Protecting companies from hourly employees
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I can think of no other reason an hourly employee would stick around after punching out - well other than fear of loosing their job for not putting in unpaid OT, which then of course the company should be spanked!!
Higher commissions
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
long answer, management believes they could be held liable for people who are checking their email hourly, let's say, at night. those employees could claim that their checking is work and they should be paid for it. So preventing them, prevents the argument. Of course and HR policy stating that they are not allowed to check their email after, say, 6 PM and before 7 AM, should prevent that in a court case, but we've all seen/heard of ridiculous court cases before.
My point is, it does NOT prevent the argument. The employees can still claim that attempting to check emails, even if it doesn't work, is billable work as well.
What is the fear, that an employee will call the DoL and claim to have been falsifying their own work records? I'm confused as to how the DoL would get involved if it is the employee doing something wrong and not the company.
Then there is an easy answer.
Pay for the "overtime" then promptly shit can them.
At-Will employment, and OT milking is not a protected act.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The thing here is that management does not know. If they did, they need to take proper action (written up, firing, docking time elsewhere, whatever.)
An employee who works through lunch, beyond their normal work schedule, etc without explicit authorization would need to be paid for their time. Their manager should know that they are working outside of their normal work schedule.
Of course, but that went without saying and doesn't change our recommendations.
The recommendation from you and @JaredBusch was to not pay them, which is the incorrect position IMO ---
If the employee punches a clock or has a time sheet and they claim to be off the clock, yet continue to work, no, I don't agree that the employer would/should know this - many places don't stand over the shoulder of all of their employees like that. That's just my opinion. Now, if the boss KNOWS they are doing this, then according to these posting - it's the boss' job to council the employee about their behavior and get it corrected, OR pay them OT, and make sure they aren't lieing on their timecards.
@JaredBusch said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
If they signed company policy and have no proof of being told, then they do not get paid.
Not your fault the company get to benefit from their work. They were told not to.
See here's the rub though - The manager knowing they are working - yeah, well I guess if they know, then they do have to treat their employees like children and tell them to leave or get in HR trouble. That's really pathetic, but fine, I'll accept that.
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Right, it's not working at that point, it's volunteering.
I guess I'll agree, if the boss doesn't know, then the employee is out, if the boss does know, sadly I guess again the children thing. sigh.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Yes, there was an HR policy. Yes, the manager knew. We were able to document her start / stop times by tracking her activity in the computer system. From that we were able to come up with a number of hours worked without compensation. It turned out to be a nominal amount (I believe between $1k and $2k).
See, exactly what I was talking about - using the computer system to show work. if someone is in our EHR, they are clearly doing work - it would be near useless for making party plans. Sure I mentioned email earlier, but we definitely shouldn't be limited to that alone.
Are they? If someone was in our EHR during disallowed hours when they are clearly not allowed to be working sounds like a HIPAA violation to me. I'd be looking into it more from that point of view. But regardless, how do you define "being in" that system? Am I "in" ML right now? And I "in" my desktop? Am I "in" any of the servers that I have sessions logged into right now? Am I "in" my email on my phone even though my phone is in another room and just connected through an ActiveSync session?
Just because someone has a connection to the EHR doesn't imply that they are using it. Like I said, no amount of logging from IT tells you if someone is or is not working. Maybe if you were watching their screens.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I think the DoL examples make perfect sense, if you work
and it is approvedyou get paid.FTFY.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I can think of no other reason an hourly employee would stick around after punching out - well other than fear of loosing their job for not putting in unpaid OT, which then of course the company should be spanked!!
Higher commissions
Although if they are getting commissions for the work, generally you have other solutions. If they get commission for that time, they might qualify as being compensated already. It depends, of course, but that's why commissioned work exists in the first place, or partially at least.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I think the DoL examples make perfect sense, if you work
and it is approvedyou get paid.FTFY.
