City Of Houston Payroll: Fill & Download for Free

Life-long US citizen. I RARELY tip. Only for OUTSTANDING service.I dont receive tips in my job. Its common practice in my profession to work 60-80 hours EVERY WEEK, not paid hourly wage, not paid salary. I am a truck driver. I get paid either by the mile, or on percentage of what my employer receives for that trip. We are limited by regulations as to MAXIMUM allowed hours eorked weekly/daily. Up to 14 hours a day/70 hours in any 8 day period. No overtime. Tight schedules. Bad weather delays. Delays getting loaded, but the delivery appointment not moved back accordingly…etc. 2-3 weeks away from home/family.Mileage pay is “by the book” , meaning not actual miles from point A to point B, rather from city limits to city limits. Example: load on south side of Houston, Texas. A large city, covering lots of area. Load goes to north side if Chicago, Illinois.Another large city. The entirs distsnce THROUGH the city of Houston, or THROUGH the city of Chicago are not paid. Only shortest distance from city limits to city limits. Perhaps 50-100 miles? Now, multiply by 2,3,t trips a week. It adds up. What if roads are clis5ed by ice? I dont get paid to wait until roads are cleared. May be 3 days. No pay for waiting. Late delivery. May have to wait to re-schedule unload appointment. No pay.Now, at the end of the pay period, I MAY OR MAY NOT make my “average” wages. But all this time, I am eating lousy food in restaurants. We are limited where we can park. We are a “captive audience” for truckstop foidservice. Home of the poorly paid, understaffed waitstaff. Either fast food , or overpriced crap. Im expected to subsidize a worker already on the payroll? I work 70 hours a week for same or less wages as a 40/hr worker in other job? EVERYBODY else gets overtime if they work more than “X” amount of time in a week. I get PENALIZED by the government if I exceed the hours they limit me to. Penalized by ticket $ out of pocket, & penalized by not being able to legally move the truck until I am under the limit of 70 hours worked in any 8 day period. Unable to earn $ to pay the fine, unable to pay for food to be DELIVERED to me, because Im not allowed to move the only vehicle I have access to.Where is MY tip? 70 hours a week, gone 2 weeks from family, lousy overpriced food, stress, for the same or less $ as the “average” worker…

You are absolutely correct when you allude to a contract of carriage. However, it's entirely up to the actual airline to decide whether they are going to enforce their own policies. In the aggressive desire for revenue, it may become a pattern of forced lethargy when it comes to deciding how to deal with variations in their own tariffs.However, the scenario of 'hidden cities' often boil down to a matter of competition. Every airline dreams of capturing whatever dram of revenue they can. One way they achieve this is by fare matching.Here's a simple scenario. (I'm going to deliberately use the name of some now defunct airlines, simply for the purpose of visualising).Let's say United and American each have three flights a day between Chicago O'Hare and Syracuse. Their fare, because they're they only two offering the direct route, is an astronomical £500 each way.Enter the competitor. Southwest airlines begin promoting that they have a fare of only £250 between Chicago Midway and Syracuse. The only catch to the plan is that you have no option but to change planes at their tasteful little hub airport of Houston Hobby Field.Both UA and AA are acutely aware of the price differential. However, both these legacy carriers decide that they're not going to be thwarted by an airline whom they consider as being little more than a pesky gnat circling their heads. The two mega-carriers feel that the core, crème de la crème of their passengers - the business traveller, isn't going to waste their time transiting Houston for the sake of $250, especially when their beloved passenger will simply charge it off as a business expense.But then, Airlines such as Piedmont, US Air, Mohawk, Ozark, Eastern, and Delta decide they too are going to match such a fare. This is regardless of the fact that the actual RPM's (revenue passenger miles) drop exponentially. (in other words: they're not making money from this venture...it's just cash flow!),But, those carriers offering these myriad of fares realise that passengers are transiting points to reach their ultimate destination. The positive side to this is that the airline has their money. The downside is that their predicted load levels on certain flights are bouncing like a yo-yo! In the past it was a far more challenging a problem, especially when airlines were catering meals; manifests would show there were passengers inbound, who were connecting to the flight, thus catering for said flight was ordered to meet manifest numbers.Following President Jimmy Carter's sweeping airline deregulation act, the US witnessed a virtual explosion of airlines flying new routes, to destinations never before anticipated. The greatest launcher of new routes was Braniff International. Under the almost maniacal leadership of Harding Lawrence, Braniff filed with the CAB/ICC so many new routes that the prevailing joke was that if someone told Mr Lawrence to 'go to hell, he'd probably file for rights to the route!But this added further strains to other airlines. They now had an overly aggressive airline, which was cash-starved, doing virtually anything possible to stay afloat. In fact, Braniff was allegedly, the