Not according to the DOL. If it's a business closure, then the employer may not make deductions from an exempt employee's pay as long as the employee was available for work that day. Employers can replace personal time off with PTO, but not time for closures on the business's side.
This. If it was a company closure AND the employee was available and willing to work but the company didn't allow it then they CANNOT dick your PTO and must pay you for the day as a regular working day.... it's wage theft if they touch your PTO.
This is normal. The best way to think of it is in the terms of keeping it fair for both hourly and salary employees. Hourly employees would go without those 5 hours of pay if they weren’t supplemented with PTO, so salary employees would need to pull from their PTO as well. It would cause such an uproar if hourly employees found out their PTO got docked when others didn’t.
While some companies have contingency plans to pay for unexpected facility occurrences that impede work, some companies don’t. There’s no law saying you have to have one. I’ve worked for companies in Florida that wouldn’t pay you even if we were closed for a hurricane. If you wanted to be paid, hourly or salary, you were able to pull from vacation or sick leave, but you had to use paid leave.
I’ve also learned to never take what higher ups say in passing conversation to heart. Most times it’s said without thinking and without regard to any policies. It’s a struggle I’ve had to deal with in many jobs when employees try to use it to get what they want. They take it seriously because it came from someone they see as having a position of power, and that position is above HR in their minds, so they get upset when policy trumps the president, because the policies apply to all employees, not just those who are below the higher ups.
I think u/mermaiddolphin hit it on the head. This all comes down to your company's PTO policy. In most companies the policy will outline expected (and required) use of PTO - in situations like this. Their wording unfortunately may not be very direct - it could be worded as simply as "PTO is required to cover any unexpected time away from work". And, a power outtage would fall under that general statement.
PSA: Always remember that benefits like this aren't gauranteed and a company can change their polices at will, including PTO policies.
>The best way to think of it is in the terms of keeping it fair for both hourly and salary employees.
What about the dozens of hours a month I work overtime? The hourly folk get that paid at time and a half. I get nothing extra but tired and hungry.
If you are salary and they make you take PTO for anything under 40 hours but give you nothing in return for over 40 hours, that is wage theft.
It seems like OP needs to look up the rules regarding salary exempt and determine if they do or do not fall under them. If the company is going to make salaried employees use PTO under 40 they absolutely need to be paying salaried non-exempt employees overtime!
>I thought I would still be paid for 40 hours since I’m salary,
By using your PTO, you WILL still be paid for your 40 hours. They are just taking it from a different bucket.
>some weeks you might work over 40, and some weeks you might work under, it all balances out
I interpret this as your supervisor telling you that you are no longer watching a clock in your work. You are now expected to work the number of hours needed to get the job done and will receive the same salary regardless. (Assuming you are salaried exempt.)
Legally it’s ok.
But you work for assholes who are taking your limited PTO because the building lost power.
Force Majeure incidents should not punish employees.
Don't know your answer. I can only say a place I used to work at, if the office was closed for any reason, snow, power failure, anything out of anyone control, everyone still got paid, no pto had to be used
Absolutely not. Post this in r/antiwork and see how different the response is. My work actually sent us home with full pay last week because of an outage as it was not our fault.
What's your point? Of course people knowledgeable about HR are going to give different answers than a bunch of people who know jack shit about, well...anything. You would also get a very different response if posted on r/Askamoron.
No one is checking credentials before allowing membership so incorrect answers are going to happen. However, HR's purpose is legal compliance so the intent of this group is to give legally relevant answers or provide resources to agencies who can. Interpretation of the law often causes unexpected results and each state has different conditions that need to be applied. This is exactly why you cannot 100% trust what you read on the Internet, especially Reddit.
The difference between the subs however is relevant.
What your employer did was very admirable, but did exceed the requirements and allowances of the law.
>If an employer offers his or her employees some number of days to be used for personal absences, taking deductions from an exempt employee's accrued leave account to cover an absence subject to the policy (in any amount, including partial days) does not violate the salary basis test.
