• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Can an employer give one employee things and deny all others

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

MrCrowley269

Junior Member
Massachusetts: Can an employer allow one employee to claim mileage and travel time to and from home to the office and allow the one employee to work from home whenever they wish, while telling all other employee’s at the same pay grade that they “must” go into the office, everyday, and that travel time and mileage can not be claimed to the office and back home, and that all others can not, for any reason work from home.
 


PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
By "claimed" I assume you mean paid for by the employer?

In both cases, unless the reason is based on sex, race or one of the other protected classes, the answer is yes they can.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Confirmed. Absolutely nothing in either Federal or Massachusetts law (or the law of any other state, for that matter) says that all employees must be treated identically. It only says that any differences in treatment cannot be based in a characteristic protected by law.

There are, in fact, a couple of possible reasons why an employer might be required to do at least some of this, and you would not be entitled for privacy reasons to know the reasons why.
 

MrCrowley269

Junior Member
It is a friends situation. I figured that a company was within bounds, as I am 55 and have worked for many years. I think that is why the Union is such a good organization. A walk out of all employee’s seems like the only reasonable solution.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.—Abraham Lincoln

All that harms labor is treason to America.—Abraham Lincoln
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
It is a friends situation. I figured that a company was within bounds, as I am 55 and have worked for many years. I think that is why the Union is such a good organization. A walk out of all employee’s seems like the only reasonable solution.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.—Abraham Lincoln

All that harms labor is treason to America.—Abraham Lincoln
You should not be posting the friends situation on the net.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
You are assuming, based on third hand information, that the employer has just unilaterally decided to give one employee privileges for no reason other than that they choose to. While it's within supposition that this is the case (and it would not be illegal even if so) it is far more likely that there is a reason to which your friend is not privy. This could involve medical reasons involving a family member, disability issues, a special work related project, or a dozen other things. Massachusetts, which is my state as well (and also Blue's), is an employee-friendly state.

If only one employee is being allowed to work from home or provided with paid travel (btw, MA law REQUIRES certain types of mileage to be paid - it's possible this employee is the only one who is making the type of travel which fits the requirement) and all other employees are not, that suggests that there is something specific to the employee's situation which has triggered the employer to permit this, rather than just playing favorites. If some employees were being granted privileges and not others, that might indicate favoritism of some kind (which still would not necessarily be illegal). However, where it is only one employee, that says to the HR manager in me that the employee is on FMLA, has an ADA issue, or has some other personal situation which means the employer either is required to, or has opted to, accommodate the employee's situation. Once again, your friend would not likely be aware of, and is not entitled to, know the employer's reasoning. The employee in question has certain rights which, depending on the reason for the accommodation and other details, might be violated by the employer's explaining the reasons why to the population at large.
 
Last edited:

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
It is a friends situation. I figured that a company was within bounds, as I am 55 and have worked for many years. I think that is why the Union is such a good organization. A walk out of all employee’s seems like the only reasonable solution.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.—Abraham Lincoln

All that harms labor is treason to America.—Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln was first and foremost, a politician and a very gifted one. His quotes that you provided would go over well with the public at the time but does not necessarily make for a good business or economic argument. I was once a member of union many years ago. As far as worker protection went, the union protected the incompetent from getting fired but did little to help the best employees. My union dues were wasted as the union never did anything that ultimately benefited me. Rather, the agreement that the union struck with management held back the best employees. Suffice to say, that experience soundly soured me on unions. It seems that most employees in this country also dislike unions as union membership in private business has been falling for years and is pretty low. It is primarily in government that you see really active union membership. If employees really thought unions were a good thing, we’d see much more union activity in this country than we do. Your friend and his/her co-workers are free to try to organize the workplace and bring in a union if they want. But if they do they may find they regret it later.
 

Shadowbunny

Queen of the Not-Rights
Abraham Lincoln was first and foremost, a politician and a very gifted one. His quotes that you provided would go over well with the public at the time but does not necessarily make for a good business or economic argument. I was once a member of union many years ago. As far as worker protection went, the union protected the incompetent from getting fired but did little to help the best employees. My union dues were wasted as the union never did anything that ultimately benefited me. Rather, the agreement that the union struck with management held back the best employees. Suffice to say, that experience soundly soured me on unions. It seems that most employees in this country also dislike unions as union membership in private business has been falling for years and is pretty low. It is primarily in government that you see really active union membership. If employees really thought unions were a good thing, we’d see much more union activity in this country than we do. Your friend and his/her co-workers are free to try to organize the workplace and bring in a union if they want. But if they do they may find they regret it later.
This has been my experience as well. Although unions were most decidedly useful when they were lobbying against sweat shops and child labor, it appears that they've become top-heavy politicized organizations more concerned with self-preservation than the welfare of their dues-paying members.
 

commentator

Senior Member
One thing that has caused me to be actively pro union is my familiarity with employers, after many years of dealing with them. Yes, the unions are sometimes top heavy and crooked. However, the average employee these days tends to be anti union not because of this, but because of things that were obtained for them by unions in the past. And the average American worker is to a large extent ignorant of what rights and privileges they have in the workplace until they run up face to face with an employer who's totally bad and doesn't mind looking bad. "When principle meets profit, principle very rarely prospers" said Ward Beecher. He was talking about slavery, but frankly, that's what a lot of people in business appear to secretly aspire to for those who work for wages.

So this person is working at a place where one person is given everything, and no one else is given much of anything. Is this legal? Yep. Is this fair? Nope, probably not. What can I do about it? What choice do I have? Find another job. And if they find you complaining too much, or if you do anything else that displeases them, you're fired, "At will" as you were able to quit "at will". Unemployment benefits will not likely be granted if you quit a job because of these circumstances, because when you accepted the job, you accepted it at the pay rate and conditions you were given for YOUR job, regardless of what the company was paying someone else. Unemployment insurance was started in the thirties partly because of the habits of employers who, when their workers complained about wages or working conditions, would give them a little starving time by cutting their work until they stopped complaining and were properly grateful for any work.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top