first airline who was offering absurdly revenue-losing prices to destinations, simply for the purpose of cash flow. Eastern Air Lines faced the same dilemma a few years later when facing the new budget carrier People's Express. It was a truism that due to Eastern's debts and high payroll costs (mostly due to the aggressive Unions), it actually cost the airline less money to simply pay for a passenger's ticket to fly on People's Express, and simply cancel the Eastern flight!The above led to the savvy travelling public to discover that airlines competing against Braniff's and People Express' low prices, were forced to transit hub cities in order to compete. Booking an onward ticket and simply not getting on the connecting flight became axiomatic as a way to save money!And the process continued. It grew in force until the late eighties, when the proverbial damn broke and the airlines, in conjunction with their CRS (Computer Reservation Systems), now known as GDS, (Global Distribution Systems), took a critical look at revenue management. Virtually all the airlines were haemorrhaging from their inability to strictly manage revenues, plus the meteoric rise in Jet Fuel, salaries, landing fees, and taxes. Plus, there was a mounting problem in what's described as 'segment fees' imposed by airlines.Travel agents were prolific at making flight reservations and never cancelling them. Some were speculative, some were duplicates, and each segment booked, yet not flown, added up to many millions in lost revenue.The airlines attacked this practice like ravenous lions; one of the first steps was initially described as 'SMASC,' which meant 'segment missed, all segments cancelled.' Initially, this was using the most simple logic that if a passenger missed a flight, ergo not reaching the next destination on the ticketed itinerary, how could they continue on the next segment, whether it be onward or returning home. It was a simple logic and the airlines felt that if airport counter check-in staff failed to accurately update the PNR (Passenger Name Record; or your booking), to show what flight was taken to the next destination, (such as when flights were cancelled or delayed and the passenger was placed on an alternate flight), the cost of dealing with the passenger, and possibly providing compensation, far outweighed the overall benefit.However, as the advance of later technology, and especially ticketless travel, the algorithms regarding onward, or next sector travel become fine tuned.Today, it is still possible to purchase fares to points beyond your intended destination. And in many cases the lower fare may be extremely appealing. However, companies who promote these fares and sell you the tickets are not the carriers. And a ticketing agency has no way of knowing what your 'legal intent' is. Therefore, the duty of care is not predicated upon the agency's actions, but your own. Ergo, if you decide that you're stepping off your flight in your connecting city and elect to never board the onward flight, the weight of responsibility falls upon you.So, you may ask, what might happen should you choose to take advantage of these fares? If you're a frequent flier and have earned copious amounts of miles from travelling, the airline has every legal right to revoke your account and reclaim ALL of your miles. Don't try testing this in court as you will indeed lose. The boarding gates are covered with cancelled and revoked frequent flier cards for this indiscretion. Some airlines, if they value your account enough, may simply penalise you. This could be by charging you a percentage of your total earned miles, or even downgrading your account. However, you'd generally need to be ranking up there with the angels and archangels in your status for them to do this, rather that simply closing your account. So if you're anticipating corrupting your agreement with your carrier, then don't even think about adding any vestige, whatsoever, of your fidelity with the carrier, or any group, such as Oneworld, Skyteam, Star Alliance, etc.Baggage: You cannot check your bags to an intermediate point any longer. Connections would have to exceed the four hour connecting rule. And as such, the tariff would adjust to a far higher point-to-point fare. Accordingly, plan to travel without luggage if this is your plan.And I hope it goes without saying that you'd have to purchase two point-to-point tickets to whatever destination. Purchasing a return (or round-trip, as americans call it), will result in all of the onward sectors being cancelled.I spent many years of my secular life dealing with international passengers who were exceptionally savvy at their attempts to thwart international airline tariffs and country laws, for the sake of finding a cheaper fare. For some reason, that is probably known to only the most adept psychologists, invariably those passengers were consistently the ones who caused airline counter staff, cabin crew, and support services the greatest problems. So there was always a bit of a celebration when the moment came when, after documenting what the passenger had done, we could look at them, with the kindest face, reflecting, concern, empathy, and just a soupçon of extreme delight, and inform them that their tickets were now invalidated and they would have have to purchase a new, full fare, ticket in order to get themselves home or to their onward destination.One thing the most obnoxious passengers often forget; We've got your baggage!Fr B+

