Mandatory Time off Without pay?

[lasimmon]

So a friend of mine was telling me that his company is forcing him to take some days off without pay due to the current economy.

Anyone know if this is legal? Seems a little strange to me.

[Thaco]

i cant speak to the legalities, but it's better that than lay him off entirely isn't it?

[R154]

The only mandatory without pay situation I have ever heard of, was a result of disciplinary action.

Although, he should read his HR policy manual and see if there is a clause for this. There might be. If not, he may have to take that time off and see if he has a job when he is expected back...

[ExtraSlow]

I've worked at a company that did this. they gave the entire company Fridays off in the summer for 14 weeks, without pay.

It was a good deal, compared to layoffs.

I assume it's legal, as this was a multi-billion dollar company that did it.

[Thales of Miletus]

Once upon a time, companies would have a person apply to EI when they cut their hours.

But welcome to Alberta in a bust era.

You can thank the PC's.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[ee2k]

In other words they are cutting back your friend's work hours, from 40 to 32 (if just one day a week,) or even making him part-time. I wouldn't exactly call it "mandatory time off."

[Proyecto2000]

I went on thru this scenario in 2008 and I was very happy to get my hours reduced and not get laid off.

[Disoblige]

Originally posted by ee2k
In other words they are cutting back your friend's work hours, from 40 to 32 (if just one day a week,) or even making him part-time. I wouldn't exactly call it "mandatory time off."
The case you are referring to was not said by OP. So the logic here doesn't work.

[gqmw]

Nothing you can do really, but it's definitely better than getting laid off.

[finboy]

A company I worked for did this, then laid people off anyways.

[FraserB]

Adjusting hours of work, which is what they are doing, is legal.

If he doesn't like the new structure, there is nothing holding him there.

[adamc]

It's called a furlough

[suntan]

Pfft, no one's got any fur low anymore.

[lasimmon]

I asked for more details. Has to take 5 days between now and year end. So really not that much. Doesn't seen like a huge deal to me.

[J-D]

Originally posted by lasimmon
I asked for more details. Has to take 5 days between now and year end. So really not that much. Doesn't seen like a huge deal to me.

I bought an extra week of vacation this year anyways :rofl:

I could see how it'd be a bigger deal if it was more than that though.

[ShermanEF9]

My girlfriend works in HR for a larger engineering firm in calgary. I posted this link to her and here was her response:




They'd have to be really careful. What is his industry? What does his offer letter and company policy say about potential down time? If they make him do this, and they're making the whole company or a good portion of the company do this, they have to be careful. This could be considered an aspect of constructive dismissal, especially if him or any of his coworkers get permanently laid off following the request.

I get that the company likely isn't intending or wanting to terminate anyone. I get that, but if you're in an industry that relies heavily on oil and gas, they need to have a solid, well-laid plan when things like this happen.

His company is better off to lay people off temporarily, with letters and the whole gamut because they're gonna get themselves into some class-action bullshit



hope this helps. i guess check your offer letter and see what it outlines.

[austic]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
I've worked at a company that did this. they gave the entire company Fridays off in the summer for 14 weeks, without pay.

It was a good deal, compared to layoffs.

I assume it's legal, as this was a multi-billion dollar company that did it.

This

Was a better deal then laying people off and tbh the Fridays were nice.

[Black Gts]

Can you use them as sick days? I'd just go to a couple more Wed night concerts and get drunk, and not drag my ass into work haha. Or extra long weekends 5 days is nothing to worry about. Yet...

[ExtraSlow]

If it's only five days, and you get to choose the days, that's an awesome deal.
Shit, I'd take four days weeks for the year if I was offered.

[Feruk]

Extra 5 days off unpaid? I'd take that deal in a second.

I don't get companies who don't do any layoffs in times like this. Perfect chance to clear out the bottom 10%. Instead they lower the benefits/income of the 90% they actually want? Stupid!


Originally posted by ShermanEF9
My girlfriend works in HR for a larger engineering firm in calgary. I posted this link to her and here was her response:
I didn't know HR people knew so much about "class-action bullshit." :rofl:

[Masked Bandit]

Five days over the course of a year? Pfffft, beats being unemployed. I guess if money is tight it's a bit of an issue but if he's comfortable I would almost look at this as a gift not a burden.

[killramos]

Originally posted by Feruk

I didn't know HR people knew so much about "class-action bullshit." :rofl:

:werd:

They are some seriously underpaid lawyers if so...

