Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Find another job asap. The boss sounds like a nightmare. Or he really just wants to push this person out. If she is a woman and treated differently from other employees without kids or who are male, she might want to see about a lawsuit.
Not a woman, but this behavior by the boss pushes the female partner in the relationship to be responsible for more of the childcare when they would otherwise have a 50/50 split. Because of this, the female partner is being passed over in her job, as well.
Wait- what? Why would the boss' behavior disadvantage a woman but not a man?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Find another job asap. The boss sounds like a nightmare. Or he really just wants to push this person out. If she is a woman and treated differently from other employees without kids or who are male, she might want to see about a lawsuit.
Not a woman, but this behavior by the boss pushes the female partner in the relationship to be responsible for more of the childcare when they would otherwise have a 50/50 split. Because of this, the female partner is being passed over in her job, as well.
Anonymous wrote:Funny i look st a salary as you pay me x to get my job done in a one year period.
If I work late or Sunday and take off a few hours during the week it all is a wash in the end. As long as I do my job.
That’s the way salary should work.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. Am i the only one that sort of feels like they can understand where the boss is coming from? If work ends at 6 but an employee leaves every day for a week at 4:30, that’s 7.5 hours of time, which is basically a workday. Apart from the burned half hour, whats the objection to using 8 hours of PTO?
Not trying to be inflammatory, just curious. Maybe I don’t get the whole exempt non-exempt thing or maybe I don’t have the same sort of job as you all.
The issue is when the employer happily expects employees to work late to meet deadlines but won't extend that flexibility to the employee when the employee needs it. OP said the employee was working in the evening to complete their work and there was no business impact due to leaving early, this was just an employer being a pain.
Except that most employees can't see past the end of their nose so they, in fact, have no idea whether or not their leaving early has an impact on the rest of the business.
I actually think it's employers that can't see that they should be focusing on the results people are achieving rather than the hours they are clocking. If all you do is focus on the hours, you end up with a bunch of underperforming clock watchers. If you focus on "are you getting the work done and doing it well?" you realize that the hours don't matter anywhere near as much as US employers think they do.
I work on a global team so everyone is working different hours but we focus on people achieving results not a set number of hours a day so it works just fine.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So which is it, OP, exempt or non-exempt? Different rules.
I think the employer says exempt, but I believe the employee is misclassified. Trying to find original offer letter.
Doesn't matter if the original offer letter does state exempt, the classification could still be wrong.
I am aware, but then we would have to alert the DOL, which is a fight that no one has the appetite for at the moment.
Why not just point out to whoever is in charge of classification that it is wrong and let them fix it or show you why it is right? Why run to litigation?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. Am i the only one that sort of feels like they can understand where the boss is coming from? If work ends at 6 but an employee leaves every day for a week at 4:30, that’s 7.5 hours of time, which is basically a workday. Apart from the burned half hour, whats the objection to using 8 hours of PTO?
Not trying to be inflammatory, just curious. Maybe I don’t get the whole exempt non-exempt thing or maybe I don’t have the same sort of job as you all.
The issue is when the employer happily expects employees to work late to meet deadlines but won't extend that flexibility to the employee when the employee needs it. OP said the employee was working in the evening to complete their work and there was no business impact due to leaving early, this was just an employer being a pain.
Quoted poster. I see. I guess I just missed that OP finishes working from home in the evening. I think I agree with the consensus then, but it doesn’t strike me as totally self-evident, given that the higher-ups thought it important to set core business hours for the employees, and it’s not like employees get input into decisions like that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So which is it, OP, exempt or non-exempt? Different rules.
I think the employer says exempt, but I believe the employee is misclassified. Trying to find original offer letter.
Doesn't matter if the original offer letter does state exempt, the classification could still be wrong.
I am aware, but then we would have to alert the DOL, which is a fight that no one has the appetite for at the moment.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. Am i the only one that sort of feels like they can understand where the boss is coming from? If work ends at 6 but an employee leaves every day for a week at 4:30, that’s 7.5 hours of time, which is basically a workday. Apart from the burned half hour, whats the objection to using 8 hours of PTO?
Not trying to be inflammatory, just curious. Maybe I don’t get the whole exempt non-exempt thing or maybe I don’t have the same sort of job as you all.
The issue is when the employer happily expects employees to work late to meet deadlines but won't extend that flexibility to the employee when the employee needs it. OP said the employee was working in the evening to complete their work and there was no business impact due to leaving early, this was just an employer being a pain.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. Am i the only one that sort of feels like they can understand where the boss is coming from? If work ends at 6 but an employee leaves every day for a week at 4:30, that’s 7.5 hours of time, which is basically a workday. Apart from the burned half hour, whats the objection to using 8 hours of PTO?
Not trying to be inflammatory, just curious. Maybe I don’t get the whole exempt non-exempt thing or maybe I don’t have the same sort of job as you all.
The issue is when the employer happily expects employees to work late to meet deadlines but won't extend that flexibility to the employee when the employee needs it. OP said the employee was working in the evening to complete their work and there was no business impact due to leaving early, this was just an employer being a pain.
Except that most employees can't see past the end of their nose so they, in fact, have no idea whether or not their leaving early has an impact on the rest of the business.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:NP. Am i the only one that sort of feels like they can understand where the boss is coming from? If work ends at 6 but an employee leaves every day for a week at 4:30, that’s 7.5 hours of time, which is basically a workday. Apart from the burned half hour, whats the objection to using 8 hours of PTO?
Not trying to be inflammatory, just curious. Maybe I don’t get the whole exempt non-exempt thing or maybe I don’t have the same sort of job as you all.
The issue is when the employer happily expects employees to work late to meet deadlines but won't extend that flexibility to the employee when the employee needs it. OP said the employee was working in the evening to complete their work and there was no business impact due to leaving early, this was just an employer being a pain.