temporary lay off

Jeffrey

We are looking at laying off some exempt(salary)and non-exempt employees for about 2 weeks. Do they have the right to use their vacation time so that they do not have to file for unemployment insurance. Thanks for your help.

Whatever

Lay-offs, even short term ones, are miserable things for everyone involved. I hate doing them. Having said that, if an employee wants to to use their vacation and/or sick/personnel days, we have always allowed it. I do not know exactly what the law is, but it is the right and humane thing to do.

Jeffrey

I know that lay offs are awful. What I didn't say in the original post is that we have all shared the burden around here. We have about 35 total ee's and over the past 3 years we have gone thru some pretty tough times. Exempt and non exempt ees have been volunteering to take unemployment ins.(lay offs) to help the company. But there are a handful of exempt ees that do not want to share this burden. We have shortened there work week and they are still taking vacation time to make up the difference. This results in same pay less production. Bad idea. The CEO has recently stopped approving vacation days for those ees. Is this legal to do or should we seek permanent ee changes?

Don D

There is no law in any state precluding an employee-employer agreement to allow the ee to use available paid leave time while laid off. According to state UI law, however, the ee may or may not be able to draw unemployment during a time of paid vacation. It varies among the states.

Whatever

Fact of the matter, is they are still entitled to the vacation time and could take it in the future. Meantime, if they collect unemployment, the company's payments (at least in New York where experience is taken into account)to the unemployment fund will go up.

Don D

Employers pay into the FUTA system in the form of insurance premiums. Insurance premiums insure employees in times of layoff or shutdown. A temporary shutdown in your case is a layoff. Those laid off have a right to file for insurance benefits. When benefits are drawn, experience ratings are affected. When experience ratings escalate, tax payments see minimal increases. So goes the system.

Your decision to let them take their vacation accrual during time of layoff is between you and them. If your state requires that vacation pay offset unemployment insurance weekly benefit amounts, chances are the claim will not proceed and benefits will not be paid. If the claim is disallowed and benefits are not paid, your experience rating is unaffected. The system is whatever it is in your state. There's really no way to monkey with it. What will happen will happen.

jojo

I guess my question is if they accrued the vacation time whats the big deal in them takin it? They are going to get it either way? Sounds to me your CEO is trying to MAKE the employees feel the burden. I would think that good employee/employer relations would be to allow them to take their vacation since they earned it? Or am I being to soft for HR? Also in a true layoff don't you have to payout vacation time that was earned?

Pork

JOJO: I hear your point; a lay off is a lay off, vacation/sick/PTO are empoyee/employer benefits (perks) for working. As a manfacturing operation there are times in the year that the company wants only manintenace personnel working. The machines are getting their rest and replacement parts, the employees are getting their rest and maintenance. There is no work being done by the rest of the employees, therefore, they are laid off and will be recalled as scheduled. Two weeks is my experience and the employee was able to draw UI and vacation/sick/paid pto. The UI is paid by the state U/Insurance based on application, in our case the question of benefit payments was not a factor of UI payments during this two week period of time. Most employees did not like to use their benefits or time at the call of the company.

PORK

E Wart

Without knowing your policy and your states requirements, don't you pay the vacation now or later? So, what difference does it make when. This should be accrued in your budget already.
Sounds like your CEO should be looking for a pay cut from employees if he wants to save money, not just cutting hours. If you have several employees being laid off "temporarily" who do the same thing.... wouldn't it be smarter to just reduce staff permanently (reduction in force) for at least one employee so they could get on with their life and begin looking for new work... unless you were sure you were going to definitely need them back?
E Wart

Jeffrey

Unfortunately we did let one of our exempt ees go on Friday 9-12-03. In the past we have staggered the lay off burden to keep from letting anyone go. Our CEO felt that we were to top heavy at our plt. 2 location, so the highest paid with the most seniority was the first to go. Hopefully this doesn't have to happen anymore. Thanks to all of you for your replies. They have been a big help.

San Francisco

Jeffrey, I am curious regarding the criteria you used that the highest paid with the most seniority was let go. It's just so "reversed" from our cut backs.

Elizabeth

Jeffrey

This gentlemen that was let go, would not agree to take a lay off,he would order material and run inventory to keep guys busy. He was costing the company more money than he was worth. His salary was no longer justifiable. He was a very controlling person to work for. Our company is a manufacturer of machined,stamped,molded,and fabricated goods. This is a pretty dirty industry and he wanted guys to bring him a dirty shop rag for every clean rag that they needed. This man had a real control problem.

Don D

Plus he was the oldest guy around and making the most money. Hmmmm.

marc

Probably the one who can afford a lawyer too. Not a fun situation. In Nevada, you do not have to pay vacation in a termination, unless your policy states that you do. I don't know how a lay-off would be looked at. We require two weeks notice to utilize vacation. If you had a similar clause, perhaps you could utilize a policy like that.

Jeffrey

He was not the oldest person in the company. He had the most years of employment at that plant. He was not the oldest by age, but he was the most difficult ee to work with.

Pork

HMMMM, So you reorganized and eliminated his "no longer required position"; also you have no intent to hire a less costly person into that position, ever,ever, ever again! Additionally, you had no other positions within the company that you would be able to assign this "excess to our needs" ee!!! I too heard or read age / cost into your posting; I certainly hope the individual did not hear "age" instead of longivity in your spoken words!

Good Luck! PORK

Don D

Pork: I'll bet you and I can understand turning in a dirty rag for a clean one. That's part of budget management, although perhaps an extreme form of it. The guy has learned his lesson over the years and has been browbeaten to drive costs down. We require that an employee turn in a printer cartridge prior to being handed a new one. People here thought that was stupid when I implemented, but strangely our printer cartridge costs have reduced by half. We also require that anyone requesting a new pair of gloves bring us one that has holes in it. We don't do that with number 2 pencils yet, but.............