Can an employer pay you for 7hrs even if you worked 8?

[eejit]

Texas.

Posted in here a few weeks back about an issue with HR forcing us to use up our vacation time despite hitting our maximum allowance of 40hrs per week.

New question (I'll try to be as brief as possible):

We get 30 minutes for lunch. If we forget to clock out for lunch or clock back in after lunch, we get an automatic hour out for lunch (doesn't matter if we only took 30 minutes). There are cameras that we normally use to check what time someone clocks in/out if they have a problem, it takes less than 2 minutes to do, but they're not allowing that anymore; it's an automatic hour out, no matter what time we really took.

They've also said that if we forget to clock in in the morning, or out at the end of the day, we will only get 7hrs even if we have worked our full 8. This is punishment for negligence, is basically what they've said. Doesn't matter that there are sometimes issues with the machine when we're clocking in our out...

Is this allowed? I thought you had to be paid for the full time that you're there, no matter what? I've had co-workers work for 8hrs, forget to clock out, come back into work to sort it out and they've been told "No, we're not checking the cameras to verify your claim, so you'll only be paid for 7hrs." I should add that this is a VERY small company, everybody knows each other, and everybody knows what time each person arrives and leaves so they know that a person has been there for 8.5hrs but is only getting paid for 7.

 

[drruthless]

Texas.

Posted in here a few weeks back about an issue with HR forcing us to use up our vacation time despite hitting our maximum allowance of 40hrs per week.

New question (I'll try to be as brief as possible):

We get 30 minutes for lunch. If we forget to clock out for lunch or clock back in after lunch, we get an automatic hour out for lunch (doesn't matter if we only took 30 minutes). There are cameras that we normally use to check what time someone clocks in/out if they have a problem, it takes less than 2 minutes to do, but they're not allowing that anymore; it's an automatic hour out, no matter what time we really took.

They've also said that if we forget to clock in in the morning, or out at the end of the day, we will only get 7hrs even if we have worked our full 8. This is punishment for negligence, is basically what they've said. Doesn't matter that there are sometimes issues with the machine when we're clocking in our out...

Is this allowed? I thought you had to be paid for the full time that you're there, no matter what? I've had co-workers work for 8hrs, forget to clock out, come back into work to sort it out and they've been told "No, we're not checking the cameras to verify your claim, so you'll only be paid for 7hrs." I should add that this is a VERY small company, everybody knows each other, and everybody knows what time each person arrives and leaves so they know that a person has been there for 8.5hrs but is only getting paid for 7.

General speaking and barring any CBA to the contrary you should get paid for the
time you start working not when you walk through the door...
If I were you I'd be a little more diligent following the rules if you want to get paid correctly.

 

[LdiJ]

Texas.

Posted in here a few weeks back about an issue with HR forcing us to use up our vacation time despite hitting our maximum allowance of 40hrs per week.

New question (I'll try to be as brief as possible):

We get 30 minutes for lunch. If we forget to clock out for lunch or clock back in after lunch, we get an automatic hour out for lunch (doesn't matter if we only took 30 minutes). There are cameras that we normally use to check what time someone clocks in/out if they have a problem, it takes less than 2 minutes to do, but they're not allowing that anymore; it's an automatic hour out, no matter what time we really took.

They've also said that if we forget to clock in in the morning, or out at the end of the day, we will only get 7hrs even if we have worked our full 8. This is punishment for negligence, is basically what they've said. Doesn't matter that there are sometimes issues with the machine when we're clocking in our out...

Is this allowed? I thought you had to be paid for the full time that you're there, no matter what? I've had co-workers work for 8hrs, forget to clock out, come back into work to sort it out and they've been told "No, we're not checking the cameras to verify your claim, so you'll only be paid for 7hrs." I should add that this is a VERY small company, everybody knows each other, and everybody knows what time each person arrives and leaves so they know that a person has been there for 8.5hrs but is only getting paid for 7.

No, they really cannot do either of those things. However, they will continue to do those things until someone makes a complaint to the DOL.

In the meantime, the employees need to be diligent with clocking in and out.

 

[justalayman]

The employer is also free to discipline the employee for the failure to clock in or out. The employer cannot refuse to pay for all hours worked but they can suspend or terminate the employee.

 

[eejit]

No, they really cannot do either of those things. However, they will continue to do those things until someone makes a complaint to the DOL.