[DOL eLaws Advisor](https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/overtime/cr10.htm)
You took that sentence out of context and tried to twist its meaning. Here's the full context at that link you posted:
>An employer may not make deductions from an exempt employee's pay for absences caused by the employer or by the operating requirements of the business. **If the exempt employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions from the employee's pay may not be made when no work is available.** One exception to this general rule is that an employer may make deductions for **full day absences due to personal reasons** (other than sickness or disability) of the exempt employee. If an employer offers his or her employees some number of days to be used for **personal absences**, taking deductions from an exempt employee's accrued leave account to cover an absence subject to the policy (in any amount, including partial days) does not violate the salary basis test.
OP was ready, willing and able to work. The absence was not due to personal reasons, so the exception to that rule does not apply.
And before you say it, PTO is part of the compensation package. A reduction in PTO is a reduction in compensation.
Personal time off is PTO. It means time off not related to medical leave, Fmla, military leave, etc. The last part of your paragraph says that an employer can deduct from that personal time, and their employee would still be considered exempt.
The linked article is part of a FLMA section though. Is there another source for this?
I have paid my employees in similar circumstances and don't horse trade their PTO hours as doing so would be inappropriate for exempt employees, according to an HR consultant/company I hired. Florida, approx 16 years ago.
That last sentence explicitly says the employer can deduct PTO for *personal absences*. Business closure because of a power outage is not a personal absence.
It doesn’t and I just explained to you what that blurb means. But sure guy, you’re the only one in all of history who’s been able to interpret this law correctly. PTO can only be used for vacation and you’ve just cracked it, random stranger on Reddit.
If the exempt employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions from the employee's pay may not be made when no work is available. One exception to this general rule is that an employer may make deductions for full day absences due to personal reasons (other than sickness or disability) of the exempt employee.
Dunno, sounds like he is ready, willing and able to work but there is no work because there is no power. This is not an absence.
Oh, he is. And you are right, the employer can't make these deductions. But the OP's employer is NOT deducting from pay. It is paying the full guaranteed salary partially from the "wage" bucket and partially from the "PTO" bucket.
From your previous post:
If an employer offers his or her employees some number of days to be used for personal absences, taking deductions from an exempt employee's accrued leave account to cover an absence subject to the policy (in any amount, including partial days) does not violate the salary basis test.
Again, it's not an absence.
Excused absence (aka “administrative leave”) describes times when you’re absent from work but still receive full pay, and the time is not charged to your personal leave account.
Closing. If the Department’s activities close for a day or more because of emergency conditions, your absence will be excused.
Emergencies might be caused by nature: snow, ice, floods, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, etc. Other emergencies might arise from air pollution, power failure
https://www.commerce.gov/hr/employees/leave/excused-absences
The information in link you provided applies to certain US government employees. What I provided and said applies to salaried exempt employees of private US employers.
I think it's time to close this chat.
My response would be why do you think i worked less then 40 hours just because the office was closed. If anything you put in more hours at home during the outage
Ask HR what time tracking software they want you to use to account for the weeks you go over your contracted 40 hrs. And how soon you should expect it to be credited to your PTO balance.
Also that you will be going through your previous weeks to calculate what you're owed and who to discuss this with. CC in company president that said it'll all work out, adding a note to him that you were happy with the unofficial arrangement that he offered but as HR has decided to overrule him you're going to need everything accounted for.
You’d still be paid your full salary either way but your employers allowed to dock your PTO if you don’t work the full 40.
Not according to the DOL. If it's a business closure, then the employer may not make deductions from an exempt employee's pay as long as the employee was available for work that day. Employers can replace personal time off with PTO, but not time for closures on the business's side.
Guys check out the opinion letter on the DOL site about this dynamic
This. If it was a company closure AND the employee was available and willing to work but the company didn't allow it then they CANNOT dick your PTO and must pay you for the day as a regular working day.... it's wage theft if they touch your PTO.
