comment: >
  
  Dude, Costco is one of the better retail employers. It sounds like you were pretty young and naive at the time, and still are too.
context: it will change its pay policy for hourly employees starting Jan. 16, with associates being paid based on exact time punches.
  "Our policy has been to round total shift time up or down to the nearest 15 minutes ... we're changing our practice nationwide to pay hourly associates to the nearest minute," a company spokesperson said.
  
  Down to the minute instead of rounded up or down >
  
  This was how it was at 2 different places I worked in college. I abused the fuck out of this to get extra minutes I didn’t actually work lol.
  Every minute counts when you are making $10 an hour and trying to pay rent. >
  
  My man! I worked at Home Depot years ago and am probably one of the reasons they're changing this policy. OT every week >
  
  Yeah, I also worked at Home Depot and definitely abused this. Not sure what the lawsuits were trying to accomplish, Home Depot is going to save money by ending this policy >
  
  If Home Dept was saving money by paying to the minute they would have changed years ago. The fact is that the majority of employees dont care to stand there an extra 3 minutes to round up to the next increment and Home Depot saves 5 min of pay. Corporations are never knowingly losing money on these kinds of things and they pay people to make sure they milk every cent they can. EDIT: added "pay" >
  
  When I worked there it was common knowledge that as long as you punch in less than 7 minutes late you would still get paid for the full first 15 minutes. Other people in my department would dick around in the break room until 7 after   before punching in. 
  I would be really surprised if the people who lost money outnumbered the people gaming the system >
  
  Used to love doing that. Anything to scrounge an extra dollar outta those fuckers. >
  
  Yeah, it was my first job and I was super paranoid about getting in trouble so I couldn't make myself be late on purpose. I was on the other end, finding an important task and staying 7.6 minutes late to get 15 minutes of overtime. 
  I justified it that if anyone ever yelled at me (nobody noticed) I could tell them that I was just too dedicated to clock out with work still undone. >
  
  
  I was just too dedicated to clock out with work still undone.
  
  perfect! 
  it might've been left in place because an extra 15 minutes a day is a little price to pay for the kick in morale. BSing around the water cooler was always an integral part of going to work, we're not robots ya know! >
  
  Former HD employee here.. If your shift starts at 3, you can punch in up until 3:07 and be on time. If you punched in at 3:08, you're considered late and will get a mark. On the other hand, if you punched in at 3pm and you work a 4 hour shift, you can punch out early as 653, within 7 minutes of your full 4 hour shift, and you'll be in good standing for the 4 hours. >
  
  Do you mean 2:53? >
  
  It can go both ways, early or not. I used to punch in 7 minutes early, so let's say 2:53. 4 hours in would be 6:53. You could punch out at that time, or punch out earlier to 6:46, be within 7 minutes of a full 4 hour shift. Essentially duping the system 14 minutes and still get paid 4 hours. I was there for a while and eventually figured it out, lol. If I punched out at 7:01, I'd get an extra 15 minutes since went over 8 minutes after my 4 hours. >
  
  It worked out for you but there were probably others getting short 15 mins if they didn't know how to work the system. That's short by 1 hr 15 mins on your 5 day workweek. I would have been pissed. >
  
  I was a manager at HD for a few years, every single associate knew exactly how the system worked, it was even explained in orientation.  Every associate worked the system, even the best and most dependable ones. >
  
  Employees paid for time they clock in and out. Amazing story >
  
  Friendly reminder that the most common form of theft in the USA is wage theft by employers who are stealing from their employees. Source 1,  Source 2, Source 3 >
  
  I'll play devil's advocate here for Home Depot.  The 15 minutes thing was likely a limitation due to their punch system.  Every place I've worked with ADP uses the 15 minute policy, but that's because there is no other choice.  Changing to a new system likely means they just have to adhere to that system's specifications, and modern systems go by the minute.
  Were overall employee expenses considered? Likely.  Was it the whole picture? Maybe, maybe not. >
  
  Then they need to change to a new system. Every place I’ve ever worked has had digital time clocks that track to the minute. >
  
  Up to 7.5 minutes rounding is legally permissible, as long as it works in both directions for the employee. >
  
  But why do it?  It’s just asking for problems like this lawsuit and it incentivizes behavior that employers don’t want. Why clock in at 8 am when I can clock in at 8:06 and get paid the same? >
  
  It's for pay consistency. If you pay down to the minute, people are going to have constantly fluctuating paychecks. If you know how to use the system, it can benefit the employee. I usually clock in at 8:10 or so. That counts as 8:15. But if I'm super late at 8:22:29, it's still 8:15, and I can leave at 4:07:30 if I want to.
  And trust me, my coworkers use that to their advantage.
  Regarding pay consistency, if you have a system where leave is accrued based on 40 hours, it can wreak havoc on that system if you don't round. >
  
  
  It's for pay consistency. If you pay down to the minute, people are going to have constantly fluctuating paychecks. 
  
  So what? >
  
  I prefer a consistent paycheck. 
  I also like being able to jet a few minutes early if I need to without my pay being docked. >
  
  
  I prefer a consistent paycheck.
  
  Then clock in and out on time. I prefer to be paid for every minute of work I’m doing. >
  
  Then work at a place that uses that system. I prefer to not sit and watch a clock and worry about every minute affecting my pay. >
  
  I do. It’s called the entire state of California. >
  
  Boss: you start at 3
  Me: I'll be here at 3
  Boss: no be here at 2:50 so you have time to walk to the clock and get ready for work.
  Me: You don't pay me to be here before 3
  Boss: You need to be ready to work by 3
  Me: right so I will step on these ground at 3 when your paying for me to be here
  Boss: You not going to be ready for work then
  Me: so pay me to get ready for work at work >
  
  You want to get paid for your commute too? I mean you aren't paid to sit in your car every morning and evening but that time is spent exclusively for getting to work...
  Pick your battles. >
  
  I had a job where we got to expense our commute >
  
  Me too. “Windshield time” Monday’s I flew out to the job area, picked up the rental, and drove to the jobsite. In two weeks I reversed this process. 
  Funnily enough, I worked for a contractor that was hired by Home Depot to change their shelving and the  displays on them. >
  
  I don't believe for a second you think this is in any way the same or even comparable as being a part/full time hourly employee at a hardware store.... >
  
  Nope! But have been paid for my commute before in what was basically an entry level ish job. I made US$ 12 an hour in 2007 doing this. Really fun work and a job perk was we’d get flown around the country but wasn’t highly skilled >
  
  That's nice.... 
  We are talking about a hourly employee at a hardware store. >
  
  Reaching pretty hard there kind internet stranger… but okay >
  
  TL;DR they're getting paid for the exact time they clock in and out, instead of rounding to the nearest 15 minutes. 
  This seems good because apparently they were accused of purposefully rounding people down, but this also feels like micromanagement. They should just pay people based on shifts, if they have an 8 hour shift pay them 8 hours. If you're worried about someone showing up 3 minutes late then again, that's micromanaging. >
  
  Why would they pay you for not being back to work on time? I'm astonished you're surprised by this