Protecting companies from hourly employees
-
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
In either case, you are entitled to get paid for working overtime. It's very simple. If the employee needs to be trained on their job, that is the employers responsibility to ensure the employee can do the work required.
The law agrees with you
-
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
In either case, you are entitled to get paid for working overtime. It's very simple. If the employee needs to be trained on their job, that is the employers responsibility to ensure the employee can do the work required.
The law agrees with you
But you don't? Are you an employee or employer?
This is for your benefit as well, not just mine.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
In either case, you are entitled to get paid for working overtime. It's very simple. If the employee needs to be trained on their job, that is the employers responsibility to ensure the employee can do the work required.
The law agrees with you
But you don't? Are you an employee or employer?
This is for your benefit as well, not just mine.
I think that the law needs to side with the employee in these circumstances. With that said there are definitely cases where this shouldn't be the case. I'm not saying it's commonplace, but I don't think it's universal.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
In either case, you are entitled to get paid for working overtime. It's very simple. If the employee needs to be trained on their job, that is the employers responsibility to ensure the employee can do the work required.
The law agrees with you
But you don't? Are you an employee or employer?
This is for your benefit as well, not just mine.
I think that the law needs to side with the employee in these circumstances. With that said there are definitely cases where this shouldn't be the case. I'm not saying it's commonplace, but I don't think it's universal.
I agree, there are cases of system abuse. But I'd be willing to bet that the system abuse is being perpetrated by the employer more often than by the employee.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
In either case, you are entitled to get paid for working overtime. It's very simple. If the employee needs to be trained on their job, that is the employers responsibility to ensure the employee can do the work required.
The law agrees with you
But you don't? Are you an employee or employer?
This is for your benefit as well, not just mine.
I think that the law needs to side with the employee in these circumstances. With that said there are definitely cases where this shouldn't be the case. I'm not saying it's commonplace, but I don't think it's universal.
I agree, there are cases of system abuse. But I'd be willing to bet that the system abuse is being perpetrated by the employer more often than by the employee.
I definitely agree with you
-
And ways that I've personally seen system abuse are from employers refusing to allow employees enter time, or be compensated for the time.
For example in IT, if we normally work a 8-5 shift, but end up working on a project overnight as well, often that time is left unpaid as it was a special case.
The issue comes in that either the employee needs to be paid time and a half for the extra work, or be otherwise compensated with time off (outside of PTO days).
Often the PTO days are still in the employers benefit, because the time and half rate would be more than the pto rate.
-
Simply put @Dashrender there is no way to legally stop an employee from being entitled to overtime pay.
Company policy will give your employer legal grounds to terminate the employee for working overtime, but the employee is still entitled to the overtime pay.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Simply put @Dashrender there is no way to legally stop an employee from being entitled to overtime pay.
Company policy will give your employer legal grounds to terminate the employee for working overtime, but the employee is still entitled to the overtime pay.
Convert them over to Salary. Salaried employees are basically indentured servants
-
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Simply put @Dashrender there is no way to legally stop an employee from being entitled to overtime pay.
Company policy will give your employer legal grounds to terminate the employee for working overtime, but the employee is still entitled to the overtime pay.
Convert them over to Salary. Salaried employees are basically indentured servants
Even salary employees are entitled to overpay at certain pay scales.
-
The real question that @Dashrender asked is "there a way for us to not be forced to pay for overtime" and the answer is no.
Employee protection laws exist to protect employees from employers who simple don't want to pay for work.
There is no such thing as a donation of time if the employer is for profit. The only option the company has is to create HR policy, have all employees sign off on it, and then enforce said policy.
Which to summarize is go home, we don't want you working today (or to keep the employees hours under the overtime limit), and eventually termination.
But even in these cases the employer still must pay for time worked.
-
Of course the employer could tell the employee that their new schedule is from 8PM to 5AM to get them to knock it off.
There are plenty of legal ways to adjust the behavior that would work to get the employee to change their habits.
Of course, it's often easier to just terminate the employee for failing to follow HR policy.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Sorry, but that's not the way it works. You have to pay the employee for the hours worked. Then you counsel / discipline per the HR policy.
Not paying the employee can lead to much larger issues with the DoL.
That's not correct. If you tell someone to go home and they refuse they are trespassing, not working. Not the same thing. But you have to have a policy that makes it clear that they can't do overtime without something in writing.
In NY, you have to have a policy stating overtime will not be allowed without written consent (and have all employees sign it). If an employee does work over time, you still legally have to pay for that time.
And then you can discipline them for breaking company policy. But you are still forced to pay for time worked.
This assumes you know about it. You can't pay something you are unaware of.
Actually no, it means you know that an employee is working beyond their scheduled work period. Even the slightest hint of work being completed outside of the work-schedule means over time for the employee.
There is no such thing as worker-fairies.
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs53.htm
See section near the bottom regarding unauthorized work.
Again, you can't pay if you are unaware. Worker fairies - ha!
I know of almost no place that the managers have such a lock down on what is done and what isn't they would know based on completeness of work that someone worked outside their shift.
As the examples both pointed out - the manager KNEW that the employees were working. But if they don't know, they aren't held liable for the pay.
Now we ask - why are you doing work when the boss doesn't know you're doing the work?
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Sorry, but that's not the way it works. You have to pay the employee for the hours worked. Then you counsel / discipline per the HR policy.
Not paying the employee can lead to much larger issues with the DoL.
That's not correct. If you tell someone to go home and they refuse they are trespassing, not working. Not the same thing. But you have to have a policy that makes it clear that they can't do overtime without something in writing.
