Comments on: Time sheet for salaried employee http://www.humanresourceblog.com/2009/01/14/time-sheet-for-salaried-employee/ Where HR Professionals Seek Answers Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:12:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Caitlin http://www.humanresourceblog.com/2009/01/14/time-sheet-for-salaried-employee/#comment-14755 Caitlin Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:36:16 +0000 http://www.humanresourceblog.com/?p=3881#comment-14755 Hi Mrs. F! Yes, an employer can require an exempt employee to work 120 or more hours per week. There only problem we see here is that the lower-paid employee could file a complaint with the EEOC, charging that he or she was the victim of discrimination based on race, color, sex, age, etc. (If both employees are of the same race, ethnic group, relgion, age, etc, then this is not fair, but it is legal.) HTH, and thanks for reading the blogs!~ Caitlin Hi Mrs. F! Yes, an employer can require an exempt employee to work 120 or more hours per week. There only problem we see here is that the lower-paid employee could file a complaint with the EEOC, charging that he or she was the victim of discrimination based on race, color, sex, age, etc. (If both employees are of the same race, ethnic group, relgion, age, etc, then this is not fair, but it is legal.) HTH, and thanks for reading the blogs!~ Caitlin

]]> By: Mrs. F http://www.humanresourceblog.com/2009/01/14/time-sheet-for-salaried-employee/#comment-14753 Mrs. F Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:13:37 +0000 http://www.humanresourceblog.com/?p=3881#comment-14753 Can an employer have two persons in the same position, with the same title (in this case EMS Captain) and essentially the same duties and responsibilities have one paid as salaried, exempt and the other paid as hourly, non exempt. The former is now being asked to work 120 hours per week as an exempt employee while the latter is working 60 hours per week with overtime? Also, can an employer require a salaried employee to work 120 hours per week? Keep in mind there are only 168 hours in a week to begin with. Thanks! Can an employer have two persons in the same position, with the same title (in this case EMS Captain) and essentially the same duties and responsibilities have one paid as salaried, exempt and the other paid as hourly, non exempt. The former is now being asked to work 120 hours per week as an exempt employee while the latter is working 60 hours per week with overtime? Also, can an employer require a salaried employee to work 120 hours per week? Keep in mind there are only 168 hours in a week to begin with.

Thanks!

]]> By: Caitlin http://www.humanresourceblog.com/2009/01/14/time-sheet-for-salaried-employee/#comment-13729 Caitlin Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:35:19 +0000 http://www.humanresourceblog.com/?p=3881#comment-13729 Hi Kim! We can appreciate your concern, but this is certainly not a clear-cut case of discrimination. If it were discrimination, all of the women would be required to clock in (including HR and the Administrative Secretary) and none of the men would be. It still looks to us like the employer had reason to suspect that these employees were not working the required hours. There is no requirement that the secretaries at the satellite offices be treated the same. Presumably, they have bosses who know exactly what hours they are working. Also bear in mind that it is appropriate for the employer to have different expectations of employees in different positions. So for example, a payroll clerk may be expected to work until 5 pm every Friday, while the CFO is permitted to take off at noon. Some employers call this "rank has its privileges." However, since you have a concern about this issue, if you genuinely feel this is a case of discrimination against white females, why don't you discuss it tactfully with the HR person? But one caution -- probably the best you can hope for in this situation is that other people in the corporate office (but not the CFO, President, Safety Manager, etc.) will have to use the time clock.HTH, and thanks for reading the blogs!~ Caitlin Hi Kim! We can appreciate your concern, but this is certainly not a clear-cut case of discrimination. If it were discrimination, all of the women would be required to clock in (including HR and the Administrative Secretary) and none of the men would be. It still looks to us like the employer had reason to suspect that these employees were not working the required hours.
There is no requirement that the secretaries at the satellite offices be treated the same. Presumably, they have bosses who know exactly what hours they are working.
Also bear in mind that it is appropriate for the employer to have different expectations of employees in different positions. So for example, a payroll clerk may be expected to work until 5 pm every Friday, while the CFO is permitted to take off at noon. Some employers call this “rank has its privileges.”
However, since you have a concern about this issue, if you genuinely feel this is a case of discrimination against white females, why don’t you discuss it tactfully with the HR person?
But one caution — probably the best you can hope for in this situation is that other people in the corporate office (but not the CFO, President, Safety Manager, etc.) will have to use the time clock.HTH, and thanks for reading the blogs!~ Caitlin