Does sound pretty great though. Minor lifestyle changes for 50% more time off a week? Sign me up.

Though I guess that's basically what I already have with our "office closures"...

[lasimmon]

Yah I feel like he went a little over board when he was pissed initially...

I think i took 3 days off without pay last year just to have more vacation time. I don't see how 5 is that big of a deal over a year.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by Feruk


I didn't know HR people knew so much about "class-action bullshit." :rofl:

:werd: :rofl:

[jwslam]

Originally posted by ShermanEF9
i guess check your offer letter and see what it outlines.
Mine says "regular employment as outlined below". There's lines for Salary, job description, benefits, .... I don't see a line for how many hours I'm required to work. Interesting...

[Xtrema]

FYI, Employers can apply for this program as well.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/work_sharing/

[M.alex]

Originally posted by ShermanEF9
My girlfriend works in HR for a larger engineering firm in calgary. I posted this link to her and here was her response:




hope this helps. i guess check your offer letter and see what it outlines.

I hope your GF is better in the kitchen than she is in HR :rofl:

[Speed_69]

Originally posted by M.alex


I hope your GF is better in the kitchen than she is in HR :rofl:

:rofl: lol agreed. The OP's friends situation is definitely legal. They should be happy they're not getting laid off right now instead.

[ddduke]

Kind of off topic but why do some companies choose to cut hours/benefits in times like this instead of just laying people off? Does it cost them money to do layoffs?

[SKR]

Originally posted by ddduke
Kind of off topic but why do some companies choose to cut hours/benefits in times like this instead of just laying people off? Does it cost them money to do layoffs?

If you lay them off they might not come back, is my guess.

[ExtraSlow]

some companies would owe significant amounts of severance if they did permanent layoffs, plus as mentioned, if they are good employees, you want them to stay so you can run your business effectively.

[schurchill39]

Originally posted by ddduke
Kind of off topic but why do some companies choose to cut hours/benefits in times like this instead of just laying people off? Does it cost them money to do layoffs?



Originally posted by ExtraSlow
some companies would owe significant amounts of severance if they did permanent layoffs, plus as mentioned, if they are good employees, you want them to stay so you can run your business effectively.

If they lay you off then they might be required to pay out severance like ExtraSlow said. You'll find lots of companies terminating people's employment now due to poor performance as opposed to "lay-offs" so they can get out of a severance package. Pretty grimmey how the wording of the end of your employment drastically changes how its dealt with.

[GotRice?]

A company I worked for before did this. Small EPCM company. Showed up for work one day and a bunch of us were asked to stay home for a week. Receive another email on Monday saying that there still isn't any work and that maybe they'd call us back the next week.

After about 2-3 weeks of this BS i eventually left, but one of the guys went without work for a whole month until he tried using his benefits and they let him go right away after that. The other poor fellow was at home for 3 whole months! They just kept stringing him along, it was so brutal...

I did alot of research into this and even contacted a lawyer and there was absolutely nothing we could do about it because it never actually states in the contract or their HR manual about 40hour work weeks.

Shitty thing is that this company did this to just about everyone. The company had about 100 people, over the course of 6 months there were about 30 remaining. And no one got fired, just sent home. Instead of letting people go, they'd send them home without pay until they quit. I am guessing so they didn't have to pay them severance.

[Euro838]

So is this a wake up call for those that work or will work in these industries/companies/etc., to make it clear before they accept the position?

[pheoxs]

Originally posted by Euro838
So is this a wake up call for those that work or will work in these industries/companies/etc., to make it clear before they accept the position?

This is where salaried positions are better I guess.

With an hourly position they can cut your hours or completely reduce to 0 and such. Whereas with a salary position I don't believe they can force us to take leave without pay as my employment agreement states that I will be paid X$ per two weeks, there is no dependence on working 40 hrs for that.

[riander5]

Originally posted by GotRice?
A company I worked for before did this. Small EPCM company. Showed up for work one day and a bunch of us were asked to stay home for a week. Receive another email on Monday saying that there still isn't any work and that maybe they'd call us back the next week.

After about 2-3 weeks of this BS i eventually left, but one of the guys went without work for a whole month until he tried using his benefits and they let him go right away after that. The other poor fellow was at home for 3 whole months! They just kept stringing him along, it was so brutal...

