Is your HR Assist/Generalist hourly or salary?

We hired a part time, hourly, HR Assistant that because of her previous experience has contributed more than we could have hoped from a part time HR Assistant that was hired to accept applications, and interview for entry level production positions. Because of her managerial and communication skills she has interviewed and hired for salaried positions, been called to sit in on discipline counsleings and document performance issues. She has a level of professionalism that can be counted on in my absence.

She has found the contraints of working as an hourly position confining (i.e. punch the time clock and don't work when you are off the clock), and would like to contribute more.

Do you have an HR Assistant/Generalist with similar duties, and if so, is that person hourly or salaried?

Comments

  • 14 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-02-04 AT 12:37PM (CST)[/font][br][br]The "similar duties" part is the kicker. Ours is hourly, but would not be involved in any interviewing or sitting in on disciplinary sessions.

    Edit.

    I would add, if you found an EE that goes above and beyond the call, and your budget can afford it, I would do what I could to keep her. Create a job that makes her exempt and pay her an appropriate salary. If it is a 1/2 time position, adjust the pay accordingly.
  • I have always found HR Assistants to be hourly employees. Mine is. I am mentoring her to take on more and more duties, but she does most of the day to day clerical stuff (inputting data into the HRIS system, filing, processing paperwork and new employees,conducting new employee orientation, etc.) She will occasionally conduct exit interviews, but I do not have her involved in disciplinary issues - she is not familiar enough yet with HR law to jump into this firepit!


  • The one person here (me) that could remotely be considered an hr generalist or personnel rep has been switched from hourly non-exempt to salary exempt and back to hourly non-exempt, all within the past two years. However, this person is full time, and has additional computer tech duties. The last switch in status was due to suspicion of abuse of exempt status (attendance).

    Be cautious of employees who WANT exempt status. Are they looking for an excuse to stay away from home, are they truly wanting to contribute more time to the company "for free," or are they grasping for the assumed respect that comes along with the status? Remember that exempt status was designed to benefit first the employer, then maybe the employee... I'd also ask the supervisor why they're considering exempt status for a part time employee - if they're that good, then increase pay, increase hours, or add benefits; don't require longer hours for the same amount of pay. And take into consideration the new requirements - does she supervise, does she have hire/fire authority or the boss's ear, etc.?

    -A Benefits Coordinator
  • Atrimble, are you saying you were punished for abusing attendance policies?
  • Officially, no. I got an informal verbal reprimand regarding "putting in at least 40 hours per week." I pointed out that exempt employees don't have to do so as long as they get the job done. I occassionally arrived 30 minutes late after treating a recognized medical condition, but stayed late to finish the "missed" work, regularly putting in 43-45 hours a week, but the bosses saw only that I wasn't at work at 8 a.m. The bosses were hamstrung as far as formally disciplining me, wary of violating my employment rights. And they couldn't ask the agency specialist about what they could do because that was me...

    Personally, I think it was intended as punishment. After the fact, I considered filing a grievance for retaliation, considering I had taken pains in the two preceeding months to point out that they were violating exempt employees' rights by (unofficially) counting hours and requiring use of paid leave for absences exceeding four hours. I think they figured if I was no longer part of that categorical status, I'd stop complaining. Which I did (I'm just gathering evidence now). But, to their benefit, my attendance has improved...
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-03-04 AT 01:11PM (CST)[/font][br][br]You may not want to hear some of this, but it is OK to track exempt EEs hours for attendance purposes. And while you are technically correct about the 40 hours, your job can require you to be there at 8:00 am for any number of valid reasons that have nothing to do with paying you for a 40 hour week.

    I am not sure of all the details, but if you have a bona fide sick leave policy, it is also OK to charge your sick bank for time missed for medical purposes. Hatchetman used to be one of our experts on this and maybe he or others can fill in the details of how this works.

    Ordinarily, exempt status works in the favor of the ER, but it is based on the job description. If you are regularly working more than 40 hours, and are treated as non-exempt, obviously you would get time and a half for the extra hours, which most of us in exempt status would love to cash in on.

    Retaliation claims are an ugly mess. If you followed your company's policy with respect to call in for sick leave or giving proper notice according to policy, then you may have something to complain about - but putting that aside, if you are in an adversarial relationship with the people that pay you, I would suggest you are in the wrong company. Why go through all that aggravation?

    Life is too short - find a better fit.
  • Well stated, Marc......... You beat me to the punch.
  • Thanks to you and Down-the-middle. You're right on the money.

    I know I was using (abusing) the system, and the bosses caught me and called me on it (very subtly). However, I don't think they dealt with the situation in the most fair manner. As far as I'm aware, no one at our agency has ever been assigned or lost exempt status as a penalty, though many a formal verbal and written warning to more closely adhere to policy have been issued. I was treated differently because the bosses aren't sure if I really was abusing policy or exercising my rights. And neither of them seem anxious to learn otherwise, actually quite the opposite.

    Regarding our leave policy: sick leave is charged for any illness absence in 30-minute increments. Flex time is commonly used by non-exempt employees to make up brief absences, so I rarely filed a time off slip. However, when it comes to vacation leave, if an exempt employee is gone from work for more than four hours, they must use paid leave. I think this constitutes unlawful docking of exempt pay, in that administration is requiring employees to substitute earned, accrued paid time off for salary. In my research, if an exempt employee works one minute in a day, they've earned the pay for the entire day.

    My apologies to the original poster, I didn't mean to take over this thread...
  • Even so, giving up a job for a few dollars here and there seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
  • Who's giving up a job? I'm squeezing these folks for all the training and experience I can get. x}>

    x:-8 => x0:) (I really do like my job, most of the time)
  • >However,
    >when it comes to vacation leave, if an exempt
    >employee is gone from work for more than four
    >hours, they must use paid leave. I think this
    >constitutes unlawful docking of exempt pay, in
    >that administration is requiring employees to
    >substitute earned, accrued paid time off for
    >salary. In my research, if an exempt employee
    >works one minute in a day, they've earned the
    >pay for the entire day.

    Is this specific to MO? In FL (we follow DOL, there is no FL DOL)we are allowed to dock leave banks in whatever increment works for us. Our exempt employees who work less then 40 hours have those missing hours paid out of their leave banks. DOL doesn't care HOW you pay an exempt employee, only that you pay them their weekly wage every week.
  • And as long as you have time in the leave banks, this is acceptable. There gets to be an issue when you run out of time in the leave banks and cannot make the check whole. If I remember correctly, you can dock in full day increments then, but not partial day increments.
  • A Trimble: You're an interesting study. But, you seem to be getting wrapped around the axle with 'what's fair' and 'what's a violation of labor law'. It is not illegal to force an employee to use leave time and some employers do that on an hourly basis while others have 'half day' or 'whole day' policies in place. And, as Marc pointed out, it is not a violation of FLSA to require that exempt employees observe core hours, which might include being there at a certain time. Nor is it illegal to have you punch a clock or otherwise track your hours as long as that information is not used in certain punitive manners. It's interesting that you admit to milking your employer for training and experience and admit to having violated their confidence by abusing what you consider privileges. If you worked for me, I'd fire you. Nothing personal, mind you, I'd just fire you. Peace. x:-)
Sign In or Register to comment.