As a salary employee can my pay be deducted for the hours I don&#39;t work? As a salary employee (USA) can my pay be deducted for the hours I don't work? I started working for a company and month later my son was born. I worked the week after at home but put in less than 20 hours. I am supposedly exempt as I don't get overtime when I work more than 80 in the two week pay period. Is this legit? Am I truly hourly or salary? Am I exempt?
Not a lawyer. Typically, your employer must pay you your week's pay for any week in which you perform work. An exception to this requirement may be that they can withhold pay for any day in which you perform no work. Also, the employer can make you use vacation or other paid time off for hours not worked on any given day, without crediting them back if you make up the time later. If your 20 hours were: 2 days of 10 hours each, your employer must pay you for two days; 2 normal days and a half day, your employer must pay you for three days, possibly charging you 4 hours of vacation/paid time off if you have any available 5 half days, your employer must pay you for five days, possibly charging you 20 hours of vacation/paid time of if you have any available The correct solution to people working part days without sufficient accrued PTO is disciplinary action up to and including termination, but you cannot simply dock pay (except for full days missed within a week). Note also that in the same way your employer can "demand" you work 80 hours per week, you can "demand" that you only work 20 hours per week for the same pay and benefits. You are both (typically) free to negotiate and walk away at any time.
Can a significant change in incentives void an employment contract? Yes, because a party's unilateral, significant imposition which the counterparty did not expect strikes the premise of a contract/agreement being entered knowingly and willfully. Here, the contract or relevant portion thereof is voidable by the employee, because the employer's belated imposition is tantamount to a misrepresentation as contemplated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts at § 164(1). The contract clause regarding an employee's off-work hours might be unenforceable as unconscionable, more so where the incentive being slashed represents a significant portion of an employee's income (since it reflects that the employee's salary is not that high so start with). See the Restatement at § 177, 178, and 208. is the employee entitled to any compensation or the right to retain the property? Yes, but the applicable alternative --compensation vs. withholding the IP-- depends on what agreement the employee reaches with the employer. I presume what prompts this part of your question is the mention --in the Workplace SE post-- that the engineer rejected the employer's bid (offer is somewhat of a misnomer) of $25,000 for the employee's off-work IP. The engineer's reluctance is rightfully cautious. Prior to accepting the employer's proposal, it is in the engineer's best interest to ensure (with enough specificity in a new contract) the terms and conditions of that proposal, lest the employer subsequently argue that the payment of $25,000 encompassed any and all subsequent IP produced by the employee during his employment there. Likewise, insufficient caution by the engineer regarding the aforementioned proposal may permit a finding that the parties' subsequent conduct reflects the engineer's acceptance of the new conditions (including the slashing of incentives).
Everything which is not prohibited is allowed This is the fundamental basis of the common law (and is one of the reasons that countries with a common law tradition continue to be relatively more innovative than those without). However, things do not have to be prohibited by statute to be prohibited. Judges have discretion to say that a “new” thing is sufficiently similar to an “old” thing that a prohibition on the latter encompasses the former. As to your particular question: if it isn’t prohibited for a contract (of employment) to prohibit disclosure of salaries then its permitted for one to do so. In australia it is prohibited to so limit employees but such a clause can limit the employer.
One can be fired at any moment that the employer chooses, unless there is a contract that provides otherwise. (Some employment contracts specify a notice period.) But if the firing is at the end of a shift or of a work day, that shift's/day's wages would be included in the amount owing to the employee. "Fired" usually refers to ending employment for misconduct or failure to perform, or at least for an individual reason. "Laid off" usually means that the employer does not have enough work, but does not imply any failing by the employee, and may imply an intention to re-hire the employee if business improves. The difference may matter when making an unemployment claim, and when applying for a new job. But in both cases the job has ended.
