Author Topic: Expenses plus Salary  (Read 1257 times)

LadyJaneinMD

Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2020, 06:44:40 am »
What she is saying is that

If she goes to the conference, they will pay her way in. Say $10.

If she goes to work instead, she'll get paid for that. That pays $20-$30.  Double or triple what the conference cost.

So, if she goes to the conference, she only gets $10 for the day, whereas if she went to work, she'd get $20-30.

Does that make sense now?
Informative Informative x 1 View List

bopper

Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2020, 07:55:52 am »
If You are salaried they have to pay that salary if you are working.
I am pretty sure it is illegal to withhold salary.

If you are an hourly worker I still think they should be paying your wages...if they are willing
to pay for the conference, they think it brings value to work...this is like training where you are to be paid.

They are choosing to send you to/pay for a conference. The information you receive
at the conference brings value to the company. If it doesn't, they should not send you.

This is a perfect question for askamanager.org
« Last Edit: March 02, 2020, 07:58:37 am by bopper »

bopper

Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2020, 08:00:32 am »

Since you are an hourly worker (not salaried) and the conferences are not mandatory I think you can ask whether you will be essentially doubly compensated to attend the conferences but I don’t think your company is doing anything wrong.

But the OP isn't doubly compensated...the OP doesn't get the money...the OP gets to go to the conference where they will gain information that will be helpful to the company.

I don't see it as "tuition reimbursement" but as training.

If you went to a training class for work, you would still get paid as it benefits the company.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Hmmm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
  • Location: Texas - USA
    • View Profile

  • Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary 2500 Posts Level 5
Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2020, 09:13:32 am »
Basically, the company is saying that they will not pay you to attend these optional conferences, but will need to do it on your own time. If you want to attend, you have to take vacation time or go without pay. Because attendance is optional, they probably aren't legally required to attend.

I remember back about 10 years ago, and youngish employee in our department was upset that though the company was reimbursing him to take PMO institute classes, but required him take the classes and do the studying on his personal time. We thought it was outlandish to think that he should be allocated 10 to 15 hours a week for 12 weeks to do the course.

I can see where it is hard to draw the line between "personal professional development" that will make me a better employee in the future versus required training that I need to be able to do my job now.
Useful Useful x 1 View List

TootsNYC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
  • Location: formerly small-town Midwest, NYC as an adult
    • View Profile

  • Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Fourth year Anniversary Level 4
Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2020, 09:33:57 am »
if they might benefit from your training, I think that morally they should pay you for a normal work day.

Or for the time that you're actually at the conference.

But in the U.S., your state labor board will be the one to rule on this--they are normally good at answering questions. I'd contact them.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Jayhawk

Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2020, 12:10:09 pm »
They should definitely be paying your salary while you are at a conference, especially if they're paying for it!

Jem

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Truly, Truly, Truly Outrageous!
    • View Profile

  • Badges: (View All)
    1000 Posts Fourth year Anniversary Third year Anniversary
Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2020, 12:27:58 pm »
They should definitely be paying your salary while you are at a conference, especially if they're paying for it!

The title is misleading. I agree that if the OP were salaried, she should keep getting her salary while at the conference. However, she is NOT salaried and the conferences are NOT mandatory nor are they job training. So I think it would be nice if the company paid OP her hourly rate to attend the conferences, but I agree with the poster who likened this to tuition reimbursement.

JeanFromBNA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
  • Location: Southern U.S.
    • View Profile

  • Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Fourth year Anniversary Level 4
Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2020, 01:10:01 pm »
I have a small business, and pay four or eight hours depending upon whether you attend a half day or full day seminar or conference related to professional development. It's paid whether the seminar or conference is a job requirement, like professional education for maintaining a certification, or skills that are not essential, but could benefit the company. If you want to go to ComicCon, that's what PTO is for.

In your case, although you're losing pay, are you gaining skills or certifications that would be beneficial if you left this job, and hard or expensive to obtain? For example, if you attend a seminar for certification in a skill that's economically valuable on your resume that costs $400, but you lose $100 in a day's pay, it might be worth the trade off.
Like Like x 1 View List

Rose Red

Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2020, 03:30:49 pm »
Several posters have stated the OP should be paid, but the conferences are not mandatory and it's her choice to go or not. Nobody is forcing her to miss work. It would be nice of them to pay for the conference and her time, but this issue is a legal one and not about etiquette.

Like it's suggested, post to Ask A Manager or her state labor department (or whatever it's called).
Agree Agree x 1 View List

TootsNYC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
  • Location: formerly small-town Midwest, NYC as an adult
    • View Profile

  • Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Fourth year Anniversary Level 4
Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2020, 03:57:00 pm »
The fact that a legal issue exists does not mean that etiquette does not apply.
And the answer according to etiquette can be different from the answer according to the law.

