Should You Let Employees Buy and Sell PTO?
|
06/12/2013
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
School
is
out,
summer
is
upon
us,
and
many
workers
soon
will
be
taking
vacations.
With
visions
of
sandy
beaches,
national
parks,
and
Wally
World
(Chevy
Chase's
destination
in
the
movie
Vacation)
dancing
in
our
heads,
now
is
a
good
time
to
take
stock
of
your
vacation
or
paid
time
off
(PTO)
policy.
More
employers
are
allowing
workers
to
buy
and
sell
vacation
time,
according
to
a
Society
for
Human
Resource
Management
study.
The
study
shows
that
52
percent
of
employers
(up
from
42
percent
in
2009)
now
offer
PTO
plans
that
combine
vacation
time,
sick
leave,
and
personal
days
into
one
comprehensive
plan,
to
give
employees
more
flexibility
in
managing
their
time
off.
Of
these,
almost
20
percent
offered
a
cash-out
option.
And
five
percent
of
all
employers
are
taking
the
more-novel
approach
of
letting
workers
buy
more
vacation
time
through
a
payroll
deduction.
Could
such
a
policy
provide
a
low-cost
perk
to
help
with
employee
recruitment
and
retention,
and
improve
more
morale
and
productivity,
at
your
organization?
Give
it
some
thought.
But
be
sure
to
work
with
an
experienced
employment
lawyer
to
help
develop
such
a
program
before
you
roll
it
out,
to
ensure
you
don’t
run
afoul
of
some
tricky
wage
payment
law
and
tax
law
issues
these
policies
present
(“constructive
receipt”
and
“condition
subsequent”
anyone?).
|
|
Beware of the Devil in the Details—What Employers Should Do and Need to Know about the Kansas Wage Payment Act Amendment
|
05/21/2013
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
Last
month
we
told
you
about
the
amendment
to
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
(KWPA),
which
goes
into
effect
on
July
1.
In
short,
the
changes
greatly
expand
the
circumstances
under
which
employers
may
make
payroll
withholdings
or
deductions
without
violating
the
KWPA.
To
maximize
your
organization’s
ability
to
avail
itself
to
these
new
provisions,
you
should
consider
having
employees
(at
least
the
non-exempt
ones)
sign
agreements
prospectively
authorizing
deductions
to
cover
any
past
or
future
payroll
overpayments,
loans,
advances,
or
failure
to
return
or
pay
for
employer-provided
merchandise.
But
be
careful
in
applying
your
new
rights
under
the
KWPA
to
exempt
employees.
Even
if
making
a
certain
deduction
is
allowed
by
Kansas
law,
doing
so
could
present
potential
liability
under
the
federal
Fair
Labor
Standards
Act
(FLSA).
Read
on
to
understand
why.
Under
the
KWPA
amendment,
employers
are
now
authorized
to
make
the
following
deductions
and
withholdings.
First,
upon
a
signed
written
agreement
between
the
employer
and
employee,
an
employer
may
deduct
or
withhold
an
employee's
wages
for
the
following
purposes:
- as
repayment
of
a
loan
or
advance
the
employer
made
to
the
employee
during
the
course
of
and
within
the
scope
of
employment;
- to
recover
a
payroll
overpayment;
and
- to
compensate
the
employer
for
the
replacement
cost
or
unpaid
balance
of
the
cost
of
the
employer's
merchandise
or
uniforms
purchased
by
the
employee.
Second,
upon
providing
written
notice
and
explanation
to
the
employee
(even
if
there
is
no
written
agreement),
Continue Reading...
|
|
Kansas Wage Payment Law Amended--No Foolin'
|
04/05/13
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
On
April
1,
Governor
Brownback
signed
into
law
a
bill
that
gives
employers
more
latitude
to
make
payroll
deductions
to
recoup
overpayments,
loans,
and
property
provided
to
employees.
Kansas
employers
have
long
pushed
for
this
change.
The
bill,
Senate
Substitute
for
HB
2022,
becomes
effective
on
July
1.
