Please Read and give me your thoughts.

[cewfa]

You know, I didn't think about it like I was putting the burden on the supervisor, but I can see where it would come off like that. I'll have to look at it and rewrite it.

I'm sorry, but pre-employment screening goes against my personal beliefs.

As an aside, what does IANAL stand for?

[dalesys]

As an aside, what does IANAL stand for?

"I Am Not A Lawyer"



or "I'm Anal" if a non-board member says it.

[PepperElf]

The other thing I'm wondering about is... Are you allowed to announce in the handbook that you won't hire people with felonies on their record?

The other thing to consider is that not every felony charge is the same. And are you looking at felony convictions or just felony arrests? I ask because on one of my other message boards, a member went through a felony arrest on a warrant (so his name shows up now on the search) and he was completely innocent (wrong man, hell wrong race too, and wrong DOB).

[wolfie]

Minimum wage regarding Santa Fe NM and NYC (or any other cities with higher minimum wage than surrounding area): You say that the higher pay would apply to branches in the city AND employees residing in the city. Unless the applicable law says that both are covered, you're opening a can of worms. Consider the following:

- Company has a branch close to, but not in, one of these jurisdictions.
- Some employees of the branch live outside the jurisdiction, some inside.
- Employees living outside the jurisdiction will be somewhat dissatisfied that co-workers are earning more money for the same work simply because of where they live, possibly suing on the grounds of discrimination.

or:
- Management wants to keep payroll expenses down for a branch close to, but not in, one of these jurisdictions.
- Two equally-qualified candidates apply, one lives in the jurisdiction, one outside.
- Candidate living outside the jurisdiction is hired.
- Unsuccessful candidate finds out about the policy, and sues on the grounds of discrimination.

It's my understanding that minimum wage applies based on the jurisdiction where someone WORKS, not on the jurisdiction where they LIVE.

Also, your policy regarding appeal of disciplinary action is one-sided (consequences for management when appeal goes in favour of worker, no consequences for employee when appeal goes in favour of management). Take a look at the COC forum on CS - the subjects of some of those posts are likely to appeal EVERY disciplinary action, consuming company resources. There should be a penalty for appealing a disciplinary action which is found, on appeal, to be justified.

[cewfa]

Minimum wage regarding Santa Fe NM and NYC (or any other cities with higher minimum wage than surrounding area): You say that the higher pay would apply to branches in the city AND employees residing in the city. Unless the applicable law says that both are covered, you're opening a can of worms. Consider the following:

- Company has a branch close to, but not in, one of these jurisdictions.
- Some employees of the branch live outside the jurisdiction, some inside.
- Employees living outside the jurisdiction will be somewhat dissatisfied that co-workers are earning more money for the same work simply because of where they live, possibly suing on the grounds of discrimination.

or:
- Management wants to keep payroll expenses down for a branch close to, but not in, one of these jurisdictions.
- Two equally-qualified candidates apply, one lives in the jurisdiction, one outside.
- Candidate living outside the jurisdiction is hired.
- Unsuccessful candidate finds out about the policy, and sues on the grounds of discrimination.

It's my understanding that minimum wage applies based on the jurisdiction where someone WORKS, not on the jurisdiction where they LIVE.

Also, your policy regarding appeal of disciplinary action is one-sided (consequences for management when appeal goes in favour of worker, no consequences for employee when appeal goes in favour of management). Take a look at the COC forum on CS - the subjects of some of those posts are likely to appeal EVERY disciplinary action, consuming company resources. There should be a penalty for appealing a disciplinary action which is found, on appeal, to be justified.

But there are consequences for the employee if they lose their appeal. The consequences are that their original discipline stands. I also think you misread what I wrote. There are no consequences for management if the appeal goes in an employees favor. The only thing that happens is the discipline is stricken from the employees record. The only time management is punished vis-a-vis appeals is if they take action on the employee for the act of appealing.

Regarding the pay, I can see what you are saying. When I wrote that, I was only thinking about the original employees, not any future hires.

FTR, I plan on taking everyone's responses in this thread, considering them, and revising accordingly, so please keep the thoughts and criticisms coming.

[cewfa]

OK, I made some revisions. Please read and tell me what you think.

[TheCheerfulTreeRat]

[grins] I had a quick look while prevaricating and avoiding getting some work done.

Background check - You use this as if there's only one kind of background check - which may be the case in the States. Over here (UK) I think the only check you can do is the Criminal Record Bureau check, Standard and Enhanced - this is primarily for checking people who will be working with children or vulnerable adults - I believe you can get other checks done, e.g. criminal checks for people working in financial environments. I would have thought you should use the official name/reference for the check. I don't know how fast checks are in the US, they can take weeks to come back in the UK

Drug Testing Policy - tense - you switch between present and future tenses "test will be paid for" vs "employee is terminated on the spot". [evil grin] and should "on the spot" read "with immediate effect"? Or you'll only be able to sack them if they stay in one spot...

If I was an employee I'd refuse point blank to provide a list of medications to anyone but a health professional who is required to maintain confidentiality. I could be on anti psychotics, HIV medication, oral contraceptive (and everyone knows hubby wants kiddies) and it is absolutely no-ones business what the medications are, and potentially a huge invasion of privacy.

Drugs and Alcohol Policy - I know what you mean, but caffeine, nicotine, aspirin and prescribed drugs are... drugs.

Thirty Day Policy - Qualified? Able to carry out their specified duties surely? I could be qualified AND a lazy idiot. But you'll let me go with a good reference even if I am a lazy idiot who leers down co-workers cleavages? Cool...

I think it worthwhile punting this past a lawyer, they'll be able to point out where alternate phrasing should be used and the dangers of some phrases which have a particular legal meaning.