So in your example, even if someone does not employ you, but you do work, you should get paid? What if, while at McDonald's, you sweep the floor and clean some tables? Can you demand that they pay you? They did not agree to employ you, yet you did work.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
See here's the rub though - The manager knowing they are working - yeah, well I guess if they know, then they do have to treat their employees like children and tell them to leave or get in HR trouble. That's really pathetic, but fine, I'll accept that.
Right, if the manager knows, they've approved the time. If I'm working with my manager somewhere and I just keep working past hours, I have to assume that the manager is aware. If the manager wants me to go home, they need to tell me. Know what I mean? Put yourself in the role of a fast food worker and ask how you would expect someone to behave? Having been a fast food worker and a fast food manager, I think that this is completely reasonable. Most jobs you get overtime just by being needed and no one sending you home. Because the work needs to be fluid.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The recommendation from you and @JaredBusch was to not pay them, which is the incorrect position IMO ---
At best you pay them once, and only once. But if HR policy is correct, I don't believe that you have to. If they have accepted that anything outside of hours is not work, it's not work unless something overrides that. Going home and intentionally logging back in to work would be fraud - intentionally stealing time from the business. I don't think that any DoL policy supports paying through extortion in that way. If you allow it to keep happening, of course things change. But if you treat it as trespass and extortion, you don't.
This totally disagrees with your first quoted situation above - Which specifically stated that the HR policy said no OT unless approved. The boss knowing you're doing it is not, to me, defacto approval - but according to the situation above is it.
Also, keep in mind, we are talking about first time offenders - if they are not reporting that they are working and no one knows that they are working the legal issues are all on the employee. You have bad faith and attempt to defraud if they report it later.
Here's the key. Sadly, what's being said here is that if a manager realizes that an employee has done this, it's their job to take action to stop it from happening again. The HR policy is not enough to stop it on its own, other than the HR policy might allow the employer to fire that employee right then and their when the boss realized this happened.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The recommendation from you and @JaredBusch was to not pay them, which is the incorrect position IMO ---
At best you pay them once, and only once. But if HR policy is correct, I don't believe that you have to. If they have accepted that anything outside of hours is not work, it's not work unless something overrides that. Going home and intentionally logging back in to work would be fraud - intentionally stealing time from the business. I don't think that any DoL policy supports paying through extortion in that way. If you allow it to keep happening, of course things change. But if you treat it as trespass and extortion, you don't.
This totally disagrees with your first quoted situation above - Which specifically stated that the HR policy said no OT unless approved. The boss knowing you're doing it is not, to me, defacto approval - but according to the situation above is it.
How does it disagree? The company knowing is obviously implicit approval. So I see this as totally in agreement.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Also, keep in mind, we are talking about first time offenders - if they are not reporting that they are working and no one knows that they are working the legal issues are all on the employee. You have bad faith and attempt to defraud if they report it later.
Here's the key. Sadly, what's being said here is that if a manager realizes that an employee has done this, it's their job to take action to stop it from happening again. The HR policy is not enough to stop it on its own, other than the HR policy might allow the employer to fire that employee right then and their when the boss realized this happened.
No HR policy is ever enough to do something on its own. HR policy gives the manager the tools to do their job. A manager still must always act as the manager, of course. Otherwise we'd let HR policies alone run companies and not pay anyone.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
So in your example, even if someone does not employ you, but you do work, you should get paid? What if, while at McDonald's, you sweep the floor and clean some tables? Can you demand that they pay you? They did not agree to employ you, yet you did work.
No, I never said that. That would be a valid example of volunteering. Your example wasn't.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The game here is much like a car chase I was involved in once. The cops wanted to catch someone speeding, so to get the speed up their never turned on their lights or siren. That doesn't change that speeding is not allowed, but it is not resisting arrest until they attempt to pull you over. Someone took the opportunity to make it a high speed car chase and outrun the cops who foolishly decided to play a game of "get the speed up" instead of just turning on the lights and giving a small ticket.
Same thing here, HR is playing a game of not making it disallowed to work off hours. The lack of policy alone makes the employees more or less allowed to do it. That IT is playing games to make it a cat and mouse thing and HR is refusing policy decisions would, I would think, make it clear to a court that work outside of stated hours was totally allowed. That so much effort was put into not not allowing it makes it obvious that it is indeed allowed. Insane, but allowed.
