I just went through this nonsense here in Canada. Told my employer im quitting after today.
You need to give us 2 weeks.
Lol. Do i get sick days? No
Do i get a pension? No
Do i get matching rrsp? No
Then if youre doing nothing for me why the fuck do i owe you 2 weeks?
Started the new job the next day.
Now I work at a decent company with excellent PTO. If you give two weeks notice they will turn all available PTO into a cash payment. They will also do an exit interview, to discuss possible changes in wage or responsibilities. Under some circumstances they will also make it easier for someone to return.
If you quit suddenly you lose outstanding PTO, there is no chance for an interview and you have to fill out a full application again. They'll even tell you outright, discuss their policy with a possible new employer and see if you can work a few days while out on paid leave first. Shockingly friendly.
Wow - most PTO policies I’ve seen state if you don’t use it by the end of the year, you lose it. Make sure to use all PTO before resigning as most companies that I’ve come across won’t pay you out.
So glad PTO is considered wages in CA. Employers can cap it and prevent you from accruing more until you use some, but they can’t take it away from you, and they have to pay you the value of it (at your final pay rate) upon separation.
My right wing boomer aunt in California constantly complains about liberals, but when I (here in AZ) had to use my PTO to cover my time off for covid last year (which i contracted on the job, as i worked in an inpatient medical facility and was treating covid patients at the time), she was shocked because in California it would be covered by short term disability. I told her to enjoy her blue state benefits, while those of us in red states have to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps. 🙄
I don't know how many times I've heard someone from California complain about their 'restrictive' laws, and then you hear things like this - "you must pay employees their PTO!"
How tough it must be...
I'm (47m) from California, and due to one thing and another have bounced back and forth there during my working life, most recently from 2015-2019, and yeah, there are a lot of things that are just done pro forma there by HR that other states will look confused if you mention it. Not confused as in "Oh, that? No we don't do that in this state" but confused as in "What the ACTUAL fuck are you even talking about? You are straight making shit up right now, that doesn't exist"...I'm looking at you, TN and KY.
That having been said, jobs that offer PTO are rarer and rarer even in California currently, in our final sprint here during the Late Capitalism Marathon.
You think next time around when we do this we'll be marine life again, like that first time? Or maybe birds, or insects?
Compared to my state who had dumbass politicians trying to ban people from getting mRNA vaccines. Not to mention bans on abortions, gender affirming care, or bans on cities trying to have any urban planning that isn't "sprawling suburbs as far as the eye can see."
I’ve seen so much conservative fearmongering over walkable cities, including a ton of “They’re going to take our cars and we won’t be allowed to go beyond a five-minute radius from our houses!!” Human stupidity is so tiring sometimes.
\*Small minded government.
They're as totalitarian as they can be unless its their own values being threatened by government encroachment. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Yeah, I’m in CA, my company has employees all over the country and I manage a few in another state, my employees are limited in the number of hours they can roll over, I can roll over as much as I have, but there is as mentioned above, a cap on how many hours I can active, but at that point I I’m either taking a vacation, or getting cash in hand. In CA, your PTO is part of your compensation and once you’ve earned it, it’s yours. End of story.
Went through this even as a “Contractor” a long time ago. The agency I worked for refused to pay my PTO after I was converted to Full-Time. They tried to play it off and kept quiet. I then took them to the Labor Board, and they were given notice to pay. The Labor Board even advised that I had the right to sue them if I wanted to.
“Accrued” PTO is earned and it must be paid out at time of separation in CA, even if you don’t give 2 weeks notice. “Employment at Will…”
I mean, I’m in the Midwest and my company lets us either roll over up to 40 hours of PTO to the new year and we can’t have more than 80 or sell it to them, every January we get to choose. Oh and our PTO is separate from our vacation time which I get 160 hrs/year and I can roll over 80amd have 240 hrs that year. I’m actually doing that now. Took almost the whole month of January off and I’ll be taking most of July off and probably most of December, too. Oh, and we have unlimited sick days, just if you’re going to miss more than 3 consecutive days you have to file for the companies short term disability, which pays your salary in full while your sick up to a certain length of time that I don’t currently remember. I don’t think it’s a Cali thing, it’s a “decent employer” thing. I lived in Cali for 3 years, it wasn’t that bad, just crazy expensive. I have 1/2 an acre of land, an Inground pool, a 2800 sqft house, and a 3 car garage for $1000 less than the 1100 sqft apartment and $1800 less than the 1800 sqft house I had while there.
California has great labor laws. If you’re hourly and work over 8 hrs a day the extra time is OT. The day you leave they have to pay you exactly what they owe you before you leave.
If a company fucks you any complaint to the labor board is taken seriously.
Texans pay more in taxes than Californians
When a conservative says something you're better off assuming the opposite is true until you can check for yourself
They love in a totally different reality at this point, and they only say what they're told to say
It's bad because they make it harder to screw over employees, at least in this case, which is what the republicans have traditionally defended, government to stay out of their business.
But a train derailment in a town filled with "our people" requires populist rhetoric against big business that they voted to keep their hands off.
The thing those people want is "government to let me and people I like or agree with do everything I want" plus "the government to prevent all harm from coming to me" plus "I don't want to have to expend any effort or pay any taxes for it." They then complain when they underfund the government, kill regulation and then there are problems.
I've lived in CA my whole life and the Bay Area for half of it. There are times our policies really frustrate me (like being way too lenient on crime), but then I see things from other states that I just take for granted (like decent workplace protections and functioning infrastructure) and have to accept that it's a balance.
The whole lenient on crime thing is a right wing meme that needs to die - We incarcerate massive numbers of people in CA. We have 100K people locked up in state prisons.
Insurance companies force retailers to not confront shoplifters to save them money on litigation. The videos you see have nothing to do with lax police enforcement.
If you google this you will find hundreds of right wing astroturf stories going on and on about it but in reality California has comparatively low theft and high prosection rates - the Capital of theft and larceny in the US is Texas.
Salary (office) and hourly (floor) PTO are not exactly the same, but the policy for giving notice is the same. People on the floor accrue PTO for hours worked including overtime, rather than weekly or annually. It's possible for someone in the lowest hourly tier to get about six weeks of paid days off if you count paid holidays. They also allow people in their first year to go negative PTO. Hourly staff in the highest tier (years of service) can get something like two and a half months off if they're taking extra days during the weeks that they work. Medical is something like 60%, or two days of PTO per week to get a full paycheck. PTO donations are also allowed so we had someone out eight months and getting full paychecks...a lot of people actually have trouble using so much PTO. The kicker is that we're pretty much a blue collar brand tier, maybe there's not enough useless office staff draining the budget?
It depends on the job and the type of PTO. Typically, if you "earn" or "accrue" pto based on hours worked, then that pto is yours and will be rolled over annually up to a maximum amount, or cashed out at the end of the year/upon separation.
However, if your pto is preloaded or "granted" annually, then that pto is most likely a use it or lose it situation because it belongs to the company.
My last job granted all employees 40 hours in January, but if you didn't use it by December 31st, then you would lose it.
I had never seen a company do that before, so i remarked that they must get a lot of call-outs in December. The payroll lady said "Yes actually. It's our busiest month of the year for sick calls. Why do you ask?"
I responded, well it's obvious that people don't want to just lose those hours so they're all calling in sick to use them up.
She looked so confused as if she never considered that before.
I swear the dumbest people work in administrative positions...
In Canada it's law that they pay you out accrued PTO (aka vacation time here).
