After the 90 day "probationary" period my employer "decided" that I would be the ONLY one of almost 200 employees, working over 48 hours weekly that would NOT GET sick nor vacation time, all others do.

Additionally, they have been requiring that I stay after my normal 12 hour shift to allow the "part time" person to come in later because he has trouble getting to work on time.

Any of this questionable enough to report to get changed and where to?

thank for any advise.

Links with proof on answers would sure help.

If you had to guess, why would you say that you are being singled out for this treatment?

Without a doubt. I was "told" when hired, that my benefits were this and this and this. Unfortunately I did NOT request it all in writting other than getting a handbook.

ALL other employees are required to show up on time.....even other part time employees. This one "doesn't want to get up that early" so I am required to stay over 2.5 hours making it a 14.5 hour shift and driving home 25 min at 6 AM.

I HAVE insurance and 401k but am told "they have no one else to cover night shift" therefor I CANNOT take sick nor vacation time, even though the hand book clearly lists benefits for full time employees. I am the ONLY employee with that distinction.

I went to Human Resources recently and gave them a written request for this to be reconsidered. The result was the "part time" guy working tuesday thru Friday day shift for inventory, and I got the two remaining night shifts of 12 hours and 7.5 hours on saturday. He will have approx 48 hrs in, and part time. I am full time....I will have 31.5 but this week only.

It's hard to say what will arrise again next week. As is the PART TIME guy will be working 5-12 hour days in a row, so I KNOW I will be required to stay over on nights again till another part time guy is hired.

Btw.....part time guys work days, I am NOT allowed to go to day shift, even though the full time day shift guy retired.

I am looking for other work, immediately but need anyone who knows to give me any input they can.

thanks again

You didn't answer my question, and I asked it for a reason. It affects what, if any, recourse you have.

The WHY


is this.

Rules my position includes and are in writting.....are to NOT let employees or supervisors leave without punching out on the time clock.

The "repeated offender' is the sponser of my supervisors grandson's race car and many employees have warned me that I will get in trouble asking that particular person to follow rules, in writing or not.

This all started after several attempts of going to my supervisor and nothing being done. After going to HR and the plant owner.......this all started.


Sorry about misreading your post......Im a BIT honked off.

Thanks

Does the repeat offender report to you? Are you in any way responsible for him or his work?

No. He does not.

My directives are to stop anyone from entering the building without purpose and to stop anyone from leaving on the clock and/or with items not approved by management.

thanks

Okay. I think you've gotten yourself between a rock and a hard place here.

Neither sick time nor vacation time is a benefit required under the law. Nor is an employer required by any law to allow any given employee to take any paid leave time at any particular time. It is quite legal to refuse to grant time off, especially vacation time. (There are some, isolated instances, in which you must be allowed to use sick time, but we don't have any way of knowing, before the fact, if those instances will apply. Or even if you qualify for them.)

Again, except for very isolated, state and industry specific industries, no law governs the length of your shift.

The reason I was so insistant on the reason is that you cannot be singled out for adverse treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic; age, race, religion, national origin etc. There are also some other protected practices such as taking FMLA, taking a workers comp claim, reporting illegal (underline, illegal, not in violation of company policy) activity to the appropriate regulatory agency. But it is not illegal to refuse your vacation time because they're mad at you for reporting someone they don't want to discipline.

I'm afraid I don't have an answer for you, unless it's either to allow the sponsor to slide on the rules without reporting him, or looking for other work. I agree that you're in a bad position; I don't agree with how they're handling it, and you have every right to be upset. But I don't see any legal violations here.

I understand your reply but there SHOULD be a law about ALL BUT ONE employee having the same benefits.......at least.

I appreciate your time.

thanks

Just to make sure we're both on the same page and not talking semantics, let's be clear.

I read your post to mean that you are still accruing vacation and sick time, just not allowed to take it. Which is legal.

But in your last post, I read it that you are not even accruing vacation time; you are not getting it AT ALL.

Which reading is correct?

I am not allowed to accumulate OR use sick or vacation time, but have 401k and all insurances.

They do not exist, period. And a repeat, I am the ONLY employee (that works over 40 hours / week) that does not have them.

Also...for those who DO get sick and vacation time, I'm a bit confused on that if they can stop them from taking them?? If not used, they are erased annually for the rest of the plant. They do not accumulate.

thanks for any help.

Here's the differences between sick time, vacation time, and 401k/insurances:

NONE of these benefits is required by law. However, there is a law, ERISA, that govern how a 401k plan and all the various insurance plans are handled IF the employer chooses to offer them. So IF the employer chooses to offer a 401k plan, ALL employees who meet the eligibility requirements MUST be offered access to it. The employee can choose not to take it, but if an otherwise-eligible employee is not offered access, the employer would be in violation of the law and the entire plan, for everyone, could be shut down and the employer's right to offer a 401k plan withdrawn. The US government keeps a very close eye on how tax-deferred plans are handled and such plans are audited frequently.

