job benefits | Forum profile

No, and I wouldn't. Are you going to allow carryover this year?

Quoting stoley1 My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: New York I was layed off and am 4 months pregnant. Do I have any rights as far as health coverage from my employer for the duration of my pregnancy. I ask this because we have a family friend that was in HR many years ago and seems to remember ...

Probably legal. Only a very few states have a use-it-or-lose-it law and, in my recollection, Tennessee is not one of them. Tacky and bad for morale of them to give you so little notice, but there is no law that is going to force them to let you retain it. Here is the extent of the Tennesse code regarding employment. I didn't have time to search it, but you can look. http://www.michie....

Your separation is "voluntary" because the employer did not initiate it. What "voluntary" means in context of the tuition assistance agreement is defined by the employer. What "voluntary" means in the context of unemployment benefits eligibility is completely different and is defined by the state. http://www.dli.state.pa.us/landi/cwp...7&q=236064# sfs

basic rule in life; if you not work the time, you are not due the pay.

You are free to show the policy to an attorney, or discuss it with the department of labor, and see what they say. No one here can say what they will determine the company's liability to pay out any unused time will be.

It changes when the employer says it changes. There does not have to be a handbook re-write for each individual change. Now, that is not to say that there cannot be some exceptions to that. There can be instances where a change cannot be made retroactively. For example, if your company had a policy that said you don't get your unused vacation unless you give two weeks notice, you give two ...

You may very well, yes, especially once your employer realizes that you're willfully neglecting your job duties or engaging in other malfeasance.

No, there is no such law. You would have to look at the actual plan rules, and how a "full-time employee" is defined therein.

My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: Michigan My wife's employer is making changes to their health care plans and are stating that any employee that can be covered on their spouse's plan will not be able to get coverage anymore. Currently my wife has her plan as primary and my plan as secondary. To me this looks like an ERISA violation and that spousal ...