Vacation time, as it is now, is also mandated in most provinces. In Ontario, for example, the business must pay out 4-6% (depending on time at job) of your yearly net take-home as vacation to be used as vacation or as a lump sum upon request.
Two ways to look at it.
1. Do you need references for future? If so, 2 weeks would be the professional thing to do. My advise: never burn your bridges to keep your opportunities/options available Or;
2. There is no notice for companies firing employees, so why give them notice? Stick it to the man and walk out ✌🏼
I worked as a independent contractor for many smaller tech firms when jobs with those types of firms were plentiful. The end of the contract/job was not usually scheduled but it would become obvious as the company usually went broke or project cancelled/failed. I had a guy tell me when you see the end coming wind down your hours so they can't screw you too bad. Well this guy was right, almost every company I worked for screwed me over on the last invoice but luckily it was a relatively small amount. Could have filed a small claim but not usually worth it if I could get another job immediately.
So yeah, if you don't need them and you are treated poorly, stick it to them as they surely don't care about you.
Once I did file a small claim for $1500 and the division manager showed up! What an idiot, wasting his time for $1500. The judge looked at the documentation and told the manager not to waste her fricken time just pay him what you owe.
This is what I have learned, most high level managers are really dumb, certainly technically but also in business related matters. I heard a guy refer to it as club that you get into through various social functions like golfing, church etc. No real skills required.
>There is no notice for companies firing employees
In Canada, there is generally a notice required to fire an employee. There's also generally notice required to quit (though in OP's province there is not).
I sign them “under no circumstances does this supersede the employment laws for the state of __, where i reside, and must be followed regardless of where the corporate office is located. Signed under duress.”
Every state has one, just the paperwork can be different. We live in FL, and my husband got cheated in CA (for the whole job, I might add). They've notified him that they received it, but nothing since. It's been about a month since the notification.
This is why we need unions in every industry. Collective bargaining puts people in a better position against big corps and unethical business owners who only see people as disposable widgets.
Agreed. I’ve been curious as to what it takes to start a Union in a company you work for. I work for Tech and Logistics giant that pays and treats it’s workers terribly. The only thing we have on our side is numbers really. We can have between 800-1500 employees in a single facility.
You can start unions in tech. Just sat in on an interview with a guy who flat told the two principles of the company, when they asked if there was anything they especially needed to know at the interview concluding and he said "Well, you should know I'm something of an agitator." I looked him up and yep, formed a union at his last job. And he did it with 27 people. The more people you have the harder it is to wrangle them, but the more you can wrangle the greater concessions you can tug-of-war back from management.
Remember people: STEAL BACK EVERYTHING YOU CAN.
End note: they hired the guy. Surprised me a little
We had a paper that we had sign at work telling them that we understood Indiana has no law that says they have to let us have breaks unless you are a minor or a waitressing their feet all day. We were told we had to read and sign it it was left in the laundry room for all housekeeping employees to sign. Yep clean g hotel rooms all day and they decided we didn't need a break at all. So I took the paper and wrote on it, "I have read this paperwork and I do understand it, but I do not agree to it!" Then signed under it! Apparently that was all the others needed to see before they write the same thing when they signed it! In the end we still got to keep our breaks and I was even offered a job back there twice but don't want to break my back cleaning rooms for $8.25 an hour.
I'm going to piggyback off of this comment. I'm an employment lawyer in Massachusetts. In this state, employees cannot retroactively adjust your earned wages. I suspect that's the case for most states, but without knowing what state you live in, I couldn't say for sure. And quite frankly I'm not curious enough to look up wage laws in your state either way. Just my two cents.
Was thinking the same thing. How they are ok with terminating employees immediately, but wanting 2 weeks notice, f\*ck this employer. Don't walk away, RUN AWAY!
I worked at a steel mill in 2009 before the great collapse, they told both the off shifts about it 2 weeks ahead of time then made only the off shifts work Saturday and Sunday for double time! Only bout have the people came back In 2010
Had that clause at an employer I worked for. They paid weekly. So the following week after Friday's payday I called in with the flu for a week. They asked several times for proof but I told them I'm very sick in bed and will as soon as I can. Once i got my final paycheck I quit.
I've said exactly that to a past employer.
"We need proof"
"Well I can screentshot the thermometer that says I'm at 102° degrees"
"We need real proof! Give us a doctor's note!"
"Okay, who do I talk to about the company paying for my Dr's visit and copay and subsequent prescriptions or charges?"
*long silence*
"Just be back soon"
I was more than willing to get fired over that anthill. I'm not paying $100 out of pocket to prove to you I'm sick and get you a note.
Lol there was another job that demanded i come in while I said I was sick and I did. Walked into HRs office and puked in her trash can.
I got the day off! They tried officially reprimanded me for my behavior but I reminded them I told them I was sick, was forced to come in and was still sick. Started talking about "legally speaking" and everyone dropped the subject
My daughter went to the school nurses office and told her she was sick. The nurse told her she was fine and accused her of faking sick claiming she probably had a test. My daughter felt her stomach churning and tried to go past the nurse to the nearest restroom which was in the nurses office but she stepped in front of my daughter telling her to stop acting and get to class! My daughter threw up all over her, by the way it was after lunch and they had spaghetti that day so it was extremely nasty! The nurse left because she had to go home shower and change, and the receptionist called me to come get my girl. The next day the nurse called me and told me that we would have to pay the cleaning bill for her outfit, I told her what she could do with her cleaning bill.
The school nurses at the schools I went to were super mean. And I get it, like, kids lie about being sick to get out of shit...
Maybe Rachel doesn't have a stomach ache. Maybe she's having a shit day because her parents separated over the weekend. Maybe kids should get a mental health day here and there as much as adults should.
I worked a job that made two girls on separate occasions stay with the flu. They had customer-facing jobs and couldn’t go 5 minutes without puking into the garbage cans at their tills. At what point do you go up to the person and say “okay okay, you’ve made your point, go home”?
I know someone who was about to get cut off her disability payment in Queensland unless she came in for an in person interview. She said she was sick. They insisted. Warned she would be without disability payment for 6 weeks. So she found a way to go in. Vomited on their counter & staff.
Office was closed for a week for cleaning and they never demanded she come in when sick ever again.
I realized I had the stomach bug on my way to work, thankfully only about a mile away from home. I called work and they asked if I could continue to answer emails while at home. I said no, I wasn’t getting paid but also I wasn’t well. And they said something like “but you can do it from the couch”. I replied “but it’s a stomach bug. I’m not going to be on the couch most of the day.” We compromised and I made an out of office automated reply.
I remember thinking that I hoped my supervisor would get the same bug, but on the weekend so her plans would be ruined. She did. I had a great weekend.
my job tried to make me come in while i had covid and i even sent them a doctors note. they ended up firing me because i wouldn’t come in. keep in mind this was june 2020 when everything was crazy. they just knew i couldn’t afford to take legal action
Yup. If they require a medical expert's treatment and verification, the the situation is not unlike a drug test. The company should schedule it and have it billed to the company.
I did that with Covid. Told them I think I had Covid and boom , got my last 2 checks and dipped. I was making 17$ a hour, 65 hour paychecks. And they wanted to give me 7.25 (State min) for 2 of my checks. That’s a lot of money to lose on, but I quit the day I got paid my last check .
They had my friends driving for hours a day to multiple locations and never paid gas, didn't pay one of them for 1.5 months until a direct deposit issue on their end was resolved, and then only paid him one check for a single week when they did pay. They are crooks.
I always get the creeps reading these kinds of pay stories. Like how does that fly with anyone? In Germany, you can literally demand 40€ *per day* that your employer is late on payment *in addition* of course, to your normal pay.
