Would appreciate any insight regarding if this is legal of my employer or not

[devious840]

Jurisdiction

California

I work as a security officer at a biomedical production facility in CA. We have many different job titles seeing as to the various duties we perform. We have Flex Officers, Lvl 1, Lvl 2, and lvl 3, as well as a preventative maintenance (PM) inspection position. The pay rates attached to these titles are all different, for example:
Flex: $16.25
PM: $16.25
Lvl 1: $15.50
Lvl 2: $16.25
Lvl 3: $19.00
I feel it is important to state that in order to work inside the control room and essentially "run the shift", you must be at least a lvl 2 or 3. This position comes with 10x the stress, seeing as to how you become responsible for everything that takes place during the shift because everybody reports to and is dispatched by you, not to mention all of the paperwork and documentation involved. My question falls along the lines of this; If i am scheduled to work the post of "Lvl 2", even though i was never certified as such and am still a "Lvl 1", should i be receiving the pay rate associated with my title (lvl 1 @ 15.50) or should i be getting compensated for the work being performed that i am scheduled for (Lvl 2 @ 16.25). I raise this question because my employer has no problem paying anybody the "PM" pay rate ($16.25) when we perform those duties in the field, but will not pay us Lvl 1's the Lvl 2 pay rate when we are literally forced to work the position due to lack of staffing and training (We've lost numerous lvl 2's and 3's in the last 2 years and management has failed to replace a single one so far). Myself and a handful of coworkers (all lvl 1's) have been scheduled the lvl 2 post 3-4 days a week for going on 2 years now, and have never been compensated at the lvl 2 pay rate for the position we are scheduled to work. If yes, am i entitled to back pay? I would greatly appreciate any clarity that any of you may have to offer, seeing as to how specific of a situation this is ive found it difficult to research online.

 

[mightymoose]

I don't see this as a legal problem but one that is internal and should be resolved with the company.
Your employer determines what your duties are. You decide whether you are willing to perform those duties for the compensation offered.
It seems to me that if you continue to perform these duties and don't rub thren the wrong way you just might find yourself at the front of the line to fill those higher positions when they are ready.
Alternatively, the employer could simply choose to eliminate those other positions and incorporate the additional job duties into your level 1 position.

No- you do not seem to have a legal argument to make, and no you are likely not owed any back pay. If you are unionized you might bring this matter up for discussion.

 

[devious840]

I don't see this as a legal problem but one that is internal and should be resolved with the company.
Your employer determines what your duties are. You decide whether you are willing to perform those duties for the compensation offered.
It seems to me that if you continue to perform these duties and don't rub thren the wrong way you just might find yourself at the front of the line to fill those higher positions when they are ready.
Alternatively, the employer could simply choose to eliminate those other positions and incorporate the additional job duties into your level 1 position.

No- you do not seem to have a legal argument to make, and no you are likely not owed any back pay. If you are unionized you might bring this matter up for discussion.

Thank you for the quick reply, much appreciated! Would that still be the case if there is a contractual agreement in place between my employer and the client? I forgot to mention that we are contracted employees and in the contract it states that the control room must be manned by lvl 2+ officers only. Im told that the structure was set into place by the client and not my employer directly. So if my employer is currently failing to uphold that aspect of the agreement would that change anything? Thanks again in advance, I'm still in the process of fishing for more specific information regarding the contract itself but the clarity offered by your perspective helps me to understand things better.

 

[cbg]

No, the contractual agreement between the employer and the client is not going to affect what wage and hour laws say about your pay. It might end up meaning that you are no longer scheduled to work that post, but it will not require the employer to up your pay.

 

[devious840]

Ok well I guess that makes some sense to a degree when you word it that way but I dont necessarily agree with it or understand why the law would be set that way. I mean if I was hired as a cook at a restaurant, but scheduled to manage 3-4 days a week, I'd expect a compensation difference for those days. So what I'm getting out of this is that by law, an employer only has to pay you based on your job title alone. That same employer can schedule you without permission outside of your certifications, training, and title to suit their needs because they assume you can handle it, but are not required by law to compensate us for the higher level of work we perform? Pay rates are set to reflect to stress and work load associated with the job if I'm not mistaken, so why is an employer allowed to do this without any laws in place to protect us? Why would the company remain more protected than the individual? Forgive me for ranting, I'm just having a hard time understanding the reasoning behind everything. I truly appreciate the help though, thank you everybody!

 

[adjusterjack]

It's called employment at will. The boss hires you and, by law, has to pay you minimum wage. Anything higher is at his discretion. He says how much and says what you do at any given moment. If you don't obey, he can fire you at any time. If you don't like the pay for what you do, you are free to quit and seek employment elsewhere.

That's how work works. Get used to it.

