Exchange server Implemenetation Analysis
-
@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,
-
@sreekumarpg said:
@coliver We already have Domino hosted , we are planing to move to exchange,
But why exchange? is there something there specifically you want?
-
@Dashrender said:
here something there specifically you wan
We are testing the exchange features and feasibility study.
other than exchange ,Domino. what you suggest ?
-
@sreekumarpg said:
@Dashrender said:
here something there specifically you wan
We are testing the exchange features and feasibility study.
other than exchange ,Domino. what you suggest ?
Have you taken a look at ZImbra? They have a fantastic web-client (probably the best in the market). It is also completely open source and very manageable.
-
@sreekumarpg said:
@coliver We already have Domino hosted , we are planing to move to exchange,
Ah... sounds like you got burned by one hosting vendor and that has turned your admins sour to anything hosted... sad.
-
@coliver @coliver Zimbra we already tested the community version , management is not satisfied with Zimbra
Also some clients are provided with corporate email access and we are planing to stop using SMTP,POP3 and IMAP
If exchange we can provide outlook and clients can access email server using outllook anyware
-
@sreekumarpg said:
If exchange we can provide outlook and clients can access email server using outllook anyware
Zimbra does that too. What about Zimbra did they not like? Were they confused about having Outlook?
-
@sreekumarpg said:
@coliver @coliver Zimbra we already tested the community version , management is not satisfied with Zimbra
Also some clients are provided with corporate email access and we are planing to stop using SMTP,POP3 and IMAP
If exchange we can provide outlook and clients can access email server using outllook anyware
That's fine was just wondering. Zimbra, while niche, is a great competitor to Exchange... especially if you can't host Exchange the value becomes that much better.
Zimbra's web client is that much better then Outlook (again in my opinion) that your users probably won't care if they have to log into a website rather then open Outlook... especially if they don't currently have Outlook. You can also get Activesync if you spend some money on it.
-
@scottalanmiller Management requirement is to have a test and feasible study on exchange inhouse with 50 users. Sure i will parallely build a Zimbra server and provide the same to management for a comparison