I did alot of research into this and even contacted a lawyer and there was absolutely nothing we could do about it because it never actually states in the contract or their HR manual about 40hour work weeks.

Shitty thing is that this company did this to just about everyone. The company had about 100 people, over the course of 6 months there were about 30 remaining. And no one got fired, just sent home. Instead of letting people go, they'd send them home without pay until they quit. I am guessing so they didn't have to pay them severance.

Aurora?

[riander5]

Originally posted by pheoxs


This is where salaried positions are better I guess.

With an hourly position they can cut your hours or completely reduce to 0 and such. Whereas with a salary position I don't believe they can force us to take leave without pay as my employment agreement states that I will be paid X$ per two weeks, there is no dependence on working 40 hrs for that.

I know drilling companies that have given employees letters stating they are taking a reduction on their annual pay.

[lasimmon]

^^ The person referred to in the OP is salaried.

[riander5]

So you can either work the same hours for less pay or take days off without pay. I think your buddy got the better deal!!

[CapnCrunch]

Originally posted by ddduke
Kind of off topic but why do some companies choose to cut hours/benefits in times like this instead of just laying people off? Does it cost them money to do layoffs?

It's hard to bid jobs if you don't have the people to do them. A lot of companies actually want a list of "real" people that will be working on a job in the bid.

[ShermanEF9]

Originally posted by M.alex


I hope your GF is better in the kitchen than she is in HR :rofl:

Oh, im sorry. Do you work in HR? Fuck yourself. Any real HR professional deals with this stuff.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by ShermanEF9


Oh, im sorry. Do you work in HR? Fuck yourself. Any real HR professional deals with this stuff.

Your gf came off like kind of a dummy in the quote that you posted, probably because she referred to "class-action bullshit", so he was probably making light of that.

I've never once met a professional that said someone would be in for some class-action bullshit.
:drama:

[FraserB]

Originally posted by cjblair


Your gf came off like kind of a dummy in the quote that you posted, probably because she referred to "class-action bullshit", so he was probably making light of that.

I've never once met a professional that said someone would be in for some class-action bullshit.
:drama:

Exactly.

Everyone knows it's call a "law raping". Jeez

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by cjblair


Your gf came off like kind of a dummy in the quote that you posted, probably because she referred to "class-action bullshit", so he was probably making light of that.

I've never once met a professional that said someone would be in for some class-action bullshit.
:drama:

Really?

I've met a lot of professionals in various fields that are goofballs in their off hours/private hours. She was giving advice to a car forum, she has to be "professional" in her response for free advice for us? :nut:

She was responding exactly how 95% of Beyonders would, off the cuff and in a light-hearted manner. And I don't think her information was that far out to lunch. What do you want, a signed letter ending in "Govern Yourselves Accordingly"? :rofl:

[Feruk]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Really?

I've met a lot of professionals in various fields that are goofballs in their off hours/private hours. She was giving advice to a car forum, she has to be "professional" in her response for free advice for us? :nut:

She was responding exactly how 95% of Beyonders would, off the cuff and in a light-hearted manner. And I don't think her information was that far out to lunch. What do you want, a signed letter ending in "Govern Yourselves Accordingly"? :rofl:
1) HR employees are not "professionals"
2) I wouldn't say she came off as goofball or lighthearted, just clueless. Perhaps good time to refer to point (1). :D

[bjstare]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Really?

I've met a lot of professionals in various fields that are goofballs in their off hours/private hours. She was giving advice to a car forum, she has to be "professional" in her response for free advice for us? :nut:

She was responding exactly how 95% of Beyonders would, off the cuff and in a light-hearted manner. And I don't think her information was that far out to lunch. What do you want, a signed letter ending in "Govern Yourselves Accordingly"? :rofl:

Yes.


Originally posted by Feruk

1) HR employees are not "professionals"
2) I wouldn't say she came off as goofball or lighthearted, just clueless. Perhaps good time to refer to point (1). :D

Haha, finally someone who gets me.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Feruk

1) HR employees are not "professionals"
2) I wouldn't say she came off as goofball or lighthearted, just clueless. Perhaps good time to refer to point (1). :D

To 1, that is your opinion. Depending on what sort of HR employee we are talking about, there are many I would consider professionals (don't get me wrong, I hate the whole profession but that doesn't mean I don't offer them professional courtesy). If you are going by strictly job title, then no, I suppose they aren't professionals, but that is semantics on your part.

