last paycheck reduced for failure to give 2-week notice

[ecmst12]

Originally Posted by Swimbeak

his final paycheck is subject to a $150.00 deduction or his final wages will be reduced to minimum wage, whichever is less.

I have an issue with this clause, ONLY because it states that the final paycheck will be reduced by up to $150 less then minimum wage, if the employee is already making minimum wage or close to it.

That wouldn't make it any less legal (in this case) to reduce the paycheck TO minimum wage, but it's never ever ever ok to reduce a paycheck to LESS then minimum wage. If that was ever done, the employee could file a complaint with the DOL for the amount below minimum wage.

Having an illegal clause doesn't make the rest of the document invalid, and if it's never enforced, the law won't have anything to take action over....but it's pretty stupid to have it in there anyway.

[eerelations]

Originally Posted by Swimbeak

Most employees that are hired are not even aware that they have signed such a document and are not aware of it until they are faced with the situation.

How can someone be aware enough to sign a document but not aware enough to know he's signed it? This is physically and scientifically impossible!

[Swimbeak]

Originally Posted by Wirelessany1

I wouldn't have someone who couldn't read a simple document take care of one of my customers.

Right, and a fine-print clause that is buried in a mountain of preemployment paperwork should stand out like a sore thumb - shame on you for being judgemental. The person I am referring to happens to be a GREAT employee that received high compliments and it would be your loss not to have him. He is not alone in this.

I like how it was conveniently ignored that this paper, among the mountains of others, are a condition of employment. In other words, you need a job but can't have it unless you agree to this. And regardless, this clause is not relevant to the signer at the time because, on good faith, they have no reason to believe that they would be terminated with cause and have no intention of resigning without giving a two week notice.

[cbg]

That does not excuse them for not reading what they are given at hire, and certainly not for not reading what they are signing.

[ecmst12]

That doesn't change the legality of the policy. Nor the responsibility of every employee to read and be familiar with the company policies in the handbook.

[lazyworker]

I just had this exact thing happen to me. Worked for a company that was awful. After some time I left the company without giving notice in a right-to-work state. Buried pretty deep within the company handbook was a clause stating that any monies owed at termination would be paid at minimum wage. Unfortunately I had worked 6 days into a 10 day pay period so I ended up losing $750. No chump change.

I understand it is legal. I definitely know it is not moral or ethical. Why wouldn't this allow, when no one is watching nor complaining, a company to "let go" employees on the 10th day of a pay period in order to save thousands of dollars?

The company I was at violated the state law by not paying me in due time (they are required to do so on the next pay day). I called 33 days after I left and was informed my check was ready and waiting for me to pick up at the business all that time.

The company was so sure I was unaware of the clause in the handbook that they copied the page from the handbook and highlighted the clause, sending it to me with the final paycheck. Nice.

Only serves to reinforce why I decided to leave in the first place.