Different PTO / vacation policy for different employees?

[ambiguator]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Pennsylvania:

My (small biz, LLC, < 20 employees) employer is telling me that PA (or maybe federal) law requires that employees of a similar "class" must have the same PTO / vacation policy.
ie. since we're all direct reports to the principal -- no managers or VPs, etc. -- we can't have different benefit schedules.
Despite my 10 years of tenure, I have to abide by the same PTO policy as entry-level hires.
This sounds like hogwash to me.
He says he's talked to a lawyer, and it's not like him to make things up whole cloth.

Can anyone clarify or elaborate on what statue he might be referring to?
In case it matters: we're talking about salaried, full-time, exempt employees.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Pennsylvania:

My (small biz, LLC, < 20 employees) employer is telling me that PA (or maybe federal) law requires that employees of a similar "class" must have the same PTO / vacation policy.
ie. since we're all direct reports to the principal -- no managers or VPs, etc. -- we can't have different benefit schedules.
Despite my 10 years of tenure, I have to abide by the same PTO policy as entry-level hires.
This sounds like hogwash to me.
He says he's talked to a lawyer, and it's not like him to make things up whole cloth.

Can anyone clarify or elaborate on what statue he might be referring to?
In case it matters: we're talking about salaried, full-time, exempt employees.

Maybe your employer is right on the point and maybe your employer is wrong on the point. I'm not even going to research it since the way your employer is presently handling the PTO/vacation policy (ie: all employees treated alike) is perfectly legal.

 

[ambiguator]

Sorry, I should have clarified:

He recently changed the policy, saying that the previous policy was illegal.
Under the previous policy, employees with longer tenure enjoyed more PTO than employees with shorter tenure.
This change cost me about 2 weeks of annual PTO.

I'm satisfied that the current policy is legal, but I'm interested to know whether he's BS'ing or not.

 

[Zigner]

I'm satisfied that the current policy is legal, but I'm interested to know whether he's BS'ing or not.

Does it matter?

 

[ambiguator]

It matters to me to know whether he is lying.

If he is not lying, I'd like to better understand the statue he's using for justification.

If he is lying, I will have better leverage in negotiating my own compensation.

 

[Proserpina]

If he is lying, I will have better leverage in negotiating my own compensation.

If your employer has more than two active brain cells, he won't be entertaining that at all.

 

[ambiguator]

I don't understand the hostility.
I'm interested in learning about the legal issues concerning this question.

Can someone else please provide some insight?

 

[Zigner]

I don't understand the hostility.
I'm interested in learning about the legal issues concerning this question.

Can someone else please provide some insight?

Nobody's being hostile - we're just pointing out that, whether or not your employer is mistaken about the law, his current policy is perfectly legal. As such, your question is simply hypothetical. We really don't do hypotheticals here. Every time we try to answer hypothetical questions, the facts are adjusted to elicit the answer one wants to hear.

 

[cbg]

The employer may be lying. On the other hand, he may simply be mistaken. He is, however, wrong.

However, the only reason he is wrong is that we are talking about a non-regulated benefit. If he were talking about a regulated benefit such as health insurance or a 401(k) he would be right.

 

[ambiguator]

OK, Zigner, thanks for the clarification, I understand your perspective now.

In Philadelphia specifically, there was a recent city ordinance about paid sick leave that seems to have sparked the whole question for my employer.
However, I haven't heard seen any evidence from any other local businesses that their PTO policies needed to be adjusted.

I was hoping to find someone familiar with the local -- or at least state regulations -- so that I would be able to intelligently discuss our PTO policy.

If he had said, "You have too much time PTO so I'm revoking it", I'd be mad about it but I wouldn't be on this forum.
Right now, he keeps falling back to "it's illegal to give you more time off," to which I have no rebuttal besides "that sounds like BS".

CBG, are you saying that there are no regulations about how PTO benefits are offered or scheduled?

 

[eerelations]

CBG, are you saying that there are no regulations about how PTO benefits are offered or scheduled?

Yup, no regulations whatsoever about how they're offered or scheduled. In fact, PTO benefits are not required to be offered at all...which means if you piss off your boss enough that he decides to cut your PTO benefits down to 0, that would be perfectly legal too. So be careful how you tread in this matter.

 

[cbg]

OK, Zigner, thanks for the clarification, I understand your perspective now.

In Philadelphia specifically, there was a recent city ordinance about paid sick leave that seems to have sparked the whole question for my employer.
However, I haven't heard seen any evidence from any other local businesses that their PTO policies needed to be adjusted.

I was hoping to find someone familiar with the local -- or at least state regulations -- so that I would be able to intelligently discuss our PTO policy.

If he had said, "You have too much time PTO so I'm revoking it", I'd be mad about it but I wouldn't be on this forum.
Right now, he keeps falling back to "it's illegal to give you more time off," to which I have no rebuttal besides "that sounds like BS".

CBG, are you saying that there are no regulations about how PTO benefits are offered or scheduled?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. A few states (Pennsylvania is NOT one of them) require that earned but unused vacation be paid out at termination. Other than that, the only state that cares anything at all about how vacation, PTO or how it is accrued is California, and California doesn't care very much. At the Federal level, the DOL has made it abundantly clear that anything to do with PTO or vacation is a matter between the employee and the employer, and has nothing at all to do with them.

As long as an employer does not violate discrimination laws, which involve things like race, religion, gender etc. and have nothing at all to do with departments or length of service, the law does not give one hoot what the employer does with vacation time.

However, there are benefits, as I've indicated, where your employer would be spot on the money. It may be that he is not lying, but does not understand the difference between how the law addresses regulated and non-regulated benefits.