Volunteering or just making the boss nervous?

[ploomf]

My boss would hit the roof if one of us did that. A few years ago our company got in trouble because some employees were doing work while they logged into lunch or break and an ex-employee complained to the state about it. They became really strict about stuff after that.

[Magen_Avot]

I worked for a state entity where an employee started 15 min early each day and logged it. After a couple of years they sued the state and won. They got a pretty penny more that the 15 minutes each day when said and done. Ever since then, the door opens 5 minutes early. By the end of that 5 minutes you are expected to have your pc on, paperwork ready and the doors opened to serve the customers. Didn't seem like the real lesson was learned but it made things worse for everybody else.

Think of it like "driver A"getting to a 4 way stop sign just ahead of the others. They want to be "nice" so they wave the others on. What happens is confusion which ends up wasting everyone's time, or causing an accident, just because they wanted to be helpful.

IMO, it may not lend to a desire to be helpful, but it supports orderly process, saves time, considers others feelings and reduces risk. In the end it's best for everyone.

[Sharky]

Exempt as well as Non-Exempt employees, under most state labor laws, can not "volunteer" for their employer (or a related/sister employer) performing the same, similar, or related duties to those that are part of their regular or routine "paid" duties.

Every hour worked for your current employer is just that "worked" not "volunteered".

Most employers that have legitamate volunteer programs within their organizations have written policies barring employees from volunteering while employed there or within 6-months following the end of employment.

Many state governments allow current state employees to volunteer for an agency that is unrelated to the agency they work for; however, even those situtations fall under scrutany if the "volunteer" is being allowed perks or privleges because of the employment that "volunteers" are not normally allowed.

A state agency here in my state fell under scrutany of the IRS because a "volunteer" was allowed to drive a state vehicle as part of their "volunteer" duties (most volunteers are never allowed this perk, it was allowed because she was also a state employee) .... because that volunteer was also a salaried state employee, the mileage etc at tax-payer expenses became a "taxable benefit or compensation" essentially redefining that individual as "not a volunteer".

So this "volunteer" ended up having to amend income tax filings to include the milage driven/state fleet use as taxable compensation .... something to do with her employer providing compensation for performing duties not regularly a part of "paid duties".

Too many gray areas open to wide interpretation between "paid" & "volunteer" for the same company at the same time.

I'd avoid it even if the employer allows it!!!!

[dahlia]

Why especially for females?

Because women frequently want to be rewarded for being 'good girls' - staying late, not causing trouble, not asking for a raise, etc. instead of the work they do.

When I teach the grant-writing section of one of my courses, I have to tell my mostly female students that they need to ask for everything they want when they submit the grant. They don't get brownie points for asking for less, and normally, you can't go back to the funder for more money if you find out you've screwed yourself by not adequately presenting your needs.

[talisyn]

If there is so much work left at the end of the day that it's causing problems the next day then your employer needs to think about hiring another person. The American worker (meaning, anyone working in the USA) is amazing in terms of productivity, but there comes a time when you just have to hire

[Backroads]

If there is so much work left at the end of the day that it's causing problems the next day then your employer needs to think about hiring another person. The American worker (meaning, anyone working in the USA) is amazing in terms of productivity, but there comes a time when you just have to hire

The problem in this area is that we are a non-profit and don't actually have the funds to hire another person.

Though one thing my council doesn't do nearly enough of is take advantage of real non-employee volunteers.

[dahlia]

The problem in this area is that we are a non-profit and don't actually have the funds to hire another person.

Though one thing my council doesn't do nearly enough of is take advantage of real non-employee volunteers.

Well, there you go. Train the volunteers to do whatever it is they do, well, and keep the staff for the things that need to be done by staff. Many students would like to intern at a non-profit. You don't need to bring in a clueless sophomore, you can find upperclassmen and even grad students who have skill sets that you can use and would be happy to get credit for the experience.

Many of my students wind up working for nonprofits - from major universities, to small special interest groups. Lots of different budgets and staffing arrangements. If you are a small nonprofit and things aren't getting done, someone needs to re-evaluate skills, staff, and workflow. In my management class, I have to tell students that non-profits aren't some kind of magical business entity. Their mission may be different, but they have to be managed just like for-profits if they want to continue and be sustainable. Frankly, a lot of non-profits aren't really managed at all, but that's another lecture.

[Mahone]

In the US, there are exempt and non-exempt employees. Exempt employees are paid by contract/salary. They are not required to work a set amount of hours, necessarily.

Non-exempt employees are paid by the hour. If they work, they are paid for it by the hour. Typically, any time worked over 40 hrs in a week gets paid at a different rate than the first 40 hrs.

So, Backroads is talking about non-exempt employees who are working more than the required 40 hrs (or whatever their job requires) and not getting paid for it. This is illegal in every state (that I'm aware of). The company can be ordered by a court to not only pay back pay to these employees, but also can be charged with punitive damages.

That isn't to mention the fact that if one of these employees gets hurt on the job, what could result from that.

Interesting. As I've not worked in the USA yet, I've not seen this method of employment in practise before. As an employer is legally required to pay non-exempt employees for each hour they work, the employee must be required to log these hours for audit purposes and so the employer knows what to pay them?

- If the above is true, and they don't log all the hours they work (implied in the op), would it stand up in court if they sued the company two years later for payment? It's not possible for an employer to know whether their employees are working above the hours they submit on paper.

- How does an employer stop a non-exempt employee working high amounts of hours per week unnecessarily?

[Backroads]

Interesting. As I've not worked in the USA yet, I've not seen this method of employment in practise before. As an employer is legally required to pay non-exempt employees for each hour they work, the employee must be required to log these hours for audit purposes and so the employer knows what to pay them?