Read
on
to
understand
these
revisions
and
what
you
can
do
to
maximize
their
benefit
to
your
organization.
Under
current
Kansas
law,
an
employer
may
withhold
wages
in
only
limited
circumstances,
such
as:
(1)
when
specifically
required
by
law
(such
withholdings
for
payroll
taxes
or
garnishments);
(2)
for
healthcare;
(3)
deposits
into
a
retirement
plan;
and
(4)
when
the
employer
has
a
signed
authorization
from
the
employee
for
a
lawful
purpose
"accruing
to
the
employee's
benefit."
Old
Kansas
Department
of
Labor
regulations
take
a
narrow
view
on
what
type
of
deductions
accrue
to
the
employee's
benefit.
The
revisions
to
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act
expand
the
circumstances
under
which
employers
may
make
payroll
withholdings
or
deductions.
Upon
a
signed
written
agreement
between
the
employer
and
employee,
an
employer
may
deduct
or
withhold
an
employee's
wages
for
the
following
purposes:
- as
repayment
of
a
loan
or
advance
the
employer
made
to
the
employee
during
the
course
of
and
within
the
scope
of
employment;
- to
recover
a
payroll
overpayment;
and
- to
compensate
the
employer
for
the
replacement
cost
or
unpaid
balance
of
the
cost
of
the
employer's
merchandise
or
uniforms
purchased
by
the
employee.
In
addition,
upon
providing
Continue Reading...
|
|
Can You Make Your Employees Give More Notice Than the Pope?
|
03/13/2013
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
Pope
Benedict
XVI
recently
did
something
no
pontiff
has
done
for
600
hundred
years:
He
resigned.
And
when
he
did,
he
provided
the
Catholic
Church
with
only
two
weeks’
notice
of
his
departure.
Employees
often
leave
their
employer
with
little
or
no
notice. This
can
leave
the
organization
in
a
lurch,
particularly
if
the
employee
holds
a
key
position,
has
a
unique
skill
set,
or
has
institutional
knowledge
others
lack.
Employers
sometimes
ask
whether
they
can
require
their
employees
to
give
advance
notice
before
they
quit. But
perhaps
the
more-important
question
is:
Do
you
really
want
to?
Absent
an
agreement
to
the
contrary,
employment
in
Kansas
is
at
will.
This
means
that
either
the
employer
or
the
employee
can
end
the
employment
relationship
at
any
time,
for
any
or
no
reason,
with
or
without
notice.
Employers
are
typically
happy
about
this
arrangement.
So
think
twice
and
get
legal
counsel
before
imposing
a
rule
requiring
employees
to
give
two
weeks
or
other
advance
notice
of
resignation,
as
this
may
trigger
a
reciprocal
obligation
to
pay
employees
for
the
same
notice
period
when
you
let
them
go,
or
otherwise
alter
the
at-will
nature
of
the
relationship.
If
you
do
decide
to
enter
into
a
contract
with
an
executive
or
other
key
employee
that
requires
advance
notice
of
resignation,
consider
whether
and
how
you
will
enforce
the
provision
if
the
employee
welches
on
the
deal. Remember
that
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act
(KWPA)
prohibits
withholding
an
employee’s
earned
wages
as
a
set
off
or
credit
toward
other
debts
the
employee
Continue Reading...
|
|
Kansas Legislative Update
|
02/01/2013
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
The
2013
Kansas
legislative
session
is
now
in
full
swing.
Lawmakers
have
introduced
several
employment-related
bills.
House
Bill
2022
--
Expands
the
number
and
types
of
deductions
that
employers
may
withhold
from
an
employee's
wages,
contingent
on
a
written
agreement
between
the
parties.
Also
expands
an
employer's
ability
to
withhold
wages
when
an
employee
leaves.
However,
such
withholding
cannot reduce
the
employee's
wages
below
the
federal
or
state
minimum
wage
law.
Senate
Bill
53
/
House
Bill
2092
--
Specifies
what
social
media
information
an
employer
can
and
cannot
ask
an
applicant
or
employee to
divulge.
