Question about new information about new employee

[isis297]

What is the name of your state? NY

My boss has a small company that until a few months ago he ran himself. Suddenly he found himself needing to hire a few staff members so a lot of things aren't completely in place yet.

One of the people hired was for a salaried, managerial position only to find out the first day on the job that there is a legal situation that would keep him from being able to work on certain projects. Our company had called references and was simply told the gentleman was a nice man which he does seem to be. We don't want to not give him a chance, but this affects his ability to do his job. We can't pick and choose projects based on his situation.

We were thinking we could reclassify him changing him to an hourly position. We would pay extra on the projects he acted in a managerial capacity, but when there are projects he cannot work on, there was question as to whether he could be asked to use his PTO and then absent without leave taken beyond his vacation allotment. The thing is if this happened often, would there be able to be disciplinary actions?

Thank you for your time.

 

[justalayman]

Disciplinary actions? For what? Discipline is for when the employee does something wrong. If you do not allow him to be on site, thwt is the employers action, not his, that prevents him from being at work.

You can schedule an employee to work or not to work as you wish. If you don’t want him there just don’t schedule him.


You are totally misunderstanding the hourly and salary issue. Anybody can be paid salary and anybody can be paid hourly. The issue is whether they can be treated as exempt (from overtime rules) or not.


Personally, if employing him is this big of an issue I simply wouldn’t employ him.

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state? NY

My boss has a small company that until a few months ago he ran himself. Suddenly he found himself needing to hire a few staff members so a lot of things aren't completely in place yet.

One of the people hired was for a salaried, managerial position only to find out the first day on the job that there is a legal situation that would keep him from being able to work on certain projects. Our company had called references and was simply told the gentleman was a nice man which he does seem to be. We don't want to not give him a chance, but this affects his ability to do his job. We can't pick and choose projects based on his situation.

We were thinking we could reclassify him changing him to an hourly position. We would pay extra on the projects he acted in a managerial capacity, but when there are projects he cannot work on, there was question as to whether he could be asked to use his PTO and then absent without leave taken beyond his vacation allotment. The thing is if this happened often, would there be able to be disciplinary actions?

Thank you for your time.

Did he say what exactly the "legal situation" is that prevents him from being at certain sites?

 

[cbg]

If you are asking whether classifying him as non-exempt, which is what most people think of when they say hourly, would cause you to be in trouble with any regulatory agency, the answer is that you would not. Non-exempt is the default. Anyone can be non-exempt. Microsoft could classify Bill Gates as non-exempt if they wanted to. The only issue is that if you treat him as non-exempt, you would have to pay him overtime. If it affects his ability to do the job that much, don't hire him and get someone who can do the job as designed.

 

[isis297]

Disciplinary actions? For what? Discipline is for when the employee does something wrong. If you do not allow him to be on site, thwt is the employers action, not his, that prevents him from being at work.

You can schedule an employee to work or not to work as you wish. If you don’t want him there just don’t schedule him.


You are totally misunderstanding the hourly and salary issue. Anybody can be paid salary and anybody can be paid hourly. The issue is whether they can be treated as exempt (from overtime rules) or not.


Personally, if employing him is this big of an issue I simply wouldn’t employ him.

He has already been hired, but his job requires him to be in situations that legally come to find out he cannot be and he knew this going into the job. He just didn't tell our employer. So it isn't the employer's action when the employer has to follow the law.

Disciplinary action if it proves that there are too often times he cannot work because of his legal situation.

 

[isis297]

If you are asking whether classifying him as non-exempt, which is what most people think of when they say hourly, would cause you to be in trouble with any regulatory agency, the answer is that you would not. Non-exempt is the default. Anyone can be non-exempt. Microsoft could classify Bill Gates as non-exempt if they wanted to. The only issue is that if you treat him as non-exempt, you would have to pay him overtime. If it affects his ability to do the job that much, don't hire him and get someone who can do the job as designed.

The problem is he was already hired and already hired into a salaried managerial position. He did not disclose his legal issues and that it would affect his job until he got to the first job and immediately had to walk out. THEN he told our employer the situation. So can we legally reclassify him to a non-managerial, hourly position through which we know he would have to be paid overtime.

 

[isis297]

Did he say what exactly the "legal situation" is that prevents him from being at certain sites?

Yes, he told my boss the legal restrictions AFTER they got to the first job and he immediately had to walk out.

 

[Just Blue]

He told my boss AFTER they got to the first job and he immediately had to walk out.

Yes..but what is the legal issue? Is he a sex offender and the site was at or very near a school ?

 

[eerelations]

Yes, he told my boss the legal restrictions AFTER they got to the first job and he immediately had to walk out.

And your boss didn't immediately terminate his employment because...?

 

[isis297]

Yes..but what is the legal issue? Is he a sex offender and the site was at or very near a school ?

I messaged you privately.

 

[isis297]

And your boss didn't immediately terminate his employment because...?

Because we were told by an HR specialist that basically it was our fault for not doing background checks and that we should do them moving forward. She said that we couldn't just fire him because it could be deemed retaliatory discrimination or something like that...which I don't understand because NY is an at will state and this affects his ability to do his job.

 

[eerelations]

Because we were told by an HR specialist that basically it was our fault for not doing background checks and that we should do them moving forward. She said that we couldn't just fire him because it could be deemed retaliatory discrimination or something like that...which I don't understand because NY is an at will state and this affects his ability to do his job.

Strange advice. It must have something to do with the legal situation that you're refusing to elaborate on here.

 

[isis297]

Strange advice. It must have something to do with the legal situation that you're refusing to elaborate on here.

I sent you a private message telling you what it is.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The HR specialist has more info than we do. You have been asked several times with no answer but I'm going to try again.

What is the legal situation?

Was this a question that was answered falsely on an application?

 

[eerelations]

The HR specialist has more info than we do. You have been asked several times with no answer but I'm going to try again.

What is the legal situation?

OP is steadfastly refusing to answer this question - even though the answer may be directly related to the problems her boss is having. She has advised several of us that she has sent us PMs elaborating on the legal issue...but in fact she hasn't actually done that.

Personally, I'm done with all this dental work.