• 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.

Being treated different at work

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

WDavis1

New member
What is the name of your state? New York

I work for a company that provides bonuses to the employees. Bonuses work as follow: the more time you save for the company the more money you make (for example: you complete an assignment is supposed to take you 60 minutes in 30 minutes). So if you save the company 8 hrs of work during the week you get 8 x your hourly wage added to your check.

If you are asked to work a department outside of your assigned department you are either given your average regularly incentive if you average an 80 in the department they asked you to go or if you are asked to work a department that doesn't provide incentive than you are provided with an extra $3 for every hour you work if it is more than half of your shift.

I work in two departments every day. No one in my department is required to do so every day. It can be anywhere from 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 hrs and sometimes a whole day. On average I work 3 hrs in the department than I am to report back to my assigned department. I believe this is done for them not to give me the bonus since you have to work half your shift which is 4 hours. The next problem tied to this is that if I'm working 15 hrs a week in this department I am only working 25hrs in my assigned department. Keep in mind that you make money by how much time you save in a week. I am not given the same amount of time/opportunity that the other employees in my department are getting. They are given 40 hrs to save time and I am only given 25hrs.

They keep me in the department just long enough not to pay the $3 an hour bonus, doesn't provide me with the same amount of hours that the other employees are getting to save time to make the bonus in my regular department and when I do work the 4 hrs or more I am still not given the extra $3 an hour bonus.

The department that I am asked to do every day is physically exhausting so some days when I get back to my regular department I am pretty worked up and don't perform very well in my assigned department. With that being said if you don't average 100% or higher for the month you get written up. I've found myself written up 3 times for not getting to this performance level.

I feel they are creating a paper trail for me. I am not provided with the same normal time to get enough practice to do well as the other employees in my department as they are not asked to report other departments daily and I am not working under the same conditions. It is like asking the employees to run 3 miles in 20 minutes but asking me to run 5 miles in 20 minutes.

So I've asked my supervisor about the bonus and he said well you have to work half your shift which is 4 hrs then he quickly changed it to 5 hrs which doesn't make any sense because my shift is 8 hrs. And let's assume that half of 8hrs is 5 hrs -- I still don't get it anyway because when I've worked 4 or more I didn't get it. I've met both the criteria in order to get the $3 an hr bonus which is: working outside your assigned department and more than half your shift.

This has been going on for almost a year. So I started thinking about what is so different from me. Being the only protected characteristic of race in my department it's easy to conclude that the action is because of that characteristic.

I looked at everything the length of service with the company, performance level, job title, etc. Some employees have been here before and after me -- not treated this way. Some employees perform better than me and lower than me -- not treated this way. After looking at a wide range of things -- the only thing that makes me different is my race which is the only thing I don't have in common with the other employees in my department. I've even asked why I get placed over there every day and they tell me it's because they're short-handed over there. When you're short-handed for almost a whole year that's a problem and on top of that they have job fairs at least twice a month and hired 50 to 60 new hires if not more-- you can't tell me not one of those hires couldn't work in that department.

I am wrong for feeling this way. I am definitely being treated differently.
 


PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
I really don't see a question in there anywhere.

That said it is not illegal for an employer to schedule employees in a way that saves them money.
 

WDavis1

New member
Thank you PayrollHRGuy for your response. With that being said I'm always up for a healthy debate.

I agree with you that it's not illegal to schedule employees in a way to save the company money. In fact, I'm expecting any company to save money at least where it's proper and correct.

To save money in a way of not paying a bonus which the employee is entitled to is wrong, wouldn't you agree? Also if other employees are getting the opportunity to make the bonus, don't you think taking that opportunity away from another employee is wrong to save money?

For this example I'm going to say you're an hourly worker. Let's say you're hourly is $25 and you worked 40 hours. You worked 40 hours and you're entitled to it at the rate of $25 an hour. Your employer only pays you for 38 hours at the rate of $20 to save money, would you be okay with that?