]]> By: KIM http://www.humanresourceblog.com/2009/01/14/time-sheet-for-salaried-employee/#comment-13727 KIM Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:33:17 +0000 http://www.humanresourceblog.com/?p=3881#comment-13727 Hey Caitlin, Thank you for the reply the thing is this… The 3 employees are all white females that are in various office positions. One is Accounts Payable and receptionist that has been here for 13 years. The other one is payroll, she has been here for 1.5 years, and the other is Accounts Receivable and has been employed around 3.5 years. This is in the corporate office we have 3 other satellite offices each with a secretary and none are required to clock in or out or turn in time sheets. We also have men employed such as the CFO, President, Safety Manager, Yard Manger, Mechanics, and field staff that are not required to clock in or out. There are also two other women employed at the Corporate office one in Human Resource and the other is the Administrative Secretary that are not required to clock in or out. So as you can see the only personnel required to use the time clock are the 3 ladies mentioned above and we have around 300 employees total. This was implemented about 8 months ago and was not in use when any of the 3 women were hired, but a Secretary at one of the Sat office was hired after the implementation and was still not required to clock in by use of a time clock or turn in a daily work sheet. There in lies the question I have of discrimination. Hey Caitlin,

Thank you for the reply the thing is this… The 3 employees are all white females that are in various office positions. One is Accounts Payable and receptionist that has been here for 13 years. The other one is payroll, she has been here for 1.5 years, and the other is Accounts Receivable and has been employed around 3.5 years. This is in the corporate office we have 3 other satellite offices each with a secretary and none are required to clock in or out or turn in time sheets. We also have men employed such as the CFO, President, Safety Manager, Yard Manger, Mechanics, and field staff that are not required to clock in or out. There are also two other women employed at the Corporate office one in Human Resource and the other is the Administrative Secretary that are not required to clock in or out. So as you can see the only personnel required to use the time clock are the 3 ladies mentioned above and we have around 300 employees total. This was implemented about 8 months ago and was not in use when any of the 3 women were hired, but a Secretary at one of the Sat office was hired after the implementation and was still not required to clock in by use of a time clock or turn in a daily work sheet. There in lies the question I have of discrimination.

]]> By: Caitlin http://www.humanresourceblog.com/2009/01/14/time-sheet-for-salaried-employee/#comment-13726 Caitlin Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:55:48 +0000 http://www.humanresourceblog.com/?p=3881#comment-13726 Hi Kim! This is probably lawful. It depends upon the employer's reason for requiring the 3 employees to use the time clock. If these 3 employees have attendance or tardiness problems, or the employer has reason to suspect they have been leaving work early, then it is appropriate to have them use a time clock. This is discrimination of a sort -- but it is probably legal discrimination. It's important to understand the difference. When an employer discriminates against employees based on sex, race, religion, color, national ancestry, age (between 40 and 70), pregnancy, etc. that is illegal. But it is perfectly legal for an employer to discriminate against employees who do not come to work on time. It would also be perfectly appropriate for the employer to require that all the workers with the same job clock in and out, while workers with other jobs not do so. HTH, and thanks for reading the blogs!~ Caitlin Hi Kim! This is probably lawful. It depends upon the employer’s reason for requiring the 3 employees to use the time clock. If these 3 employees have attendance or tardiness problems, or the employer has reason to suspect they have been leaving work early, then it is appropriate to have them use a time clock.
This is discrimination of a sort — but it is probably legal discrimination. It’s important to understand the difference. When an employer discriminates against employees based on sex, race, religion, color, national ancestry, age (between 40 and 70), pregnancy, etc. that is illegal. But it is perfectly legal for an employer to discriminate against employees who do not come to work on time.
It would also be perfectly appropriate for the employer to require that all the workers with the same job clock in and out, while workers with other jobs not do so.
HTH, and thanks for reading the blogs!~ Caitlin

]]>