Question about new information about new employee

[Just Blue]

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.

She p.m. me...

 

[Just Blue]

I only private messaged you. You might want to look at your inbox. The message is showing up in my folder. I ended up putting the gist of it here after all, but I'm not a liar. I did PM you. And again, I'm trying to be cautious how I go about this. I'm not looking for trouble for the company I work for.

lol...it was me you p.m.ed

 

[isis297]

lol...it was me you p.m.ed

I saw. :-/

 

[not2cleverRed]

Ok, so my boss can either terminate him or reclassify him based on the fact that the offense for which he was convicted will have bearing on his ability to perform his duties. Do you know what the HR person was referring to about us getting in trouble for retaliatory action?

I concur with PayrollHRguy on this.

Perhaps the HR person is unclear on the nature of the business, and that the restrictions as a sex offender are relevant, as it affects his ability to do the job he was hired for. The HR person certainly seems to have a flawed understanding of the definition of "retaliatory action".

Since I do not know the nature of your business, no, it is not obvious that any of your clients having children is relevant. There are many businesses where clients' children are absent, or where children simply would not be present at the job site.

P.S. He may seem like a nice man to you, but even the worst sex predators can appear to be normal every day people. The true monsters among us do not look like monsters. My neighbor's ex was convicted of raping their 12 year old disabled son - claiming in his signed confession that the autistic boy with a 60 point IQ approached him and apparently that's why it's okay. He did not look like a monster when he stopped by my child's bus stop to say "hi", just looked like a harmless old man. And don't get me started on the late Father Geoghan of Boston ...

 

[Just Blue]

I concur with PayrollHRguy on this.

Perhaps the HR person is unclear on the nature of the business, and that the restrictions as a sex offender are relevant, as it affects his ability to do the job he was hired for. The HR person certainly seems to have a flawed understanding of the definition of "retaliatory action".

Since I do not know the nature of your business, no, it is not obvious that any of your clients having children is relevant. There are many businesses where clients' children are absent, or where children simply would not be present at the job site.

P.S. He may seem like a nice man to you, but even the worst sex predators can appear to be normal every day people. The true monsters among us do not look like monsters. My neighbor's ex was convicted of raping their 12 year old disabled son - claiming in his signed confession that the autistic boy with a 60 point IQ approached him and apparently that's why it's okay. He did not look like a monster when he stopped by my child's bus stop to say "hi", just looked like a harmless old man. And don't get me started on the late Father Geoghan of Boston ...

May he rot in Hell.

 

[cbg]

Your HR specialist is incorrect. If he is unable to do the job he was hired to do, it is in no way retaliatory or discrimination to fire him. Your HR specialist needs to go back to HR school.

However, the answer to your question is Yes. You may legally make him a non-exempt, non-managerial hourly paid employee for which you will need to pay overtime.

(No, this would not be retaliatory or discrimination either. However, the fact that your HR specialist sees one as being retaliatory and not the other leads me to think that your HR specialist is anything but since she clearly does not understand the principles she's supposed to be maintaining.

Signed, a 39 year HR professional

 

[HRZ]

Ask your HR specialist to explain employer liability for negligent retention ..and if his or her eyes go blank...time to get some new talent?

Im all for giving somebody who has paid his time any reasonable opportunity...and I'm not there to second guess the original crime and apparently the employer never asked ...and the new employee was smart enough to discretely address the issue when it did come up.

You have a tough call as to retention...the employer will need to be very careful he is not on any job site where there are children likely to be present

 

[isis297]

I concur with PayrollHRguy on this.

Perhaps the HR person is unclear on the nature of the business, and that the restrictions as a sex offender are relevant, as it affects his ability to do the job he was hired for. The HR person certainly seems to have a flawed understanding of the definition of "retaliatory action".

Since I do not know the nature of your business, no, it is not obvious that any of your clients having children is relevant. There are many businesses where clients' children are absent, or where children simply would not be present at the job site.

P.S. He may seem like a nice man to you, but even the worst sex predators can appear to be normal every day people. The true monsters among us do not look like monsters. My neighbor's ex was convicted of raping their 12 year old disabled son - claiming in his signed confession that the autistic boy with a 60 point IQ approached him and apparently that's why it's okay. He did not look like a monster when he stopped by my child's bus stop to say "hi", just looked like a harmless old man. And don't get me started on the late Father Geoghan of Boston ...

I am so sad and horrified to read that. That poor child. And your poor neighbor. It kills us parents when we feel like we couldn't protect our children even when we have done all we could because like you said, sometimes you just don't know. :-(

Trust me, I was by no means belittling what the man has done. I just didn't want it to seem that we were coming at this in any way other than to be concerned about our clients and the job being done as it is stated in its description.

The HR person knows our industry. We are in general contracting. We go into people's homes, businesses, etc. The HR person knows our business because she's been trying to get us to retain her services to make sure that we are legally compliant being that before my boss's company was manageable by himself and now it isn't. Now things need to be put into place that before there wasn't a need for. My boss was already not sure about retaining her, but this solidifies it for me and I have corrected the information she has given us with him.

Thank you very much for your help. My boss has already taken action.

 

[isis297]

Your HR specialist is incorrect. If he is unable to do the job he was hired to do, it is in no way retaliatory or discrimination to fire him. Your HR specialist needs to go back to HR school.

However, the answer to your question is Yes. You may legally make him a non-exempt, non-managerial hourly paid employee for which you will need to pay overtime.

(No, this would not be retaliatory or discrimination either. However, the fact that your HR specialist sees one as being retaliatory and not the other leads me to think that your HR specialist is anything but since she clearly does not understand the principles she's supposed to be maintaining.

Signed, a 39 year HR professional

Thank you for your help. She is someone who wanted my boss to retain her services to help him make sure the company is being legally compliant as it has suddenly been growing from something he was able to manage completely by himself to something he has found he needs staff to help. Suddenly things are being created he never needed before: a handbook, application, job descriptions, worker's comp, health insurance, payroll processing, and every other thing you can imagine when you are starting from the ground floor. The only difference is his company isn't new. It's just new to needing to have staff.

 

[justalayman]

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.

That still does not describe a situstion where discipline would be proper, valid, or justified. It would not be the employees choice of actions but the company’s. He wouldn’t be staying home due to the situstion but the employer directing him to stay home.

If the guy knowingly withheld critical information prior to being hired, can the guy.

 

[cbg]

If he's starting to grow, she's probably right about what he needs. I just don't think much of her knowledge of employment law. If I were your boss, I'd hire someone to do his HR all right, but make it someone who actually knows the law.

 

[Just Blue]

If he's starting to grow, she's probably right about what he needs. I just don't think much of her knowledge of employment law. If I were your boss, I'd hire someone to do his HR all right, but make it someone who actually knows the law.

^^THIS^^ ^^THIS^^