TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Is this legal?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is this legal?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
A girl I work with BF works for a group home for mentally challanged adults. Basically, they can function but need supervision. He works the night shift but there are many nights when things get "interesting" when someone goes off their meds. They are trained in how to take care of people and "talk them down" if need be. (one guy actually went after him with a knife).

It is a privately owned home, but they DO get federal funding in grants. He was making almost $11.00/hr but they were told last week that everyone would be getting a pay cut of $2-3/hr. I know some places were giving their staff a choice of cutting pay accross the board or laying people off, but they weren't given the option. Is that legal? The girl I work with says it isn't, but I think it is as long as they keep the pay above minimum wage. As far as I know there was no contract signed that specified pay.

Just was curious as to what other's have to say.
post #2 of 18
Isn't there a "either party may terminate for any reason" clause at pretty much any place of employment? If that's the case, it seems like such rights would extend to less extreme actions as well, like cutting pay. Assuming a lack of discriminatory issues, of course.

Doesn't seem right, but it seems legal.
post #3 of 18
I think that's what at will employment is. Our firm cut their contributions to our 401ks, which is basically a 3% paycut, without giving us an option. But seriously, I'm just thankful I still have a job. At the husband's work, they decided to lay people off instead of cutting pay. No options given there either, just a pink slip. The husband got one of those
post #4 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahma View Post
I think that's what at will employment is.
Ok, spinning away from the topic a bit... i apologize in advance.

Clauses like that should be illegal in any civilized country... I had a friend in the pharmaceutical industry who was systematically fired on technicalities when a new human resources manager came in from a different plant that had closed... all the new HR person was trying to do was make room for one of her cronies that had been laid off. the "at will" thing meant my friend had no legal recourse.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why IMO we need organized labor. Unions. Not so that we can "stick it to the man" and demand higher wages and bankrupt our companies, but to protect ourselves from being wrongly fired.

Now, back to the original question, as to whether giving those folks a $2-3 hourly pay cut is legal, I have no idea.
post #5 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by meowqueensdaddy View Post
Ok, spinning away from the topic a bit... i apologize in advance.

Clauses like that should be illegal in any civilized country... I had a friend in the pharmaceutical industry who was systematically fired on technicalities when a new human resources manager came in from a different plant that had closed... all the new HR person was trying to do was make room for one of her cronies that had been laid off. the "at will" thing meant my friend had no legal recourse.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why IMO we need organized labor. Unions. Not so that we can "stick it to the man" and demand higher wages and bankrupt our companies, but to protect ourselves from being wrongly fired.

Now, back to the original question, as to whether giving those folks a $2-3 hourly pay cut is legal, I have no idea.

First off, I think the Unions are a large part of why the Car Mfrs are going down the tube. When an employee doesn't pull his weight but can't lose his job because of the Union there is something very wrong.
My father worked for John Deere Tractor Works for 42+ years. He was a member of the Union. He had numerous stories of union employees sleeping in the locker room on company time and other things like that. They would get caught but could not be let go.
Other employees that would work at such a slow pace that overtime would then be required to get the job done.

Unions are IMO even more corrupt than the darn government if you ask me.

My brother owns a small commercial door shop. We have six employees, including my brother. Work is getting slim and the time has come to do something because the money just isn't there. Rather than laying off anyone, we will go to 4-day work week, which will save the company 20% in payroll.
FTR, my brother hasn't even had a paycheck himself for a while now.

So, you seem to be saying that my brother should not, legally, be able to do this. So what would you have him do if the money is not there?
Close the business and have everyone out of work?

It is very easy to say that companies shouldn't be allowed to lay off, cut pay, cut hours but when the MONEY is NOT there something has to be done.
post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by meowqueensdaddy View Post
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why IMO we need organized labor. Unions. Not so that we can "stick it to the man" and demand higher wages and bankrupt our companies, but to protect ourselves from being wrongly fired.
These are tough calls when looked at objectively, aren't they. On the one hand, I try to detach myself from the "If I don't get what I want then I must be getting screwed" sect, and say to myself that no one owes me a living - or a job - and just be thankful for what I have, and let the chips fall where they may. But then you read of underhanded situations the sort of which you wrote about, and then you think of the great job that you may have turned down to take the one you have now - who have now screwed you over.

And there's unions; once an absolute necessity years ago when employee exploitation was so rampant, now have on occasion turned into something almost just as abusive, with outrageous wage demands and the paralyzing of employers in regards to dealing with workers, potentially at the expense of product quality - and cost.