Senate
Bill
48
--
Requires
that,
starting
January
1,
2014,
all
governmental
units
and contractors
involved
in
a
public
contract
of
$50,000
must use
e-verify
for
verification
of
employment
status
of
all
employees
whose
employment
begin
on
or
after
January
1,
2014.
Grants
the
Secretary
of
Labor
authority
to
establish
rules
and
regulations
and
impose
restrictions
on
violations
of
the
act.
House
Bill
2105
--
Incorporates
numerous
amendments
to
the
employment
security
law,
such
as
revising
the
circumstances
when
an
individual
can
be
disqualified
for
benefits;
redefining "gross
misconduct"
involving
the
use
of
alcohol
or
controlled
substances;
and
imposing penalties
for
unlawfully
receiving benefits.
Kansas
Employment
Law
Blog
will
keep
you
up
to
date
on
the
progress
of
these
bills
and
other
significant
legislative
developments.
|
|
Do You Know? Forfeiting Unused Vacation Time
|
01/23/2013
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
You
may
be
familiar
with
Benihana,
the
Japanese-cuisine
restaurants
that
feature
knife-wielding,
joke-cracking
chefs
who
prepare
your
food.
In
2011
a
group
of
former
managers
filed
a
class
action,
alleging
that
Benihana’s
vacation
policy
violated
California
law
by
requiring
employees
to
forfeit
accrued,
unused
vacation
time
when
their
employment
ends.
This
month
Benihana
agreed
to
pay
$600,000
to
settle
the
case.
Do
you
know
that
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act
similarly
prohibits
employers
from
imposing
a
forfeiture
of
earned
but
unused
vacation
time?
But
that
does
not
necessarily
mean
employers
are
always
obligated
to
let
employees
cash
out
their
unused
vacation
time
upon
termination.
Confused?
You
should
be,
as
Kansas
law
on
this
issue
is
tricky.
Read
on
and
I’ll
explain.
The
KWPA
provides
that
employers
must
pay
all
wages
due,
which
includes
vacation
time
and
paid
time
off
(PTO),
provided
the
employee
has
met
all
the
conditions
required
to
be
eligible
for
and
earn
that
compensation.
Kansas
Department
of
Labor
regulations
prohibit
employers
from
imposing
a
“condition
subsequent”
to
an
employee’s
entitlement
to
compensation
that
results
in
a
forfeiture
or
loss
of
earned
wages.
This
is
in
contrast
to
a
condition
precedent,
which
is
something
that
must
happen
before
the
agreement
becomes
effective.
Still
confused?
The
key
point
to
understand
here
Continue Reading...
|
|
Do You Know? Wage and Benefit Notification
|
09/12/2012
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
Regular
readers
of
this
blog
may
have
noticed
that
there
has
not
been
a
lot
of
Kansas-specific
content
lately. No,
we
haven't
forgotten
that this
is
the Kansas
Employment
Law
Blog. But
when
the
legislature
is
not
in
session,
and
the
Kansas
Supreme
Court
and
Kansas
Court
of
Appeals
are
not
cranking
out
decisions
in
employment-related
cases,
there
simply
are
not
a
lot
of
state-specific
new
developments
to
talk
about. And
most
employment
law
and
employee
benefits
issues
are,
by
their
nature, federal
in
scope. So
we've been
feeding you a
steady
diet
of
federal
law
developments,
practical
advice
based
on
general
employment
law
principles,
and
my
musings
on
pop
culture,
statistics,
and
wacky
cases
(all
with
an
employment
law
nexus,
however
strained).
To
provide
more
Kansas
content,
we
are
starting
a
new,
semi-regular
feature
called
Do
You
Know? These
articles
will
discuss
various
contours
of
Kansas
employment
law
that
are
often
overlooked
or
misunderstood. We'll start
with
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment Act's
notification
requirements.
