covers this is as if to say some part of that compensation is not for your work but to pay you for not going elsewhere.  It would be nice to see at minimum a requirement to separate these two concepts into separate contracts as bundling them creates a blur, and most importantly doesn't allow you to negotiate or walk away from the terms of one part without the other.  At the heart of any ""market"", which the job market purports to be, is a sense that a fair price is reached when both parties can walk away from a bad deal. This is not so in the case of employment because, as Adlai Stevenson said, ""a hungry man is not a free man"", so someone who needs to eat (or feed a family) has a need to take an offer that is already biasing their acceptance of work, and this quasi-duress is compounded when a company can attach additional pressures that work agains that person's ability to fairly negotiate possible improvements of what may already have been a bad situation.  I'm of the impression that duress itself has been argued to be a reason to hold a contract invalid.  But more abstractly and generally, any time two parties are bargaining asymmetrically (I'm not sure the legal definition, but intuitively I'd say where one party has the ability to force a contract change and the other party is not), then those terms have to be suspect.  Also, for the special case the pay is anything near minimum wage, I would suggest asking the question of whether the part of the compensation that is salary, not ""keeping you from working for the competition"", is the wage paid consistent with minimum wage, or does it have to draw from the pool of money that is not about wage but is about incentivizing you to not move.  And, finally, if they stop paying you, and each day you've been paid a little to work and a little to incentivize you to leave, then are you getting a continued revenue stream to continue to incentivize you not to work for the competition? If not, there would seem again not to be consideration.  As I said, I'm not an expert in this. I just follow such matters sometimes in the news. But I don't see these issues getting discussed here and I hope we'll see some useful responses from the crowd here, and also the smart folks at reddit can help through their discussions to form some useful political and legal defenses to help individuals overcome what is really a moral outrage on this matter.  Capitalism is an often cruel engine.  I worked at a company where one of the bosses said to me, after contributing really great things that added structurally in fundamental ways to the company, ""don't tell me what you've done, tell me what you've done lately"". Capitalism makes people scrap every day to prove their worth. So it's morally an outrage to see it also trying even as it beats down the price of someone and tells them they aren't entitled to better, to tell them that they may not go somewhere else that thinks they are better. That is not competition and it is not fair.    Indentured servitude, not slavery, is more technically correct. And yet it is a push to treat people like capital, so slavery is not inappropriate metaphorically.  The topic is non-competes, but really it's about businesses not wanting to have to compete for employees; that is, about businesses not wanting capitalism to prevail in hiring.  Sorry for the length." I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation. I would think that the real teeth here would be the IRS, should they look into it (and they should).  Splitting paychecks to avoid overtime also reduces taxes paid, which is large scale tax fraud, which generally leads to a sentence in gently-caress-my-bum-Federal-Penitentiary. "It is like you are your own boss on the side...  Could seem reasonable, but...  Let me guess, this will NOT count as part of a regular 8 hour day, be applicable toward a 40 hour work week, qualify anyone for over time, and/or qualify workers on the borderline of qualifying for full time benefits as full time.  Also, if packages come up missing it will count directly against the employee and/or be deducted from their normal wages BEFORE the employee receives them.  Walmart will also find a way not be responsible for the administrative overhead required to use one's car in a work capacity.  With employees feeling the social pressure to provide the service ""for the team"" while Walmart doesn't put the procedures in place to make sure that employees ALWAYS have the proper car insurance.  What could go wrong?" One point that I don't see covered in the other answers yet: How does this affect the months that have 5 weeks. Do we actually lose two weeks a year? I get paid every two weeks, and pay day is always a Friday.  Some months, I get paid 3 times - which is always great.  If you live within your means, it's like an extra paycheck.  All other months, I get paid two times.  How many months a year do I get paid 3 times? 2.  It will always be two, because there are 12 months.  If you get paid twice a month, that's 24 pay checks, which is 2 shy of 26 pay checks - what we would expect if we were paid every two weeks.  That means those 2 extra pay checks need to fall somewhere, and they will be on the months where your pay day is hit 5 times.  For example, in 2014, there are 4 months with 5 Fridays: Jan May Aug Oct  I got paid the second Friday of January, so I only got 2 checks in January.  I will be paid on the first Friday of May, which means I will get 3 checks in May.  