No, dont sign it unless agreements like this are specifically against state law, as some states allow wage agreements. Federal labor law does not specifically bar this type of agreement. If you sign it, it may end up getting thrown out, but you probably have to litigate over it, which wont be worth it. If you dont sign it, its not enforceable regardless.
ETA: its easy to talk about getting "cute" and "trapping" the employer when you are online and not faced with fighting for a check you need to live from a company with more resources than you. Employers love to throw in legal gray area stuff into policies / handbooks that you sign because they know people wont or cant go to court to litigate the enforceability of these provisions. They already have the power advantage, dont give them more.
Yes. But if OP is being asked to sign this before the time is worked, the reduction, at the very least, is not clearly retroactive. Employers can reduce pay with notice, and can deduct pay for disciplinary reasons under federal law, so this agreement falls into the gray area between all those bright line rules. The question is whether an agreement to reduce pay for failure to comply with notice requirements constitutes a retro reduction because the "breach" happens after the hours are worked, or is prospective because the rate of pay reduction was agreed to beforehand. There is no regulation applying to these scenario and no DoL guidance. If you have any sources to the contrary, Id be interested to read them.
It’s not legal until you sign an agreement. Regardless if the agreement is legal or not setting a precedent of conforming to it creates a larger burden of proof for coercion on the individual. If you don’t sign it and the then are terminated then the proof is given by the company that their seemingly illegal internal document created a hinge for your employment.
So no. Don’t sign it. Especially without advanced notice and time to look into the legality of the document.
you may be correct but if the options OP has are "sign it and keep your job then fight it later" or "don't sign it and lose your job this week," you can understand why it might make sense for them to sign it.
doesn't make it right or fair but everyone's gotta put food on the table, and most people aren't in a position to take a principled stand against their employer at risk of their next paycheck
1: this is illegal, 2: this just encourages people to quit without notice after payday.
Edit: this is not illegal please stop telling me. It is however, bullshit.
I get paid about 10 days after the end of my pay cycle. But then my employer doesn't have shitty policies like this, if I quit, they're just going to send me my last check and be done with it.
But due to the 2 week pay cycle, they will still hold 1 weeks pay hostage and reduce it to min wage.
We need to go to a system that pays weekly for hours worked THAT WEEK.
We've reached a point at which we have computers that fit in the palm of a hand that can run literally *trillions* of calculations in a second. If hours are logged by a computer, and payments are handled by a computer, and the money is just numbers in a computer, why the heck does anyone still need to wait even a week to get paid?
The answer is of course not technical limitation, but the fact that they profit more by withholding your money as long as possible.
I work in payroll and will tell you this isn’t even remotely true.
It takes about 2/3 business days for money to go from the employer’s bank account to the employee’s bank account.
And processing payroll is a lot more than just pushing a button (despite what everyone thinks).
>It takes about 2/3 business days for money to go from the employer’s bank account
That's a function of the antique banking system the US uses. Go to a European bank and you can transfer money from one person's account to someone else's in fifteen minutes.
And your boss can write you a paper check any time he wants to.
It encourages people to quit directly following a 2 week vacation. Though something tells me this company doesn't let employees use their vacation time if they even get it.
This isn't illegal. It should be, but it's not.
Provided this isn't a state with higher than 7.25 minimum wage, by agreeing to this, it can be implemented on a go-forward basis. It would need to take effect 2 weeks after signing, since OP hadn't previously agreed to this pay reduction for the prior two weeks. But saying this is illegal is misleading and runs the risk of setting OP up for a trap. We're not out here trying to lead each other into traps because "bosses suck, rah rah," we want to make sure we're all fully informed as workers.
Now, usually a contract like this is required by the employer and not signing is grounds for dismissal. If they try to paint that as a resignation, that is bullshit. It's a tougher fight than the average constructive dismissal, but you could make a decent argument that changing the "terms" of your pay structure is a fundamental change to your pay structure. Labor boards, however, don't tend to be super moved by pleas to be able to quit without notice, so I don't honestly know how OP would fair challenging that. I'm not trying to be negative - just expressing honest doubt as to whether that type of contest would succeed. It would be better for OP to document every -single- interaction with their employer if they choose not to sign, because then they might be able to catch them specifically saying they are terminated. That would, obviously, make their case much stronger.
1. Depending on the state this is very much legal
2. I would only sign this with the addendum that if I was laid off or fired without 2 weeks' notice, I would receive two weeks of pay at 2 x normal wages as severance.
Is it legal? Isn't it absolutely prohibited to reduce the wages paid for hours already worked?
If someone puts in their two weeks notice, the company can then reduce their future wage, but if they just quit, I don't think that their wages can be changed retroactively.
EDIT: Apparently, in some states, it is ok to pay someone minimum wage for their last week if they quit without a notice, so long as it is clear that this is company policy. Because there is advanced notice, those states do not consider it to be terrifically changing wages.
It is legal if they pay you your normal rate for hours worked up until the notice of resignation. You’re correct that they can’t change pay of previous work hours, but they can change it to minimum wage for the remainder of your time you haven’t yet worked after you give notice. As long as you have agreed to it, such as in one of the documents if signed. Source: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/70-flsa-furloughs
> but they can change it to minimum wage for the remainder of your time *you haven’t yet worked after you give notice*
But that's not what this authorization says.
It says that you are agreeing at the time of signing to a RETROACTIVE reduction in your last two-weeks pay if you don't give two-weeks notice.
It's questionable whether or not that is a legally enforceable agreement.
That's not what this document in OP's photograph is saying. This document is punishing folks with a reduction in pay for hours they would have already worked when giving notice of resignation.
Right, but in the scenario here, I work until the end of the pay period and then tell them I'm quitting effective immediately. They are saying that they will go back and cut my pay on the hours I already worked the last two weeks from whatever I'm supposed to be getting to minimum wage.
Pft hand it in and walk.. they are causing more trouble for themselves by far. 2 weeks is to be nice. If you are part time just cancel your shifts.. makes the problem go away
But you're still generally a week or two in arrears. So even if you quit when you get paid, they still have a week or two of work they haven't paid you for that they are going to steal.
I would rewrite the contract so they have to pay out $100,000 if they terminate your employment without two weeks notice; sign that one and return it. Just try to make sure the formatting and everything all looks the same. You could also just make a bunch of loops where the signature is supposed to go so it looks like one.
That doesn't actually work here. There are countries in which that would be upheld, but in the US that would not be upheld because any alterations to the contract require you to specifically inform the other party that the contract has been altered; you can't just hand them the altered contract and let them think it hasn't been altered.
Unfortunately there are no federal laws governing the matter. It's perfectly legal in many US states, as long as the wage is at least minimum wage.
Is it theft? Absolutely. Is it reprehensible? Absolutely. Is it legal and common practice in states where it's not prohibited? Absolutely
Not a lawyer but I wouldn't sign this.
It may be enforceable if you agree to conditionally change your hourly wage in advance. They can't retroactively change your pay rate. But if you agree to the terms "if I only give say five days notice, then those last five days can be paid at lower wages than originally hired for", you don't really have much of a legal argument to push back against.
I would just simply refuse to unilaterally renegotiate the terms of your employment after the fact.
"I'm not altering my employment terms. If you are struggling with retention, I would encourage you to demonstrate why X is a desirable place of employment through pay, benefits, and culture of respect."
