Work hour thread, legality of cutting full-time hours to 32 when 37.5 is required?

[alkemyst]

My wife's company requires 37.5 hours to keep benefits in a week. This has been problematic when she needs time off.

Now in the economy they are limiting all employees to only 32 hours in a week. Supposedly benefits will be retained. However, that's not what the contract reads.

Either way it's several hundred bucks of income lost and now the possibility they say benefits were not earned.

Anyone know if they can do this?

The company also requires personal travel for about $10 a day and they cover the room for 4 people to share.

My wife is ok with that, however; in any company I worked for we never shared a room. I couldn't survive on $10 a day board.

 

[Ms. DICKINSON]

Other option is to let her go

 

[alkemyst]

It's the full employment getting hit with this.

 

[Kanalua]

Unless she has a contract that guarantees her 37.5 hours, nothing she can do.

 

[alkemyst]

that's not the point, the contract requires 37.5 hours of work to keep benefits.

I am looking for those with experience in this, not just making statements.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Does she have an employment contract guaranteeing her at least 37.5 hours of employment a week?

If yes, you have a case.

If no, she's at will. Their will not yours. They can tell her to work 18.375 hours a week if they feel like it. She can quit if she disagrees.

I suppose you could list what state you're in, perhaps there's some wacky state law there that requires employers to offer >37 hours for a certain percentage of employees or something.

 

[alkemyst]

it's the benefits I am talking about.

 

[jlee]

it's the benefits I am talking about.

Does her contract grant her benefits regardless of the hours worked?

 

[Raduque]

I would think that contacting the benefits provider and asking if the company has worked out a new deal to still provide benefits with only 32hr of work is an idea. Maybe she (and the rest of the workforce) have a breach-of-contract case against the employer if there isn't a deal worked out?

 

[pcgeek11]

Not knowing where you are or what kind of work this is it would be very hard for anyone to tell you the answers you seek.

However, if she is under a contract as you stated earlier then they would have to stick to what ever the Contract says...

If not under a contract, and non union the company can do pretty much whatever it wants to do; up to and including letting her go for no reason. I'm not sure what you mean by " they say benefits were not earned ". What does that mean? Are you saying that if she works less than 37.5 hours in one week she has no benefits? So if the next week she works 40 hours she gets her benefits back? That is the weirdest thing I have ever seen. What about Vacation or sick time can she use those to fill in the missing hours?

Too many blanks for anyone to say...

 

[JS80]

This is why I always recommend management to cut heads and not reduce pay/benefits because the masses who are generally jackasses like the OP will always complain about not being fired instead of being grateful.

 

[Newbian]

This is why I always recommend management to cut heads and not reduce pay/benefits because the masses who are generally jackasses like the OP will always complain about not being fired instead of being grateful.

Ahhh, entertainment.

 

[lykaon78]

If the company says they will maintain benefits why don't you believe them? Sure, the contract is explicit on the issue but nothing precludes the company from continuing to offer benefits either.

It may be the next thing to go when the budget tightens yet again but for the time being I'd be happy with what I had.

Is your wife really going to bring suit in this situation? Talk about painting a target on your back for future downsizing.

 

[Double Trouble]

Sounds like the company is bending their own guidelines a little in an effort to stave off having to lay off people. I'd be more worried about that position even existing in the future than about the benefits they are saying you're going to still get.

 

[Wheezer]

This is why I always recommend management to cut heads and not reduce pay/benefits because the masses who are generally jackasses like the OP will always complain about not being fired instead of being grateful.

this made me lol...thanks for starting my morning off with a smile.

 

[alkemyst]

Not knowing where you are or what kind of work this is it would be very hard for anyone to tell you the answers you seek.

However, if she is under a contract as you stated earlier then they would have to stick to what ever the Contract says...