My other triple-check month this year is October, so of course I am only going to be paid twice in August. I contacted Stephen Fishman, J.D., the author of Home Business Tax Deductions, to let him know that this question was missing from his book. He was kind enough to send a reply. My original phrasing of the question: If your car is used for both business and personal use, and you deduct via the actual expense method, do trips to the mechanic, gas station, and auto parts store to service or repair the car count as business miles, personal miles, or part-business-part-personal miles? What about driving the newly-purchased car home from the dealership? And his response: Good question. I can find nothing about this in IRS publication or elsewhere. However, common sense would tell us that the cost of driving to make car repairs should be deductible. If you use your car for business, it is a business expense, just like transporting any other piece of business equipment for repairs is a business expense. This should be so whether you use the standard mileage rate or actual expense method. You should probably reduce the amount of your deduction by the percentage of personal use of the car during the year. The same goes for driving a car home from the dealer. "Take a look at IRS Publication 15. This is your employer's ""bible"" for withholding the correct amount of taxes from your paycheck. Most payroll systems use what this publication defines as the ""Percentage Method"", because it requires less data to be entered into the system in order to correctly compute the amount of withholding. The computation method is as follows: Taxes are computed ""piecewise""; dollar amounts up to A are taxed at X%, and then dollar amounts between A and B are taxed at Y%, so total tax for B dollars is A*X + (B-A)*Y. Here is the table of rates for income earned in 2012 on a daily basis by a person filing as Single: To use this table, multiply all the dollar amounts by the number of business days in the pay period (so don't count more than 5 days per week even if you work 6 or 7). Find the range in which your pay subject to withholding falls, subtract the ""more than"" amount from the range, multiply the remainder by the ""W/H Pct"" for that line, and add that amount to the ""W/H Base"" amount (which is the cumulative amount of all lower tax brackets). This is the amount that will be withheld from your paycheck if you file Single or Married Filing Separately in the 2012 TY. If you file Married Filing Jointly, the amounts defining the tax brackets are slightly different (there's a pretty substantial ""marriage advantage"" right now; withholding for a married person in average wage-earning range is half or less than a person filing Single.). In your particular example of $2500 biweekly (10 business days/pp), with no allowances and no pre-tax deductions: So, with zero allowances, your employer should be taking $451.70 out of your paycheck for federal withholding. Now, that doesn't include PA state taxes of 3.07% (on $2500 that's $76.75), plus other state and federal taxes like SS (4.2% on your gross income up to 106k), Medicare/Medicaid (1.45% on your entire gross income), and SUTA (.8% on the first $8000). But, you also don't get a refund on those when you fill out the 1040 (except if you claim deductions against state income tax, and in an exceptional case which requires you to have two jobs in one year, thus doubling up on SS and SUTA taxes beyond their wage bases). If you claim 3 allowances on your federal taxes, all other things being equal, your taxable wages are reduced by $438.45, leaving you with taxable income of $2061.55. Still in the 25% bracket, but the wages subject to that level are only $619.55, for taxes in the 25% bracket of $154.89, plus the withholding base of $187.20 equals total federal w/h of $342.09 per paycheck, a savings of about $110pp. Those allowances do not count towards other federal taxes, and I do not know if PA state taxes figure these in. It seems odd that you would owe that much in taxes with your withholding effectively maxed out, unless you have some other form of income that you're reporting such as investment gains, child support/alimony, etc. With nobody claiming you as a dependent and no dependents of your own, filing Single, and zero allowances on your W-4 resulting in the tax withholding above, a quick run of the 1040EZ form shows that the feds should owe YOU $1738.20. The absolute worst-case scenario of you being claimed as a dependent by someone else should still get you a refund of $800 if you had your employer withhold the max. The numbers should only have gotten better if you're married or have kids or other dependents, or have significant itemized deductions such as a home mortgage (on which the interest and any property taxes are deductible). If you itemize, remember that state income tax, if any, is also deductible. I would consult a tax professional and have him double-check all your numbers. Unless there's something significant you haven't told us, you should not have owed the gov't at the end of the year." No.  Regular W2 employees cannot deduct housing or transportation costs related to their employment.   However, in the US, many employers offer Parking and/or Transit FSA programs which are usually collectively referred to a Commuter Benefits FSA programs, this is particularly common among larger employers with locations in major metropolitan cities.  Under Commuter benefits FSAs employees can defer up to $255 per month from their gross pay, tax-free, for parking and/or transit expenses.  Eligible expenses include things like bus and train passes or parking at a train or bus station.  