Is your HR Assist/Generalist hourly or salary?
Ruskanen
183 Posts
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?
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
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.
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
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...
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.
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...
x:-8 => x0:) (I really do like my job, most of the time)
>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.