- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Company Wants to Fine Salaried Employees
Posted on 10/9/17 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 10/9/17 at 8:40 pm
A company wants to start slapping fines on salaried employees for non safety mistakes such as failing to complete a task or non safety related mistakes.
Is this company wrong to do this?
Is this company wrong to do this?
10
Posted on 10/9/17 at 8:46 pm to Tarps99
Yes, that seems wrong, but also very ineffective.
Instead the company should offer an incentive system to promote proficiently or efficiency.
If you don’t make said goals, you don’t get the bonus.
The other alternative is firing the slackers and hiring better people. I can’t see how docking someone’s pay will produce a better result:
Instead the company should offer an incentive system to promote proficiently or efficiency.
If you don’t make said goals, you don’t get the bonus.
The other alternative is firing the slackers and hiring better people. I can’t see how docking someone’s pay will produce a better result:
Posted on 10/9/17 at 9:20 pm to Tarps99
Sounds like a good way to kill employee morale.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 9:32 pm to Tarps99
Is that even legal?
Posted on 10/9/17 at 10:26 pm to TheWalrus
That was what I was getting at.
I read La. RS 23.635. But that relates to wages and not salaries.
I did find something on the federal statues.
Section 29.3.541_1603
I read La. RS 23.635. But that relates to wages and not salaries.
I did find something on the federal statues.
Section 29.3.541_1603
Posted on 10/9/17 at 10:43 pm to Tarps99
Yes.
Who would work for a company like that?
Who would work for a company like that?
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:27 am to Tarps99
Please tell me which company so that I never work for them.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:10 am to Tarps99
In addition to this being a terrible idea in terms of effectiveness, it also sounds like a thinly veiled and panicked attempt to cut costs. I'd be printing resumes on the company copier, odds are the doors won't be open long enough for it to matter.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:15 am to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
In addition to this being a terrible idea in terms of effectiveness, it also sounds like a thinly veiled and panicked attempt to cut costs. I'd be printing resumes on the company copier, odds are the doors won't be open long enough for it to matter.
This is exactly what I was thinking.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:48 am to Tarps99
Depends. For example, I work for federal contractor and our contract stipulates that employees will complete certain tasks. These are specified in advance and cover things like mandatory training courses (typically security), government ethics, and keeping our timesheets current.
I wouldn't get directly fined for such transgressions but it could definitely impact my performance review and/or result in me being removed from the contract.
I wouldn't get directly fined for such transgressions but it could definitely impact my performance review and/or result in me being removed from the contract.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:22 am to TheDrunkenTigah
Yep, I read OP as cost cutting.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 10:31 am to Tarps99
I guess the alternative is being fired?
This is never a good idea. How effective of an idea it would be, I guess depends on how hard it is to find new employees.
This is never a good idea. How effective of an idea it would be, I guess depends on how hard it is to find new employees.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 11:17 am to OceanMan
quote:
Yep, I read OP as cost cutting.
Eh, not really. Tons of companies give bonus's for good safety records. Walmart and Sams does this, I can't remember their exact method. But I think its something like a percentage. Each employee gets like a 4 percent bonus a year for good safety, reducing other costs, labor, etc. Each quarter they analyze and give like a 1% bonus.
Incentivising is usually a much better method, but at the end of the day its really just semantics. You are still docking pay if there is an issue.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 1:38 pm to baldona
quote:
Incentivising is usually a much better method, but at the end of the day its really just semantics. You are still docking pay if there is an issue.
No it's not. In one way you are earning extra. Key point is earning. Finig salary employees is punitive and takes away from what they were promised. They were promised a bonus, but they were promised their salary.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 1:57 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
o it's not. In one way you are earning extra. Key point is earning. Finig salary employees is punitive and takes away from what they were promised. They were promised a bonus, but they were promised their salary.
In both situations there's a maximum number they will pay you if you do everything right. If you don't, you get a cut. One is called a bonus and the other a fine, at the end of the day it's the same thing.
My only point is reducing someone's potential pay due to a safety issue is not abnormal.
A. I'll pay you $15 extra a month if there are no safety infractions.
B.if there's a safety infraction, we are reducing your pay by $15.
Both situations your max pay is $X+$15.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 2:16 pm to baldona
It's not the same thing.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 3:42 pm to Tarps99
It isn't wrong but I doubt it will have the impact they want unless they are purposely trying to downsize and don't want to make the tough decisions of where to cut.
Posted on 10/18/17 at 4:54 pm to baldona
quote:
A. I'll pay you $15 extra a month if there are no safety infractions. B.if there's a safety infraction, we are reducing your pay by $15. Both situations your max pay is $X+$15.
Algebra isn't your strong suit is it?
Situation A would be $X + $15
Situation B would be $X - $15
Salary is a promised payment amount and would not be legal to reduce it at a whim. This is definitely shady business practices of a company trying to cut corners.
Why are they only proposing this for salary employees? No mention of docking pay for hourly employees?
Posted on 10/18/17 at 5:20 pm to Lightning
quote:
Salary is a promised payment amount and would not be legal to reduce it at a whim. This is definitely shady business practices of a company trying to cut corners.
Unless you have an employment contract-which most people don't it is not illegal. Shady maybe but not illegal.
I wouldn't really think it "shady." I would think it's just not smart or not well thought it. Maybe they just have some salaried employees that aren't making good decisions and they just view this as a way for them to focus and improve performance. Liquidated damages. Strange maybe but the guy on the poli board says they pray and say the pledge of allegiance before their meetings so anything is possible.
Posted on 10/18/17 at 5:33 pm to Martini
quote:
Maybe they just have some salaried employees that aren't making good decisions and they just view this as a way for them to focus and improve performance.
This will be done at the expense of the "good" employees. We can debate the semantics of the math all day, but the bottom line is it's going to be awful for morale for all employees. Psychology a fime is viewed as punishment and bonuses are viewed as earning extra.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News