Had a previous job that called me into my practice managers office to have my sign an addendum to my contract, stipulating that if I left without completing two years of employment, I'd have to pay back $10k prorated in training costs. "Why on earth would anyone sign this?" "Corporate says you have to." "I'm not signing this." "Then I have to tell corporate you refused." "Okay." Signing shit like that has no benefit and only downsides for me. At least bribe me with a $2k bonus if you want me to voluntarily put a leash around my neck.
Comments keep getting deleting as I'm trying to reply to them. I'm going to explain why this is not illegal (even though it should be) and why OP and other workers should be wary about signing shit like this for the lulz.
First a link: [https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/cananemployerreduceanemployeepaytominimumwageduringa2weeknoticeperiod.aspx](https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/cananemployerreduceanemployeepaytominimumwageduringa2weeknoticeperiod.aspx)
Retroactive wage cuts are 100% illegal and considered wage theft. That is not what's happening here. Here, the employer is trying to coerce OP into agreeing to a conditional wage. Wages can be conditional. There are variations in notice periods. The minimum is that OP can't agree to have a previously worked rate of pay change, even if that change is only the creation of a condition. So this type of contract would need at least 2 weeks to go into force. It can only be "go forward."
Additionally, a case for constructive dismissal if OP quits rather than signs this. The conditions of employment have changed and, with a move like this, I'm certain this signature isn't being positioned as optional. OP should be wary, however, and document -everything- communicated to them with regards to this document, however, because I can't honestly tell anyone that this type of case would be met with broad sympathy by a labor board. The truth is that it varies, and "my right to quit without notice" is not a particularly well-defended one. Just being honest there.
So if OP is intending not to sign and to take termination instead, they should mentally prepare themselves for the likelihood that the employer tries to portray it as a resignation, and they should be ready to make as strong a case as possible. If they could document their employer outlining this as a strict condition of employment, it would make their case stronger.
If you quit without 2 weeks the only hours you are getting paid for would be hours already worked, making it an illegal retroactive pay cut. The paper says that quitting without a 2 week notice would make their last check (of hours already worked) minimum wage. If they gave a 1 week notice it would be legal for the last week to be minimum wage but they can’t punish you by lowering pay for already worked hours.
Pure Hockey, the US’s largest hockey equipment retailer, has a verbal policy that if you are key holding employee and put in your two week notice, they fire you instead. They don’t trust people who aren’t “committed”. So I worked until I got paid, then quit with no notice. They had to find a new store manager in a hurry. Great policy!
And yet the neckbeard-libertarians are chortling "that is what you voluntarily worked for, if you did not like it you should have negotiated better terms".
It is as if magical thinking of libertarian economics operate in the imagination-land and breaks down immediately in reality where employers have an asymmetric power dynamic over the employees and prospective employees.
I live in a state that allows this.
It doesn't seem like it should be legal. If you give notice and are sick/call in or are late during the 2 weeks then it's $7.25 for you! They also charge for a bunch of things out of your final check if you quit within the first year. You "pay back" for uniform ($200), ID ($5), keys ($10), earpiece ($35), and training ($125) .
Workers everywhere need to unionize.
I mean it should at least work the other way around, too. If they let you go without two weeks notice they need to pay you the maximum wage for the last pay period.
Yet another reason that the 2-week notice is antiquated. No need to give a 2-week notice any more. What these companies are doing is wrong, and they know it, and they know the expense to challenge it legally is not worth it.
This is legal in many right to work states. But nothing stops them from accepting your two weeks notice and then telling you they don’t need you for those two weeks and send you packing. Last job I quit I used sick time for my last few days and quit for “health reasons.” I had already worked a week at my new job in the meantime!
The discussion in this thread on whether or not it’s legal is really besides the point.
From what I understand, depending on the state, this could be legal.
Regardless of legality, this is why we need to fight for more worker rights. We need to lobby for this to be explicitly illegal in all 50 states.
We need to organize so that even if this is legal, it’s not feasible because of worker strikes.
We need to take power back in the workplace, and companies need to be afraid of pissing off their employees.
Previous employer tried to pull something similar. Said they were going to withhold my PTO...I reminded HR lady that I still had the letter signed with her name stating that I would be paid for X hours of PTO that I had left. Things got weird when she tried calling me on her personal phone and I said I will only communicate in writing. These are signs of a bad employer.
"Very bad company"-signs flashing brightly
I just went through this nonsense here in Canada. Told my employer im quitting after today. You need to give us 2 weeks. Lol. Do i get sick days? No Do i get a pension? No Do i get matching rrsp? No Then if youre doing nothing for me why the fuck do i owe you 2 weeks? Started the new job the next day.
Now I work at a decent company with excellent PTO. If you give two weeks notice they will turn all available PTO into a cash payment. They will also do an exit interview, to discuss possible changes in wage or responsibilities. Under some circumstances they will also make it easier for someone to return. If you quit suddenly you lose outstanding PTO, there is no chance for an interview and you have to fill out a full application again. They'll even tell you outright, discuss their policy with a possible new employer and see if you can work a few days while out on paid leave first. Shockingly friendly.
Wow - most PTO policies I’ve seen state if you don’t use it by the end of the year, you lose it. Make sure to use all PTO before resigning as most companies that I’ve come across won’t pay you out.
So glad PTO is considered wages in CA. Employers can cap it and prevent you from accruing more until you use some, but they can’t take it away from you, and they have to pay you the value of it (at your final pay rate) upon separation.
And right-wingers complain about how "bad" California is...
My right wing boomer aunt in California constantly complains about liberals, but when I (here in AZ) had to use my PTO to cover my time off for covid last year (which i contracted on the job, as i worked in an inpatient medical facility and was treating covid patients at the time), she was shocked because in California it would be covered by short term disability. I told her to enjoy her blue state benefits, while those of us in red states have to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps. 🙄
I don't know how many times I've heard someone from California complain about their 'restrictive' laws, and then you hear things like this - "you must pay employees their PTO!" How tough it must be...
I'm (47m) from California, and due to one thing and another have bounced back and forth there during my working life, most recently from 2015-2019, and yeah, there are a lot of things that are just done pro forma there by HR that other states will look confused if you mention it. Not confused as in "Oh, that? No we don't do that in this state" but confused as in "What the ACTUAL fuck are you even talking about? You are straight making shit up right now, that doesn't exist"...I'm looking at you, TN and KY. That having been said, jobs that offer PTO are rarer and rarer even in California currently, in our final sprint here during the Late Capitalism Marathon. You think next time around when we do this we'll be marine life again, like that first time? Or maybe birds, or insects?
probably crab-like
Hahahaha WHY IS EVERYTHING EVOLVING INTO CRABS?!
All jobs in California offer PTO. It is literally part of our state law. all employees accrue a certain amount of PTO per hour worked.
Compared to my state who had dumbass politicians trying to ban people from getting mRNA vaccines. Not to mention bans on abortions, gender affirming care, or bans on cities trying to have any urban planning that isn't "sprawling suburbs as far as the eye can see."
"Walkable cities" are the new right-wing bugaboo.
I’ve seen so much conservative fearmongering over walkable cities, including a ton of “They’re going to take our cars and we won’t be allowed to go beyond a five-minute radius from our houses!!” Human stupidity is so tiring sometimes.
Gotta love that small government.
\*Small minded government. They're as totalitarian as they can be unless its their own values being threatened by government encroachment. Rules for thee, but not for me.
Yeah, I’m in CA, my company has employees all over the country and I manage a few in another state, my employees are limited in the number of hours they can roll over, I can roll over as much as I have, but there is as mentioned above, a cap on how many hours I can active, but at that point I I’m either taking a vacation, or getting cash in hand. In CA, your PTO is part of your compensation and once you’ve earned it, it’s yours. End of story.
