SV: Forced Vacation Issue

[Justin Schwartz]

The usual caveat: this isn't legal advice. I am not licensed in Calif. If 
you want legal advice about Calif law, see a Calif. lawyer. That said, I am 
not familiar with any federal statute that would make it illegal to force 
employees to take involuntary paid vacation. A couple of searches on related 
keywords failed to turn up any federal cases in the 9th Cir. that discussed 
the issue. The distinction between fractions of a week and weekly fractions 
of a month is the sort of formalism that federal courts frown upon. I note 
that no one is entitled to any vacation under federal law, as opposed to 
employment contract law. What's the practical beef about forced paid 
avactions, anyway? Is it that you have to use of your vac time when Sun 
wants instead of when you want? --jks


>From: Brad Mayer <bradley.mayer at ebay.sun.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: SV: Forced Vacation Issue
>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:40:56 -0700
>
>Below is part of a growing discussion among the SV salariat, in the wake of
>the imposition of a particular cost-cutting device - forced
>vacations.  Since there are some lawyerly types here on LBO, I'd be
>interested in some pro bono feedback on this issue.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subject: [new-sfwow] (discussion) Involuntary leave without pay...
>
> > As some of you know, many companies are saving money by obligating
>workers to take unpaid, involuntary vacation, that is, a few days or even a
>week without pay.
>----------
>Slight correction:  What Sun and others are generally doing is forcing
>people to take PAID vacation, and giving them the option to take it
>unpaid.  Forcing salaried employees to take UNPAID 'vacation' is,
>obviously, blatantly illegal under California labor law governing salaried
>employees.
>
>But note that California law differs from Federal law in that the former
>covers salaried pay on a MONTHLY basis, while the latter covers on a WEEKLY
>basis.    So, there are two 'gray areas' here, 1) the difference between
>California and Federal law and 2) the issue of whether simply paying people
>and then requiring them not to work, discounting it as 'vacation', is legal
>under California law.
>
>It's clear that Sun and others are banking on its legality under FEDERAL
>law, which would only make this illegal for fractions of a week, NOT for
>weekly fractions of a month.  This explains why Sun (for example) required
>that the time be taken off in a single week block, while a primary offer to
>pay for the week is an attempt to elide (avoid) potential violation of
>California law, since the entire month would be paid.
>
>However, according to the SJ Mercury news article that I read to you last
>Sunday, this maneuver should not hold up if it can be shown that employees
>could not otherwise perform their work (due to physical plant shutdown,
>etc.) had they not been on 'vacation'.
>
>But A. is right on target with the politics - the b*****d Democrats in
>Sacramento could care less - they are not enforcing the law.  It is very
>typical of them.
>
>-Brad
>--------------------------
> > This is slightly illegal. Okay, it's flat out illegal.
> >
> > The state of California ("The best politicians that money can buy") is
>not enforcing the law.
> >
> > In the current economy, workers of course will be reluctant to point out
>to their company that the laws don't allow this.
> >
> > Naturally, companies do not want to break the law. So... the NWU will
>help companies understand their responsibility under the law.
> >
> > If you are at a company that has or plans to send salaried workers on
>unpaid vacation, then stay in touch with the NWU
> >
> > It's extremely important that you keep track of your work hours during
>the month that the involuntary vacation takes place, even if only a day.
> >
> > yrs,
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com