Do you
know
that
upon
an
employee's
request,
a
Kansas
employer
must
furnish
the
following
information
in
writing:
- Rate
of
pay
and
date
and
place
of
payment;
- Any
changes
in
rate
of
pay
or
date
and
place
of
payment
prior
to
the
date
of
such
changes;
- Employment
practices
and
policies
regarding
vacation
pay,
sick
pay,
and
any
other
benefits
to
which
the
employee
is
entitled
and that have
a
direct
bearing
upon
wages
payable;
and
- An
itemized
statement
of
deductions
made
from
the
employee's
wages
for
each
pay
period
deductions
are
made?
In
Continue Reading...
|
|
Bill to Amend Wage Payment Act Dies
|
05/21/2012
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
You
may
remember
Schoolhouse
Rock,
the
series
of
educational
cartoon
shorts
that
ran
on
ABC
on
Saturday
mornings
in
the
1970s.
One
of
the
most-popular
episodes,
titled
"I'm
Just
a
Bill,"
teaches
kids
about
the
legislative
process
through
the
adventures
of
Bill,
a
bill
hoping
to
become
a
law.
At
one
point Bill and
a
young
boy
have
the
following
exchange:
Bill:
"I
hope
they
decide
to
report
on
me
favorably;
otherwise
I
may
die."
Boy:
"Die?"
Bill:
"Yeah,
die
in
committee."
Such
was
the
fate
of
a
bill
to
amend
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act.
Kansas
lawmakers
closed
a
marathon
99-day
session
yesterday
afternoon.
When
the
gavel
slammed
for
the
final
time,
one
of
the
bills
left
in
the
dust
was
House
Bill
2627.
This
bill
would
have
allowed
employers
to
withhold
money
from
an
employee's
final
paycheck,
upon
providing
written
notice
and
an
explanation,
for
the
following
reasons:
(1)
to
recover
a
computer,
phone,
and
other
property
provided
to
the
employee;
(2)
to
recoup
a
loan
or
advance
made
to
the
employee;
(3)
to
recover
a payroll
overpayment;
and
(4) to
compensate
the
employer for
the
cost
or
unpaid
balance
of the
employer's
uniforms,
equipment,
tools,
or
other
property
purchased
by
the
employee.
The
House
of
Representatives
passed
the
bill
93-31
on
February
23.
On
March
1
it
was
referred
to
the
Senate
Committee
on
Commerce.
The
Committee
made
some
changes,
and
on
March
13
recommended
that
it
be
passed
by
the
entire
Senate.
But
that
was
the
end
of
the
line
for
the
bill,
at
least
for
the
2012
legislative
Continue Reading...
|
|
Kansas Court Expands Scope of Retaliatory Discharge
|
05/09/2012
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
It
is
unlawful
to
fire
an
employee
in
retaliation
for
making
internal
oral
complaints
involving
rights
protected
by
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act,
the
Kansas
Court
of
Appeals
ruled
on
May
4.
Less
than
a
year
ago
the
Kansas
Supreme
Court
held
that
is
is
unlawful
to discharge
an
employee
for
exercising
rights
under
the
Wage
Payment
Act,
such
as
by
filing
a
claim
for
wages
with
the
Kansas
Department
of
Labor.
The
new
decision
clarifies that
this
anti-retaliation
rule
is
not
limited
to
situations
where
the
employee
has
filed
a
formal
claim,
but
also
covers oral
complaints
to
company
management.
However, to
be
protected,
the
complaint,
whether
written
or
oral,
must
be
"clear
enough
that
the
employer
would
understand
that
the
employee
is
asserting
rights
protected
by
the
statute." The
Wage
Payment
Act
requires,
among
other
things,
that
employers
must
pay
employees
all
wages
when
due.
But
in
this
case,
the
court
said,
the
employee's
complaints
were
"too
equivocal"
to
put
the
employer
on
notice
that
he
was
making
some
claim
under
the
Wage
Payment
Act.
So
the
court
upheld
the
district
court's
ruling
to
dismiss
the
claim.
|
|
Kansas House Approves Wage Payment Act Amendments
|
03/07/2012
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
A
few
weeks
ago
we
told
you
about
Kansas
House
Bill
2627,
which would
amend
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act
to
expand
the
scope
of
authorized
pay
deductions.