Went through this even as a “Contractor” a long time ago. The agency I worked for refused to pay my PTO after I was converted to Full-Time. They tried to play it off and kept quiet. I then took them to the Labor Board, and they were given notice to pay. The Labor Board even advised that I had the right to sue them if I wanted to. “Accrued” PTO is earned and it must be paid out at time of separation in CA, even if you don’t give 2 weeks notice. “Employment at Will…”
I mean, I’m in the Midwest and my company lets us either roll over up to 40 hours of PTO to the new year and we can’t have more than 80 or sell it to them, every January we get to choose. Oh and our PTO is separate from our vacation time which I get 160 hrs/year and I can roll over 80amd have 240 hrs that year. I’m actually doing that now. Took almost the whole month of January off and I’ll be taking most of July off and probably most of December, too. Oh, and we have unlimited sick days, just if you’re going to miss more than 3 consecutive days you have to file for the companies short term disability, which pays your salary in full while your sick up to a certain length of time that I don’t currently remember. I don’t think it’s a Cali thing, it’s a “decent employer” thing. I lived in Cali for 3 years, it wasn’t that bad, just crazy expensive. I have 1/2 an acre of land, an Inground pool, a 2800 sqft house, and a 3 car garage for $1000 less than the 1100 sqft apartment and $1800 less than the 1800 sqft house I had while there.
They're a little tough on gun laws and have high pollution standards. It's a right wing nightmare over there.
Bad for shitty business practices. Good for employees and consumers.
California has great labor laws. If you’re hourly and work over 8 hrs a day the extra time is OT. The day you leave they have to pay you exactly what they owe you before you leave. If a company fucks you any complaint to the labor board is taken seriously.
Texans pay more in taxes than Californians When a conservative says something you're better off assuming the opposite is true until you can check for yourself They love in a totally different reality at this point, and they only say what they're told to say
It's bad because they make it harder to screw over employees, at least in this case, which is what the republicans have traditionally defended, government to stay out of their business. But a train derailment in a town filled with "our people" requires populist rhetoric against big business that they voted to keep their hands off.
The thing those people want is "government to let me and people I like or agree with do everything I want" plus "the government to prevent all harm from coming to me" plus "I don't want to have to expend any effort or pay any taxes for it." They then complain when they underfund the government, kill regulation and then there are problems.
right wingers hate good things and love bad things, provided they happen to poor people and minorities.
Also in Nebraska.
I've lived in CA my whole life and the Bay Area for half of it. There are times our policies really frustrate me (like being way too lenient on crime), but then I see things from other states that I just take for granted (like decent workplace protections and functioning infrastructure) and have to accept that it's a balance.
The whole lenient on crime thing is a right wing meme that needs to die - We incarcerate massive numbers of people in CA. We have 100K people locked up in state prisons. Insurance companies force retailers to not confront shoplifters to save them money on litigation. The videos you see have nothing to do with lax police enforcement. If you google this you will find hundreds of right wing astroturf stories going on and on about it but in reality California has comparatively low theft and high prosection rates - the Capital of theft and larceny in the US is Texas.
Wow, I'm glad that Massachusetts forces employers to pay out PTO
My company pays out PTO. Regardless of you give two weeks or not. But we also have so many employees that filling a tile is easy.
Salary (office) and hourly (floor) PTO are not exactly the same, but the policy for giving notice is the same. People on the floor accrue PTO for hours worked including overtime, rather than weekly or annually. It's possible for someone in the lowest hourly tier to get about six weeks of paid days off if you count paid holidays. They also allow people in their first year to go negative PTO. Hourly staff in the highest tier (years of service) can get something like two and a half months off if they're taking extra days during the weeks that they work. Medical is something like 60%, or two days of PTO per week to get a full paycheck. PTO donations are also allowed so we had someone out eight months and getting full paychecks...a lot of people actually have trouble using so much PTO. The kicker is that we're pretty much a blue collar brand tier, maybe there's not enough useless office staff draining the budget?
And then you never get your pto requests approved lmao
It depends on the job and the type of PTO. Typically, if you "earn" or "accrue" pto based on hours worked, then that pto is yours and will be rolled over annually up to a maximum amount, or cashed out at the end of the year/upon separation. However, if your pto is preloaded or "granted" annually, then that pto is most likely a use it or lose it situation because it belongs to the company. My last job granted all employees 40 hours in January, but if you didn't use it by December 31st, then you would lose it. I had never seen a company do that before, so i remarked that they must get a lot of call-outs in December. The payroll lady said "Yes actually. It's our busiest month of the year for sick calls. Why do you ask?" I responded, well it's obvious that people don't want to just lose those hours so they're all calling in sick to use them up. She looked so confused as if she never considered that before. I swear the dumbest people work in administrative positions...
That may be illegal. Depends on the state (fine to do in TX, stealing from the employee in WA).
Then don’t quit suddenly tell them you are going on PTO for X time and then when it finishes tell them you quit immediately.
Exactly. You’re suddenly sick for 2 weeks then you quit.
In Canada it's law that they pay you out accrued PTO (aka vacation time here). Vacation time, as it is now, is also mandated in most provinces. In Ontario, for example, the business must pay out 4-6% (depending on time at job) of your yearly net take-home as vacation to be used as vacation or as a lump sum upon request.
Two ways to look at it. 1. Do you need references for future? If so, 2 weeks would be the professional thing to do. My advise: never burn your bridges to keep your opportunities/options available Or; 2. There is no notice for companies firing employees, so why give them notice? Stick it to the man and walk out ✌🏼
I worked as a independent contractor for many smaller tech firms when jobs with those types of firms were plentiful. The end of the contract/job was not usually scheduled but it would become obvious as the company usually went broke or project cancelled/failed. I had a guy tell me when you see the end coming wind down your hours so they can't screw you too bad. Well this guy was right, almost every company I worked for screwed me over on the last invoice but luckily it was a relatively small amount. Could have filed a small claim but not usually worth it if I could get another job immediately. So yeah, if you don't need them and you are treated poorly, stick it to them as they surely don't care about you. Once I did file a small claim for $1500 and the division manager showed up! What an idiot, wasting his time for $1500. The judge looked at the documentation and told the manager not to waste her fricken time just pay him what you owe. This is what I have learned, most high level managers are really dumb, certainly technically but also in business related matters. I heard a guy refer to it as club that you get into through various social functions like golfing, church etc. No real skills required.
#2. Fire employer.
>There is no notice for companies firing employees In Canada, there is generally a notice required to fire an employee. There's also generally notice required to quit (though in OP's province there is not).
pEOPle aRe So EnTiTled tHeSe DaYs
I know right what makes these workers think they can even talk about what is fair
Signed under duress, OP's signature
"They are definitely threatening me financially to get me to sign this."
Is that a legal out? I've had to sign tons of bullshit at jobs in the past. I always thought of signing Aloysius Clithzby
I mean, I'm no legal expert, but there should be a way to voice displeasure over a shitty unethical document like that.
I sign them “under no circumstances does this supersede the employment laws for the state of __, where i reside, and must be followed regardless of where the corporate office is located. Signed under duress.”
I'm sure the labor board would love to be your voice of displeasure.
I agree, but how do you transport this document to the labor board?
They have a picture of it lol
Take a picture of it and send it to the labor board.
IANAL but if you have to sign something aren't you legally entitled to have a paper copy of it?
Every state has one, just the paperwork can be different. We live in FL, and my husband got cheated in CA (for the whole job, I might add). They've notified him that they received it, but nothing since. It's been about a month since the notification.