In NY, you have to have a policy stating overtime will not be allowed without written consent (and have all employees sign it). If an employee does work over time, you still legally have to pay for that time.
And then you can discipline them for breaking company policy. But you are still forced to pay for time worked.
This assumes you know about it. You can't pay something you are unaware of.
Actually no, it means you know that an employee is working beyond their scheduled work period. Even the slightest hint of work being completed outside of the work-schedule means over time for the employee.
There is no such thing as worker-fairies.
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs53.htm
See section near the bottom regarding unauthorized work.
Again, you can't pay if you are unaware. Worker fairies - ha!
I know of almost no place that the managers have such a lock down on what is done and what isn't they would know based on completeness of work that someone worked outside their shift.
As the examples both pointed out - the manager KNEW that the employees were working. But if they don't know, they aren't held liable for the pay.
Now we ask - why are you doing work when the boss doesn't know you're doing the work?
Which goes back to the employer must know the employee is working. The real simple approach to it is "does the employee have even the slightest clue that work is being completed outside of the employee shift?" If yes, pay them.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Simply put @Dashrender there is no way to legally stop an employee from being entitled to overtime pay.
Company policy will give your employer legal grounds to terminate the employee for working overtime, but the employee is still entitled to the overtime pay.
I never said there was - what I said is - if the employee is doing work, and management is unaware, then management doesn't have to pay.. i.e no sufferage or permitted was done. the employee did it completely on their own with management having no knowledge, granted this is probably pretty rare thing.
But in my case, technically I have staff who are doing it. They are logging into our systems outside of hours to plan their day at work. This is something that should be done on the clock while onsite. Not something they should be doing at home.
Now that we are aware of it, we have to pay them for doing it, and discipline them for doing it to make sure they stop doing it, so we can stop paying them.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Simply put @Dashrender there is no way to legally stop an employee from being entitled to overtime pay.
Company policy will give your employer legal grounds to terminate the employee for working overtime, but the employee is still entitled to the overtime pay.
I never said there was - what I said is - if the employee is doing work, and management is unaware, then management doesn't have to pay.. i.e no sufferage or permitted was done. the employee did it completely on their own with management having no knowledge, granted this is probably pretty rare thing.
But in my case, technically I have staff who are doing it. They are logging into our systems outside of hours to plan their day at work. This is something that should be done on the clock while onsite. Not something they should be doing at home.
Now that we are aware of it, we have to pay them for doing it, and discipline them for doing it to make sure they stop doing it, so we can stop paying them.
Yes, the business has to pay the employees for that work. At the same time there isn't a reason that management wouldn't be aware of it with logging.
Just because said logging isn't configured doesn't make management unaware that working is being completed outside of work. It just means that management is uninformed, but capable to determine when working is being completed.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Simply put @Dashrender there is no way to legally stop an employee from being entitled to overtime pay.
Company policy will give your employer legal grounds to terminate the employee for working overtime, but the employee is still entitled to the overtime pay.
I never said there was - what I said is - if the employee is doing work, and management is unaware, then management doesn't have to pay.. i.e no sufferage or permitted was done. the employee did it completely on their own with management having no knowledge, granted this is probably pretty rare thing.
But in my case, technically I have staff who are doing it. They are logging into our systems outside of hours to plan their day at work. This is something that should be done on the clock while onsite. Not something they should be doing at home.
Now that we are aware of it, we have to pay them for doing it, and discipline them for doing it to make sure they stop doing it, so we can stop paying them.
Yes, the business has to pay the employees for that work. At the same time there isn't a reason that management wouldn't be aware of it with logging.
Just because said logging isn't configured doesn't make management unaware that working is being completed outside of work. It just means that management is uninformed, but capable to determine when working is being completed.
Scott has already shot down the need to check logs... IE the employee could be working on paper based things, no logging exists. And no you don't have to pay until you find out. Then you have to pay, then discipline then for breaking policy.
But if you never find out, then you don't have to pay.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Simply put @Dashrender there is no way to legally stop an employee from being entitled to overtime pay.
Company policy will give your employer legal grounds to terminate the employee for working overtime, but the employee is still entitled to the overtime pay.
I never said there was - what I said is - if the employee is doing work, and management is unaware, then management doesn't have to pay.. i.e no sufferage or permitted was done. the employee did it completely on their own with management having no knowledge, granted this is probably pretty rare thing.
But in my case, technically I have staff who are doing it. They are logging into our systems outside of hours to plan their day at work. This is something that should be done on the clock while onsite. Not something they should be doing at home.
Now that we are aware of it, we have to pay them for doing it, and discipline them for doing it to make sure they stop doing it, so we can stop paying them.
Yes, the business has to pay the employees for that work. At the same time there isn't a reason that management wouldn't be aware of it with logging.
Just because said logging isn't configured doesn't make management unaware that working is being completed outside of work. It just means that management is uninformed, but capable to determine when working is being completed.
Scott has already shot down the need to check logs... IE the employee could be working on paper based things, no logging exists. And no you don't have to pay until you find out. Then you have to pay, then discipline then for breaking policy.
But if you never find out, then you don't have to pay.
Try proving that the business never knew. There is always a log of some sort (a paper trail)
-
And your original question specifically pertains to use of computer systems.
-
To disallow users to sign in, you could use time restrictions and GPO.
But this time that the employee is still trying to sign in is still "payable time". Of course, at that point management would slap the employee, and hopefully the issue would stop occurring.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
IMO, it is better to be safe than sorry. Pay the employee for the time worked and then discipline the employee for their violation of the HR policy.
The law agrees with this stance as well.
Pay and then punish.