Since
then,
the
bill,
with
a
few
changes
along
the
way, was
passed
by
the
House
on
a
vote
of
93-31.
It
was
introduced
in
the
Senate,
and
last
week
was
referred
to
the
Senate
Committee
on
Commerce.
We'll
keep you
informed
as
we
continue
to
track
the
bill's
progress.
|
|
Proposal Would Clarify and Expand Kansas Wage Deductions
|
02/13/2012
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
The
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act
controls
many
aspects
of
wage
payment
and deductions.
The
KWPA's
frequently
unknown
and
often-misunderstood restrictions on
wage
deductions
can
cause
problems
for
employers.
Kansas
House
Bill
2627,
introduced
on
February
3, would
amend
the
KWPA
to
clarify
the
law
and
expand
the
scope
of
authorized
pay
deductions. The
proposed
changes
to
the
KWPA
would
expressly
allow
Kansas
employers
to
withhold,
deduct,
or
divert
any
portion
of
an
employee's
wages
for
the
following
purposes:
(1)
To
allow
the
employee
to
repay
a
loan
or
advance
which
the
employer
made
to
the
employee
during
the
course
of
and
within
the
scope
of
employment.
The
KWPA presently
is
silent
about
such
deductions,
although
Kansas
Department
of
Labor
regulations
do
say
that employers
can make
deductions
for
cash
advances
the
employee
requested
in
writing.
(2)
To
allow
for
recovery
of
payroll
overpayment.
Here
again, the
KWPA today does
not
address
such
deductions, but
KDOL
regulations permit
deductions
to
correct
wage
overpayment
that
resulted
from
the
employer's
error,
although
the
deduction
rate
cannot
exceed
the
overpayment
rate
unless
the
employee
signs
an
authorization.
(3)
To
compensate
the
employer
for
the
value
of
the
employer's
merchandise
or
uniforms
purchased
by
the
employee. The
regulations
today
say
that
even
with
the
employee's
consent,
an
employer
cannot
make
deductions
for
uniforms
that
are
not
necessary
to
the
job
and
that
are
customarily
supplied
by
the
employer.
(4)
To
compensate
the
employer
for
breakage,
loss
or
return
of
merchandise,
inventory
shortage,
or
cash
shortage
caused
by
the
employee
where
the
employee
was
the
sole
party
responsible
for
the
case
or
items
damaged
or
Continue Reading...
|
|
Confucius Says: He Who Retaliates Digs His Own Grave
|
07/22/2011
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
The
thirst
for
revenge
is
among
the
strongest
of
human
emotions.
In
fact,
the innate
human desire
to
“get
even”
has
driven
much
of
the
history
of
the
world.
But
acting
on
feelings
of
revenge
can
have
dire
consequences,
not
only
in
the
world
at
large,
but
particularly
in
the
world
of
employment
law.
Most
employment-protection
laws
contain
anti-retaliation
provisions.
And
courts
are
broadly
interpreting
and
applying
these
provisions.
The
U.S.
Supreme
Court
has
recognized
and
expanded
the
right
to
bring
retaliation
claims
in
a
series
of
cases
over
the
past
several
years.
In
January,
the
Court
ruled
that
Title
VII’s
anti-retaliation
provision
covered
an
employee
who
was
fired
shortly
after
his
fiancée,
who
worked
for
the
same
company,
filed
a
sex
discrimination
claim.
( Supreme
Court
Finds
in
Favor
of
Fired
Fiance 01/25/2011)
In
March,
the
Court
held
that
the
FLSA’s
anti-retaliation
provision,
which
uses
the
phrase
“filed
any
complaint,”
applies
to
an
employee’s
oral
complaints.