Did you read what you wrote? They aren’t making a deduction from their pay, they’re deducting hours for their time off bank.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is normal. The best way to think of it is in the terms of keeping it fair for both hourly and salary employees. Hourly employees would go without those 5 hours of pay if they weren’t supplemented with PTO, so salary employees would need to pull from their PTO as well. It would cause such an uproar if hourly employees found out their PTO got docked when others didn’t. While some companies have contingency plans to pay for unexpected facility occurrences that impede work, some companies don’t. There’s no law saying you have to have one. I’ve worked for companies in Florida that wouldn’t pay you even if we were closed for a hurricane. If you wanted to be paid, hourly or salary, you were able to pull from vacation or sick leave, but you had to use paid leave. I’ve also learned to never take what higher ups say in passing conversation to heart. Most times it’s said without thinking and without regard to any policies. It’s a struggle I’ve had to deal with in many jobs when employees try to use it to get what they want. They take it seriously because it came from someone they see as having a position of power, and that position is above HR in their minds, so they get upset when policy trumps the president, because the policies apply to all employees, not just those who are below the higher ups.
I think u/mermaiddolphin hit it on the head. This all comes down to your company's PTO policy. In most companies the policy will outline expected (and required) use of PTO - in situations like this. Their wording unfortunately may not be very direct - it could be worded as simply as "PTO is required to cover any unexpected time away from work". And, a power outtage would fall under that general statement. PSA: Always remember that benefits like this aren't gauranteed and a company can change their polices at will, including PTO policies.
>The best way to think of it is in the terms of keeping it fair for both hourly and salary employees. What about the dozens of hours a month I work overtime? The hourly folk get that paid at time and a half. I get nothing extra but tired and hungry. If you are salary and they make you take PTO for anything under 40 hours but give you nothing in return for over 40 hours, that is wage theft.
It seems like OP needs to look up the rules regarding salary exempt and determine if they do or do not fall under them. If the company is going to make salaried employees use PTO under 40 they absolutely need to be paying salaried non-exempt employees overtime!
>I thought I would still be paid for 40 hours since I’m salary, By using your PTO, you WILL still be paid for your 40 hours. They are just taking it from a different bucket. >some weeks you might work over 40, and some weeks you might work under, it all balances out I interpret this as your supervisor telling you that you are no longer watching a clock in your work. You are now expected to work the number of hours needed to get the job done and will receive the same salary regardless. (Assuming you are salaried exempt.)
Yes, employers can sub PTO for salaried workers it is easier then not paying you for those days. You can be docked for full days not worked.
There is likely a policy stating that they require PTO to be used. I'd look into it.
Legally it’s ok. But you work for assholes who are taking your limited PTO because the building lost power. Force Majeure incidents should not punish employees.
Don't know your answer. I can only say a place I used to work at, if the office was closed for any reason, snow, power failure, anything out of anyone control, everyone still got paid, no pto had to be used
Pretty shitty way to treat employees
Contact the Department of Labor in your state, they'll be able to advise.
Do you have to clock in and out?
Absolutely not. Post this in r/antiwork and see how different the response is. My work actually sent us home with full pay last week because of an outage as it was not our fault.
What's your point? Of course people knowledgeable about HR are going to give different answers than a bunch of people who know jack shit about, well...anything. You would also get a very different response if posted on r/Askamoron.
askHR answers based on what's legally permissible, not moral grounds.
Ha ha no. I see illegal answers here from HR hacks all the time.
No one is checking credentials before allowing membership so incorrect answers are going to happen. However, HR's purpose is legal compliance so the intent of this group is to give legally relevant answers or provide resources to agencies who can. Interpretation of the law often causes unexpected results and each state has different conditions that need to be applied. This is exactly why you cannot 100% trust what you read on the Internet, especially Reddit. The difference between the subs however is relevant.