Or let's say your employer provides a bonus to each employee that completes 40 hrs worth of work in 35 hrs but you're only given 30 hrs. No everyone might not get the bonus but everyone has the opportunity. You have 0 chance to get the bonus because they only schedule you to 30 hrs. Now they do this to save money, would you be okay with that?

We're not talking about a week or just here and there but for months and almost a year.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
To save money in a way of not paying a bonus which the employee is entitled to is wrong, wouldn't you agree? Also if other employees are getting the opportunity to make the bonus, don't you think taking that opportunity away from another employee is wrong to save money?
That's not what's happening here. What's happening here is that they are scheduling the employee in a way that causes the employee to not be entitled to a bonus. That is not legally wrong.

For this example I'm going to say you're an hourly worker. Let's say you're hourly is $25 and you worked 40 hours. You worked 40 hours and you're entitled to it at the rate of $25 an hour. Your employer only pays you for 38 hours at the rate of $20 to save money, would you be okay with that?
It's irrelevant because that's not what's happening in your situation. This would not be legal because the employee's hourly rate is $25 per hour. Without proper notification, that cannot be reduced. Furthermore, the employer is legally required to pay an employee for all time worked.

Or let's say your employer provides a bonus to each employee that completes 40 hrs worth of work in 35 hrs but you're only given 30 hrs. No everyone might not get the bonus but everyone has the opportunity. You have 0 chance to get the bonus because they only schedule you to 30 hrs. Now they do this to save money, would you be okay with that?
Perfectly legal.
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
Thank you PayrollHRGuy for your response. With that being said I'm always up for a healthy debate.

I agree with you that it's not illegal to schedule employees in a way to save the company money. In fact, I'm expecting any company to save money at least where it's proper and correct.

To save money in a way of not paying a bonus which the employee is entitled to is wrong, wouldn't you agree? Also if other employees are getting the opportunity to make the bonus, don't you think taking that opportunity away from another employee is wrong to save money?

For this example I'm going to say you're an hourly worker. Let's say you're hourly is $25 and you worked 40 hours. You worked 40 hours and you're entitled to it at the rate of $25 an hour. Your employer only pays you for 38 hours at the rate of $20 to save money, would you be okay with that?

Or let's say your employer provides a bonus to each employee that completes 40 hrs worth of work in 35 hrs but you're only given 30 hrs. No everyone might not get the bonus but everyone has the opportunity. You have 0 chance to get the bonus because they only schedule you to 30 hrs. Now they do this to save money, would you be okay with that?

We're not talking about a week or just here and there but for months and almost a year.
FreeAdvice is not a debate site. You can google "healthy debate" and find a site suitable to discuss your hypothetical situation. Good Luck!!
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
I have a question, and no prompting from the peanut gallery; I want to hear the answer from the OP and not from a responder here.

If you had to guess, why would you guess that YOU (as opposed to someone else) are being singled out like this?
 

not2cleverRed

Obvious Observer
Am I the only one who read the bolded sentences?

This has been going on for almost a year. So I started thinking about what is so different from me. Being the only protected characteristic of race in my department it's easy to conclude that the action is because of that characteristic.

I looked at everything the length of service with the company, performance level, job title, etc. Some employees have been here before and after me -- not treated this way. Some employees perform better than me and lower than me -- not treated this way. After looking at a wide range of things -- the only thing that makes me different is my race which is the only thing I don't have in common with the other employees in my department. I've even asked why I get placed over there every day and they tell me it's because they're short-handed over there. When you're short-handed for almost a whole year that's a problem and on top of that they have job fairs at least twice a month and hired 50 to 60 new hires if not more-- you can't tell me not one of those hires couldn't work in that department.

I am wrong for feeling this way. I am definitely being treated differently.
While I do not know if Davis1's conclusion is correct, that would be a valid gripe.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Thank you, Red, I did overlook that.

OP, I see absolutely no harm in your addressing this question with HR.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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