These
cases
follow
prior
decisions
in
the
last five
years
in
which
the
Court
ruled
that:
·
Title
VII’s
anti-retaliation
clause,
which
refers
to
“opposition,”
does
not
require
active
opposition,
but
encompasses
involuntary
participation,
such
as
making
statements
during
an
employer’s
internal
investigation;
·
Employees
can
bring
retaliation
claims
under
the
ADEA;
·
Employees
can
bring
retaliation
claims
under
Section
1981
of
Chapter
42
of
the
Continue Reading...
|
|
Saab Story
|
06/24/2011
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
Yesterday
the
Swedish
automaker
Saab
informed
its
employees that
it
could
not
pay
them
their
wages
this
month because
it
could
not
secure
short-term funding. Saab
and
its
parent
company said
they
are
in discussions
with
various
parties
to
obtain
financing
arrangements.
If
Saab
does
not
pay
the
wages
within
10
days, employees
have
the
right
under Swedish
law
to
file
a
demand
with a
government
enforcement
agency.
Unfortunately,
similar
stories
have
played
out
in
Kansas
over
the
past
several
years
as
a
result
of
the
economic
downturn.
Companies
that
employ
workers
in
Kansas should
be
aware
that
they
are
subject
to
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act,
which
protects
wage
earners
and
their
wages.
Under
the
KWPA,
employers
must
pay
their
employees
all
wages
due
at
least
once
each
calendar
month,
on
regular
paydays
designated
in
advance.
These
paydays
cannot
be
more
than
15
days
after
the
end
of
the
pay
period.
An
employer
that
fails
to
pay
employees'
wages
is
potentially
liable
not
only
for
the
amount
of
the
unpaid
wages,
but
also
for
interest
and
a
penalty.
The
penalty
for
willful
non-payment
of
wages
is
one
percent
of
the
unpaid
wages
per day
(except
Sundays
and
holidays),
starting
the
eighth
day
after
the
wages
were due,
up
to
a
maximum
of
100%
of
the
unpaid
wages.
If
the
employing
company
iteself
does
not
pay
the
wages,
major
shareholders,
officers,
managers,
agents,
and
other
persons
in
charge
of
the
employer's
affairs
who
knowingly
permit
the
employer
to
engage
in
a
violation
of
the
KWPA
can
also
be
held liable
for
the
unpaid wages,
interest,
and
Continue Reading...
|
|
Employee In Hog Heaven Over Kansas Supreme Court Ruling
|
05/20/2011
|
By: Boyd Byers
|
Today
the
Kansas
Supreme
Court
expanded
the
recognized exceptions
to
employment
at
will
by
ruling
that
a
claim
for
retaliatory
discharge
exists
when
an
employee
is
fired
for
filing
a
wage
claim
under
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act
(KWPA). The
employee,
who
worked
for
a
pig-farming
company
in
Long
Island,
Kansas,
alleged
he
was fired
for trying
to
bring
home
more
bacon
by
filing a
complaint
with
the
Kansas
Department
of
Labor
(KDOL)
claiming
the
company
was
not
paying
him
as
required
by
the
KWPA. The company
said
the
allegation
was
hogwash
and
asked
the
court
to dismiss
the
case.
The
district
court
agreed
with
the
company
and
hamstrung the
employee's
lawsuit,
ruling
that even
assuming
he was
fired
because
he
filed
a
KWPA
wage
claim,
this
was
not
a
recognized exception
to
the
employment-at-will
rule.
The
employee,
perhaps
feeling
he
had
been
casting
pearls
before
swine
in
the
district
court, appealed.
The Kansas
Supreme
Court explained
that
Kansas
courts
permit
the
common-law
tort
of
retaliatory
discharge
as
a
limited
exception
to
the
at-will
employment
doctrine
when
it
is
necessary
to
protect
a
strongly
held
state
public
policy
from
being
undermined.
The
Kansas
Supreme
Court
has
previously
endorsed
public
policy
exceptions
in
four
circumstances:
(1)
exercising
rights
under
the
Kansas
Workers’
Compensation
Act;
(2)
filing
a
claim
under
the
Federal
Employers
Liability
Act;
(3)
whistleblowing
(good-faith
reporting
of
an
employer’s
or
coworker’s
violation
of
the
law
pertaining
to
public
health,
safety,
or
welfare);
and
(4)
exercising
a
public
employee's
First
Amendment
right
to
free
speech
on
an
issue
of
public
concern.