In the meantime, the employees need to be diligent with clocking in and out.

Got it. We have a non-compete and I'm looking for a job elsewhere. Do you think this would be ground to get around the non-compete?

 

[LdiJ]

Got it. We have a non-compete and I'm looking for a job elsewhere. Do you think this would be ground to get around the non-compete?

Non competes are notoriously hard to enforce in the best of circumstances. Take yours to a local attorney and have them review it and give you an opinion.

Edit to add:

I just re-read your previous thread and you work in a medical facility. How can a medical facility force you to sign a non-compete? I don't see how they can possibly make that stick.

 

[eejit]

Non competes are notoriously hard to enforce in the best of circumstances. Take yours to a local attorney and have them review it and give you an opinion.

Edit to add:

I just re-read your previous thread and you work in a medical facility. How can a medical facility force you to sign a non-compete? I don't see how they can possibly make that stick.

I work in processing and we create patented products. Their concern is that I will go to work at another processing facility and will use my knowledge on the products we have made to create similar products there, which then can be sold to our clients at a competitive price (since we charge a lot but are the only place offering that particular product).

 

[LdiJ]

I work in processing and we create patented products. Their concern is that I will go to work at another processing facility and will use my knowledge on the products we have made to create similar products there, which then can be sold to our clients at a competitive price (since we charge a lot but are the only place offering that particular product).

What are the details of the non-compete? Length of time and distance?

 

[eejit]

What are the details of the non-compete? Length of time and distance?

We were never given copies, but I believe it's 2 years and is worldwide (ridiculous, I know). I'm aware there's no way they'd be able to enforce a worldwide no-compete, but I had a co-worker apply for a job in the same city (I live in a major metropolitan area) and he was told he couldn't work within a 50 mile radius, so I would have to relocate just to get another job doing what I do now.

 

[xylene]

We were never given copies, but I believe it's 2 years and is worldwide (ridiculous, I know). I'm aware there's no way they'd be able to enforce a worldwide no-compete, but I had a co-worker apply for a job in the same city (I live in a major metropolitan area) and he was told he couldn't work within a 50 mile radius, so I would have to relocate just to get another job doing what I do now.

He was told "he couldn't work within a 50 mile radius" by whom?

 

[eejit]

He was told "he couldn't work within a 50 mile radius" by whom?

The company he interviewed with said they were aware that our company has a no-compete, and that he'd have to get their go ahead to be hired at a competing company because they didn't want to have to deal with him violating a no-compete if they fought him over it. He asked and they told him that, yes, the no-compete said "worldwide" but they would only fight him over violating it if he was within 50 miles, so one year later he is still with us as he couldn't take that job.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

We were never given copies, but I believe it's 2 years and is worldwide (ridiculous, I know). I'm aware there's no way they'd be able to enforce a worldwide no-compete, but I had a co-worker apply for a job in the same city (I live in a major metropolitan area) and he was told he couldn't work within a 50 mile radius, so I would have to relocate just to get another job doing what I do now.

If it actually says "worldwide" you shouldn't have too much trouble getting it thrown out. Talk to a lawyer familiar with the issue.

 

[eejit]

If it actually says "worldwide" you shouldn't have too much trouble getting it thrown out. Talk to a lawyer familiar with the issue.

Just an update on that. Around 3 co-workers accepted jobs at a building close by a couple of weeks ago, and all of them were reported by our HR to the big boss overlord, and now they're being told they'll be taken to court. They take the non-compete very seriously here.

 

[LdiJ]

Just an update on that. Around 3 co-workers accepted jobs at a building close by a couple of weeks ago, and all of them were reported by our HR to the big boss overlord, and now they're being told they'll be taken to court. They take the non-compete very seriously here.

They may take it very seriously but they have to convince a judge to agree with them. There is absolutely no guarantee that a judge would agree with them and some indication that they are way overbroad.

9 times out of 10 the employer hopes to intimidate people so that they never have to go in front of a judge.

 

[eejit]

They may take it very seriously but they have to convince a judge to agree with them. There is absolutely no guarantee that a judge would agree with them and some indication that they are way overbroad.

9 times out of 10 the employer hopes to intimidate people so that they never have to go in front of a judge.

Supposedly they've already won against multiple people who tried to get employed at similar companies (the worldwide part didn't hold up, but they were granted a 50km radius for their non-compete). This wasn't at my particular facility though, this was at another facility of theirs up north.