Employer revoked employee discount for workers who receive state assistance

[crafty35a]

We're not talking about an employee discount. We're talking about a person claiming they pay X and actually they only pay Y. It sounds to me like the employer has realized the error in their ways.

Eligibility for this program in Massachusetts is not determined by the price you pay. It is determined solely by family income and meeting the activity requirement. Thanks!

 

[Just Blue]

Eligibility for this program in Massachusetts has is not determined by the price you pay. It is determined solely by family income and meeting the activity requirement.

Is your income taken into account?

 

[crafty35a]

Yes, that would be legal.

Bah! I'm sure you get my point. The fact that this is not related directly to employment/non-employment certainly doesn't preclude it from being illegal. And I'm not trying to argue that it is illegal, I'm just hoping for an explanation of why it is or isn't. Thanks for your replies!

 

[Silverplum]

(OT: Blue -- please clear some PM space! )

Back to topic...oh, yes. Double discounts. Is it legal to "level the playing field" by only offering one discount per employee? The intent of the discount in the first place was, no doubt, to "level the playing field."

 

[crafty35a]

Is your income taken into account?

No, it is not, only income of 18+ year old family members living in the same household is counted.

 

[Zigner]

Eligibility for this program in Massachusetts is not determined by the price you pay. It is determined solely by family income and meeting the activity requirement. Thanks!

You have mentioned nothing of the requirements for facilities to participate in this program. Like maybe that they're not allowed to "kick back" anything to the parents who use vouchers...

 

[crafty35a]

(OT: Blue -- please clear some PM space! )

Back to topic...oh, yes. Double discounts. Is it legal to "level the playing field" by only offering one discount per employee? The intent of the discount in the first place was, no doubt, to "level the playing field."

But the employer was never offering double discounts to anyone. The daycare assistance is provided by the state. So the employer is offering only one discount, and it is only offering that discount to employees who do not participate in the state voucher program.

 

[Silverplum]

But the employee was never offering double discounts to anyone.

That's obvious. The employee has no ability to offer discounts to anyone. She employs no one. She is the receiver, not the giver.

The daycare assistance is provided by the state. So the employer is offering only one discount, and it is only offering that discount to employees who do not participate in the state voucher program.

Yes, because one discount per household is enough.

 

[crafty35a]

You have mentioned nothing of the requirements for facilities to participate in this program. Like maybe that they're not allowed to "kick back" anything to the parents who use vouchers...

I can't be sure of this as I don't run a daycare center, but I'm pretty confident that there is no such requirement. She has worked at more than one other center that provided this discount, and her current employer has made no mention of this as a reason for revoking the discount. The only reason given has been cost-cutting.

 

[Just Blue]

No, it is not, only income of 18+ year old family members living in the same household is counted.

So. This LEGALLY has NOTHING to do with you and yet you are posting it on a public forum. Does the GF know you are potentially causing her employment problems?

 

[Zigner]

I can't be sure of this as I don't run a daycare center, but I'm pretty confident that there is no such requirement. She has worked at more than one other center that provided this discount, and her current employer has made no mention of this as a reason for revoking the discount. The only reason given has been cost-cutting.

There ya go then.

 

[crafty35a]

That's obvious. The employee has no ability to offer discounts to anyone. She employs no one. She is the receiver, not the giver.

Yes, because one discount per household is enough.

Sorry, I'm sure you realize that I meant to type employer, not employee. So far the only reasoning you have provided is "one discount per household is enough." Unless you believe there is some law supporting that theory, I'm going to assume it is just your personal opinion?

I don't mean to sound rude, but I feel that I have a legitimate question as to whether this is a potentially illegal discriminatory dispensation of benefits, and "one discount is enough" is not going to convince me otherwise.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry, I'm sure you realize that I meant to type employer, not employee. So far the only reasoning you have provided is "one discount per household is enough." Unless you believe there is some law supporting that theory, I'm going to assume it is just your personal opinion?

I don't mean to sound rude, but I feel that I have a legitimate question as to whether this is a potentially illegal discriminatory dispensation of benefits, and "one discount is enough" is not going to convince me otherwise.

I would suggest that you speak with a local employment law attorney - half-an-hour of time won't cost you that much.

 

[crafty35a]

So. This LEGALLY has NOTHING to do with you and yet you are posting it on a public forum. Does the GF know you are potentially causing her employment problems?

Of course. She was sitting right next to me as I posted this.

 

[Just Blue]

Of course. She was sitting right next to me as I posted this.

Are her hands broken??