I've only had a quick look - those were the things that jumped out at me ("Cops" made me smile though).

[EricKei]

<activate grammar nazi mode>

Don't worry, I won't be too harsh ^_^ As others have said, you definitely need to run this past a lawyer and a professional proofreader. Ideally, the latter will have had experience proofing legal documents.

I will try to stick mostly to things that will make the wording clearer...mostly ^_^

-------------------

Anti-discrimination policy: "nor any", not "or any" (either...or/neither...nor). Also, either use a semicolon or a period (lose the "and" if you do the latter) after "tolerated".

Sexual Harrassment policy -- this goes for any other similar wording in the document, as well: change "includes..." to "includes, but is not limited to,..." -- Consider changing any instances of "on the spot" to "immediately"

Basic employment req's -- GED.

Background check -- If this applies: Mention that management positions MAY require a more detailed BG check. If not, ignore

Drug Testing policy -- change "i.e. security" to "e.g., security". i.e. = "in other words"; e.g. = "for example" --- change "if both tests fail" to something more like "if both test indicate the presence of illegal substances" or "if the employee fails both tests" (the test itself cannot pass nor fail, only the employee can). --- Consider rewording the "list of medications" section to only apply if the company-funded test is failed. Perhaps also consider stating that employees may CHOOSE to provide such a list before taking the first test, just in case. -- also, 'on the spot' again, 2x.

Drugs and alcohol policy -- Do you mean to say that possession is forbidden, or that possession is OK but usage is forbidden? The current wording strongly suggests the latter. As was suggested above, consider simply using "zero-tolerance" verbiage. Also, if you do allow possession, but no usage of LEGAL drugs/alcohol, mention that specifically. An exception may need to be made for prescriptions; consult your lawyer on that one.

Thirty day policy -- consider changing "thirty day probation" to "thirty-day probationary period" for clarity. -- maybe change "can be let go" to "may be terminated/laid off" -- As was said by other posters, "found wanting" is way too vague.

unexcused absences -- consider changing "sent up the discipline chain." to "subject to disciplinary measures"

Tardy - change to Tardiness

No call, no show policy -- change first line of explanation to start with "A No call, no show". If applicable, consider elaboration, e.g.: does this mean 2 NCNS within a year's time? Can an employee forfeit (read: without pay) a day of sick/VACA time to nullify a NCNS (maybe once, ever) that would otherwise result in a termination? Consider adding verbiage that allows for extenuating circumstances such as emergencies (which were covered above). I suggest defining what is and is not a NCNS more explicitly, especially because of the penalty.

Break policy -- Check state/local laws or have lawyer check. Be very explicit about how breaks/meals work (in particular: mention whether Breaks are paid or not)

Meal policy -- consider changing "worked two hours" to "worked two consecutive hours as part of a scheduled six-hour or longer shift" or something like that.

Evaluations -- use "may be eligible" rather than "will be". "Will" implies just that (i.e., that a raise and/or promotion WILL happen, not COULD happen) -- at least, that's what a lawyer would say if they end up suing over it.

Confidentiality Policy - use "nor" rather than "or"

Access policy -- "entitled to access" rather than "entitled access"

Employment classification -- "float" is jargon. Most people would understand what it means, but there is probably a clearer way to put the concept. I just can't think of one right now >_<

Promotions - "We do not hire outside " to "We do not hire from outside"

At-will employment policy -- no offense but just look up the law. If your state does not allow At-Will, remove this section or reword it into something compliant. If it is at-will, either remove this clause or (if you will have people working on multiple states that are NOT all at-will), rephrase it into something like "unless otherwise required by State law in the location where the a given employee actually works". Also, be specific -- At-will allows both the employer and the employee to terminate with or without notice and with or without *cause*, generally speaking. Check your state(s) laws and/or consult with your lawyer on this one, no question about it.

Profit sharing -- consider changing that last sentence to "This portion of Net Profit shall be divided as follows" or "according to the following schedule". Also, consider specifying that you are talking about NET profit, not gross profit, earlier in the passage.

OK, brain needs break now, Will come back to it in a day or 3 ^_^

[cewfa]

Eric, will you private message me what you just said so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle when I revise it tomorrow. Please and thank you.

[emt_cookies]

From places that I worked at, usually they will only pay double time if it is a Federal holiday. I am not sure about MLK/President's Day, but I think they paid out only for Memorial, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, were closed Christmas but we had our 4 hours of fringe time.

Are you actually going to mail the pay stubs every pay period?

Are the cost of living raises guaranteed? That 2% is 16 cents the first year assuming they did not get the 5% offered in March. The 2% seems more typical of salary than usual hourly retail/food. I had no raises at a restaurant and was told it was never going to happen whereas retail it was between 5 and 25 cents dependent on how many hours I worked.

[cewfa]

It is the two percent cost of living plus whatever percentage the merit raise is.

The two percent is guaranteed. Employees can get up to an additional five percent based on the evaluation.

I was about to ask if you had another idea on how to get people their stubs, but I just answered my own question. Put them on a secure website.

I should have round three of the revisions up for you guys to read and critique sometime later this week. Thanks again for all the responses.

[EricKei]

Even when I've been paid via Direct Deposit, we still got paper stubs. When I was paid by Card, we did not. I think. Check local laws. ^_^

I'll wait for the next iteration before I continue, then.

...A guaranteed yearly raise? Sweet That's quite rare. Not many places even seem to do COL increases, these days.

[cewfa]

Third edition. Decided to get rid of the Discipline and Code of Honor handbook, so I combined the two. Added a mock evaluation, and added some other general policies.