I think the employer should pay her wages while she is there, up to a full day's pay, if they will benefit in any way from what she might learn while she is there.
Like Like x 1 View List

TootsNYC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
  • Location: formerly small-town Midwest, NYC as an adult
    • View Profile

  • Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Fourth year Anniversary Level 4
Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2020, 03:57:50 pm »
What she is saying is that

If she goes to the conference, they will pay her way in. Say $10.

If she goes to work instead, she'll get paid for that. That pays $20-$30.  Double or triple what the conference cost.

So, if she goes to the conference, she only gets $10 for the day, whereas if she went to work, she'd get $20-30.

Does that make sense now?

And that $10 will NOT come in cash. It will come in the form of the non-monetary value of the conference she has attended.

TootsNYC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
  • Location: formerly small-town Midwest, NYC as an adult
    • View Profile

  • Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Fourth year Anniversary Level 4
Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2020, 04:00:07 pm »

Since you are an hourly worker (not salaried) and the conferences are not mandatory I think you can ask whether you will be essentially doubly compensated to attend the conferences but I don’t think your company is doing anything wrong.

But the OP isn't doubly compensated...the OP doesn't get the money...the OP gets to go to the conference where they will gain information that will be helpful to the company.

I don't see it as "tuition reimbursement" but as training.

If you went to a training class for work, you would still get paid as it benefits the company.

Tuition reimbursement would generally be for night classes; it's very uncommon for people to take classes during the work day.

Wanaca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1056
  • Location: USA
    • View Profile

  • Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary 1000 Posts Level 4
Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2020, 08:45:40 pm »
I am an hourly worker.  Each company has different policies.  In my current company, if they offer specific classes or seminars, we get our hourly rate.  In January my company offered in-house classes given by a local college professor.  I was paid my base hourly rate for the total of 40 hours of the classes.

If we choose to go to other seminars, they would pay the fee but not necessarily our hourly rate.  Since I work nights, I would have to change my hours and lose my shift premium.  In my current company, off-site college classes are not paid at an hourly rate.

There are companies in my area that pay for tuition and hourly rates.  When I took classes at our local community college I had several classes where over half of the students were from a local auto manufacturer and were getting their hourly rates as well as classes, books and lab fees.  There are also local tool shops that send their employees for classes that also pay them their wages for going to class.  While it may not be the norm, it isn't unusual in our community college for certain classes.
Like Like x 1 View List

OnyxBird

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Formerly Onyx_TKD
    • View Profile

  • Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Fourth year Anniversary Third year Anniversary
Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2020, 10:26:32 pm »
What she is saying is that

If she goes to the conference, they will pay her way in. Say $10.

If she goes to work instead, she'll get paid for that. That pays $20-$30.  Double or triple what the conference cost.

So, if she goes to the conference, she only gets $10 for the day, whereas if she went to work, she'd get $20-30.

Does that make sense now?

And that $10 will NOT come in cash. It will come in the form of the non-monetary value of the conference she has attended.

Yes, but the OP seems to be saying that the choice to go to conferences is voluntary. If the OP doesn't consider the conference/seminar to be valuable enough to her personally to be worth missing paid work hours and they're truly voluntary, then all she has to do is not go to those conferences/seminars. The employer has presumably done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the value to the company of employees attending the conference is more than the registration cost but less than the cost of paying employees to go to conferences. The employees who want to go need to do the cost-benefit analysis on their own end: does the conference value to themselves (not the company) exceed the cost of lost work hours or not?

From the employer's perspective, there's a whole spectrum of possible levels of value for a conference:
  • If the employer considers it necessary for the OP to do her job, then it's work that should absolutely be paid, but in that case, it would also be mandatory.
  • If the employer considers it non-essential but valuable to the company to the point that they really want the OP to go (either to learn or to represent the company), then they would have good incentive and/or obligation to pay for the entire cost (registration and work hours) of having an employee attend as work.
  • If the employer thinks the conference is mildly useful/relevant, but not valuable enough to outweigh the costs of paying someone to attend, then it's not cost-effective to "send" someone to the conference (i.e., to have someone attend as work on paid time), but there is value in facilitating attendance for employees who wish to attend on non-work time for their own personal development. (But it's basically like tuition reimbursement for learning pursued in one's own time, not work.)
  • If the employer thinks the conference has zero value to them, then there's no value (except possibly employee morale) in offering to pay anything towards it at all, and any employee wanting to go would have to both sacrifice the paid work hours and pay the registration fee.

The OP's employer seems to be falling at #3. As long as they're 1) not trying to dictate how she spends her time at the conference or demand she do work for them there (e.g., representing the company by presenting/recruiting/etc.), 2) they make it clear up front what they're offering to cover (only registration costs versus registration and paid time), and 3) they aren't "unofficially" penalizing people who choose not to attend conferences, then I don't see anything inherently wrong about it.