Here's what the gov't has to say: Furloughed workers Where a bank holiday falls inside a worker’s period of furlough and the worker would have usually worked the bank holiday, their furlough will be unaffected by the bank holiday. However, if the worker would usually have had the bank holiday as annual leave, there are 2 options. The bank holiday is taken as annual leave If the employer and the worker agree that the bank holiday can be taken as annual leave while on furlough, the employer must pay the correct holiday pay for the worker. Employers may also require workers to take the bank holiday as annual leave with the correct notice periods. The bank holiday is deferred If the employer and the worker agree that the bank holiday will not be taken as annual leave at that time, the worker must still receive the day of annual leave that they would have received. This holiday can be deferred till a later date, but the worker should still receive their full holiday entitlement. So if you would normally have the Bank Holiday off (and as part of your annual leave entitlement) and you and the employer don't agree to defer it then it's annual leave, not Furlough, as to what that means for pay purposes: Furloughed workers An employer should not automatically pay a worker on holiday the rate of pay that they are receiving while on furlough, unless the employer has agreed to not reduce the worker’s pay while on furlough. If a worker on furlough takes annual leave, an employer must calculate and pay the correct holiday pay in accordance with current legislation - see the standard guidance. Where this calculated rate is above the pay the worker receives while on furlough, the employer must pay the difference. However, as taking holiday does not break the furlough period, the employer can continue to claim the 80% grant from the government to cover most of the cost of holiday pay. But what does this mean with regards to your number of days? Employees can take holiday whilst on furlough. If an employee is flexibly furloughed then any hours taken as holiday during the claim period should be counted as furloughed hours rather than working hours. Well it means that if you're off on the Bank Holiday (as annual leave) even though they have to pay you the full amount it is still counted as a furlough day and you'll still be working three days that week, with the Monday being a furlough day. If you and the employer agreed to defer the Bank Holiday then you could conceivably work the Monday + two other days. But there's no permutation where you only work two days without taking an additional leave day.
I would recommend talking to an adult person in HR. I'm quite sure they will notice that what your manager wants to do is more than dodgy, and doing something dodgy may be in the interest of your manager, but not in the interest of the company. The best thing is to go to HR, acting as if a mistake has been made, and point out to them what your start date was, and that the new contract has the incorrect starting date, and they need to fix this mistake or you can't sign the contract. If they insist you sign it, then you DON'T sign it. If they say you will be fired if you don't sign it, then you tell them that in that case you would get legal advice. BTW. You definitely don't sign this as it is. PS. This answer was posted on workplace.stackexchange, not law.stackexchange, so please don't complain if there is no legal content.
If you want to protect yourself or any property interests you may have in this circumstance you have to talk to a lawyer. You cannot get (or trust) legal advice from the internet. I will, however, make the following personal observations: I only provide a W-9 to people who are paying me money, and who request it as a condition of paying me. I don't know of a legal requirement to supply it after the fact. However, not providing it to someone who did pay you more than $600 in a tax year could certainly make it difficult for them to comply with their tax filing obligations. I do not sign any agreements, assignments, or contracts, without what I consider to be fair consideration. E.g., if on leaving a job (as has happened) I am asked by a former employer to sign something that I am not already obligated to sign due to some prior contract, then I negotiate what is commonly called a "severance package." They pay me and/or extend benefits, and I sign something that limits their liability.
Your legal obligation to pay income taxes is generally dependent upon where you perform the work, not where the funds you earn from doing the work are delivered. If you do work in Turkey that causes you to receive earned income, you owe Turkish income taxes on those earning, and your employer has a legal obligation to the Turkish government to make sure that those taxes get collected, or your employer will have to pay your taxes (with penalties) for you. If your employer has to do that, your employer will dock your pay to cover your obligations regardless of which bank account you use or whether you set up a corporation that does work in Turkey as a subcontracting company rather than in an employee-employer relationship. Any of the actions you propose to evade Turkish income taxes would constitute criminal tax fraud and could lead to you and the payroll officials at your employer's company who were complicit in allowing you to attempt to evade Turkish taxes spending time in a Turkish prison. Then you'd be deported. And, of course, you'd be fired probably as soon as you were criminally charged. The U.S. would cooperate with Turkey in pursuing you, your employer and your employer's payroll officials, although I don't know how the Kuwaiti government would respond.