"EE does not want a raise" Part Duex

lnelson

Upon reading this thread it is very similar to a situation I am having here.
There are some differences though:

1) We were changing ee from hourly to salaried.
2) Position also changed from Drafter only to Drafter & Project Manager.
3) This was a verbal conversation no evaluation documentation was given at
time due to I was out of the loop so to speak on this. It was a
decision made by V.P and supervisor without my knowledge.

His supervisor spoke to him about things that needed to be changed or improved. He was offered more than he would make in a 40 hrs week and then some. But, ee feels he is worth more and declined the raise. Currently he is still hourly at same rate but, position is changed. V.P and supervisor are now considering giving him a raise and keeping him hourly with stipulation of no OT and position is still changed. I am advising against this the ee is dictating what is acceptable.

Would you still handle this the same way as "EE does not want a raise" Part One?

Crout

If I read you correctly, you decided to change the position from non-exempt to exempt, and increased the pay, but the EE currently in that position says that the money isn't good enough, so now the VP wants to offer a compromise....is that correct? If so, here are my thoughts.

1. I'm not sure what the lack of a current evaluation has to do with the job being changed. You seem to be referring to two separate issues.

2. If the current EE doesn't want to take the job because of the money offered, you guys can certainly increase the money if you want to keep that particular EE around. However, the compromise suggested doesn't make sense. You can't keep the EE in a non-exempt status and then mandate that there is no overtime. If the EE is non-exempt and works over 40 in a week, you must pay overtime...end of story.

3. If the pay offered is as high as you can go, then I would simply tell the EE that the position is going to change and he/she can either take the job at the money offered or feel free to look for a new job....end of story.

lnelson

Crout -
As to your first question Yes, the VP wants to keep the ee for now by offering a higher hourly wage. While doing an exempt job. She is also stimpulating NO OT. We will still pay the OT no way around that issue but, just informing ee that OT is not authorized and if there is OT then disciplinary will be issued.

I agree with you on that if the ee is unhappy about the increase and/or position offered then we should look elsewhere.

San Francisco

First, the position has now been determined to be exempt. Is that correct? Therefore, I would not allow a non-exempt to fill the position, raise or not. Given that scenerio, the employee either accepts the "new" position or not. If not, it would then depend upon whether there was any other position for him.

Elizabeth

Crout

Are you in the Republic of California, or "Gallee-fornia" as it's now being called? If so, then I guess you'd also have to pay OT for anything over 8 hours in a day....correct?

lnelson

Crout -

That is correct OT after 8 hrs in a day.

Pork

Inelson: I would offer my 2 cents worth and butt out. There does not appear to be any illegal actions here! I agree the ee is the stronger willed person than the current leadership. There is a hidden agenda here by the ee. He has previously been able to slip a few segments of time past the old 40 hour work week and believes that if he goes salaried then there goes the little extra O/T hours. It reads as if the drafter/project manager position is a professional position and will qualify for exempt status. That being true, I would do my best to make it EXEMPT and if the individual does not want the position then put the position out for hiring action. Once the professional is hired then so inform the ee that you have no position available in which to insert him into the current organization. Therefore, he is selected for termination based on his actions to not accept the position when it was offered. Make sure he knows the moment you put the position out for hiring action, if he qants to change his mind at that time I would tell him to submit his application for consideration along all other applicants.

Good Luck, Now I'm butting out!

PORK

mwild31

Okay - since I responded to the other thread - I'll throw my two cents in x:-)

First, this is a very different situation than the previous thread. The previous thread dealt with an existing employee, evaluated for an existing position, the position was going to continue to exist x;-) and there was a wage increase involved.

In your situation, it sounds as though a currently non-exempt position is being converted to an exempt position - essentially a new job. Providing that this exempt position meets FLSA guidelines, I agree with San Francisco and would not fill the position with a non-exempt employee.

The fact that the offer was "re-thought" once the employee declined the exempt offer & is now being offered non-exempt pay with the caution of no OT - leads me to suspect that perhaps this position is not really exempt & the offer is given merely to address OT pay. A lot of companies do this - but if it's the sole motivation, be careful, because I bet real money that these same supervisors/managers will track this employee's time & if she's late or doesn't put in enough hours - well, there goes exempt status & hello potential liability.

Going forward - if the employee doesn't want the exempt job - then it's her prerogative not to take it - just as it is the company's prerogative to hire for the position. Good luck - please let me know how it turns out as I now have money on this issue x:D

marc

Did I miss the betting pool?

mwild31

I created one in my post - do you want to get in on it Marc?

marc

Since I agree with your statement about the supervisor tracking this (you may have a bit of a cynical viewpoint that I find very familiar), we may have to make it dependent on time. I would give it 6 months.

mwild31

x:-) Yes, you caught it - it was a cynical comment & I give it less time than you my friend. In fact, if they do make her exempt, here's what I believe will happen:

First day, they'll have her fill out a time ticket. x;-)

mbeam

Would go along with the other posters on making the decision based on the job to be done not the person who would be filling the job. A challenging precedent would be set by allowing the tail to wag the dog. What happens if others not in a salaried role ask for their positions to be re-evaluated based on this new information?

Which one of us would choose an hourly wage with OT benefits versus being salaried? Would bet most people as this would be much more lucrative.

E Wart

I am a little confused as well. First, I am assuming that this position does qualify to be an exempt position (with the PM duties added.) If so, you can continue paying this person hourly if you want, and pay ot as well, but you odn't have to.
What we always did when a position changed was to evaulate the NEW position, determine who if anyone was qualified for it. Talk with the individual that had the OLD position. Tell them his position is being eliminated. However he is being offer the new position (Drafter PM) and these will be the duties, requirements and salary. Give him a few days to deterime if he wants the position. If he doesn't he should know that he won't have a job. Pretty easy to me. Sounds as if there was some poor communication here or perhaps a supv. that just doesn't want to pay OT.
E Wart