The Milwaukee Brewers began life in 1969, as the Seattle Pilots, an American League expansion team. A year later the franchise was bankrupt and Bud Selig stepped in to buy them on the condition he could move the to Milwaukee. They played two more seasons in the AL West then agreed to move to the AL East to make room for the Rangers in the West.When he became Commissioner, Selig moved the Brewers to the AL Central as part of his realignment of the leagues into three divisions. In 1998 the league added the Arizona Diamondbacks to the NL and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays to the AL creating two 15 team leagues. Odd numbered leagues meant that one team was always off or that interleague play daily had t happen.Owners weren’t ready for either option and several plans for realignment were discussed, including one that would move half the league as told by BASEBALL; Brewers Cleared to Shift To N.L. Central in '98 .Glass's radical realignment plan would have had 15 teams changing leagues, placing all eight Western teams in the National and obliterating the identities of the leagues that have existed for nearly a century . . . Once the radical plan died, Selig and John Harrington of Boston, chairman of the realignment committee, tried to sell a plan that would have had as few as seven teams moving . . . Finally, the owners agreed that only one team would move for 1998 so that each league would not have 15 teams.Once it was decided that only one team would change leagues, the Kansas City Royals were given first choice to be that team . . . the Royals had wanted to move to the N.L. Central to create a rivalry with the Cardinals, but . . .only in the context of a radical realignment (proposed by) David Glass . . .Some . . . suspected that the Royals had actually been a front for the Brewers . . . that Bud Selig, the acting commissioner and (former) Brewers' owner, wanted to get the Brewers to the National League . . .Selig has denied that . . . (but) acknowledged that Milwaukee fans like the prospect of a rivalry with the Cubs . . . (and) Milwaukee was once a National League city (Braves 1953 -1965)Fast forward to 2010, the leagues are still 16 - 14 and interleague play gets jammed into the middle of the schedule in order to make the rich teams more money. Selig is nearing the end of his dictatorship . . . err tenure as commissioner. After expanding in 1998 he tried to fix things through contraction in 2001, suggesting that two team franchises should end and the league return to 28 teams.It would have fixed the schedule, make travel easier, and solve a raft of other issues. Of course, something that makes that much sense can’t be allowed, and the plan died. With his retirement on the horizon Selig decided to fix it - sort of.He told the owners that they should agree to move a team from the NL to the AL and institute the everyday interleague play rejected by owners in 1998. Eventually he got them to agree, but no one volunteered to make the move.I remember suggestions at the time that the Brewers go back to their AL roots. Selig wanted “his” team in the NL, and quickly quashed that notion. Then an opportunity presented itself; the Houston Astros.Under owner Drayton McLane, the Astros flourished for in the early 2000s, but hit a wall in 2007 and McLane wanted out. The regional sports network he’d put together ran into broadcast disputes and the team sank to the bottom of the division.McLane found a buyer - Jim Crane - and things were moving along well, then Selig told Crane that owners would only approve the sale if the team agreed to move to the AL West. Crane balked at that idea but Selig kept the pressure on and Crane finally agreed to give McLane $610M for his 47 % stake in the Astros as described by Forbes in Houston Astros Sold For $610 Million.The sale was originally going to be for $680 million, but when MLB insisted the Astros move from the National League Central Division to the American League West by 2013 as part of the deal, Crane insisted on a lower price tag to account for the smaller television audience from more west coast and late night games, and a higher payroll due to the designated hitter. MLB . . . will cover half of the reduction in price while McLane will eat the other half. (My emphasis added)McLane has wanted to unload the team for several years and MLB needed to get the Astros to the AL. . . . not only does Crane get an equity stake in the RSN, he gets to keep any dividends he receives from it away from baseball's revenue-sharing system.It took quite a bribe . . . err agreed subsidy and financial considerations to get Crane to agree. In any other industry, such a deal wouldn’t be allowed, but MLB’s antitrust exemption allows them a lot of leeway that ordinary businesses don’t have. The formal press release put a much kinder face on the move in How the Astros Became an American League Team from the New York Times.The Astros joined the A.L. in 2013 to balance the leagues with three divisions of five teams each. Since 1998, when Arizona and Tampa Bay joined the league as expansion teams and the Milwaukee Brewers moved to the National League, there had been a four-team division in the A.L. and a six-team division in the N.L.It’s not clear how well Crane did from the RSN. The Comcast network served only 40% of Houston households and eventually collapsed. In August 2014 AT&T and DirecTV bought finally ended the mess by getting a court approved purchase of the network. In July 2017 AT&T completed their purchase of DirecTV and rebranded the network and several others as AT&T Sportsnet.