Anyone spoke to a legal team about the changes and policies? Something about all of this feels off.
7 replies (most recent on top)
Read the rule about "exempt" employee. I hope I can sue the he-l out of them for forcing us to work over 40 hours. It used to covered by OT pay, not anymore. If you don't like it, write to the Congress to change the law.
The rules do not apply to all and that is what I think may be a legal issue. 2 people with the same title and responsibilities and the same manager have different requirements for working in the office and neither are on FMLA.
The media needs to go. Frankserv’s kryptonite is bad press and brand reputation
Unilaterally changing a contract signed for 40 hours of work to now require 45 is a potential contract violation. There is more to law than criminal law.
There is also potential that forcing salaried workers to work as if they are waged has implications on things like overtime exempt status. Again especially since they've structured it in such a way that there is forced overtime without compensation and it's now a requirement of the job. No one is necessarily claiming their actions are illegal, but they could still be violations.
We exchange our time and skills for money. We did not sign a contract of indentured servitude. We have a right to stand up for ourselves. And since no one is coming to help us we have a responsibility to do so.
Working 8 hours a day in an office isn’t illegal.
Tracking activity on devices the company owns isn’t illegal.
The combination of:
(1) infinite vacation policy
(2) laying off people due to vacation over a certain number
(3) requiring very specific hours of hourly employees
(4) tracking activity
Feels like they are trying to get the benefits of hourly workforce out of a salaried workforce which is definitely illegal in spirit.
I can’t claim to know the laws in every state but I would be surprised if this combo was legal in California.
Last time I spoke to an attorney was about 3 months ago and they had stated then that some of the companies actions were questionable at best. Those items fit a fairly specific set of people, and weren't nearly as bad as these new announcements. I'd hazard a guess that those people and several more have crossed into the realm of legally actionable given how abusive and threatening the new tone is.
Bear in mind though that the top of the company is heavy with attorneys now. It wouldn't be a cheap or easy fight with them unless it threatened to be public and ruinous enough to endanger them just by the case existing and becoming public knowledge.