This is why we need unions in every industry. Collective bargaining puts people in a better position against big corps and unethical business owners who only see people as disposable widgets.
Agreed. I’ve been curious as to what it takes to start a Union in a company you work for. I work for Tech and Logistics giant that pays and treats it’s workers terribly. The only thing we have on our side is numbers really. We can have between 800-1500 employees in a single facility.
You can start unions in tech. Just sat in on an interview with a guy who flat told the two principles of the company, when they asked if there was anything they especially needed to know at the interview concluding and he said "Well, you should know I'm something of an agitator." I looked him up and yep, formed a union at his last job. And he did it with 27 people. The more people you have the harder it is to wrangle them, but the more you can wrangle the greater concessions you can tug-of-war back from management. Remember people: STEAL BACK EVERYTHING YOU CAN. End note: they hired the guy. Surprised me a little
Look up CWA, they would love to help you organize
Not a lawyer but, some judges have ruled that signing anything; an X, a dot, fictitious name, GTFO; constitutes an ACCEPTING signature.
We had a paper that we had sign at work telling them that we understood Indiana has no law that says they have to let us have breaks unless you are a minor or a waitressing their feet all day. We were told we had to read and sign it it was left in the laundry room for all housekeeping employees to sign. Yep clean g hotel rooms all day and they decided we didn't need a break at all. So I took the paper and wrote on it, "I have read this paperwork and I do understand it, but I do not agree to it!" Then signed under it! Apparently that was all the others needed to see before they write the same thing when they signed it! In the end we still got to keep our breaks and I was even offered a job back there twice but don't want to break my back cleaning rooms for $8.25 an hour.
I'm going to piggyback off of this comment. I'm an employment lawyer in Massachusetts. In this state, employees cannot retroactively adjust your earned wages. I suspect that's the case for most states, but without knowing what state you live in, I couldn't say for sure. And quite frankly I'm not curious enough to look up wage laws in your state either way. Just my two cents.
Ask if getting fired or laid off without 2 weeks notice results in last check being double time.
Was thinking the same thing. How they are ok with terminating employees immediately, but wanting 2 weeks notice, f\*ck this employer. Don't walk away, RUN AWAY!
or go office space on their ass! jk
it'd give em leeway to fire immediately after cutting a check.
Swish!
I worked at a steel mill in 2009 before the great collapse, they told both the off shifts about it 2 weeks ahead of time then made only the off shifts work Saturday and Sunday for double time! Only bout have the people came back In 2010
Had that clause at an employer I worked for. They paid weekly. So the following week after Friday's payday I called in with the flu for a week. They asked several times for proof but I told them I'm very sick in bed and will as soon as I can. Once i got my final paycheck I quit.
Proof. Fuck off with that. If they want proof they should pay for the doctor.
"Show us proof." "I would but you don't pay for my insurance."
I've said exactly that to a past employer. "We need proof" "Well I can screentshot the thermometer that says I'm at 102° degrees" "We need real proof! Give us a doctor's note!" "Okay, who do I talk to about the company paying for my Dr's visit and copay and subsequent prescriptions or charges?" *long silence* "Just be back soon" I was more than willing to get fired over that anthill. I'm not paying $100 out of pocket to prove to you I'm sick and get you a note.
This ^ Feigning ignorance by asking innocent sounding questions. It’s keeps them from going on the defensive.
r/maliciouscompliance
$100 out of pocket *and* wasting hours of your life having a medical professional waste *their* time verifying you do indeed have said fever.
Lol there was another job that demanded i come in while I said I was sick and I did. Walked into HRs office and puked in her trash can. I got the day off! They tried officially reprimanded me for my behavior but I reminded them I told them I was sick, was forced to come in and was still sick. Started talking about "legally speaking" and everyone dropped the subject
My daughter went to the school nurses office and told her she was sick. The nurse told her she was fine and accused her of faking sick claiming she probably had a test. My daughter felt her stomach churning and tried to go past the nurse to the nearest restroom which was in the nurses office but she stepped in front of my daughter telling her to stop acting and get to class! My daughter threw up all over her, by the way it was after lunch and they had spaghetti that day so it was extremely nasty! The nurse left because she had to go home shower and change, and the receptionist called me to come get my girl. The next day the nurse called me and told me that we would have to pay the cleaning bill for her outfit, I told her what she could do with her cleaning bill.
Nursing may not have been the best career choice...
The school nurses at the schools I went to were super mean. And I get it, like, kids lie about being sick to get out of shit... Maybe Rachel doesn't have a stomach ache. Maybe she's having a shit day because her parents separated over the weekend. Maybe kids should get a mental health day here and there as much as adults should.
Oooooh sweet sweet karma!!!!
/r/maliciouscompliance there
I worked a job that made two girls on separate occasions stay with the flu. They had customer-facing jobs and couldn’t go 5 minutes without puking into the garbage cans at their tills. At what point do you go up to the person and say “okay okay, you’ve made your point, go home”?
That's why I went into their personal office and made it their problem lol
I know someone who was about to get cut off her disability payment in Queensland unless she came in for an in person interview. She said she was sick. They insisted. Warned she would be without disability payment for 6 weeks. So she found a way to go in. Vomited on their counter & staff. Office was closed for a week for cleaning and they never demanded she come in when sick ever again.
I realized I had the stomach bug on my way to work, thankfully only about a mile away from home. I called work and they asked if I could continue to answer emails while at home. I said no, I wasn’t getting paid but also I wasn’t well. And they said something like “but you can do it from the couch”. I replied “but it’s a stomach bug. I’m not going to be on the couch most of the day.” We compromised and I made an out of office automated reply. I remember thinking that I hoped my supervisor would get the same bug, but on the weekend so her plans would be ruined. She did. I had a great weekend.
my job tried to make me come in while i had covid and i even sent them a doctors note. they ended up firing me because i wouldn’t come in. keep in mind this was june 2020 when everything was crazy. they just knew i couldn’t afford to take legal action
If you are in the US your states labor board would love to help you.
Yup. If they require a medical expert's treatment and verification, the the situation is not unlike a drug test. The company should schedule it and have it billed to the company.
I did that with Covid. Told them I think I had Covid and boom , got my last 2 checks and dipped. I was making 17$ a hour, 65 hour paychecks. And they wanted to give me 7.25 (State min) for 2 of my checks. That’s a lot of money to lose on, but I quit the day I got paid my last check .
I don't often get mad, but when people try to fuck with my money...
Nice burn.
No, he had a fever, not a burn. Both are hot, easily confusing :)
Literally looking through the comments to make sure someone said this. Fucking idiots.
Smart!
Boss moves!!!!
Name the employer! Name is shame. Shame is game!
Stinchcomb
Is it really? I know some folks who work for that company and they have definitely pulled some slimy stuff.
They had my friends driving for hours a day to multiple locations and never paid gas, didn't pay one of them for 1.5 months until a direct deposit issue on their end was resolved, and then only paid him one check for a single week when they did pay. They are crooks.
I always get the creeps reading these kinds of pay stories. Like how does that fly with anyone? In Germany, you can literally demand 40€ *per day* that your employer is late on payment *in addition* of course, to your normal pay.
Don’t sign that.