- If the above is true, and they don't log all the hours they work (implied in the op), would it stand up in court if they sued the company two years later for payment? It's not possible for an employer to know whether their employees are working above the hours they submit on paper.

- How does an employer stop a non-exempt employee working high amounts of hours per week unnecessarily?

I'm sort of waiting for JAG to say something more about the legal process on this, but it seems to me that if they can't prove they worked extra hours, well, there's no proof.

For the second question, I've heard of various companies have the rules for overtime spelled out in the employee handbook. Granted, once overtime is worked--with or without permission--it must be paid. But there are plenty of ways to discourage the practice.

[Mahone]

For the second question, I've heard of various companies have the rules for overtime spelled out in the employee handbook. Granted, once overtime is worked--with or without permission--it must be paid. But there are plenty of ways to discourage the practice.

Do you mind going into detail regarding methods of discouraging the practice? It seems a very odd concept to me, that if an employee works overtime that hasn't been preauthorised they can demand payment for it - seems to be too many flaws that can be exploited.

[Mahone]

I'm sort of waiting for JAG to say something more about the legal process on this, but it seems to me that if they can't prove they worked extra hours, well, there's no proof.

Even if there was proof of working (e.g. CCTV footage), if they didn't submit these hours to their employer at the appropriate time using the official channels, in my opinion the employee shouldn't have any legal leg to stand on at all.

[Backroads]

Do you mind going into detail regarding methods of discouraging the practice? It seems a very odd concept to me, that if an employee works overtime that hasn't been preauthorised they can demand payment for it - seems to be too many flaws that can be exploited.

In my own experience (in a right-to-work state) disobeying this "didn't ask for overtime" rule can be grounds for dismissal on the notion you were going against company policy.

[pam]

- If the above is true, and they don't log all the hours they work (implied in the op), would it stand up in court if they sued the company two years later for payment? It's not possible for an employer to know whether their employees are working above the hours they submit on paper.

Not always true. When I was a supervisor my employees were scheduled the same hours that I was. 7:00-3:30. If I saw an employee there at 3:45 still working, it was my responsibility as a supervisor to find out why they were still working. If we were busy and could use the help, I could authorize them to stay. If not, I had the responsibility to make sure they logged out and went home. Plus it was easy to tell how long they worked. It was a call center. As long as they were logged into the phones, we had a record.

[beefche]

- If the above is true, and they don't log all the hours they work (implied in the op), would it stand up in court if they sued the company two years later for payment? It's not possible for an employer to know whether their employees are working above the hours they submit on paper.

- How does an employer stop a non-exempt employee working high amounts of hours per week unnecessarily?

1. Employees typically have some type of time card to complete. This could be an actual machine that records when they come in and when they leave or the employee keeps track of those hours.

Some employers utilize stricter methods of time tracking. I'm thinking of the more production based jobs (such as factory worker, warehouse worker, etc). They could have it set up that only time shown on the time card (as recorded by a machine) gets paid.

Other employers, and this usually applies to more "professional" type of work environments, rely on the employee to be honest in their reporting of time. The company would have ways to verify such time, but probably doesn't utilize it until something makes them suspicious.

2. Some ways of preventing an employee working overtime was mentioned in my response to your first question.

I can tell you of an experience we had at my job. I work for a more professional employer and we, the employees, track the times we work. One employee continued to be at work over his required 8 hrs of normal time. He never claimed the overtime and no one ever said anything. It was possible that he was in the office and not working (as we do have computers with internet connection and our employer isn't opposed to some personal time on the computer). However, once he was being disciplined for a separate issue, he brought up all the "overtime" work he did. I am not sure if he got an attorney (I suspect he just threatened to use one), but he was paid for the overtime work.

So, despite him being told (in an employee handbook and by our supervisors) that no overtime can be done without prior approval, since he "worked" overtime, the company paid him for that work, after the fact. I imagine they did so 1) to keep the law--if an employee works, he must be compensated and 2) the damages could be more than the amount of OT pay he received had he pursued it with the state.

[Dravin]

Do you mind going into detail regarding methods of discouraging the practice? It seems a very odd concept to me, that if an employee works overtime that hasn't been preauthorised they can demand payment for it - seems to be too many flaws that can be exploited.

Policy and ultimately the threat of termination. They'll pay you for your unauthorized time worked as required and then show your tush the door.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Dravin

[Blackmarch]

Bringing an in-office debate here...

Is working off-the-clock in order to help out on the workload without having anyone worry about overtime a nice way to pitch in, "volunteer"? Or is it more likely than anything else to set those in charge worrying about when you will suddenly produce evidence of work-without-pay?

its to reduce my on time work load.... and so i don't nag those who are working. and depends on where you work tho.

[talisyn]

I apologize in advance if I make no sense, because my head cold is giving me the foolish delusion that I can communicate rationally.

I am glad that you like your job and want it to be successful. It shows your great work ethic and wllingness to go above and beyond the call of duty. However....

Performing your regular work off the clock sets a terrible precedent. The fact that your non-profit cannot afford to hire someone else (even a part-timer) or cannot train any volunteers to help with the work load is not your issue, it is theirs. And it is their job to solve this problem. My point earlier was about workers doing more for the same pay (basically taking a cut in pay. More work plus same pay equals pay cut). Working off the clock does not give your employer incentive at all to change, and in fact reinforce the idea that things can continue and if someone cannot or will not perform tasks off the clock they are not performing at standard level. Please do not do that to your fellow coworkers. Thank you