The unfortunate truth is that concentrated power is untrustworthy, and that eventually, that power will be abused by whomever possesses it.
post #7 of 18
Those $70.00 an hour auto workers were asked to take a pay cut to help save the companies but they refused. I have little pity for the ones that refused.
post #8 of 18
A $2-$3 dollar an hour cut can be a real hardship on your finances, but getting laid off is worse, if you are the one laid off.

My DH (along with everyone else in the company) lost his health insurance amounting to approx $1.75 per hour.

NEXT, they cut everyone's hours from 40 to about 25 per week.

THEN they laid him (and almost everyone else) off, keeping only the owner and her son employed there.

My point is that in this economy, many businesses are in jeapordy of closing. Cutting wages is probably not something they want to do, but something they have to do to stay open.
post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
A $2-$3 dollar an hour cut can be a real hardship on your finances, but getting laid off is worse, if you are the one laid off.

My DH (along with everyone else in the company) lost his health insurance amounting to approx $1.75 per hour.

NEXT, they cut everyone's hours from 40 to about 25 per week.

THEN they laid him (and almost everyone else) off, keeping only the owner and her son employed there.

My point is that in this economy, many businesses are in jeapordy of closing. Cutting wages is probably not something they want to do, but something they have to do to stay open.
Bingo.

In Colorado, the unemployment law is that if your pay would be reduced by 50% or more for 6 months or longer, you can quit and still have it considered a layoff. That's what just happened to my husband. They wanted him to go from 30-35 hours/week to 16 hours/month. He would make more on unemployment, and conversely if they decided in 6 months to lay him off, then his potential unemployment benefits would be very negatively impacted.

We thought long and hard, talked a lot about whether it was better for him to keep his job, any job, or to leave. We did finally decide that unemployment was a better option in his situation.

If you are in an at-will-employment state, unfortunately without a contract I think it is legal. Horrible for your friend, but legal. Pay cut is bad...layoffs are worse.

As far as Unions...there was a time when they were necessary. Now, I think the unions will be a reason that some companies ultimately close. They can't bargain with the unions, who aren't willing to make many concessions. If you can't cut costs somewhere, and income is being cut, then the only other option is to close shop.
post #10 of 18
It is probably legal, depending on where you live and not unheard of recently. While it is a hardship, so is finding decent paying jobs when everyone else is laying off workers and the companies know that.
post #11 of 18
Some years ago me and the hubby worked for a place that had a union. This place is (a factory) is well known. To get in you had to work through a temp. agency and then in 6mths you might get hired on. We know about the union and were all excited about joining because of the "wonderful" things he heard about being a part of a union.

It worked there for a few years before I went to work there. And worked up the chain and some people did not like that. My husband is a hard worker and was proud of how far he made it in the company. Here he was making good money, we thought well liked, and in the union. We people in his department but another shift started to sabatoge him. I won't go into details because well it was 5 years ago, but these people really messed up his career.

None of the namagers would listen to him that he was not making the mistakes that was claimed, he kept a detailed log of all that he did. Thats when he went to the union for help. They promised him that they would make it so he could keep his job, they would prove that he was not the one doing these things, blah blah blah. A very short time later they came back and said they tried hard but they want you gone so you gotta go.

In the end we would never join a union again. When push comes to shove they are not really there to look after you and your job as they may say. Its all politics and you scratch mine and I might scratch yours if it helps me.

BTW it was a well known union.
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
A girl I work with BF works for a group home for mentally challanged adults. Basically, they can function but need supervision. He works the night shift but there are many nights when things get "interesting" when someone goes off their meds. They are trained in how to take care of people and "talk them down" if need be. (one guy actually went after him with a knife).

It is a privately owned home, but they DO get federal funding in grants. He was making almost $11.00/hr but they were told last week that everyone would be getting a pay cut of $2-3/hr. I know some places were giving their staff a choice of cutting pay accross the board or laying people off, but they weren't given the option. Is that legal? The girl I work with says it isn't, but I think it is as long as they keep the pay above minimum wage. As far as I know there was no contract signed that specified pay.

Just was curious as to what other's have to say.

That's a hefty pay cut!

But if there is no union, or contract that specified and guaranteed the rate of pay, then yes, it is legal, so long as they don't just cut the pay without any advance notice.

If he can't live on that rate of pay, I would suggest that he keep the job and start looking for another one. I DO NOT recommend quitting a job, or asking to be laid off, because who knows how long it will take to get another job, or even if he would get as high a rate of pay as he was, or even the reduced amount after the cutback.