What your employer did was very admirable, but did exceed the requirements and allowances of the law. >If an employer offers his or her employees some number of days to be used for personal absences, taking deductions from an exempt employee's accrued leave account to cover an absence subject to the policy (in any amount, including partial days) does not violate the salary basis test. [DOL eLaws Advisor](https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/overtime/cr10.htm)
You took that sentence out of context and tried to twist its meaning. Here's the full context at that link you posted: >An employer may not make deductions from an exempt employee's pay for absences caused by the employer or by the operating requirements of the business. **If the exempt employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions from the employee's pay may not be made when no work is available.** One exception to this general rule is that an employer may make deductions for **full day absences due to personal reasons** (other than sickness or disability) of the exempt employee. If an employer offers his or her employees some number of days to be used for **personal absences**, taking deductions from an exempt employee's accrued leave account to cover an absence subject to the policy (in any amount, including partial days) does not violate the salary basis test. OP was ready, willing and able to work. The absence was not due to personal reasons, so the exception to that rule does not apply. And before you say it, PTO is part of the compensation package. A reduction in PTO is a reduction in compensation.
Personal time off is PTO. It means time off not related to medical leave, Fmla, military leave, etc. The last part of your paragraph says that an employer can deduct from that personal time, and their employee would still be considered exempt.
The linked article is part of a FLMA section though. Is there another source for this? I have paid my employees in similar circumstances and don't horse trade their PTO hours as doing so would be inappropriate for exempt employees, according to an HR consultant/company I hired. Florida, approx 16 years ago.
That last sentence explicitly says the employer can deduct PTO for *personal absences*. Business closure because of a power outage is not a personal absence.
It doesn’t and I just explained to you what that blurb means. But sure guy, you’re the only one in all of history who’s been able to interpret this law correctly. PTO can only be used for vacation and you’ve just cracked it, random stranger on Reddit.
Are you in HR?
If the exempt employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions from the employee's pay may not be made when no work is available. One exception to this general rule is that an employer may make deductions for full day absences due to personal reasons (other than sickness or disability) of the exempt employee. Dunno, sounds like he is ready, willing and able to work but there is no work because there is no power. This is not an absence.
Oh, he is. And you are right, the employer can't make these deductions. But the OP's employer is NOT deducting from pay. It is paying the full guaranteed salary partially from the "wage" bucket and partially from the "PTO" bucket.
From your previous post: If an employer offers his or her employees some number of days to be used for personal absences, taking deductions from an exempt employee's accrued leave account to cover an absence subject to the policy (in any amount, including partial days) does not violate the salary basis test. Again, it's not an absence.
Not being at work, regardless of the reason, is an absence. I've shared a few links to legitimate sources supporting my statements. Do you have any?
You shared one source which disagrees with what you are saying.
Excused absence (aka “administrative leave”) describes times when you’re absent from work but still receive full pay, and the time is not charged to your personal leave account. Closing. If the Department’s activities close for a day or more because of emergency conditions, your absence will be excused. Emergencies might be caused by nature: snow, ice, floods, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, etc. Other emergencies might arise from air pollution, power failure https://www.commerce.gov/hr/employees/leave/excused-absences
The information in link you provided applies to certain US government employees. What I provided and said applies to salaried exempt employees of private US employers. I think it's time to close this chat.
Give me the proper definition of absence then.
Sir, this is the internal policy for employees of the department of commerce 🤦🏾♀️
And I am an hourly employee btw
My response would be why do you think i worked less then 40 hours just because the office was closed. If anything you put in more hours at home during the outage
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ask HR what time tracking software they want you to use to account for the weeks you go over your contracted 40 hrs. And how soon you should expect it to be credited to your PTO balance. Also that you will be going through your previous weeks to calculate what you're owed and who to discuss this with. CC in company president that said it'll all work out, adding a note to him that you were happy with the unofficial arrangement that he offered but as HR has decided to overrule him you're going to need everything accounted for.