Forums
temporary vs. permanent vs. full time vs. part time
Benefits & Compensation
temporary vs. permanent vs. full time vs. part time
Exchange ideas about health plans, retirement, work/life benefits, and employee assistance.
I am in a debate with one of our managers about the status of a clerk. The clerk was originally hired as a part time employee (less that 30 hours a week), but along the way her hours increased due to
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId52
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId52Discussion:DiscussionId36747
Forums » Topic Forums » Benefits & Compensation » temporary vs. permanent vs. full time vs. part time
Forums
»
Topic Forums
»
Benefits & Compensation
»
temporary vs. permanent vs. full time vs. part time
|
temporary vs. permanent vs. full time vs. part time
posted at 9/29/2010 12:11 PM EDT
|
Posts: 323
First: 6/15/1999 Last: 9/9/2011 |
I am in a debate with one of our managers about the status of a clerk. The clerk was originally hired as a part time employee (less that 30 hours a week), but along the way her hours increased due to the temporary increase in funds that temporarily increased the work load of the department she works in. That temporary increase will be ending soon; however, the managers tells me the clerks hours will remain above 30 per week because she can be paid out of two other programs that have recently created additional work. I believe this is stretching the definition of "temporary increase in duties". Another piece of the argument being offered is that the clerk was brought in at a higher per hour rate because there were not benefits attached and the original position is not budgeted for that rate PLUS benefits.
I am not comfortable with how this arrangement is being manipulated and would like to support my side of the debate with some law or regulation - can't put my eyes on anything quickly. Or, am I just imagining that there is something (besides our own policies) that impacts these decisions? |
|
|
temporary vs. permanent vs. full time vs. part time
posted at 10/7/2010 11:28 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 67
First: 9/24/2001 Last: 10/7/2010 |
It sounds like our concern is over this employee's benefit eligibility, right? If so, the place to look is in your plan document. Ours requires employees consistently work 30+ hours a week for 90 days. We run a formula on the employees total hours for the past 90 days. If it averages out to 30+ hours a week, we contact the manager to update the status. |
|
|
temporary vs. permanent vs. full time vs. part time
posted at 10/8/2010 3:45 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2146
First: 2/15/2006 Last: 9/14/2011 |
All of those definitions are up to (1) the employer and then (2) how they relate to benefit plans and other employer provided benefits. In most states and localities, there are no laws that required things like PTO, paid leave etc. However, ERISA-based plans such as 401k's have specific rules on eligibility that usually matches back to hours/elapsed time. So you need to check those carefully.
And yes, the cost of the employee could easily go up if they are eligible for benefits. At that point, the employer could negotiate a change in pay to make up for the benefits. Or they could keep the employee's hours less than the full-time status. It is a good idea to have a policy defining a "temporary" status change and how long it can last before it becomes permanent. |
|
|
temporary vs. permanent vs. full time vs. part time
posted at 10/8/2010 3:55 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 323
First: 6/15/1999 Last: 9/9/2011 |
Thank you both for your input. I like the idea about policies related to status change.
Some years ago, we made an effort to trim down policies and procedures - make them more user freindly - but I continuously run into situations where we are not specific enough. This comes, too, with encountering new issues and settling on ways to address them. Whew! I am trying to "be here now", but this HR department of one business is exhausting. |
Forums » Topic Forums » Benefits & Compensation » temporary vs. permanent vs. full time vs. part time
