Can an employer force you to take vacation despite hitting your 40hrs?

[LdiJ]

That is...odd, to say the least. Taxing Matters is correct when he says that this doesn't appear to be illegal.

It absolutely makes no sense. If the employees have worked 40 hours and they are sending them home after 40 hours why in the world would there be any purpose/value in making them take vacation time and paying them for it? The only purpose I could possibly see in that is to make the employees use up their vacation pay so that they cannot afford to take an actual vacation...and therefore will be available to work when they would normally be on vacation.

Other than that, it seems totally ridiculous.

 

[eerelations]

Some employers do this. This employer probably does it so that its employees don't take too much time off throughout the year - so instead of taking say, two weeks all in one or two goes, employees take the two weeks in dribs and drabs throughout the year. It doesn't really matter if it makes sense to anyone else, it's legal and that's what OP wanted to know.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I agree it is legal but in this case it is having the exact opposite effect. It is causing, no forcing, employees to take the vacation in dribs and drabs.

It is a stupid policy and one that will cost them employees in the long run and as usual in a situation like this it will cost them the better ones.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Some employers do this. This employer probably does it so that its employees don't take too much time off throughout the year - so instead of taking say, two weeks all in one or two goes, employees take the two weeks in dribs and drabs throughout the year. It doesn't really matter if it makes sense to anyone else, it's legal and that's what OP wanted to know.

If the policy is that they are to "maintain their 8 hour schedule", and someone maintained that 8 hour schedule, but refused to stay late on Thursdays... as that is not overtime, or part of the set schedule, would this affect their ability to collect unemployment when fired?

Mind you... I'm not sure if the employer has thought this through. OP worked 40 hours this week... but will get paid for over 40. Yes, OP will have to cancel his planned vacation... but that means that he's getting paid more (overall) for the hours he's worked. If instead of OP's vacation, he has to work that week, they still have to pay him. If OP has 2 weeks paid vacation a year, they cannot afford to keep him extra hours every Thursday... they'll run out of vacation time to allocate.

 

[Zigner]

If OP has 2 weeks paid vacation a year, they cannot afford to keep him extra hours every Thursday... they'll run out of vacation time to allocate.

Right - so then they send him home and he's not paid.

 

[xylene]

While it would take some courage, the op should ask / inform their manager about how this policy is affecting their personal situation and how it impacts there existing approved and pre-scheduled vacation , instead of assuming the policy is inflexible because of what happened to 'the other guy'.

Could OP ask to take unpaid vacation for one or 2 of their planned vacation days?

It is obvious that this is a pressured environment, and they are trying to create attrition and cut costs hugely... but not asking isn't exactly going to save you from the chopping block.

 

[LdiJ]

While it would take some courage, the op should ask / inform their manager about how this policy is affecting their personal situation and how it impacts there existing approved and pre-scheduled vacation , instead of assuming the policy is inflexible because of what happened to 'the other guy'.

Could OP ask to take unpaid vacation for one or 2 of their planned vacation days?

It is obvious that this is a pressured environment, and they are trying to create attrition and cut costs hugely... but not asking isn't exactly going to save you from the chopping block.

I do not see that. They have enough work that their workforce gets in their 40 hours early. It seems to me like they are trying to prevent people from taking actual vacations because they need them present.

That doesn't sound like they are trying to lose people by attrition. It doesn't sound like they are trying to lose people at all. However, I am wondering if they are one of those companies who would be better off having a 4 day workweek with everyone working 10 hours a day for 4 days. They clearly do not need a lot of people on Friday.

 

[cbg]

It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to us or not. It doesn't matter if we understand the reasoning or not. What we think about the policy is not going to change the policy. The poster can't go to his employer and force them to change the policy because a bunch of strangers on the internet don't agree with it.

The only issue before the forum is, is the policy legal? And yes, the policy is legal.

 

[eerelations]

It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to us or not. It doesn't matter if we understand the reasoning or not. What we think about the policy is not going to change the policy. The poster can't go to his employer and force them to change the policy because a bunch of strangers on the internet don't agree with it.

The only issue before the forum is, is the policy legal? And yes, the policy is legal.

Like button.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Right - so then they send him home and he's not paid.

Except he won't have the complete 40 hour "regular" schedule allocated.

 

[eerelations]

Except he won't have the complete 40 hour "regular" schedule allocated.

So what? It's still legal.

 

[not2cleverRed]

So what? It's still legal.

Didn't question the legality, just observed that the current policy can't be maintained for long. They can require everyone maintain the 8 hr/day schedule on paper, but if there's to be no overtime, and they're off-setting Thursdays late hours with vacation time on Friday - they'll have to change their policy again, after the vacation time has been used up.

My *legal* question is, hypothetically, if the company has the policy that workers have to maintain a set hr per day schedule, and OP or colleague refuse to work Thursday's extra hours (beyond 8 hours) and are consequently fired, how would this be treated when they file for unemployment?

Edit: OP's initial legal question has been answered...

 

[eerelations]

If it's an actual written and signed policy that rises to the level of a contractual agreement between the company and the employees, and the employees are fired for refusing to violate the policy, then they have at least a 50/50 chance of getting UI benefits.

However, I suspect it's not that type of policy. Outside of union CBAs, policies like this are few and far between (if indeed they exist at all). I suspect it's more like a verbal "this is how we're doing things right now" and when the employer decides to do things a little differently and employees refuse to go along with the little differently, they will be fired for insubordination. And no they won't get UI benefits, because people don't when they're insubordinate.

 

[justalayman]

Hi everybody!

To clarify, I clocked out and came home at 11. I hit my 40, and had to put the rest of the day as vacation. I've been told I'll have to do the same again next week and the two weeks after that as we will need to stay late on all the Thursdays of this month to meet the quota. This means I won't be able to use my vacation time for my actual vacation next month and I'll most likely have to cancel it.

Another thing. We get 30 minutes unpaid lunch every day. We have cameras all over (very small building), including over the clock-out machine and in the lunch room. If anyone ever clocks in or out incorrectly or not at all we usually just check the cameras and see what time we came in/out and put it in manually. We've now received an email saying that if we make any mistakes clocking in or out, we automatically receive an HOUR unpaid lunch as punishment, that way they can make us stay an extra 30 minutes at work. Basically there is a lot of work to be done, but they don't want to pay us overtime, so they find little ways around it. I often clock out then I'm asked to stay to do work while off the clock. I always refuse, but some don't.

Did y'all miss this?

While the employer is not violating the law in regards to the op, apparently they are regarding other employees.

I also wonder (as another did); what happens after accrued vacation time is exhausted? The employer seems to be so wrapped up in the employees being paid for at least 8 hours each day, what happens when vacation time runs out and there is no means to show 8 hours time on fridays where the employee has stayed late other nights? That part of their policy just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[xylene]

I also wonder (as another did); what happens after accrued vacation time is exhausted? The employer seems to be so wrapped up in the employees being paid for at least 8 hours each day, what happens when vacation time runs out and there is no means to show 8 hours time on fridays where the employee has stayed late other nights? That part of their policy just doesn't make any sense to me.

This is exactly one reason why I said this was a campaign of attrition.

This and who would stay at a job where you had no meaningful vacation?

It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to us or not. It doesn't matter if we understand the reasoning or not. What we think about the policy is not going to change the policy. The poster can't go to his employer and force them to change the policy because a bunch of strangers on the internet don't agree with it.

The only issue before the forum is, is the policy legal? And yes, the policy is legal.

This is weak sauce advice. How to proceed in the face of this o kindly internet stranger?