If not under a contract, and non union the company can do pretty much whatever it wants to do; up to and including letting her go for no reason. I'm not sure what you mean by " they say benefits were not earned ". What does that mean? Are you saying that if she works less than 37.5 hours in one week she has no benefits? So if the next week she works 40 hours she gets her benefits back? That is the weirdest thing I have ever seen. What about Vacation or sick time can she use those to fill in the missing hours?

Too many blanks for anyone to say...

That's the way it works. If she were to work less than 37.5 hours and not make up that time with PTO then she losses her benefits for the rest of the year. It's a screwed up system they have. They get no sick time. They get 10 PTO days a year

 

[alkemyst]

This is why I always recommend management to cut heads and not reduce pay/benefits because the masses who are generally jackasses like the OP will always complain about not being fired instead of being grateful.

That wasn't the point of the thread dumbass. It was will she lose her benefits.

The 'official' word was 'they should be ok'.

 

[Adrenaline]

That wasn't the point of the thread dumbass. It was will she lose her benefits.

The 'official' word was 'they should be ok'.

All you can do is take their word for it at this time. If she has an actual contract with the company and they go outside of that, I would try to get it in writing as an amendment or something. You could also check with the labor board to see what the policy is for employees that aren't under a contract.

From my understanding in the state of TN, 32 hours can earn you full-time benefits.

 

[alkemyst]

Does her contract grant her benefits regardless of the hours worked?

That's the problem I am seeing. It states the employee forfeits their benefits for any work week where 37.5 hours are not met.

I am thinking this is going to be a loophole the company will use to cancel benefits.

 

[pcgeek11]

That's the problem I am seeing. It states the employee forfeits their benefits for any work week where 37.5 hours are not met.

I am thinking this is going to be a loophole the company will use to cancel benefits.

It sounds like a really shitty company. I know employment is tight in a lot of places, but I would be looking for a reasonable employer. Those benefits really suck.

 

[guyver01]

My wife's company requires 37.5 hours to keep benefits in a week....Now in the economy they are limiting all employees to only 32 hours in a week. ...
Either way it's several hundred bucks of income lost.

Where exactly does she work that 5 hours a week is "several hundred bucks" of income?

 

[deadlyapp]

Where exactly does she work that 5 hours a week is "several hundred bucks" of income?

They'd have to be making $50+ an hour to even get close to several hundred just before taxes. If they were a very high paid consultant it's possible.

 

[ebaycj]

They'd have to be making $50+ an hour to even get close to several hundred just before taxes. If they were a very high paid consultant it's possible.

$50 an hour is not a high-paid consultant.

 

[deadlyapp]

No, just an example of someone who would be paid very well. I know some of our consultants get in the 300-400 range, but some of that also goes to their representative company and travel expenses etc.

$50 is like...100k a year? That's basically a well paid engineer.

 

[drebo]

That's the problem I am seeing. It states the employee forfeits their benefits for any work week where 37.5 hours are not met.

I am thinking this is going to be a loophole the company will use to cancel benefits.

If they company says they're going to continue benefits despite only working 32 hours, why not believe them? There are no laws that mandate that employers must give benefits or must give them in a specific way (at least, no laws that are as yet enforced). The company can structure their benefits package any way they want. The employee handbook may say that you have to work for 37.5 hours in a week to get the employer contribution for that week, but the actual benefits exist outside of that, and you can pay for them yourself if you end up not working the full time.

That said, your wife's company has said they will maintain their contribution to the benefits down to 32 hours per week. Get that in writing, and you're set.

However, you should think long and hard about filing any kind of greivance...these types of reductions, as well as furloughs, are meant to keep people on payroll instead of firing them. Next time, they might just fire your wife and keep everyone else at full time. Also, next time, they might just end the contract (if she is really a contract employee...employee handbooks don't constitute a "contract").

If she's not a contract employee, the company can change their policies whenever they want for whatever reason they want. If she is a contract employee, she can come to a mutually agreeable contract ammendment with the employer to say that employer contributions kick in at 32 hours. If she refuses to cut her hours, though, they will likely just cut her.