Personally, I am looking at this as someone who generally dislikes conferences. They're relevant in my line of work, so I go to some conferences because my employer/customers ask for it, and it's paid work time. But if they didn't ask me to go as work, there are few, if any, work-relevant conferences that I would consider attending at my own time and expense. Paid work travel of any type at my company requires advance approval, and approval requires a business justification--they're not miserly about it, but requests to attend conferences without a clear business reason to go (e.g., customer request, presenting papers, direct relevance to a specific project that will fund the travel, etc.) can and do get turned down.

BTW, for those discussing that salaried exempt employees couldn't have their pay docked for missing work to attend a conference, that may be true, but my understanding (from reading "Ask a Manager") is that it would be perfectly legal to require that non-working time to be deducted from whatever vacation time the employer allots, so while the employee wouldn't actually lose pay, if the employer doesn't count it as work time, they would still have to decide if that activity was worth sacrificing that amount of their vacation allotment.
Like Like x 2 View List

Hmmm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
  • Location: Texas - USA
    • View Profile

  • Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary 2500 Posts Level 5
Re: Expenses plus Salary
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2020, 08:19:26 am »
What she is saying is that

If she goes to the conference, they will pay her way in. Say $10.

If she goes to work instead, she'll get paid for that. That pays $20-$30.  Double or triple what the conference cost.

So, if she goes to the conference, she only gets $10 for the day, whereas if she went to work, she'd get $20-30.

Does that make sense now?

And that $10 will NOT come in cash. It will come in the form of the non-monetary value of the conference she has attended.

Yes, but the OP seems to be saying that the choice to go to conferences is voluntary. If the OP doesn't consider the conference/seminar to be valuable enough to her personally to be worth missing paid work hours and they're truly voluntary, then all she has to do is not go to those conferences/seminars. The employer has presumably done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the value to the company of employees attending the conference is more than the registration cost but less than the cost of paying employees to go to conferences. The employees who want to go need to do the cost-benefit analysis on their own end: does the conference value to themselves (not the company) exceed the cost of lost work hours or not?

From the employer's perspective, there's a whole spectrum of possible levels of value for a conference:
  • If the employer considers it necessary for the OP to do her job, then it's work that should absolutely be paid, but in that case, it would also be mandatory.
  • If the employer considers it non-essential but valuable to the company to the point that they really want the OP to go (either to learn or to represent the company), then they would have good incentive and/or obligation to pay for the entire cost (registration and work hours) of having an employee attend as work.
  • If the employer thinks the conference is mildly useful/relevant, but not valuable enough to outweigh the costs of paying someone to attend, then it's not cost-effective to "send" someone to the conference (i.e., to have someone attend as work on paid time), but there is value in facilitating attendance for employees who wish to attend on non-work time for their own personal development. (But it's basically like tuition reimbursement for learning pursued in one's own time, not work.)
  • If the employer thinks the conference has zero value to them, then there's no value (except possibly employee morale) in offering to pay anything towards it at all, and any employee wanting to go would have to both sacrifice the paid work hours and pay the registration fee.

The OP's employer seems to be falling at #3. As long as they're 1) not trying to dictate how she spends her time at the conference or demand she do work for them there (e.g., representing the company by presenting/recruiting/etc.), 2) they make it clear up front what they're offering to cover (only registration costs versus registration and paid time), and 3) they aren't "unofficially" penalizing people who choose not to attend conferences, then I don't see anything inherently wrong about it.

Personally, I am looking at this as someone who generally dislikes conferences. They're relevant in my line of work, so I go to some conferences because my employer/customers ask for it, and it's paid work time. But if they didn't ask me to go as work, there are few, if any, work-relevant conferences that I would consider attending at my own time and expense. Paid work travel of any type at my company requires advance approval, and approval requires a business justification--they're not miserly about it, but requests to attend conferences without a clear business reason to go (e.g., customer request, presenting papers, direct relevance to a specific project that will fund the travel, etc.) can and do get turned down.

BTW, for those discussing that salaried exempt employees couldn't have their pay docked for missing work to attend a conference, that may be true, but my understanding (from reading "Ask a Manager") is that it would be perfectly legal to require that non-working time to be deducted from whatever vacation time the employer allots, so while the employee wouldn't actually lose pay, if the employer doesn't count it as work time, they would still have to decide if that activity was worth sacrificing that amount of their vacation allotment.

I think you're missing a #5.
5. Company offers a certain amount per employee of conference or seminar registration reimbursement as a employee benefit. I know it's not a popular opinion in this group, but sometimes employers to offer benefits that are primarily benefits to the employee with the focus on employee retention.

I also thought of a personal instance. My company will pay for some online training classes. Many that I take are for "stretch assignments" or technologies that I want to learn about but are not directly related to my current job. It is expected that I'll take these classes on my own time. Will they eventually benefit? Yes. But it is also important to me to personally invest my own time in my career growth.
Like Like x 1 View List