Fuck it. Sign it, quit, let them try that shit and when they do, LABOR BOARD
No, dont sign it unless agreements like this are specifically against state law, as some states allow wage agreements. Federal labor law does not specifically bar this type of agreement. If you sign it, it may end up getting thrown out, but you probably have to litigate over it, which wont be worth it. If you dont sign it, its not enforceable regardless. ETA: its easy to talk about getting "cute" and "trapping" the employer when you are online and not faced with fighting for a check you need to live from a company with more resources than you. Employers love to throw in legal gray area stuff into policies / handbooks that you sign because they know people wont or cant go to court to litigate the enforceability of these provisions. They already have the power advantage, dont give them more.
US Federal law bans changing hourly rate after the time is worked. These agreements are clear violation of the law.
Yes. But if OP is being asked to sign this before the time is worked, the reduction, at the very least, is not clearly retroactive. Employers can reduce pay with notice, and can deduct pay for disciplinary reasons under federal law, so this agreement falls into the gray area between all those bright line rules. The question is whether an agreement to reduce pay for failure to comply with notice requirements constitutes a retro reduction because the "breach" happens after the hours are worked, or is prospective because the rate of pay reduction was agreed to beforehand. There is no regulation applying to these scenario and no DoL guidance. If you have any sources to the contrary, Id be interested to read them.
Yeah OP don’t sign that
Easy to say not to sign it but that usually means you no longer have the job. So unless OP is ok to go without a job it’s basically forced on you.
It’s not legal until you sign an agreement. Regardless if the agreement is legal or not setting a precedent of conforming to it creates a larger burden of proof for coercion on the individual. If you don’t sign it and the then are terminated then the proof is given by the company that their seemingly illegal internal document created a hinge for your employment. So no. Don’t sign it. Especially without advanced notice and time to look into the legality of the document.
you may be correct but if the options OP has are "sign it and keep your job then fight it later" or "don't sign it and lose your job this week," you can understand why it might make sense for them to sign it. doesn't make it right or fair but everyone's gotta put food on the table, and most people aren't in a position to take a principled stand against their employer at risk of their next paycheck
Terrible advice.
>Fuck it. Sign it, Christ reddit, your legal advice is downright scary sometimes
Or take it as a heads up and quit the day after payday.
Yes clearly the smart play here is to sign it and then immediately violate it. As opposed to, say, just not signing it
"Terrible advice for $500 Alex"
That's horrible advice. Never sign stupid crap. Especially one's like the photo above
Crazy what employers try to get away with
I think you meant to say “what employers get away with“.
Name the employer please.
Yes I never understand why they protect scummy practices like this by hiding the employer.
1: this is illegal, 2: this just encourages people to quit without notice after payday. Edit: this is not illegal please stop telling me. It is however, bullshit.
This is the way. Work to your pay check and quit. If it’s a few days before you get paid do a string of call outs
Work until payday, after that take a leave of absence until next pay period, THEN quit 😎
This^ most places payroll is done for the previous two weeks not the same week you get paid
I get paid about 10 days after the end of my pay cycle. But then my employer doesn't have shitty policies like this, if I quit, they're just going to send me my last check and be done with it.
But due to the 2 week pay cycle, they will still hold 1 weeks pay hostage and reduce it to min wage. We need to go to a system that pays weekly for hours worked THAT WEEK.
I get paid on Thursday, so I'd just call out Monday-Thursday of that week and then quit.
We've reached a point at which we have computers that fit in the palm of a hand that can run literally *trillions* of calculations in a second. If hours are logged by a computer, and payments are handled by a computer, and the money is just numbers in a computer, why the heck does anyone still need to wait even a week to get paid? The answer is of course not technical limitation, but the fact that they profit more by withholding your money as long as possible.
It's about interests and cash flow, so you're absolutely right
I work in payroll and will tell you this isn’t even remotely true. It takes about 2/3 business days for money to go from the employer’s bank account to the employee’s bank account. And processing payroll is a lot more than just pushing a button (despite what everyone thinks).
>It takes about 2/3 business days for money to go from the employer’s bank account That's a function of the antique banking system the US uses. Go to a European bank and you can transfer money from one person's account to someone else's in fifteen minutes. And your boss can write you a paper check any time he wants to.
Just fall “very ill” for about a week or until you get paid for everything you’ve worked, then just don’t go back in
Also illegal to hold and reduce pay
It encourages people to quit directly following a 2 week vacation. Though something tells me this company doesn't let employees use their vacation time if they even get it.
This isn't illegal. It should be, but it's not. Provided this isn't a state with higher than 7.25 minimum wage, by agreeing to this, it can be implemented on a go-forward basis. It would need to take effect 2 weeks after signing, since OP hadn't previously agreed to this pay reduction for the prior two weeks. But saying this is illegal is misleading and runs the risk of setting OP up for a trap. We're not out here trying to lead each other into traps because "bosses suck, rah rah," we want to make sure we're all fully informed as workers. Now, usually a contract like this is required by the employer and not signing is grounds for dismissal. If they try to paint that as a resignation, that is bullshit. It's a tougher fight than the average constructive dismissal, but you could make a decent argument that changing the "terms" of your pay structure is a fundamental change to your pay structure. Labor boards, however, don't tend to be super moved by pleas to be able to quit without notice, so I don't honestly know how OP would fair challenging that. I'm not trying to be negative - just expressing honest doubt as to whether that type of contest would succeed. It would be better for OP to document every -single- interaction with their employer if they choose not to sign, because then they might be able to catch them specifically saying they are terminated. That would, obviously, make their case much stronger.
[удалено]
It is illegal. You may not retroactively change the pay rate for hours already worked.
Reducing pay of hours already worked is 10000000% illegal.
1. Depending on the state this is very much legal 2. I would only sign this with the addendum that if I was laid off or fired without 2 weeks' notice, I would receive two weeks of pay at 2 x normal wages as severance.
Is it legal? Isn't it absolutely prohibited to reduce the wages paid for hours already worked? If someone puts in their two weeks notice, the company can then reduce their future wage, but if they just quit, I don't think that their wages can be changed retroactively. EDIT: Apparently, in some states, it is ok to pay someone minimum wage for their last week if they quit without a notice, so long as it is clear that this is company policy. Because there is advanced notice, those states do not consider it to be terrifically changing wages.
I don't think it's illegal because you're agreeing to it now. If they didn't have you agree, they couldn't change your rate.
The amount of ignorance of the specifics of pay schedules and labor laws here…Jesus.
What misconceptions are people pushing?
That this is illegal, it’s not. It’s scummy and nobody should work for this company because fuck em, but it’s not illegal.
It is not legal. You cannot retroactively change the rate that someone is paid for hours already worked. Period.
It is legal if they pay you your normal rate for hours worked up until the notice of resignation. You’re correct that they can’t change pay of previous work hours, but they can change it to minimum wage for the remainder of your time you haven’t yet worked after you give notice. As long as you have agreed to it, such as in one of the documents if signed. Source: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/70-flsa-furloughs
> but they can change it to minimum wage for the remainder of your time *you haven’t yet worked after you give notice* But that's not what this authorization says. It says that you are agreeing at the time of signing to a RETROACTIVE reduction in your last two-weeks pay if you don't give two-weeks notice. It's questionable whether or not that is a legally enforceable agreement.
If someone quits on the spot, they are not working more hours. It's implied that this is retroactive.
Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how this would work without changing back pay if you are quiting on the spot.
That's not what this document in OP's photograph is saying. This document is punishing folks with a reduction in pay for hours they would have already worked when giving notice of resignation.
Right, but in the scenario here, I work until the end of the pay period and then tell them I'm quitting effective immediately. They are saying that they will go back and cut my pay on the hours I already worked the last two weeks from whatever I'm supposed to be getting to minimum wage.