The
Court
reasoned
that the
KWPA—which
Continue Reading...
|
|
Don't Be Torpedoed by Your Subs
|
04/19/2011
|
By: Donald Berner
|
Businesses
may
assume
that
once
they
hire
a
subcontractor
to
handle
a
specific
task
or
project,
all
obligations
or
concerns
regarding
the
subcontractor's
employees are
not
their
problem.
While this
sounds
good,
this
is
absolutely
incorrect.
There
are
a
number
of
areas
in
which
a
business
can
be
held
responsible
for
the
actions
or
inactions of
its
subcontractor.
One
particular
issue
that
is
not
well-known
is
responsibility
for
a
subcontractor's
unpaid
wages under
the Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act
(KWPA). The
KWPA places
secondary
responsiblity
for
unpaid
wages
on
the entity hiring
the subcontractor
in
the
event the
subcontractor
fails to
pay
its
employees. The
most-common
application of
this
statutory
rule
is on
a
construction
project
where
a
general contractor
hires
a
variety
of
subcontractors
to
perform smaller
portions
of
the work. If
one
of
these
subcontractors
fails
to pay
its
employees,
the
employees
may
make
a
claim
against
the
general
contractor
for
their unpaid
wages. While a
construction
industry example
is
easy
to
see, there
are
numerous
other
scenarios
where
a
business
enters
into
a
contract
to
perform
a
service
and subcontracts
various
parts
of
that
obligation. These
types
of
arrangements
would
also
fall
within
the
scope
of
this
provision
in
the
KWPA.
For
the
specific statute click
here.
|
|
The Dangers of Deductions from Wages
|
02/01/2011
|
By: Donald Berner
|
A
manager
walks
into
your
office
and
declares
that
the
time
has
come
to
part
ways
with
an
employee.
As
you
work
through
the
termination
process,
a
beancounter
in
Accounting
informs
you
the
employee
owes
the
Company
$500. After
asking
a
few
more
questions,
you
learn
part
of
the
money
owed
is
for
Company
products
the
individual
bought
on
credit,
and
another
part
is for
reimbursement
for
a
training
session
the Company
paid
for.
Accounting
suggests
you
just take
the
debt
from
the
employee's
final
paycheck.
While
this
might
seem
like
a clean
and
simple solution,
it
could
create
problems
for
you
under the
Fair
Labor
Standards
Act
(FLSA) and/or
the
Kansas
Wage
Payment
Act
(KWPA).
The
reconciling
of
the
books
on
the
final
paycheck
is
a
very common
mistake
made
by
Kansas
employers.
This
simple
step
of deducting
money
for
obligations
owed
to
the
employer
directly
from
an
employee's
paycheck
seems
fair
and
simple.
The
problem
is
the
FLSA
and
the
KWPA--and
the government
agencies
that
enforce
them--don't
necessarily
agree
with
that
concept.
The
KWPA prohibits
employers
from
deducting
money
from
an
employee's
paycheck
unless
the
deduction
accrues
to
the
benefit
of
the
employee.
You
can
be
assured
that
the
collection
of
a
debt
by
the
employer
won't
be
viewed
as
a
deduction
for
the
benefit
of
an
employee. Anytime
you
find
yourself
tempted
to
hold
money
directly
from
an
employee's
paycheck,
it
would
be
wise
to
consult
with
your
attorney
to
ensure
the
propriety
of
the
action.
Finally,
even
if
a
deduction
does
not
violate
the
KWPA,
keep
in
mind
that
there
Continue Reading...
|
|
|
Authors
Don Berner, the Labor Law, OSHA, & Immigration Law Guy
Boyd Byers, the General Employment Law Guy
Jason Lacey, the Employee Benefits Guy
Additional Sources

|