It’s time again for our HR Basecamp roundup. If you’re new here, we take the most popular submitted questions from our HR Basecamp Facebook group every other week and go more in-depth on the answer. Join the over 10,000 other office managers and business owners here to submit your questions and participate in the discussion!
I’m having an issue with employees reporting time card adjustments weeks after the pay period has ended. Can I create a policy that says adjustments won’t be made if they aren’t reported within 30 days?
The legal side of things: You are required to pay employees for all hours worked even if there is a delay in reporting that time. We understand why setting a time limit to report sounds logical. After all, how can you prove that an employee actually worked two extra hours 5 weeks ago? What if they’re mistaken?
While that’s possible, it doesn’t change your legal obligation to pay them for hours worked. A history of refusing to make the corrections could support a wage and hour claim. The cost of fighting (and potentially losing) that claim will be much higher than the hour or two of pay the employee initially asked for. That said, you do not have to tolerate them continuously not clocking.
Here are some strategies for clarifying that they must clock their time. Require that employees electronically approve their timecards at the end of each pay period. And, require that supervisors review and approve their team members’ time cards. Doing so gives you grounds for taking adverse action based on them approving inaccurate information.
One advantage of having a robust electronic timekeeping system is that when an employee asks for a correction, the approval is easily achieved through the system. The system also tracks that all clocking errors are coming from the employee and not the practice.
Now for the human approach: You cannot punish an employee by creating a policy that says after a certain number of days, they forfeit the time worked. However, you can and should issue corrective actions for employees who are repeat offenders. It’s the employee’s responsibility to clock in and out properly, and failing to do so is ultimately a performance issue.
As far as a policy goes, you can have one that says employees must report time card adjustments by a certain time (e.g., within 30 days). Just keep in mind that the policy is only there to set a standard for employees and give you something to point to if you need to issue corrective actions. It does not mean you do not have to pay for time reported outside of that window.
I’m having an issue with employees reporting time card adjustments weeks after the pay period has ended. Can I create a policy that says adjustments won’t be made if they aren’t reported within 30 days?
The legal side of things: You are required to pay employees for all hours worked even if there is a delay in reporting that time. We understand why setting a time limit to report sounds logical. After all, how can you prove that an employee actually worked two extra hours 5 weeks ago? What if they’re mistaken?
While that’s possible, it doesn’t change your legal obligation to pay them for hours worked. A history of refusing to make the corrections could support a wage and hour claim. The cost of fighting (and potentially losing) that claim will be much higher than the hour or two of pay the employee initially asked for. That said, you do not have to tolerate them continuously not clocking.
Here are some strategies for clarifying that they must clock their time. Require that employees electronically approve their timecards at the end of each pay period. And, require that supervisors review and approve their team members’ time cards. Doing so gives you grounds for taking adverse action based on them approving inaccurate information.
One advantage of having a robust electronic timekeeping system is that when an employee asks for a correction, the approval is easily achieved through the system. The system also tracks that all clocking errors are coming from the employee and not the practice.
Now for the human approach: You cannot punish an employee by creating a policy that says after a certain number of days, they forfeit the time worked. However, you can and should issue corrective actions for employees who are repeat offenders. It’s the employee’s responsibility to clock in and out properly, and failing to do so is ultimately a performance issue.
As far as a policy goes, you can have one that says employees must report time card adjustments by a certain time (e.g., within 30 days). Just keep in mind that the policy is only there to set a standard for employees and give you something to point to if you need to issue corrective actions. It does not mean you do not have to pay for time reported outside of that window.
My business has grown quite a bit over the past year, and I need to fill several positions. Am I required to provide salary information in the job ads? How do I decide on pay ranges for each position?
The legal side of things: Up until a few years ago, even though we’ve been telling our members about the advantages of including pay ranges in their ads for the last decade, it was common (and legal) to leave salary information out of job ads. That meant applicants only found out what the pay for the position was if they made it to the interview process.
However, leaving out the pay range is no longer legal in several jurisdictions. At least 10 states and multiple cities/counties have enacted salary transparency laws that require employers to include pay details in their job ads. If you are in one of these jurisdictions, please make sure that you understand the underlying rules for your state or city.
You can read more about salary transparency in this blog.
Now for the human approach: Even in the absence of a law that requires you to do so, including salary information is actually highly recommended. Many candidates will skip applying for a job if the salary isn’t mentioned in the job ad. Those who do apply and come in for an interview may discover that their salary expectations don’t align with what you’re offering, resulting in wasted time for both parties. By including the pay range and benefits in your job ad, you can quickly filter out applicants who aren’t the right fit, saving valuable time.
The next question is, how do you decide what pay rate to include in the job ad?? For starters, set a range, not a rate. Setting a range gives your more flexibility and increases the number of applicants you receive.
Imagine you receive two applications—one from an experienced worker expecting $35 an hour and another from a less skilled worker who you believe could be a great fit and are willing to train. If your job ad lists a salary range of $30-35 per hour instead of a fixed rate, you can proceed with either candidate without having to adjust theirs or your salary expectations.
To set a realistic pay range, you’ll need to do some research. Talk to others in (and even out of) your industry that are hiring for or have hired for similar roles. Check listings on job search sites to see what others are offering. The Department of Labor even has a site dedicated to information on wages and benefits by geographic area and occupation.
If you’re a CEDR member, reach out to the Solution Center for a link to the tool that we use to find wage information.
The legal side of things: Up until a few years ago, even though we’ve been telling our members about the advantages of including pay ranges in their ads for the last decade, it was common (and legal) to leave salary information out of job ads. That meant applicants only found out what the pay for the position was if they made it to the interview process.
