Status Change F-T to P-T

Dutch2

Just curious as to what your “rule of thumb” is regarding when you force a status change F-T to P-T due to the ee not meeting the minimum number of hours per week for Full-Time status and therefore eligibility of benefits? I realize the technical answer will most likely be: it is up to the each company and/or insurance company to set this. However, we have had an ee move out of state, to Alaska, and is now working from her home. She is not working the minimum number of hours required each week to remain full-time. We gave her the benefit of the doubt for the first couple of months until she was able to receive all of the necessary equipment that was sent to her and set it up at her home: computer, phone lines, etc. However, now that the equipment is set up and she has returned to work she continues to work just under the minimum number of hours for full-time status. This has only been going on for a few weeks but I wish to get word to her and her supervisor that this must change within a certain length of time or we will have no choice but to change her status to P-T. We are self insured so this magic number will be for us to set. Any help regarding the time period you allow before making this status change would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

joannie

Dutch,

This link might help you.

[url]http://labor.state.ak.us/lss/forms/employee_faq.pdf[/url]

Our maximum hours worked for part time is 32, which, coincidentally, the State of Oklahom a considers anything above that as full time. Our policy states we will offer benefits to full time employees only. For full time employees who consistenly work less than the hours required we apply discipline under our attendance policy.

Hope this helps.

NeedCoffee

I had this happen with an employee this past year. I had a conference with her and her supervisor, and made it clear that effective immediately, she had to begin working full-time hours each week or she would risk losing certain benefits. We then put her on a 60 day probation, during which time she had to average 40 hrs per week, with the understanding that failure to average 40 hrs would result in loss of certain benefits. It worked for us, and the problem has been corrected.

stilldazed

We have not had that situation (the telecommuniting part), but we do have the rest of the situation occur. Our general rule of thumb is to apply the attendance policy & discipline policy, which means warnings and an opportunity for correction. Rather than termination at the end, if the worker continues to fall short, we move to a status change from FT to PT and offer the FT position to someone else. It's an option that works for us in most situations, but we have no telecommuting positions in our organization. I think that might complicate things a little. Was there a minimum expectation communicated to the worker at the outset? If there was, stick with it. If there wasn't, work to formalize as much as possible. Some research indicates that telecommuters (depending on the nature of the work) can get the work done faster without office interruptions. Is there a chance you are seeing the effects of that?

I have telecommuted in a past life, and the nature of the work I did meant that I could control when I actually performed the work. I found that if I set aside time in the middle of the night when the rest of the house was quiet, I could get a volume of work done in 6 hours or less that required 8 hours in the office. The difference was no telephones, no dialog from coworkers, no meetings, . . ..

best wishes.

Dutch2

Thank you all muchly for your comments and recommendations.
Over the last two week pay period the hours worked are back up where they need to be.
Hopefully this excerise was for naught, we will continue to monitor.
The ee in question was a Supervisor (Facility Manager and AVP) prior to moving to Alaska with her husband for a one year teaching contract. She fully understands the eligibility requirements for F-T status. I hope these frist few months have just been a time to get settled in. They hope to return after the one year.
Again, thanks....

HRQ

This won't change whatever your decision is, and I agree that the issue is you just want to give her a heads up that she will lose bene's if she continues with her current work hours, but is she getting all of her work done in fewer hours? Will reminding her of the FT requirements result in her padding her timecard?

Can someone assign more work to her, to increase her hours and lighten someone else's load?

These are thoughts that have probably already crossed your mind, but I was curious.