Exchange server Implemenetation Analysis
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
I do the same thing but for entirely different reasons. We limit access to avoid exposing ourselves to outside of normal hour work issues. 80%+ of our staff are hourly employees, sure some of them would like remote access to their email but we don't allow it to prevent the possibility that they will come back and say we owe them pay for checking their email outside of work hours.
Wouldn't that be an HR request then, not you choosing to block it.. Or that should come from HR anyway.
Sure, if we had an HR department. HR is the Office Manager (basically our CEO in a medium sized clinic). And this request did come from her.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
@Dashrender said:
I do the same thing but for entirely different reasons. We limit access to avoid exposing ourselves to outside of normal hour work issues. 80%+ of our staff are hourly employees, sure some of them would like remote access to their email but we don't allow it to prevent the possibility that they will come back and say we owe them pay for checking their email outside of work hours.
I have similar concerns. If people are off sick for a certain number of days they no longer get paid. But if people are off sick for a certain number of days but occasionally respond to e-mail.....? It seems a grey area.
It is an HR issue and having raised this issue at work, no-one else seem to give a shit, so I've decided not to concern myself with it either.
I'm not sure the differences between the US and the UK regarding these workers.
If our hourly employees are sick, they are NOT getting paid - regardless of anything else. If they have short or long term disability insurance, that could kick in and pay them, but that's between the employee and the insurance company and has little or nothing to do with our company.
Our concerns aren't around people being sick though. It's about them reading/acting upon emails when they are not scheduled to be working. In an hourly situation, typically they would have to be paid for any work (acting upon email, even if that action is just replying to an email with information) would need to be paid.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Why are you looking at having Exchange in house? That should be an extremely rare thing today. There are unique cases where it still makes sense but generally that is only very large firms with extremely special needs, massive amount of Exchange expertise (that you have questions at all about it flags your firm as not really being a candidate to have it be in house) with specific regulations making it necessary.
There is just no way to run Exchange in house anywhere near as well as Microsoft runs it themselves.
@sreekumarpg discussed this with me initially on this, and the first thing came was about office 365. Unfortunately, the company's top guys are not yet convinced to move anything to the "cloud"
Which is why he has to look for all possible options to do a in house setup with few pilot users and do a feasibility study and I really hope with that test, someone will be convinced to run this with O365 is far more better than a hosted one. Their user base more than 1000 if i am not mistaken, worldwide.
World wide? Even more of a reason to put this in a 'cloud.' Now this is a place where people are constantly scared by the term. One of my small clients won't touch 'cloud' things either. Heck, they considered backing up data over the internet to be to dangerous to do. shakes head
What solution do they have today? If they aren't already running Exchange, why are they even looking at it for in-house use?
-
They are on lotus notes I guess
-
@Ambarishrh said:
They are on lotus notes I guess
Ewww. I got stuck using that at IBM. It was horrible. Worst email system I've ever encountered.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
They are on lotus notes I guess
They don't happen to be a huge dairy out of Texas?
-
@Dashrender said:
If our hourly employees are sick, they are NOT getting paid ...
Depends where you work. I've been hourly AND had unlimited sick time before.
-
@Dashrender said:
Our concerns aren't around people being sick though. It's about them reading/acting upon emails when they are not scheduled to be working. In an hourly situation, typically they would have to be paid for any work (acting upon email, even if that action is just replying to an email with information) would need to be paid.
I know that this is an area of current dispute.... but I've never worked anywhere that paid people to work off of the clock. If they are told they are done and continue to work, doesn't matter, they are done. Most places that I've worked were happy to pay overtime and have you work because few people were doing much extra time. But in places where you were done at a certain time, that was it. The company was not liable for them working when they were told not to. Otherwise, the company is liable for them "thinking about work" as much as checking emails when not at work, right?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If our hourly employees are sick, they are NOT getting paid ...
Depends where you work. I've been hourly AND had unlimited sick time before.
Weird, how does that work?
-
The question becomes..... does the business (or the law, but I believe not) that an employee can force a company to pay them for unrequested work? How do you deal with employees who don't walk out the door right at the end of their shift? If you take the "if they voluntarily answer emails, they get paid" thing and expand it to the physical world, strange things start to happen. Loitering in the work parking lot is paid even when the business is closed and they have no assigned worked to do?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If our hourly employees are sick, they are NOT getting paid ...
Depends where you work. I've been hourly AND had unlimited sick time before.
Weird, how does that work?
Really well. Studies show unlimited sick time is the least abused. Of course, it tends to only be given to high end staff, so that skews those results.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The question becomes..... does the business (or the law, but I believe not) that an employee can force a company to pay them for unrequested work? How do you deal with employees who don't walk out the door right at the end of their shift? If you take the "if they voluntarily answer emails, they get paid" thing and expand it to the physical world, strange things start to happen. Loitering in the work parking lot is paid even when the business is closed and they have no assigned worked to do?