To 2, again, that is your opinion. Some of the shit you say makes you come off as clueless, but once again, we don't expect you to be taking beyond as serioz biznass. :dunno:

[ShermanEF9]

Originally posted by Feruk

1) HR employees are not "professionals"
2) I wouldn't say she came off as goofball or lighthearted, just clueless. Perhaps good time to refer to point (1). :D

what qualifies as a "professional" in your opinion then?

[Feruk]

Originally posted by ShermanEF9
what qualifies as a "professional" in your opinion then?
Isn't the definition doctors, lawyers, and engineers? Someone that can give you a "professional reference" for your passport (if they still do that). Not really an opinion, just what I was always told.

Edit: Wikipedia definition:
A professional is a member of a profession. The term also describes the standards of education and training that prepare members of the profession with the particular knowledge and skills necessary to perform the role of that profession. In addition, most professionals are subject to strict codes of conduct enshrining rigorous ethical and moral obligations. Professional standards of practice and ethics for a particular field are typically agreed upon and maintained through widely recognized professional associations.

HR is a job, not a profession.

[killramos]

Generally i would consider a professional to be someone who is a member of a regulated profession. Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers all fit this bill without questions. There are some circumstances where other can be considered professionals but HR rep is a bit a of stretch imo...

From wiki:


A professional is a member of a profession. The term also describes the standards of education and training that prepare members of the profession with the particular knowledge and skills necessary to perform the role of that profession. In addition, most professionals are subject to strict codes of conduct enshrining rigorous ethical and moral obligations. Professional standards of practice and ethics for a particular field are typically agreed upon and maintained through widely recognized professional associations.

Some definitions of "professional" limit this term to those professions that serve some important aspect of public interest and the general good of society.

Damn Feruk and his almost-ninja edit

[ShermanEF9]

so its being part of an association and/or given a designation based on what your role is?

[Feruk]

Originally posted by ShermanEF9
so its being part of an association and/or given a designation based on what your role is?

No:
1) High standard of education
2) Strict code of conduct rigorously enforced
3) Membership in professional association

[riander5]

Originally posted by ShermanEF9
so its being part of an association and/or given a designation based on what your role is?

She's not a professional, get over it

[ShermanEF9]

Originally posted by riander5


She's not a professional, get over it

Not sure where i was even arguing it?

Easy there, 7-11.

[jazzyb]

better then mandatory all days off without pay.

[riander5]

Originally posted by ShermanEF9


Not sure where i was even arguing it?

Easy there, 7-11.

Look at your second post on this page. You used the term "HR Professionals" - Then you used your small peanut brain in subsequent posts to try and dissect what a professional is, which I believe was adequately explained. Being good at a job or having years experience doesn't automatically make you a "professional".

For example you are probably a great janitor, but I don't think you should call yourself a "Professional Janitor"

Do you understand yet? Do you need any more explanations? Have you followed this post so far?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[gkAeris]

soooooo my friend just got his walking papers but its dated for April 23, 2015 because he been with his company as an hourly employee since 1998. They are not giving him severance or even paying him until April 23, 2015. His last day of billable work is March 13, 2015.

I'm pretty sure this is legal...it just totally sucks for him I feel so bad for him.

and his pretty sure the company will probably file for bankruptcy as they probably wont be able to weather the storm...

[FraserB]

I actually don't think that is legal.

If he has been there 17 years, he is entitled to 8 weeks of notice. The employer also can't change the wages, wage rate or any other term/condition of employment after the notice of termination is given. So he'd either get paid to work until the termination date or get paid out if they want him gone sooner.

All this assumes it was not a termination for cause.

Have him look at Section 56, 57 & 61 of the employment standards code. It might also be a good idea to have a consult with a labour lawyer. I think some will give the first 30 minutes free.

[gkAeris]

thank you for the info i will forward to him. and suggest he just talk to a labour lawyer


But the employer is not changing anything he is still getting the same wage and everything just no hours because in the contract he signed back in 1998 it was an hourly wage of $XX/hr without any guarantees of hours of work (IE 40 hour work week) they will let him sit on the books till April 23 (until his 8 weeks is over) then he can get EI. plus the company is probably closing it doors end of April...so no real point.

poor guy....stressful times in O&G

[BDenali]

Defiantly don't wanna complain about this at these times. I have heard of many companies in Calgary doing this to cut costs. I would just be happy to have a job!