Let me start by stating that I'm well-aware that this type of thing goes on all the time, but I don't know if other companies take favoritism to the same extent as my current employer has.

Here's the situation: My company recently allowed the HR manager to install time clock software on the PCs of every non-exempt employee in both the LA HQ and in the SF branch office where I work. This was done because the HR manager (who works out of the So. Cal office)suspected that some of the employees in the No. Cal office weren't working full 8-hour days, or were putting in unauthorized overtime, or just not taking their mandated-after-5-hours-of-work lunch breaks. The HR manager has been extremely strict about all of those issues with the employees in the No. Cal office and always makes a much-bigger-than-warranted deal about it when one of the SF employees forgets to clock in or out.

What the HR manager has neglected to realize is that anyone who has the time clock program installed on their PC is able to click on the name of ANY employee in both offices and see what time they've clocked in or out. Just as an experiment, I've been keeping records of the comings and goings of the employees who work in the LA office - just to see if they're adhering to the same stringent standards as the HR manager demands of those of us in the SF office.

Long story, well, long, the employees who work in the LA HQ, (the vast majority of whom have jobs with the exact same titles, descriptions and 8-hour-day requirement as those of us who work in SF) AREN'T working full 8 hour days, or are working full days without clocking in & out for lunch and a number of them frequently neglect to sign in or out altogether.

Are employers permitted to hold two employees who have the same job title, but work in different locations within the same state, to two different sets of rules like this? The boss in my office knows that I'm keeping track of the LA office's employees & has told me to keep doing so because like me, he suspects that the HR manager is going to try to use the information recorded by the time clock program (i.e., when someone forgets to sign in/out) against certain employees in the SF office to ultimately get those people fired, while continuing to allow the exact same thing to continue going on, unabated & unpunished, in the LA office. If/when that happens, my boss here in SF wants to be "loaded for bear" with my records of the LA employees' consistent lack of compliance with the strict, 'no-mistakes-allowed' stance that the HR manager has imposed on those of us working in the SF office.

Anyone's expertise on this would be greatly appreciated.

Although it's only fair that the work rules apply to all employees or non-discriminatorily defined classes of employees in all locations, there is no law that says that this must be true. If TPTB want to be more strict than other offices, they are certainly within their rights to impose such rules and expect the employees to abide by them.

California law requires an accurate record of time be kept for all (especially) nonexempt employees. If your HR Dept. has decided that time-reporting software on your PC is the way he/she wants to do that, it's his/her decision to make. The fact that you can see other employees' time records is irrelevant; that would be no different than if each employee signed in/out on a departmental combined time sheet, for example.

And honestly, if I found you searching the database for other employees' time, I would not be a happy HR person. I think your manager is putting you in a very precarious position; if your boss wants to play this game, let him do it himself.

Are employers permitted to hold two employees who have the same job title, but work in different locations within the same state, to two different sets of rules like this? Yes. It may not be good business practice but it's not illegal.

The boss in my office knows that I'm keeping track of the LA office's employees & has told me to keep doing so because like me, he suspects that the HR manager is going to try to use the information recorded by the time clock program (i.e., when someone forgets to sign in/out) against certain employees in the SF office to ultimately get those people fired, while continuing to allow the exact same thing to continue going on, unabated & unpunished, in the LA office. If/when that happens, my boss here in SF wants to be "loaded for bear" with my records of the LA employees' consistent lack of compliance with the strict, 'no-mistakes-allowed' stance that the HR manager has imposed on those of us working in the SF office. Um, I have a feeling your boss is setting you up to be the sacrificial lamb here. I rather doubt HR/senior management is going to be pleased AT ALL that someone with no authority to monitor other employees' comings and goings has taken it upon himself to do so. If you boss wants this information, HE should be doing the checking, not you. If the stuff hits the fan on these monitoring activities, your boss quite likely will point the finger at you and you'll be a gonner.

I can't help but think you've volunteered to be the scapegoat. Besides, none of the things you're monitoring are any of your business, frustrating and unfair though they may be.

I am responding only to the legal aspect of your question, not the ethical or the moral angles.

An employer may legally hold employees to a different standard, as long as the differentiation is not based on a protected characteristic. They could not allow all men to violate the policy but not any of the women; they could not allow the Asian employees to violate it but prohibit the Hispanic employees; they could not allow everyone under 40 to violate it but not anyone over 40.

However, which office you work in is not a protected characteristic. So they can legally allow the LA office to violate the policy but hold the SF employees to the exact letter of the "law".

[I]Um, I have a feeling your boss is setting you up to be the sacrificial lamb here. I rather doubt HR/senior management is going to be pleased AT ALL that someone with no authority to monitor other employees' comings and goings has taken it upon himself to do so. If you boss wants this information, HE should be doing the checking, not you. If the stuff hits the fan on these monitoring activities, your boss quite likely will point the finger at you and you'll be a gonner.

I can't help but think you've volunteered to be the scapegoat. Besides, none of the things you're monitoring are any of your business, frustrating and unfair though they may be.

Jinx, Beth. :D You owe me a Coke.

You just said it better than I did.

Interesting. Do any of you think that it would reflect more poorly on the HR manager's lack of attention to the fact that the time clock program she chose allows anyone to view anyone else's hours, than it would on the attentive employee who noticed that no privacy/security measures were implemented to prevent this exact scenario?

My own, admittedly biased perspective on this is that I'm not violating any company policy or misusing the time clock program when I use it to track and record the hours of the LA office's employees. Anyone who took the time to familiarize themselves with the program would've been able to figure this out the same way that I did - its just that I'm apparently the only person who has.

As far as my boss pointing the finger of blame at me if the HR manager were to discover what I've been doing, I may be painfully naive, but I just don't see that happening for a number of reasons. I trust my boss implicitly - he's always had my back in the past and the HR manager is far too deeply ensconced in oblivion for it to even occur to her that something like this might be happening.

You perspective is wrong.

Just because you can perform and action doesn't mean you should or are allowed to.

You know you shouldn't be doing this, and that is why you told your boss.

Look at the bright side... you just saved the job of everyone in your office except your own. That should be worth SOMETHING to the other guys on the unemployment line.