No Pay for PTO

[Ender00225]

Tennessee

Is it legal to not pay employees for "PAID time off"

My employer offers "paid time off'' to all employees. If I take 8 hours of PTO they first subtract 8 hours of pay from hours actually worked and then fill that in with PTO pay. Basically not paying the PTO. Is this legal and where can I find text that would support it?

Thanks

 

[cbg]

No law in any state requires an employer to provide paid time off to non-exempt employees, and there are only limited circumstances under which an exempt employee is owed it. As long as you are being paid the right number of dollars for the number of hours worked, the law does not care whether the employer calls it wages, PTO, Gary, or a toaster. It's not what it's called that matters; it's whether you've been paid the higher of state or Federal minimum wage times hours worked, plus any overtime that is due, at the end of the week.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I don't understand what they're doing.

Let's say you normally work five days per week, eight hours per day, for a total of fourty hours per week.

If you take Tuesday off as PTO, so you only actually worked 32 hours that week. Are you saying your employer deducts 8 hours from the 32, so pays you 'normal' pay for 24 hours, and adds 8 hours for PTO, for a total of 32 hours paid?

I don't think there's anything illegal about that, but I don't see why they would do that.

 

[swalsh411]

It sounds more like you have a bank of hours that you can take off for unpaid absenses so it's really Uto not Pto. But as mentioned if you have been paid for all hours worked then the law is satisfied.

 

[Betty]

As stated previously, your employer isn't required by law to provide you with PTO. (unless you have a binding employment contract or CBA requiring PTO.) If you get paid correctly for all hours you actually work, that is all that is required.

If your employer provides/offers PTO, they can apply it as they wish.

I don't see where your employer did anything illegal based on what you posted.

 

[Ender00225]

Yes, that is exactly what they are doing. It is still 32 hours paid but 8 hours have been deducted from the the PTO Balance that is on the paycheck. Pay shows 24 hours worked and 8 hours paid even though 32 hours would have been worked. The company agrees that PTO is a benefit and is part of my compensation and even a liability on their balance sheet but it is not treated that way. PTO simply disappears from my paycheck with nothing actually given back. They just delete the liability on their own books. I know they don't HAVE to offer PTO but since they do don't they have to actually pay it if they grant it?

I don't understand what they're doing.

Let's say you normally work five days per week, eight hours per day, for a total of fourty hours per week.

If you take Tuesday off as PTO, so you only actually worked 32 hours that week. Are you saying your employer deducts 8 hours from the 32, so pays you 'normal' pay for 24 hours, and adds 8 hours for PTO, for a total of 32 hours paid?

I don't think there's anything illegal about that, but I don't see why they would do that.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

You have received some of the most knowledgeable opinions on the topic here. I suggest you contact your state DOL for further info.

 

[Ender00225]

Apparently it is treated more like UTO but our UTO is actually a different policy still. If I take UTO they start subtracting hours from a minimum guarantee which I can understand. The PTO, however, being part of my compensation it is surprising they they can call it PTO and then not PAY it. The employee manual even says "PTO is always paid at the employee’s base hourly rate. It does not include overtime or any other special forms of payment." So they call it PTO, employee manual even says they pay me for it, it's on my paycheck, yet the whole thing is an illusion and that's ok? Not to mention if I leave the company they then DO have to pay me in my PTO balance. Why only when I leave and not when I cash it in?

It sounds more like you have a bank of hours that you can take off for unpaid absenses so it's really Uto not Pto. But as mentioned if you have been paid for all hours worked then the law is satisfied.

 

[Ender00225]

OK thanks. I'll try that. I was just hoping to find some text that covers the subject.

You have received some of the most knowledgeable opinions on the topic here. I suggest you contact your state DOL for further info.

 

[cbg]

As I said above, it doesn't matter what they call it. They want to call it PTO when it's actually UTO, no law says they can't. They want to call it Madeline, they can call it Madeline. They want to call it a screwdriver, they can call it a screwdriver. The law does not care what they call it. The law cares about whether or not you got paid all the time you are owed. You are not owed pay under the law when you take time off.

I agree it's an unusual policy. It does not appear to be an unlawful policy.

 

[justalayman]

I agree it's an unusual policy. It does not appear to be an unlawful policy.

cbg; I have a question about how they are doing this.

. Pay shows 24 hours worked and 8 hours paid even though 32 hours would have been worked.

does that not create an issue for the employer? I agree that the fact they are paid for all 32 hours worked, they received all they are due but doesn't the fact they are actually reducing the amount of hours recorded as work hours cause an issue in itself? Are they not required to accurately reflect the actual hours worked?

If so, that could lead to a resolution for the OP that they are paid for the hours worked plus the PTO, or, maybe it could result in a termination of the PTO altogether but regardless, I would think they must accurately report the hours worked for a variety of reasons.

 

[cbg]

Yes, they are required to accurately record hours worked.

But unless the inaccurate recording results in the employee being paid for fewer hours than he WORKED (because the law does not require that he be paid when he does not work) it will not result in any payoff for the OP. Could the employer be in trouble with the state for not recording accurately? Sure. But the state is not going to require that the OP be paid for time he did not work, simply because the employer recorded it in a funky way. The OP would have to convince the state that he actually worked more time than he did, for this to result in a payoff.

 

[Zigner]

No law in any state requires an employer to provide paid time off to non-exempt employees, and there are only limited circumstances under which an exempt employee is owed it. As long as you are being paid the right number of dollars for the number of hours worked, the law does not care whether the employer calls it wages, PTO, Gary, or a toaster. It's not what it's called that matters; it's whether you've been paid the higher of state or Federal minimum wage times hours worked, plus any overtime that is due, at the end of the week.

I don't disagree, however, some states (ie: California) may classify this as accrued vacation. As such, there ARE rules that would need to be followed.

I am only mentioning this as another angle of looking at it. I have not researched TN law on this matter, as I'm sure there are folks with ready knowledge of this, once it's viewed in this light

 

[justalayman]

Yes, they are required to accurately record hours worked.

But unless the inaccurate recording results in the employee being paid for fewer hours than he WORKED (because the law does not require that he be paid when he does not work) it will not result in any payoff for the OP. Could the employer be in trouble with the state for not recording accurately? Sure. But the state is not going to require that the OP be paid for time he did not work, simply because the employer recorded it in a funky way. The OP would have to convince the state that he actually worked more time than he did, for this to result in a payoff.

I was just looking at that as a means to correct the situation. Requiring the employer to record the hours properly would in effect remove their ability to deal with the situation as they are. I would suspect it would cause them to either pay the PTO as it is perceived it should be or terminating the PTO policy. In either case, at least it would clear up the odd situation the OP is currently face with.