Aula wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
I think the problem is that she's effectively salaried
part time, but doing something that is normally a part of her
normally full-time job. I think the most salient question is
whether there's some significant problem if she only works one
other morning that week. If they need her to work more
than one other morning, then can they figure out how to pay
her for the additional time?


A great deal depends on where in the world she is. For some reason I think
she's in England, but I could be having a serious brain strain on that. My
understanding of laws in the US, as a member of management, is that she
falls under different rules than when she is working full time. She is,
essentially, [if in the US] returning to work on what amounts to light duty
after an absence under what would probably be FMLA. In any company I've
worked for that would have included a period of sit down negotiation with
the employer, prior to first day back on the job, to discuss exact
expectations regarding hours, pay, and exceptions. Her company, for
example, knows that she is returning to work after the birth of a child and
is taking it in stages. But, they have chosen to assign her a task that
takes her away from her new baby and family for a period of virtually two
days. That suggests to me a blatant disregard of the reason for her return
as a p/t employee and a very good reason for her to immediately set a firm
foot down as to what she is willing to do, and what she is not willing to
do, as well as her expectations of them. It looks, from this pov with what
is granted less than the full picture, like she is being taken advantage of
by an employer who will continue to pull similar stunts unless shut down
fast and professionally. Surely there are other staff who are not so
recently returned to *light duty* who could cover this task? If I was her
boss and I valued her as an employee I would not be disregarding her needs
by sending her off like this before she is ready for f/t work. I'd be
helping her make as smooth a transition back into the work force as possible
so that she'd be most likely to successfully complete the transition into
full time work for me again. Something about this whole situation does not
feel right from here.

Eh, I don't think the world is always so neat. Obviously,
I don't know what her particular situation is and only she can
comment on that. Still, I think all of it has to be considered
in the context of the job as a whole. I'm p/t because I am
unwilling to spend more time away from family. That said,
there are times when my job requires more hours. That's just
the nature of the work. I could put my foot down and say that
I won't ever do more than 20 hours/week, but if I did, I'd be
looking for another job. They can't afford to have me in this
position and unable/unwilling to cover these things. They're
not exploiting me. They're accommodating my unwillingness to
work full time, and this is part of what I do to enable them
to be able to do that. It's a win-win on the whole for both
of us.
To me, the situation does not at all sound like a
situation where an employer is being unreasonable or exploitative.
Everyone's just trying to get the work done. For some
accounting reason she's basically salaried instead of hourly.
I think it's perfectly fair and right that she should be
paid for the hours she works, and that whatever the company
policies are for charging hours during travel are what should
apply for her. Of course, that could be challenging to figure
out--if she's salaried, do the salaried rules apply or the
hourly rules? Because the salaried rules probably don't
have any provision for charging "overtime" during travel.
Things aren't always so simple--and sometimes these
complications arise when companies go outside the box to
accommodate situations like women coming back part-time
to transition after maternity leave. The last thing any
of us want to do is make them regret having been flexible.
Does that mean she should roll over and work lots of
uncompensated time? Of course not. She should be fairly
compensated for her time, either by not having to work
the other mornings or by getting paid for the additional
work hours. And if there's some crunch that prevents
not working the remaining mornings that week, perhaps she
can get comp time to be used later. There are many possible
solutions. But getting feathers all ruffled or getting
very rigid over things like this often doesn't lead to
a desirable end result. If you want flexibility from them,
it's usually wise to give a little flexibility in return.

Best wishes,
Ericka