Actually yes, in most cases courts have decided that you have to pay them no matter if it was their choice to do the work or not.
However, if they are on sick leave they would already be getting paid, unless they used up their time and are on FLMA, Short term disability or otherwise in witch case their accounts should be disabled anyway IMO.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Our concerns aren't around people being sick though. It's about them reading/acting upon emails when they are not scheduled to be working. In an hourly situation, typically they would have to be paid for any work (acting upon email, even if that action is just replying to an email with information) would need to be paid.
I know that this is an area of current dispute.... but I've never worked anywhere that paid people to work off of the clock. If they are told they are done and continue to work, doesn't matter, they are done. Most places that I've worked were happy to pay overtime and have you work because few people were doing much extra time. But in places where you were done at a certain time, that was it. The company was not liable for them working when they were told not to. Otherwise, the company is liable for them "thinking about work" as much as checking emails when not at work, right?
I guess the argument is you can't control a person's thoughts, but you can sorta control their actions.
A local company had an entire department that felt they were being wronged by the company because the company wasn't paying them overtime (the were non-exempt salaried employees, but the company didn't recognize non-exempt and treated all salaried employees are non overtime pay personal). The state came in and told them that the position was non-exempt and that the company had to pay over time. OK fine, now the employees, even though they are salaried have to punch a clock. A new rule was put into place - if you don't work at least 40 hours, you'll be written up, 3 write-ups and you're fired. I think 2 people were fired in the first month.
Damn, this has completely gone off topic.. sorry...
now back to your Exchange server implementation analysis discussion.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Actually yes, in most cases courts have decided that you have to pay them no matter if it was their choice to do the work or not.
Did I say choice? I was not implying that they had a choice. They were not working, just using the job's gear. Voluntary work and disallowed work are completely different things.
Although there is a simple solution, make a policy that any violation of work hours is a fireable offense. This is purely an HR issue.
-
@Dashrender said:
I guess the argument is you can't control a person's thoughts, but you can sorta control their actions.
Given that many people have contracts that say that the company owns anything that they think during the term of their employment, employment law has traditional stated quite the opposite.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The question becomes..... does the business (or the law, but I believe not) that an employee can force a company to pay them for unrequested work? How do you deal with employees who don't walk out the door right at the end of their shift? If you take the "if they voluntarily answer emails, they get paid" thing and expand it to the physical world, strange things start to happen. Loitering in the work parking lot is paid even when the business is closed and they have no assigned worked to do?
Actually yes, in most cases courts have decided that you have to pay them no matter if it was their choice to do the work or not.
This is my belief as well, but now I'm going to see if I can find case law to backup my belief.
-
@Dashrender said:
The state came in and told them that the position was non-exempt and that the company had to pay over time. OK fine, now the employees, even though they are salaried have to punch a clock. A new rule was put into place - if you don't work at least 40 hours, you'll be written up, 3 write-ups and you're fired. I think 2 people were fired in the first month.
Non-exempt salaried employees are a very weird thing. I have no idea why any company would opt to do it. Just pay hourly, then people have to punch the clock and everyone knows where they stand and people who work 39 hours just earn an hour less rather than having to be fired. Non-exempt salary is, IMHO, an insane idea.
-
@Dashrender said:
Actually yes, in most cases courts have decided that you have to pay them no matter if it was their choice to do the work or not.
This is my belief as well, but now I'm going to see if I can find case law to backup my belief.
But the key is finding if work was optional or not. Basically it's if employees are legally allowed to extort businesses by doing work they are not allowed to do.
What if you broke into the office and did work at night? What if you picked up trash in the parking lot on the weekend? At what point do companies need to get temporary restraining orders to stop employees from forcing work upon the companies that the companies cannot monitor, can't stop and might not know about for years until they are unable to pay?
-
I've had lots of jobs where work was optional, that's different than when it is not. Sure, lots of companies probably need to do something about clarifying that and that's a valid concern. But it sounds like the real fear is that there is no way to stop someone from working. What's the point of time clocks if employees can just "work by force" anytime that they want more money?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Non-exempt salaried employees are a very weird thing. I have no idea why any company would opt to do it. Just pay hourly, then people have to punch the clock and everyone knows where they stand and people who work 39 hours just earn an hour less rather than having to be fired. Non-exempt salary is, IMHO, an insane idea.
Most places require 40hrs pay even if hourly so if you work over you have to take off early the next day, you work to few, you need to make up the difference by the end of the week, if you have any less than 40hr you get fired, and more you get fired.
Here I'm salaried FLSA Exempt though.
