Employer denying education assistance.

[noname101]

What is the name of your state ? Ohio.

I work for a large company in Ohio. In the hand book it states that Education Assistance is a benefit. It even lists certain places that I can go that are "Approved". I want to sign up for one of the courses from the "Approved" list but I am being told there is no money. Is my employer allowed to deny me a benefit because they do not want to pay for it? I can understand if it was a policy, but it is listed as a benefit and I am being denied it because they say there is no money in next years budget. I could even understand if it was a first come first serve with limited money in the pot, but that is not the case. I am being told that I cannot sign up for any classes because there will be no money next year. It seems like my employer is unfairly denying a benefit.

 

[cbg]

Educational assistance is not a right, nor is an employee handbook a contract. The employer is free to change their benefit structure at any time unless a bona fide, legally binding contract or CBA specifically says otherwise.

Quite frankly, in the current economy, you're lucky you still have a job, let alone benefits. Many employers are having to reduce or eliminate benefits in order to prevent layoffs. It is perfectly legal.

 

[noname101]

Educational assistance is not a right, nor is an employee handbook a contract. The employer is free to change their benefit structure at any time unless a bona fide, legally binding contract or CBA specifically says otherwise.

Quite frankly, in the current economy, you're lucky you still have a job, let alone benefits. Many employers are having to reduce or eliminate benefits in order to prevent layoffs. It is perfectly legal.

I agree that Education assistance is not a right, I never said it was. My contention is that I was told it was a benefit and now I am not able to use it. It is still a benefit I am just getting denied. Also I would disagree that the employee hand book IS legally binding. It is not a contract but, is a good faith document that we both enter into as terms of my employment. But that is getting off topic, I believe it is more important that they are calling it a benefit. Does that not put some obligation on the employer to be consistent in it's practices? I would not have a problem if they got rid of education assistance all together. They have that right. They can edit the hand book with a 30 day notice and it would be gone. However, that is not what they have done. Instead I am being denied what I am being told is a current benefit.

Also the threats of "I should be happy because I have a job" is really getting old. Why should I let a company not follow through on what they promised just because the economy is bad. Is it okay if I only pay some of my mortgage because the economy is bad. <To Bank> Hey you should be happy you got that money at all, some people are defaulting!! </To Bank>. Yeah that would fly... right out the window. I appreciate the help, I do, but spare me the righteous indignation.

Thank you.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

I agree that Education assistance is not a right, I never said it was. My contention is that I was told it was a benefit and now I am not able to use it. It is still a benefit I am just getting denied. Also I would disagree that the employee hand book IS legally binding. It is not a contract but, is a good faith document that we both enter into as terms of my employment. But that is getting off topic, I believe it is more important that they are calling it a benefit. Does that not put some obligation on the employer to be consistent in it's practices? I would not have a problem if they got rid of education assistance all together. They have that right. They can edit the hand book with a 30 day notice and it would be gone. However, that is not what they have done. Instead I am being denied what I am being told is a current benefit.

You received the legally correct answer, was any part of it unclear?

 

[Zigner]

You received the legally correct answer, was any part of it unclear?

Obviously, it's the part where he got an answer he didn't want to hear!

 

[cbg]

Yes, I agree that it is a benefit. The fact that it is a benefit does not mean that the employer is required to provide it.

As indicated, the employer is free to adjust and amend their benefit structure at any time.

Spare ME the theatrics. Nothing I said was a threat; you don't work for me. The state of the economy is a fact. And there's a difference between employment benefits and your mortgage: you are legally obligated to pay your mortgage but your employer is not legally obligated to provide benefits.

 

[noname101]

You received the legally correct answer, was any part of it unclear?

I am not a lawyer and I know all of you are much smarter then me but, yes there are some parts that are unclear. For instance the statement about the handbook not being legally binding, I now I live in Ohio but this seems to indicate that a handbook is legally binding: Converted WP file 21406. And it seems to have been used in a case in Arizona.

Also what I was really looking to discuss and, it seems to keep getting side tracked, is not the hand book but the employers obligation to a benefit. Once you call something a benefit does that not change the employers obligation?

Thank you all for you help.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Also what I was really looking to discuss and, it seems to keep getting side tracked, is not the hand book but the employers obligation to a benefit. Once you call something a benefit does that not change the employers obligation?

You can call it a spark plug or a thermometer, it changes nothing.

 

[Zigner]

Benefits can have "strings" attached.
Furthermore, if there's no money, what do you expect them to do?
I'll tell you what - why don't you offer to resign, allowing them to save the money they pay you and use it to reinstate the benefit?

 

[noname101]

Obviously, it's the part where he got an answer he didn't want to hear!

Yeah that right! That is why I just said "you are wrong!" and folded my arms and pouted... Oh wait I did not do that. I asked follow up questions to clarify a position on something I did not understand. Including the parts I did not understand and reasons why I did not make sense. Hmmm a well thought out response to a post on a board that is supposed to be encourage discussion that is just inconceivable.

Thank you for you help.

 

[noname101]

Yes, I agree that it is a benefit. The fact that it is a benefit does not mean that the employer is required to provide it.

As indicated, the employer is free to adjust and amend their benefit structure at any time.

Spare ME the theatrics. Nothing I said was a threat; you don't work for me. The state of the economy is a fact. And there's a difference between employment benefits and your mortgage: you are legally obligated to pay your mortgage but your employer is not legally obligated to provide benefits.

Again the hand book has not been amended. The hand book states "Fill out said form" I fill it out and I get denied with the explanation "There is no money". So the continuing statement about an amended hand book are pointless.

Also I did not say you threatened me, interesting that you think of yourself first for any statement, it was intended to have a more global view. Actually I would say they are legally obligate to offer the the benefits that were promised, at least some. After open enrollment they cannot just say they are not going to pay my health insurance anymore. They are obligated to continue to pay their share until the end of the year or I am terminated. The the question becomes, what is the line?

Thank you for you time, I am really enjoying this.
Seriously that is not sarcastic this is fun!!

 

[Zigner]

Again the hand book has not been amended. The hand book states "Fill out said form" I fill it out and I get denied with the explanation "There is no money". So the continuing statement about an amended hand book are pointless.

Also I did not say you threatened me, interesting that you think of yourself first for any statement, it was intended to have a more global view. Actually I would say they are legally obligate to offer the the benefits that were promised, at least some. After open enrollment they cannot just say they are not going to pay my health insurance anymore. They are obligated to continue to pay their share until the end of the year or I am terminated. The the question becomes, what is the line?

Thank you for you time, I am really enjoying this.
Seriously that is not sarcastic this is fun!!

Ok, wait a second. The procedure is for you to fill out an application for approval?

 

[noname101]

You can call it a spark plug or a thermometer, it changes nothing.

So what you are saying that terms have no legal meaning? Oh well in that case I AM a lawyer. It does not matter it is just words right??

 

[noname101]

Benefits can have "strings" attached.
Furthermore, if there's no money, what do you expect them to do?
I'll tell you what - why don't you offer to resign, allowing them to save the money they pay you and use it to reinstate the benefit?

I like Cheese.

Hey look now both or our statements have nothing to do with my question.

 

[Zigner]

They are obligated to continue to pay their share until the end of the year or I am terminated.

And you're wrong in THAT assumption too!