Unethical?
lstire3
21 Posts
I need help/advice. I am a new HR manager for this company. They have a benefit waiting period of 180 days for their regular full-time hourly and management employees (about 25-30% of our employees). We currently pay 75% of medical/vision/life insurance for the employee and none for the family. However, they consider all of our laborers (the rest of the employees) as temporary for a full year. Then they become eligible for benefits. I am not sure that they even tell the employees they are temporaries. We do have a high turnover and they do not want to be putting employees on the benefit rolls just to take them off a few months later.
I have also been told that unless the employees ask about it we do not tell them, when the year is up, that they have 30 days to enroll. I was told that most of them won't want to sign up anyway (our wages are low $10.00-$13.00 for laborers) and besides it would cost the company too much money.
I don't think they are doing anything illegal but I think this is highly unethical. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I can't quit the job but I need to know how you would handle the "talk" with the owners.
Comments
You are concerned that maintaining the laborers on "temporary" status for 1 full year before benefits eligibility while everyone else is eligible after 6 months is unethical?
What percent make it to 6 months? What percent to a year?
High turnover can be disastrous to your insurance rates.
You are concerned that maintaining the laborers on "temporary" status for 1 full year before benefits eligibility while everyone else is eligible after 6 months is unethical? In the state of Washington Microsoft was sued years ago for keeping employees on a "temporary basis" for years and denying them benefits and they got slammed big time. We are a small company and they are only temporary for a year.
What percent make it to 6 months (currently 72% are past six months)?
What percent to a year? (currently 44% are past the one year)?
High turnover can be disastrous to your insurance rates.
I am not concerned about treating the groups differently. My concern is calling them "temporary" for a whole year.
You are concerned that maintaining the laborers on "temporary" status for 1 full year before benefits eligibility while everyone else is eligible after 6 months is unethical? In the state of Washington Microsoft was sued years ago for keeping employees on a "temporary basis" for years and denying them benefits and they got slammed big time. We are a small company and they are only temporary for a year.
What percent make it to 6 months (currently 72% are past six months)?
What percent to a year? (currently 44% are past the one year)?
High turnover can be disastrous to your insurance rates.
I am not concerned about treating the groups differently. My concern is calling them "temporary" for a whole year.
[/quote]
I only have a rule of thumb in my head, but I will think about this some more over the holiday weekend. The rule of thumb that comes to mind is that the employer needs to fish or cut bait after 6 months.