Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re: asking more of one employee than another California

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: asking more of one employee than another California

    For clarification, the 2 stores are in same town less than 5miles apart. All employees sign the same exact paperwork as I do the orientation and paperwork for both stores. The company is incorporated and supplies each employee with a copy of the employee handbook as well as have 1 posted on the wall at all times in both locations.
    The implementation of the policies is not met at the other store. Not whatsoever. There are also no consequences at the other location either.

    Now, why this thread was locked im not sure, but I feel it has to do with a relationship issue between the mod and someone else, On that note I do not see why my question/thread should be closed. While his advice was not neccisarily what I would choose to do, it in fact is something I would never do, however it was 100% more helpful than "deal with it or quit"

    tHANKS for not locking this thread!

  • #2
    The prior thread was locked because it was not generating anything more than yes it is/no it isn't. That was not helpful to anyone, particularly not to you.

    I'm not sure what additional information you're looking for, but I will have no need to lock it if everyone who participates is willing to behave themselves. And everyone involved knows what I mean by that.

    I should add that you are always free to ask an employment attorney if you feel that the answers a message board are giving you are incomplete or incorrect. You should never use a message board as the be-all and end-all of legal advice; it's always possible (and I have seen it happen) that you could be omitting a fact that you forgot or did not think was important, and which changed the answer all around.
    Last edited by cbg; 04-19-2010, 03:26 PM.
    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

    Comment


    • #3
      And personal attacks are not allowed, and you know it well.
      The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

      Comment


      • #4
        Not to argue with you, however his "questionable" suggestion got me more information than anything else.
        As Far as generating, It informed me that I do have the right to organize my employees and it also informed me of the consequences. Maybe I missed something in the thread but All i read was helpful to me. He is right, there are lots of laws and lots of court decisions about this and since only I know all the details and it is impossible to relay them all to this forum, I find every single option educational and useful as Im not a lawyer.
        Let me reiterate, I have no desire to screw the owner over, I can easily do so with just ME being involved, I have an extremely good job offer and want to take it, and will regardless, however I am trying to find something to wake this guy up as to the unfairness and possible illegality of his actions. (concerning my crew)

        Let me ask this theoretical question. (Actually happened allot of times)
        He (the owner) will allow me to terminate one employee without question., while he will make me give the other employee 100 second chances. He does not even implement the "no call no show policy" unilaterally. One person gets fired while the other will get a slap on the wrist, while another may receive a final write up. What he bases this on is unknown. Is this in anyway illegal?

        Comment


        • #5
          It is not illegal per se. It might be illegal depending on his reasoning and whether or not his decisions as to who is and who isn't terminated creates an adverse impact on employees of a characteristic protected by law.
          The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

          Comment


          • #6
            not arguing, asking for clarification.

            He can pick and choose which rules/policies to follow, for any reason he wants. AS LONG AS ITS not "Race, creed, color, ect......"
            ??????

            Comment


            • #7
              More or less. That's a simplification, but that's the general gist.

              They're HIS policies and HIS rules. He is not bound by them in the same way that the employees are. As long as he doesn 't violate the law, he can pick and choose how he wants to handle many situations.

              And to a certain extent, I agree with that being allowed by law. While I'm not saying that this is the case here (I have no way of knowing one way or another), let's consider a hypothetical situation. Say there's a rule that if you have three unexcused tardies in a certain span of time, you get fired. (Extreme, I know, but it makes it easy to make the point.) We have two employees who have three unexcused tardies in that time frame. However, in Fred's case, he overslept all three times, whereas in Al's case, one time he was caught behind an overturned truck; once he came straight from the emergency room having taken his wife there overnight for a case of food poisoning and didn't get free till five minutes after he was due in; and once he had a flat tire two miles away from work. Would it not be fair to simply give Al a warning rather than fire him, even if you fired Fred?
              The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

              Comment


              • #8
                Also, for any possible Corp. Lawyers. Is there corp. law that may apply here since he is incorporated himself on his multiple locations, as well as the parent Corp. that we franchise from.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by cbg View Post
                  More or less. That's a simplification, but that's the general gist.

                  They're HIS policies and HIS rules. He is not bound by them in the same way that the employees are. As long as he doesn 't violate the law, he can pick and choose how he wants to handle many situations.

                  And to a certain extent, I agree with that being allowed by law. While I'm not saying that this is the case here (I have no way of knowing one way or another), let's consider a hypothetical situation. Say there's a rule that if you have three unexcused tardies in a certain span of time, you get fired. (Extreme, I know, but it makes it easy to make the point.) We have two employees who have three unexcused tardies in that time frame. However, in Fred's case, he overslept all three times, whereas in Al's case, one time he was caught behind an overturned truck; once he came straight from the emergency room having taken his wife there overnight for a case of food poisoning and didn't get free till five minutes after he was due in; and once he had a flat tire two miles away from work. Would it not be fair to simply give Al a warning rather than fire him, even if you fired Fred?

                  Yes I understand completely the reasoning behind this it just sucks in this situation because that is not at all the case here. The employees being given chances are bottom of the barrel, extremely so!
                  On that note I understand squeaky wheel gets the grease., but this guy paid the slowest, worst, crappiest employee more than my best due to the fact she wouldn't STFU and stop complaining about her pay. I also believe it has to do with the fact that the other store is on his side of town, of which all the employees are financially well off due to parents or whatever. He just treats that store 300% differently than the other and it performs -300% than the other. There has got to be some protection against this guy doing this other than he will fail in a few years due to his poor business practices.!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    All I can suggest is that you consult with an attorney. It is not inherently illegal to treat the employees of one store differently than those of another as long as no specific laws are violated.
                    The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by cbg View Post
                      More or less. That's a simplification, but that's the general gist.

                      They're HIS policies and HIS rules. He is not bound by them in the same way that the employees are. As long as he doesn 't violate the law, he can pick and choose how he wants to handle many situations.

                      We have two employees who have three unexcused tardies in that time frame.......................... Would it not be fair to simply give Al a warning rather than fire him, even if you fired Fred?
                      On this same note......
                      Hey Bob, I like you, You may receive a discount on your bottle drink today.
                      Hey Mike, I dislike you, You may not receive a discount on your bottle drink today.
                      Yet they both worked and are of the same status, pay, everything, same shift, just lets say everything is identical., Can he really really really do that legally?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        As I said, it is not inherently illegal. We'd have to know more about the employees and the situation to give you an absolute yes or no on each specific instance.
                        The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I know I am seemingly searching for something in my favor, and I kinda am. I know he is wrong and I know that if enough questions are asked and I provide enough information that he is in some way violating the law.
                          In the case of the discount., Lets pretend they are twins, both 23 y.o. white guys working exact everything,., Not one detail different, exact same employee evaluation comments, exact same hire date, exact everything. Can he legally say one may have a discount and not the other?

                          Thanks for any further help or ideas in the matter, I will answer any questions asking for more details.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Based on the hypothetical in your most recent post, yes, in those circumstances he absolutely could offer a discount to one and not the other.

                            If, however, one was a member of a protected group and one was not, and a review of his decisions showed that the discounts NEVER went to the one who was black/white/hispanic/Jewish/Muslim/Arab/German/over forty and the discount ALWAYS went to the one who was white/black/not hispanic/Christian/Jewish/Israeli/French/under 40, THEN we are talking adverse impact and THEN we are looking at illegality.
                            The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              WOW. OK. Then this guy is untouchable. There is absolutely no logic to it. He picks and chooses at what I can tell in the last 5 years with the roll of dice.............................................. .......................................... Any corp law people got an idea?

                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X