It's better to not take any chances. At least he still has a job and has money coming in and is able to pay for a roof over his head and put food on his table, even if it isn't as much as it has been.
post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
First off, I think the Unions are a large part of why the Car Mfrs are going down the tube. When an employee doesn't pull his weight but can't lose his job because of the Union there is something very wrong.


I don't disagree with your comments regarding the American auto workers' unions. I'd also like to point out that management is also at fault for agreeing to those ridiculous wages in the first place.

Quote:
Unions are IMO even more corrupt than the darn government if you ask me.
Let's not generalize. Not all unions are created equal, and not all are corrupt, despite the bad example of the UAW. Most collective bargaining agreements allow for workers to be fired if they're not doing their jobs, but proper procedures must be followed. Again, if that makes it too difficult for management to defend the quality of their product and production line, then they shouldn't agree to those terms.

I've said my piece... I know that many, MANY people won't agree with me here, and that's fine. I suspect that many of those haven't been a member of a union, negotiated a CBA, or dealt directly with working in a union workplace. I have, and that's my perspective.
post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
My brother owns a small commercial door shop. We have six employees, including my brother. Work is getting slim and the time has come to do something because the money just isn't there. Rather than laying off anyone, we will go to 4-day work week, which will save the company 20% in payroll.
FTR, my brother hasn't even had a paycheck himself for a while now.

So, you seem to be saying that my brother should not, legally, be able to do this. So what would you have him do if the money is not there?
Close the business and have everyone out of work?

It is very easy to say that companies shouldn't be allowed to lay off, cut pay, cut hours but when the MONEY is NOT there something has to be done.
You seem to be projecting some things onto my statement that really aren't there, if you really look at it. I did NOT, in fact, say or imply that someone in your brother's position shouldn't be able to lay off workers or cut their hours and wages. I was speaking simply to the point of "at will" clauses where a worker can be fired at any time for any reason, with no legal recourse. That's different from laying off a worker because the money isn't there to write them a paycheck. If that's what he has to do to stay in business, then yes he should be able to do it.

Let's make sure we're having the same discussion.

And speaking of that, I apologize for thread hijacking. I know that the "U" word is a hotpoint for discussion, and I'll drop it. Right now. It just doesn't have anything to do with the original topic.... in fact, I'll go ahead and unsubscribe from the thread so I don't tempt myself to come back with more left-wing garbage that lots of folks don't want to hear.
post #15 of 18
I have always thought the Teamster's is pretty corrupt also.

When anything becomes to big and to powerful it becomes corrupt, Unions and Government included.
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
First off, I think the Unions are a large part of why the Car Mfrs are going down the tube. When an employee doesn't pull his weight but can't lose his job because of the Union there is something very wrong.
My father worked for John Deere Tractor Works for 42+ years. He was a member of the Union. He had numerous stories of union employees sleeping in the locker room on company time and other things like that. They would get caught but could not be let go.
Other employees that would work at such a slow pace that overtime would then be required to get the job done.

Unions are IMO even more corrupt than the darn government if you ask me.
Yessiree.

First of all a job is better than no job!

And secondly unions cannot protect everyone. Some businesses are just too small for unions. Unions protect the lazy unmotivated employees while holding down the exceptional employees from advancement. There is no incentive to excel if you are in a union.
post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
Yessiree.

First of all a job is better than no job!

And secondly unions cannot protect everyone. Some businesses are just too small for unions. Unions protect the lazy unmotivated employees while holding down the exceptional employees from advancement. There is no incentive to excel if you are in a union.
Kind of like Communism.
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by meowqueensdaddy View Post
I don't disagree with your comments regarding the American auto workers' unions. I'd also like to point out that management is also at fault for agreeing to those ridiculous wages in the first place.



Let's not generalize. Not all unions are created equal, and not all are corrupt, despite the bad example of the UAW. Most collective bargaining agreements allow for workers to be fired if they're not doing their jobs, but proper procedures must be followed. Again, if that makes it too difficult for management to defend the quality of their product and production line, then they shouldn't agree to those terms.

I've said my piece... I know that many, MANY people won't agree with me here, and that's fine. I suspect that many of those haven't been a member of a union, negotiated a CBA, or dealt directly with working in a union workplace. I have, and that's my perspective.
My father was in the Union for more than 42 years. He said the Union is corrupt to the bone.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Is this legal?