That bites. I'm sorry to hear that. Benefits are just that - benefits.
IANAL. Unless you have a contract (individual or collective bargaining) that defines how benefits may be used, you are at the mercy of the company as to how they can be used. They are generally required to "pay you" for any accrued benefits (unless they go bankrupt or your contract says otherwise). But how they pay you is a wide-open door. I've been involved at several companies over the years where the largest liability was unpaid employee benefits. Generally speaking, companies start with a "you can only carry over Z" plan, followed by a "use it by Z or lose it" plan, followed by a "you use it on our schedule" to draw down those liabilities. Then they start reducing benefits to further draw down the liability. That assumes they have months or years to draw down those liabilities. In the case of a need to reduce liabilities in a hurry - you see the typical response. I am reminded that when my father retired after 20+ years as a worker for the state of North Carolina (before they introduced these types of policies); he had 43 weeks of unpaid vacation plus months of unpaid sick leave. He was an employee for almost a year and a half, drawing a full regular paycheck, AFTER he retired. Remember: Assets = Liabilities + Equity Given a constant valuation of assets, reduction of liabilities causes an increase in the equity of the owner(s); and that means more money that the owner(s) can get out of the company if the company is sold or remaindered. This applies whether the real owner of a company is an individual, a stock market, or a bank. It's a little different for a governmental agency, but reduction of liabilities is still important when you have to service those liabilities. Governments (except for the Federal Government) are theoretically not allowed to carry a deficit. -----Original Message----- From: Troy Meyer [mailto:troy.me...@monacocoach.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:16 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: OT - Reduction in hours, forced to use PTO Hey Scott, Interest timing, we just got layoff notices this morning. We had a similar situation last December and they made us use vacation for days off and once vacation was used up it was without pay. I don't know the legality, but it was explained to me as reducing their vacation pay liability while also ramping down production. That isn't super helpful, but just to let you know other companies are doing it as well (Oregon, NYSE). Anybody know of a good gig on the West Coast? -troy -----Original Message----- From: Scott Williamson [mailto:scottwilliamson...@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:12 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: OT - Reduction in hours, forced to use PTO Our hours have been reduced from 40 hours a week to 32 hours a week. The office will now be closed on Fridays. My question, can the company force employees to take paid time off to for the Fridays closed. The company memo states that employees will still incur paid time off at regular rates, but those with enough time must use a paid time off day for the Fridays the company is not working. Can a company force an employee to use a paid time off day? In California if that helps. Thanks Scott ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