However, leaving out the pay range is no longer legal in several jurisdictions. At least 10 states and multiple cities/counties have enacted salary transparency laws that require employers to include pay details in their job ads. If you are in one of these jurisdictions, please make sure that you understand the underlying rules for your state or city.
You can read more about salary transparency in this blog.
Now for the human approach: Even in the absence of a law that requires you to do so, including salary information is actually highly recommended. Many candidates will skip applying for a job if the salary isn’t mentioned in the job ad. Those who do apply and come in for an interview may discover that their salary expectations don’t align with what you’re offering, resulting in wasted time for both parties. By including the pay range and benefits in your job ad, you can quickly filter out applicants who aren’t the right fit, saving valuable time.
The next question is, how do you decide what pay rate to include in the job ad?? For starters, set a range, not a rate. Setting a range gives your more flexibility and increases the number of applicants you receive.
Imagine you receive two applications—one from an experienced worker expecting $35 an hour and another from a less skilled worker who you believe could be a great fit and are willing to train. If your job ad lists a salary range of $30-35 per hour instead of a fixed rate, you can proceed with either candidate without having to adjust theirs or your salary expectations.
To set a realistic pay range, you’ll need to do some research. Talk to others in (and even out of) your industry that are hiring for or have hired for similar roles. Check listings on job search sites to see what others are offering. The Department of Labor even has a site dedicated to information on wages and benefits by geographic area and occupation.
If you’re a CEDR member, reach out to the Solution Center for a link to the tool that we use to find wage information.
I need to reduce an employee’s hours. Their work performance hasn’t been great lately, and they are going on maternity leave in a few months anyway. What is the proper protocol for this?
The legal side of things: To all our readers, we cannot stress enough how important it is to talk to an HR expert if you find yourself in this situation or something similar. Reducing an employee’s hours isn’t illegal, but it can be considered an adverse action, creating inherent risks. Both retaliation and discrimination claims often hinge on some sort of adverse action taking place. In this instance, the employee is in at least one protected class due to her pregnancy.
Further, you would be hard-pressed, in retrospect, to show how reducing an employee’s hours would objectively help to improve their performance issues. The only clear thing you would be doing here is taking income away from someone who is pregnant. Aside from the optics, no one wants to have to explain their justification for this to the EEOC. Thus, there is no “protocol” for reducing those hours.
Now for the human approach: It's crucial to consider the human impact before deciding to reduce an employee’s hours, especially when they are pregnant. Again, ask yourself whether reducing their hours will genuinely solve the performance issues or if it might create additional stress and uncertainty.
Often, the root cause of declining performance can be better addressed through direct conversations and regular one-on-one meetings. The question we are answering provides yet another excellent reason for implementing regular one-on-ones.
These interactions provide a private and consistent space to discuss the things that are going well as well as performance concerns. Leading up to the issues, had you been setting clear expectations and offering support, it may have led to improvement without reducing hours. Or, during that process, the employee may actually say to you, I am struggling and would like to reduce my hours.
You must consider whether the employee’s performance decline is or could be construed to be related to their pregnancy and whether there are ways to support them through this period. Directly addressing the issues and offering support might yield better results than reducing hours. How you handle this situation will set a precedent and will be observed by all of your employees, so it’s essential to ensure that any actions taken are fair, compassionate, and in the best interest of both the employee and the business.
Our response touches on the key points you need to consider when reducing an employee’s hours but still doesn’t really scratch the surface of everything an advisor would ask if this question came through our Solution Center team of experts. As we said, when it comes to taking adverse action, your safest option is always to run it by an HR expert first.
The legal side of things: To all our readers, we cannot stress enough how important it is to talk to an HR expert if you find yourself in this situation or something similar. Reducing an employee’s hours isn’t illegal, but it can be considered an adverse action, creating inherent risks. Both retaliation and discrimination claims often hinge on some sort of adverse action taking place. In this instance, the employee is in at least one protected class due to her pregnancy.
Further, you would be hard-pressed, in retrospect, to show how reducing an employee’s hours would objectively help to improve their performance issues. The only clear thing you would be doing here is taking income away from someone who is pregnant. Aside from the optics, no one wants to have to explain their justification for this to the EEOC. Thus, there is no “protocol” for reducing those hours.
Now for the human approach: It's crucial to consider the human impact before deciding to reduce an employee’s hours, especially when they are pregnant. Again, ask yourself whether reducing their hours will genuinely solve the performance issues or if it might create additional stress and uncertainty.
Often, the root cause of declining performance can be better addressed through direct conversations and regular one-on-one meetings. The question we are answering provides yet another excellent reason for implementing regular one-on-ones.
These interactions provide a private and consistent space to discuss the things that are going well as well as performance concerns. Leading up to the issues, had you been setting clear expectations and offering support, it may have led to improvement without reducing hours. Or, during that process, the employee may actually say to you, I am struggling and would like to reduce my hours.
You must consider whether the employee’s performance decline is or could be construed to be related to their pregnancy and whether there are ways to support them through this period. Directly addressing the issues and offering support might yield better results than reducing hours. How you handle this situation will set a precedent and will be observed by all of your employees, so it’s essential to ensure that any actions taken are fair, compassionate, and in the best interest of both the employee and the business.
Our response touches on the key points you need to consider when reducing an employee’s hours but still doesn’t really scratch the surface of everything an advisor would ask if this question came through our Solution Center team of experts. As we said, when it comes to taking adverse action, your safest option is always to run it by an HR expert first.
