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


No announcement yet.


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

  • #16
    I'd like to start off by hoping that everyone had a wonderful celebration of our nation's independence. We should all thank whatever God we believe in (if any) and count our fortunes that allow us to live in a country where we can freely discuss and research matters of importance to us.

    OK a Q&A board - thanks for informing on what I could not find in the FAQ. As I have previously stated I had only hoped to initiate discourse about this issue. I don't believe that promoting meaningful discussion would reduce this forum to a "chat" room. If as you say this is not a discussion forum but instead a Q&A for legal questions I'll pose these questions. I think we can all agree that given the wording of the law there is no doubt that this action is illegal so that is not part of any question at this point.

    In your close to 30 years in HR management and related fields have you ever heard of an employer suddenly change their definition of paid vacation time to read what this corporation has said with the intent of what can only be assumed as a maneuver to side step labor laws?

    How can vacation benefits be defined as to not being earned or accrued when there is a paid vacation policy based on years of service that clearly increments and builds as the year progresses? Within Illinois State code there exists language that defines how paid vacation time accumulates.

    Is there a legal precedent that would provide for this artful handling of these definitions that can be applied to the states whose labor laws clearly restrict this? Or is this in fact the first time that any employer has tried to do this? I've never heard of it before but I defer to your experience in the field for any information you may provide. If it is I would think that there are many interested parties on both sides of this issue that have a vested interest in how this will develop. If you still provide HR consulting services I have to believe that you would be particularly interested.

    Put yourself in the HR managers position at this company and try to plan how you can spin this new policy decision so all of your employees don't stand up on their hind legs in protest. In your conferences with upper management do you bring up the obvious impact of this sort of decision resulting in less than enthusiastic employees? How do you answer the state DOL letters that start arriving at your desk reminding you of how the laws apply to your company? I obviously do not ask these questions expecting an answer from you but only to provoke thought on your part that might lead you to a potential legal strategy that my employer has in mind. I hope that you can remain objective and not worry about giving secrets to the "enemy" as I still feel this forum is less than sympathetic towards the worker bees that support the hive. Previous responses from a contributing member here and in other threads indicate a rush to judgment that show a tendency towards "defending the company line" even when the company is unknown and is clearly in the wrong. Both replies to this thread were especially revealing given the fact that this person had been involved in an online group discussion on 5-14-06 (not here but I'll be happy to provide the link) that was remarkably similar to the question that I brought to this forum. Information for Illinois state rulings on accrued paid vacation having to be paid at time of employment separation were detailed in that exchange and those rulings that were discussed contradicted what was said here by the senior member of this group. I do realize that human nature dictates we all have our own bias and tendencies towards advancing our own agenda. However if someone who chooses to present themselves as an absolute authority in not just this forum but many others on the internet there should be a basic responsibility to not leave false statements as their final response to questions that they chose to comment on if for no other reason than to maintain their own credibility. Especially after being politely requested if they would consider that false statement in light of what the truth is. Not meaning to turn this into a personal attack I'll end with saying that for someone to respond by saying" Then file a claim with the state DOL. I'm not going to argue with you; it appears you've made up your mind already" given the opportunity to amend their misinformed statement was totally inappropriate if they have chosen to accept the responsibility to be one of the group lead responders.
    Of course this is your playground and you make the rules. I'm just a guest that happened by...


    • #17
      Dave, I have to admit I didn't read through the entire last post. However, I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you. All we're saying is that this forum is here to answer basic legal questions and provide advice to the poster on a particular situation he/she may have, not to analyze policies to the extent you're asking us for. I have my own employer's policies to analyze.
      I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.


      • #18
        Under the description of this forum

        "Discussions relating to overtime, lunch breaks, breaks, hourly pay, or any other payroll issues relating to pay."

        Under the description of the labor law forum

        "Comments, Discussions, or concerns relating to employment labor laws."

        Which is why I had asked if this thread would be better suited for that forum.

        Someone needs to more accurately define the intent of these forums if the word discussion is to be believed or detail in the FAQ what you are telling me.

        Just a suggestion to the people that run this site.


        • #19
          I give up. Dave, I can't help you on this. I don't have the time to devote to such a complex discussion on policies. Maybe someone else will.
          I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.


          • #20
            Actually I've been wondering if any of the lawyers at this site would find this an interesting turn that a major corporation would like to take.


            • #21
              The lawyers on this site, as with most sites I'm familiar with, are prohibited from trolling for clients among the posters.

              And I think this thread has continued long enough. It is no longer serving any useful purpose.
              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.


              The 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 are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of 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.