Exchange server Implemenetation Analysis
-
@Dashrender said:
Our concerns aren't around people being sick though. It's about them reading/acting upon emails when they are not scheduled to be working. In an hourly situation, typically they would have to be paid for any work (acting upon email, even if that action is just replying to an email with information) would need to be paid.
I know that this is an area of current dispute.... but I've never worked anywhere that paid people to work off of the clock. If they are told they are done and continue to work, doesn't matter, they are done. Most places that I've worked were happy to pay overtime and have you work because few people were doing much extra time. But in places where you were done at a certain time, that was it. The company was not liable for them working when they were told not to. Otherwise, the company is liable for them "thinking about work" as much as checking emails when not at work, right?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If our hourly employees are sick, they are NOT getting paid ...
Depends where you work. I've been hourly AND had unlimited sick time before.
Weird, how does that work?
-
The question becomes..... does the business (or the law, but I believe not) that an employee can force a company to pay them for unrequested work? How do you deal with employees who don't walk out the door right at the end of their shift? If you take the "if they voluntarily answer emails, they get paid" thing and expand it to the physical world, strange things start to happen. Loitering in the work parking lot is paid even when the business is closed and they have no assigned worked to do?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If our hourly employees are sick, they are NOT getting paid ...
Depends where you work. I've been hourly AND had unlimited sick time before.
Weird, how does that work?
Really well. Studies show unlimited sick time is the least abused. Of course, it tends to only be given to high end staff, so that skews those results.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The question becomes..... does the business (or the law, but I believe not) that an employee can force a company to pay them for unrequested work? How do you deal with employees who don't walk out the door right at the end of their shift? If you take the "if they voluntarily answer emails, they get paid" thing and expand it to the physical world, strange things start to happen. Loitering in the work parking lot is paid even when the business is closed and they have no assigned worked to do?
Actually yes, in most cases courts have decided that you have to pay them no matter if it was their choice to do the work or not.
However, if they are on sick leave they would already be getting paid, unless they used up their time and are on FLMA, Short term disability or otherwise in witch case their accounts should be disabled anyway IMO.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Our concerns aren't around people being sick though. It's about them reading/acting upon emails when they are not scheduled to be working. In an hourly situation, typically they would have to be paid for any work (acting upon email, even if that action is just replying to an email with information) would need to be paid.
I know that this is an area of current dispute.... but I've never worked anywhere that paid people to work off of the clock. If they are told they are done and continue to work, doesn't matter, they are done. Most places that I've worked were happy to pay overtime and have you work because few people were doing much extra time. But in places where you were done at a certain time, that was it. The company was not liable for them working when they were told not to. Otherwise, the company is liable for them "thinking about work" as much as checking emails when not at work, right?
I guess the argument is you can't control a person's thoughts, but you can sorta control their actions.
A local company had an entire department that felt they were being wronged by the company because the company wasn't paying them overtime (the were non-exempt salaried employees, but the company didn't recognize non-exempt and treated all salaried employees are non overtime pay personal). The state came in and told them that the position was non-exempt and that the company had to pay over time. OK fine, now the employees, even though they are salaried have to punch a clock. A new rule was put into place - if you don't work at least 40 hours, you'll be written up, 3 write-ups and you're fired. I think 2 people were fired in the first month.
Damn, this has completely gone off topic.. sorry...
now back to your Exchange server implementation analysis discussion.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Actually yes, in most cases courts have decided that you have to pay them no matter if it was their choice to do the work or not.
Did I say choice? I was not implying that they had a choice. They were not working, just using the job's gear. Voluntary work and disallowed work are completely different things.
Although there is a simple solution, make a policy that any violation of work hours is a fireable offense. This is purely an HR issue.
-
@Dashrender said:
I guess the argument is you can't control a person's thoughts, but you can sorta control their actions.
Given that many people have contracts that say that the company owns anything that they think during the term of their employment, employment law has traditional stated quite the opposite.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
The question becomes..... does the business (or the law, but I believe not) that an employee can force a company to pay them for unrequested work? How do you deal with employees who don't walk out the door right at the end of their shift? If you take the "if they voluntarily answer emails, they get paid" thing and expand it to the physical world, strange things start to happen. Loitering in the work parking lot is paid even when the business is closed and they have no assigned worked to do?
Actually yes, in most cases courts have decided that you have to pay them no matter if it was their choice to do the work or not.
This is my belief as well, but now I'm going to see if I can find case law to backup my belief.
-
@Dashrender said:
The state came in and told them that the position was non-exempt and that the company had to pay over time. OK fine, now the employees, even though they are salaried have to punch a clock. A new rule was put into place - if you don't work at least 40 hours, you'll be written up, 3 write-ups and you're fired. I think 2 people were fired in the first month.
Non-exempt salaried employees are a very weird thing. I have no idea why any company would opt to do it. Just pay hourly, then people have to punch the clock and everyone knows where they stand and people who work 39 hours just earn an hour less rather than having to be fired. Non-exempt salary is, IMHO, an insane idea.
-
@Dashrender said:
Actually yes, in most cases courts have decided that you have to pay them no matter if it was their choice to do the work or not.
This is my belief as well, but now I'm going to see if I can find case law to backup my belief.
But the key is finding if work was optional or not. Basically it's if employees are legally allowed to extort businesses by doing work they are not allowed to do.
What if you broke into the office and did work at night? What if you picked up trash in the parking lot on the weekend? At what point do companies need to get temporary restraining orders to stop employees from forcing work upon the companies that the companies cannot monitor, can't stop and might not know about for years until they are unable to pay?
-
I've had lots of jobs where work was optional, that's different than when it is not. Sure, lots of companies probably need to do something about clarifying that and that's a valid concern. But it sounds like the real fear is that there is no way to stop someone from working. What's the point of time clocks if employees can just "work by force" anytime that they want more money?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Non-exempt salaried employees are a very weird thing. I have no idea why any company would opt to do it. Just pay hourly, then people have to punch the clock and everyone knows where they stand and people who work 39 hours just earn an hour less rather than having to be fired. Non-exempt salary is, IMHO, an insane idea.
Most places require 40hrs pay even if hourly so if you work over you have to take off early the next day, you work to few, you need to make up the difference by the end of the week, if you have any less than 40hr you get fired, and more you get fired.
Here I'm salaried FLSA Exempt though.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Actually yes, in most cases courts have decided that you have to pay them no matter if it was their choice to do the work or not.
This is my belief as well, but now I'm going to see if I can find case law to backup my belief.
But the key is finding if work was optional or not. Basically it's if employees are legally allowed to extort businesses by doing work they are not allowed to do.
You fired them if that abuse it. The town handed them a pay check for it then wrote them up for an offense (of which they had 3 before termination).
-
speaking of exchange outages our exchange just went out company wide.. Been about 8-10min this time.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
speaking of exchange outages our exchange just went out company wide.. Been about 8-10min this time.
Internal, not hosted, right? Good timing
-
Yeah ours in internal.. it wasn't a complete outage just about 7,000 mailboxes out, less than 10 min outage though.
-
Thanks all for giving the valid suggestions.
I too agree 365 hosted exchange solution is better than inhouse . But the management wants to host the exchange inhouse
Finally we planned to move the FSMO roles to the site where exchange is going to install.
-
Have you looked at other solutions outside of Exchange? Or would that not work in your environment?
-
@coliver We already have Domino hosted , we are planing to move to exchange,