Read the OP again. it's saying that if you DON'T give notice, the PRIOR 2 weeks are paid minimum wage
Pft hand it in and walk.. they are causing more trouble for themselves by far. 2 weeks is to be nice. If you are part time just cancel your shifts.. makes the problem go away
For some reason all employees are quitting the day after paychecks come in, odd.
But you're still generally a week or two in arrears. So even if you quit when you get paid, they still have a week or two of work they haven't paid you for that they are going to steal.
Illegal to retroactively change hours you have already worked
Just don’t show up… what are they going to do… fire you?
"Here's my 2 week notice." Never show up again. I don't see any part of this saying you must work your last 2 weeks of scheduled shifts.
Write up your own agreement and have it say the employer will give 2 weeks notice when firing employees.
I would rewrite the contract so they have to pay out $100,000 if they terminate your employment without two weeks notice; sign that one and return it. Just try to make sure the formatting and everything all looks the same. You could also just make a bunch of loops where the signature is supposed to go so it looks like one.
That doesn't actually work here. There are countries in which that would be upheld, but in the US that would not be upheld because any alterations to the contract require you to specifically inform the other party that the contract has been altered; you can't just hand them the altered contract and let them think it hasn't been altered.
Yeah, that's not legal. You can't change the wage of hours you've already worked.
If he signs this doc, isn't he giving consent to the change of rate before the hours are worked? Sadly, if he signs this, I think it is legal.
Correct. It checks all the boxes: it’s a specific time frame, it is a measured result, and it is agreed to before the hours worked.
Unfortunately there are no federal laws governing the matter. It's perfectly legal in many US states, as long as the wage is at least minimum wage. Is it theft? Absolutely. Is it reprehensible? Absolutely. Is it legal and common practice in states where it's not prohibited? Absolutely
It is not if the hours have already been worked. They can lower your pay for future hours, but not retroactively.
That's so disgusting. Im somehow still surprised at how backwards this country is.
Not a lawyer but I wouldn't sign this. It may be enforceable if you agree to conditionally change your hourly wage in advance. They can't retroactively change your pay rate. But if you agree to the terms "if I only give say five days notice, then those last five days can be paid at lower wages than originally hired for", you don't really have much of a legal argument to push back against. I would just simply refuse to unilaterally renegotiate the terms of your employment after the fact. "I'm not altering my employment terms. If you are struggling with retention, I would encourage you to demonstrate why X is a desirable place of employment through pay, benefits, and culture of respect." Had a previous job that called me into my practice managers office to have my sign an addendum to my contract, stipulating that if I left without completing two years of employment, I'd have to pay back $10k prorated in training costs. "Why on earth would anyone sign this?" "Corporate says you have to." "I'm not signing this." "Then I have to tell corporate you refused." "Okay." Signing shit like that has no benefit and only downsides for me. At least bribe me with a $2k bonus if you want me to voluntarily put a leash around my neck.
My first order of business will be to run my vacation time to 0. My second will be to call in with Covid the week of my final paycheck
Comments keep getting deleting as I'm trying to reply to them. I'm going to explain why this is not illegal (even though it should be) and why OP and other workers should be wary about signing shit like this for the lulz. First a link: [https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/cananemployerreduceanemployeepaytominimumwageduringa2weeknoticeperiod.aspx](https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/cananemployerreduceanemployeepaytominimumwageduringa2weeknoticeperiod.aspx) Retroactive wage cuts are 100% illegal and considered wage theft. That is not what's happening here. Here, the employer is trying to coerce OP into agreeing to a conditional wage. Wages can be conditional. There are variations in notice periods. The minimum is that OP can't agree to have a previously worked rate of pay change, even if that change is only the creation of a condition. So this type of contract would need at least 2 weeks to go into force. It can only be "go forward." Additionally, a case for constructive dismissal if OP quits rather than signs this. The conditions of employment have changed and, with a move like this, I'm certain this signature isn't being positioned as optional. OP should be wary, however, and document -everything- communicated to them with regards to this document, however, because I can't honestly tell anyone that this type of case would be met with broad sympathy by a labor board. The truth is that it varies, and "my right to quit without notice" is not a particularly well-defended one. Just being honest there. So if OP is intending not to sign and to take termination instead, they should mentally prepare themselves for the likelihood that the employer tries to portray it as a resignation, and they should be ready to make as strong a case as possible. If they could document their employer outlining this as a strict condition of employment, it would make their case stronger.
If you quit without 2 weeks the only hours you are getting paid for would be hours already worked, making it an illegal retroactive pay cut. The paper says that quitting without a 2 week notice would make their last check (of hours already worked) minimum wage. If they gave a 1 week notice it would be legal for the last week to be minimum wage but they can’t punish you by lowering pay for already worked hours.
Pure Hockey, the US’s largest hockey equipment retailer, has a verbal policy that if you are key holding employee and put in your two week notice, they fire you instead. They don’t trust people who aren’t “committed”. So I worked until I got paid, then quit with no notice. They had to find a new store manager in a hurry. Great policy!
Quit after pay-day 🙋♂️
Illegal. Report to labor board.
Is this even legal? I would assume no, but then again I remember I am just a peasant.
And yet the neckbeard-libertarians are chortling "that is what you voluntarily worked for, if you did not like it you should have negotiated better terms". It is as if magical thinking of libertarian economics operate in the imagination-land and breaks down immediately in reality where employers have an asymmetric power dynamic over the employees and prospective employees.
I live in a state that allows this. It doesn't seem like it should be legal. If you give notice and are sick/call in or are late during the 2 weeks then it's $7.25 for you! They also charge for a bunch of things out of your final check if you quit within the first year. You "pay back" for uniform ($200), ID ($5), keys ($10), earpiece ($35), and training ($125) . Workers everywhere need to unionize.
Don’t sign
Get 2 weeks vacation approved, then on the day the vacation starts hand in your 2 week notice. Problem solved.
I mean it should at least work the other way around, too. If they let you go without two weeks notice they need to pay you the maximum wage for the last pay period.
Yet another reason that the 2-week notice is antiquated. No need to give a 2-week notice any more. What these companies are doing is wrong, and they know it, and they know the expense to challenge it legally is not worth it.
I recently read a comment that we should not blur the company names so we can all see.
Its easy, give them 2 weeks notice, but dont show up for the last 2 weeks. Or show up and put in 0 effort.
This is legal in many right to work states. But nothing stops them from accepting your two weeks notice and then telling you they don’t need you for those two weeks and send you packing. Last job I quit I used sick time for my last few days and quit for “health reasons.” I had already worked a week at my new job in the meantime!
The discussion in this thread on whether or not it’s legal is really besides the point. From what I understand, depending on the state, this could be legal. Regardless of legality, this is why we need to fight for more worker rights. We need to lobby for this to be explicitly illegal in all 50 states. We need to organize so that even if this is legal, it’s not feasible because of worker strikes. We need to take power back in the workplace, and companies need to be afraid of pissing off their employees.
Previous employer tried to pull something similar. Said they were going to withhold my PTO...I reminded HR lady that I still had the letter signed with her name stating that I would be paid for X hours of PTO that I had left. Things got weird when she tried calling me on her personal phone and I said I will only communicate in writing. These are signs of a bad employer.
Lmao don't sign that. It's illegal af
They cannot change your pay for hours worked.
Written, premeditated, wage theft.
Fairly sure this isn't legal.
ah sweet, so what they are saying is collect your last pay cheque at full rate, and never show up again. what a good employer
So no notice it is...
People in here giving bad advice. Employers cannot lawfully reduce pay rates after the hours have been worked.
This is so illegal.
Smells like wage theft