Personal Time Off - Common Practice

Rodney

I would like to get some input on "common practice."

What do you do if someone decreases his work hours from 40 hours per week to 32 hours per week? It is still considered full-time employment. Do you pro-rate hours for PTO and therefore cut the number of PTO hours the person gets?

My husband is the employee in question. I have never heard of such a practice and so wanted to put it out to the crowd of experts. Your insights and different points of view I have found to be brillant.

The company handbook only talks about full-time. However, the practice has been to cut the PTO hours. The latest is that now they plan to make the correction in the handbook since my husband has been arguing the point. It has only taken a month to get a reply!

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

ray a

If an employee requests to have their hours reduced we put them on part time status and they lose their benefits.

Don D

Do I understand? Your husband has unilaterally decided to restructure his standard work week and work fewer hours? I can understand that there is no written policy on this since it's one of those things only a really imaginative mind might anticipate happening. One thing his employer might consider doing is firing him. Unless he has been told, "Just so you get the job done." or "However many hours it takes, it's up to you", then I can't imagine an employee deciding to do that on his own. All the language on Administrative Exemption and FLSA aside, there are still and always will be employer expectations as to what a standard workweek is and during what standard period of time during a week an employee is expected to be available at the place of business.

Crout

Is your husband exempt or non-exempt? You never made that clear. It's common for companys that offer PTO to part-time employees to calculate the PTO at a reduced rate. And Don is correct: you can not reasonably expect the company handbook to cover every contingency.

sandra_d

We consider anyone who is regularly scheduled/working less than 40 hours a week to be part-time. Depending on how many hours they work, they may be eligible for some benefits. For PTO, we do pro-rate based upon the number of hours worked. At less than 30 hours a week, they are not eligible for any insurance benefits, but continue to be eligible for prorated PTO. Incidentally, part-time employees at our company are not eligible for paid holidays of any kind.

Pixie

Where I'm at if you reduce your work hours to "anything" less than 40 hours per week, you are "part time" and forfeit all of your benefits. yes, it is common practace to #1.) lose all benefits when reducing your work schedule to anything less than full time. or, #2) to receive reduded or pro-rated benefits when no longer working full time.

Why on earth would your husband assume that he is entitled to full time benefits when he only works part time?

Pork

I BELIEVE IF YOU'LL DO YOUR RESEARCH YOU'LL FIND THAT THE MAJIC MARK FOR FULL-TIME And PART-TIME IS GENERALLY 31 HOURS per week. I could not find the specific reference in my rule book, but it has not changed since I last had the occasion. Additionally, in the same area the words say "16 straight weeks of greater than 32 hours per week each week, the ee is automatically considered as full time and intitled to benefits". Any week with less than 32 hours causes the 16 week straight all over. Pro-rating of company benefits and perks are company issues, they can handle them anyway they want to, they must be fair and consistent with their practice and procedures.

If your husband was in our employment he would not have the liberty to make a call to go for a 4 day work week; he would be gone!

PORK

Pixie

Pork, please post where I can find data to support your post that 31 hours is the majic mark for full time versus part time. In my 26 years in this field I have never accross a majic mark that dictates the number of hours part time begins or ends. All of the research I have done full time is 40 hours. Now, when I was in the medical field, the general practice fell in line with the criteria that you list.

Hunter1

Well, it didn't take a month to get a reply here, did it?
If your husband made arrangements to go to part time, there should have been a discussion of what that meant in the way of earnings, benefits, etc. I'd say that it is customary practice to reduce benefits when an employee goes from full time to part time. We pro-rate some benefits down to half time, and below that, no benefits.
Unless there's a state or local law, I don't believe there's a specific cut-off for providing any benefit. Since employers generally don't have to provide most benefits, it makes sense that the employer gets to set the rules about who gets benefits as long as it doesn't cause discrimination problems.

SMace

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-17-03 AT 11:58AM (CST)[/font][p]Regarding benefits: The company should follow the definition of "eligible employee" in their plan document to determine whether he should get benefits or not. This should apply for health insurance, life insurance, STD, LTD and 401k.

Shadowfax

Wow! Pork! I have never seen nor heard of a definition of 'full time' except in employer policy books. I too wait for direction where to find this rule. I'm guessing there are a whole bunchof who need to review this info. Thanks.

Don D

Pork is speaking from experience and I agree with him. All of the policies I have ever seen differentiating regular vs. part time have used a 32 hour per week determinant. I'm not saying its a rule, and there's certainly no government comment on it, I'm just saying that's been my experience. Insurance plans may be one determinant but insurance plans don't address RIF plans, vacation, sick leave, other leave plans or a host of non-insurance related benefits and perks. Each company needs to define it's own cutting point. I'm still amazed that the guy cut his own hours. I need to talk to him about that.

Rodney

Wow!! Talk about speed of nimble fingers. Thanks for all your input.

My husband did not decrease his hours independently. He worked with management to come to an agreement that he could work a 4-day week (32 hours). He is retirement age and wanted to cut back, not retire. He is non-exempt & one of their top producers.

Many people talked about part-time. The fact that benefits are lost when p/t is understood. I just always thought that f/t employees (meaning over 32 hours a week which is what I have always seen as the definition) get full benefits. I guess I thought that included personal time off.

For those who have not thought about an employee wanting to do this, you might want to begin thinking about the changing workforce and that there will be more retirement age employees wanting to/needing to continue to work. Therefore there will be a need for more flexibility in hours. My understanding is that the youngest generation of the workforce is also going to want flexibility. I think the challenge is the 4 generations in the workplace - that is the diversity of tomorrow.

Thanks for your input. All your points are well taken.

Don D

I agree. I've been hoping for a 32 hour workweek since I was 21 years old, so its been at least, what, 20 years? Looks like I'll never get one, or a 4-day week either, unless I demand it, and then I may have a zero-hour workweek. x:-) Congrats to the husband for negotiating for what he wanted. But, things like vacation and company perks are not addressed by law and are up to the individual employer.

Rodney

Thank you much. We are thrilled with what he got. It may be a good way to ease into the big R. The company still benefits by having a knowledgeable and reliable person working for them. He usually does 5-days worth of work in 4 days.

I hope you dream comes true, Don. I hope one day to do 3-days (I"m independent) and just keep going as long as I am having fun.

Best wishes to all.

Nrdgrrl

With us, you get two days if you work 20+ hours per week. However, the 2 days are valued at what you would normally work in a day. So if you normally work 4 hours per day, you get 2 days worth 4 hours.

Rockie

We pro-rate our PTO time out. If we gave a 32 hour employee the same accrual rate as a 40 hour a week employee, we would catch all kinds of heck!