Medical plans also are not required by law in any state but Hawaii. But IF the employer chooses to offer a medical plan, or a disability plan, or a dental plan, or any other insurance plan, the same applies. ALL employees who are eligible must be offered access to the plan, and the employer would be in violation of ERISA if an eligible employee was refused access. This is particularly true if the plan is under a Section 125 plan, which almost all are nowadays, because again we're looking at tax issues (under a 125 plan, your share of the premiums are deducted pre-tax, not post tax). These plans too, are subject to frequent scrutiny and audit.

But vacation and sick time are, in 99.999% of the time, not subject to ERISA or any other law. The closest we come to any laws governing vacation or sick time is that in SOME (but by no means all) states, any earned but unused vacation time has to be paid out at termination (though the law does not require that vacation be offered at all) and exempt employees (this applies ONLY to exempt employees, not non-exempt employees) cannot be docked for missing time due to illness UNLESS a reasonable number of paid sick days are offered. But by and large, how and whether vacation or sick days are offered is entirely up to the employer.

An employee cannot be singled out for reasons that are discriminatory (i.e., you cannot be singled out not to receive a benefit because of your race, your age, your gender, your national origin, etc.) But your problem is that you're not being singled out because of a protected characteristic; you're being singled out because your employer is mad at you. And that is not illegal.

With regards to not being allowed to take vacation or sick time, that's a different issue. Many employees mistakenly have the idea that because vacation or sick time is THEIR time, they can take it whenever they please and the employer has no right to deny the use of time. This is just not true. An employer has no legal obligation to allow an employee to take vacation or sick time at a time that is inconvenient to an employer. To provide an obvious example, suppose you are a tax preparer. If your employer wants to say (and many of them actually do say) that you can't take any vacation or sick time between January 1 and April 15, that's entirely legal. You don't have any constitutional or God-given right to take vacation whenever you like, and your employer can control that. So even if you were accruing time, he could still say, no, you can't take vacation next week. And you would be subject to disciplinary action or even termination, if you took vacation next week anyway. And it would be entirely legal.

There are some exceptions with regards to sick time; there are a few instances when the employer has no option and must allow you to take sick time. But those exceptions only apply in the case of serious illness that qualifies for protected medical leave, and even in those instances it's entirely legal for the time to be unpaid.

I don't like your not being allowed to accrue time at all, but in the circumstances you describe I honestly can't think of a single law that's being violated. It's not illegal discrimination, because it's not for an illegally discriminatory reason. It's not a violation of ERISA, because vacation and sick time are not subject to ERISA. There's not even a FMLA violation because you aren't trying to take any protected medical leave. The DOL isn't going to help you because there's no law that you have to be granted vacation time or sick time in the first place. The EEOC isn't going to help you because there's no illegal discrimination involved. The only thing I can suggest is that if you have a friend who is an attorney, or if you want to invest in a consultation fee (many give free or low cost consulations) a letter from an attorney might shake some accrued time loose. But again, there's no legal obligation for him to approve your taking time. The only benefit to doing this would be that you are in a state that, while there is no statute requiring the payout of vacation time at termination, there is case law to that effect. So you'd have to be paid it out when you leave. Which, for your sake, I hope is soon.

As I understand it then, the employeer (or rather in this case the supervisor) can decide who gets benefits and who doesn't.......if there isn't anything but his personal preferences used for deciding.

No "past practices" regulations take effect, refering to ALL OTHER full time emplyees get these benefits but myself.

Since I am white......I cannot claim race discrimination (which seems discriminatory in itself).

The supervisor CAN work me 16 hrs a day ( or 4 if he wishtes), no breaks, no vacation, no sick time, less benefits, regardless of what the rest of the plant does.??

We might as well have NO regulations if this is the case.

I appreciate your time.......I will be looking for employment somewhere else. Hopefully it will be before I lose what little I have.

thanks

It's not because you're white that you can't claim discrimination. Until you just told me, I didn't know what race you are. It's because he's not refusing you benefits BECAUSE you're white. Race discrimination is race discrimination no matter what the race. It's just as illegal to deny someone benefits because you're white, as it would be because you were black, or hispanic, or asian. But that isn't what's happening here. He's not denying you benefits because of your race; therefore, it isn 't racial discrimination.

I'm not 100% convinced he can do this. It's just that because no specific law is being violated, I'm at a loss to know where to advise you to go with regards to regulatory agencies. That's why I recommended talking to an attorney.