These are money-in/money-out arrangements so expenses can only be claimed against contributions that have been made, unlike a Health FSA.  Though, like a health FSA, contributions are subject to use-it or lose-it provisions. These programs must be sponsored by the employer for an employee to take advantage of them though.  Some jurisdictions mandate that employers above a certain threshold must offer commuter benefits. It's difficult to quantify the intangible benefits, so I would recommend that you begin by quantifying the financials and then determine whether the difference between the pay of the two jobs justifies the value of the intangible benefits to you. Some Explainations You are making $55,000 per year, but your employer is also paying for a number of benefits that do not come free as a contractor.  Begin by writing down everything they are providing you that you would like to continue to have.  This may include: You also need to account for the FICA tax that you need to pay completely as a part time employee (normally a company pays half of it for you).  This usually amounts to 7.8% of your income. Quantification Start by researching the cost for providing each item in the list above to yourself.  For health insurance get quotes from providers.  For bonuses average your yearly bonuses for your work history with the company.  Items like stock options you need to make your best guess on. Calculations Now lets call your original salary S.  Add up all of the costs of the list items mentioned above and call them B.  This formula will tell you your real current annual compensation (RAC): Now you want to break your part time job into hours per year, not hours per month, as months have differing numbers of working days.  Assuming no vacations that is 52 weeks per year multiplied by 20 hours, or 1040 hours (780 if working 15 hours per week).  So to earn the same at the new job as the old you would need to earn an hourly wage of: The full equation for 20 hours per week works out to be: Assumptions DO NOT TAKE THIS SECTION AS REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR SITUATION; ONLY A BALLPARK ESTIMATE You must do the math yourself.  I recommend a little spreadsheet to simplify things and play what-if scenarios.  However, we can ballpark your situation and show how the math works with a few assumptions. When I got quoted for health insurance for myself and my partner it was $700 per month, or $8400 per year.  If we assume the same for you, then add 3% 401k matching that we'll assume you're taking advantage of ($1650), the equation becomes: Other Considerations Keep in mind that there are other considerations that could offset these calculations.  Variable hours are a big risk, as is your status as a 'temporary' employee.  Though on the flip side you don't need to pay taxes out of each check, allowing you to invest that money throughout the year until taxes are due.  Also, if you are considered a private contractor you can write off many expenses that you cannot as a full time employee. Not if the bonuses are also on a grid. At my work it's the same way -- you get paid a certain amount for every year of tenure you have at the company (outside experience generally doesn't count) and then the bonus varies depending on how your performance rating goes. Everybody knows what the bonus levels are. This sounds like it makes no difference if you behave in the same manner (i.e. take the same vacation time). For example, say you work 1 hour and take 1 hour of vacation and the current hourly rate is $1/hour.  You would make $2. Using your formula, new rate = 1* (1+1)/1 = 1*2 = $2.  So they would pay you $2 for the hour you worked and then you would take the 1 hour of vacation with no pay. If you plan on taking LESS vacation than used in the formula, you make more money.  If you plan on taking MORE vacation, you make less money. Biweekly pay for salaried employees is typically calculated as Annual-salary / 26. Twice a month pay for salaried employees is typically calculated as Annual-salary / 24. If you were getting paid twice a month and now are getting paid every other week, your paycheck will be roughly ( Twice-a-month-paycheck-amount * 24 / 26 ).  If you were paid $1000 twice a month, you'll be paid $923 every other week.   $1000 * 24 = $24K and $923 * 26 = $24K.   You will get paid every other week regardless of month boundaries on a biweekly pay cycle. Temporary flex time is just fine. During crunch time, put in 60 hours a week and then when the crunch is over, do a few weeks of 30 hours, wind down, take a day off, charge for the next crunch.  That's how flexible hours should work, to both directions. "I believe there is an overtime meal allowance. That is, if an employee works ""overtime"" (defined as 7:00 p.m. for a 9:00 start, or ten-plus hours after the shift starts), the company can provide a non-taxable meal free of charge, or give a ""reasonable"" allowance ($15-$20) that must be spent outside on a meal (no drinks). This is because the employee is working extra hours at the convenience of the company. Lunches can be subsidized. That is the company can provide lunch on company premises, and must charge employees the direct costs of the food and preparing it, but can forego charging for ""overhead"" (e.g. the implied rent for the lunch facility) and profit." Not really.  For moderate length (5-6hr) that is a lunch break.  Leave at 6, break after 3hr for lunch, extra charge at 2:30pm for 20m, break at dinner, drive.  Meal alignment and you drove 6am to 8pm or so with only one extra stop.  If you hyper optimize your time that sucks, but was minor imo.