This assumes there's no policy in place about OT - as a salary day one employee I've never paid attention to that.. so there very well may be a policy against OT without direct, specific permission.
-
@JaredBusch said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
In this case, the manager assume the employees were volunteering their time as suggested by someone above.
Which is not allowed according to the link DOL artilce. Management knows. They must be paid.
So pay them, write them up, fire them.
yep.. sounds like what needs to happen. once we make access outside more prevalent.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
So in your example, even if someone does not employ you, but you do work, you should get paid? What if, while at McDonald's, you sweep the floor and clean some tables? Can you demand that they pay you? They did not agree to employ you, yet you did work.
No, I never said that. That would be a valid example of volunteering. Your example wasn't.
What's the difference? In both cases there is no agreement for the person to be working. Why is doing work for a place you don't work at at all different from doing work for a place you don't work at at that time? Both are disallowed, but you can't stop a volunteer.
This begs the question, is an hourly employee even employed when they are off of the clock?
-
@MattSpeller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@JaredBusch said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
In this case, the manager assume the employees were volunteering their time as suggested by someone above.
Which is not allowed according to the link DOL artilce. Management knows. They must be paid.
So pay them, write them up, fire them.
How does this situation even get this far? Are people really doing this or is it a thought exercise?
I just can't even this whole post.
there's currently no real issue, possibly because currently staff is either unable or unaware of their abilities to work outside the office.
That said, the rest of the OT discussion is a though exercise.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The game here is much like a car chase I was involved in once. The cops wanted to catch someone speeding, so to get the speed up their never turned on their lights or siren. That doesn't change that speeding is not allowed, but it is not resisting arrest until they attempt to pull you over. Someone took the opportunity to make it a high speed car chase and outrun the cops who foolishly decided to play a game of "get the speed up" instead of just turning on the lights and giving a small ticket.
Same thing here, HR is playing a game of not making it disallowed to work off hours. The lack of policy alone makes the employees more or less allowed to do it. That IT is playing games to make it a cat and mouse thing and HR is refusing policy decisions would, I would think, make it clear to a court that work outside of stated hours was totally allowed. That so much effort was put into not not allowing it makes it obvious that it is indeed allowed. Insane, but allowed.
This assumes there's no policy in place about OT - as a salary day one employee I've never paid attention to that.. so there very well may be a policy against OT without direct, specific permission.
Not your place to know, this is purely for your manager to know and communicate to her staff.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@MattSpeller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@JaredBusch said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
In this case, the manager assume the employees were volunteering their time as suggested by someone above.
Which is not allowed according to the link DOL artilce. Management knows. They must be paid.
So pay them, write them up, fire them.
How does this situation even get this far? Are people really doing this or is it a thought exercise?
I just can't even this whole post.
there's currently no real issue, possibly because currently staff is either unable or unaware of their abilities to work outside the office.
That said, the rest of the OT discussion is a though exercise.
They can always just "think" about work and claim the time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@MattSpeller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@JaredBusch said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
In this case, the manager assume the employees were volunteering their time as suggested by someone above.
Which is not allowed according to the link DOL artilce. Management knows. They must be paid.
So pay them, write them up, fire them.
How does this situation even get this far? Are people really doing this or is it a thought exercise?
I just can't even this whole post.
there's currently no real issue, possibly because currently staff is either unable or unaware of their abilities to work outside the office.
That said, the rest of the OT discussion is a though exercise.
They can always just "think" about work and claim the time.
Don't you even thought crime up in here bud
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
You have a warped POV. How is working from home, even if unauthorized, "stealing time" from the business?
How is it not? You know that you are not allowed to do "work", no matter what it is, off hours. Yet you do so, why? Because you get paid for it. That's theft, as plain as plain can be. How is it not theft? What else can it even seem to be?
If it was considered theft then the DoL wouldn't require that you pay it. If you're saying that the manager knowing is equal to permission, then the DoL paying the cheaters is them declaring this isn't theft.