 

[devious840]

It's called employment at will. The boss hires you and, by law, has to pay you minimum wage. Anything higher is at his discretion. He says how much and says what you do at any given moment. If you don't obey, he can fire you at any time. If you don't like the pay for what you do, you are free to quit and seek employment elsewhere.

That's how work works. Get used to it.

Yea, that's how every job I've had in the past worked too. But this is my first contracted position at a multi million dollar site and every time we've requested anything including, supplies and raises, it's always the client that holds us back, not my employer. Hence me referring to on online message board to help me understand everything. I'd thank you for your opinion however it's useless and not what I asked for. I asked for specific insight regarding my situation, not every regular job in America. My coworkers are even discussing unionization at this point so I wanted to get helpful information, not some ego fueled ignorant post littered with disrespect. I'm not some lazy highschooler without work ethic, this is my first job in the field of security as well as a contracted employee. I dont appreciate your lack of understanding and respect while I try to understand the law in a post on a free online forum board ABOUT THE LAW. Yes, you're right about employment at will, however the client offers us perks that our employer does not, such as paid vacations. This isnt as simple as you assume it is, if it was I would simply just "quit" and I wouldnt be here in the first place.

 

[Tax Counsel]

So what I'm getting out of this is that by law, an employer only has to pay you based on your job title alone.

That is not what you should be getting out of this. Rather, what the law says is that no matter what your job title is you must be paid at least minimum wage and overtime pay if you are not an exempt employee (exempt in this case meaning those positions exempt from most of the requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA)). You could have the greatest title in the world and, as far as the law is concerned, if the company is meeting its obligations to pay you at least minimum wage/overtime under applicable federal and state laws the employer has met its legal obligations. Anything you get above minimum is simply subject to the agreement of you and your employer. Generally employers hire you at a certain rate to do whatever the employer assigns you to do. If you think you should get more for the actual duties the company has you do and you are getting at least minimum wage then your remedy if the employer won't pay more is to find a job with someone else who will pay more. The law doesn't do anything for you to get your employer to up your pay to what you think you should get.

Where you have an actual contract for a specific period of time (e.g. one year, five years, etc) then what pay you are due during that period is set by the terms of the contract. As long as minimum wage laws are met, the law imposes no further obligation on the employer. But the employer does have to follow the contract. And here the exact language of the contract regarding your duties and pay matter. Not having read it, I cannot say if you have any argument to make to get more. If the employer drafted the agreement, though, I would expect that it would be written favorable to the employer to allow it to add or change duties for you without requiring a change in pay.

 

[devious840]

That is not what you should be getting out of this. Rather, what the law says is that no matter what your job title is you must be paid at least minimum wage and overtime pay if you are not an exempt employee (exempt in this case meaning those positions exempt from most of the requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA)). You could have the greatest title in the world and, as far as the law is concerned, if the company is meeting its obligations to pay you at least minimum wage/overtime under applicable federal and state laws the employer has met its legal obligations. Anything you get above minimum is simply subject to the agreement of you and your employer. Generally employers hire you at a certain rate to do whatever the employer assigns you to do. If you think you should get more for the actual duties the company has you do and you are getting at least minimum wage then your remedy if the employer won't pay more is to find a job with someone else who will pay more. The law doesn't do anything for you to get your employer to up your pay to what you think you should get.

Where you have an actual contract for a specific period of time (e.g. one year, five years, etc) then what pay you are due during that period is set by the terms of the contract. As long as minimum wage laws are met, the law imposes no further obligation on the employer. But the employer does have to follow the contract. And here the exact language of the contract regarding your duties and pay matter. Not having read it, I cannot say if you have any argument to make to get more. If the employer drafted the agreement, though, I would expect that it would be written favorable to the employer to allow it to add or change duties for you without requiring a change in pay.

Thank you for clarifying. What would my options be in the case of me not being allowed to view said contract? That is where the source of my confusion mainly comes from, the fact that I am not able to view the contract myself while all of this is taking place. Is there litteraly no other option than to abandon all of my client sites benefits alongside my employer without even being able to even see for myself if legal action could be applicable?

 

[devious840]

Thank you for clarifying. What would my options be in the case of me not being allowed to view said contract? That is where the source of my confusion mainly comes from, the fact that I am not able to view the contract myself while all of this is taking place. Is there litteraly no other option than to abandon all of my client sites benefits alongside my employer without even being able to even see for myself if legal action could be applicable?

Please keep in mind that this is a huge contract, probably one of the top 3 my employer has and my employer is a nationwide one. I have a personal relationship with the client management that oversees our department and I know for a fact that they hold all the cards when negotiating the contract. The client site has been through a handful of other security contracts with different companies over the past 10 years as well and my employer is litteraly desperate to keep this contract. When this would happen certain employees would be given the option to stay and switch over to the new company and remain at the site, seeing as to they were already knowledgeable. These employees are my coworkers today, with alot of them being there for around 10+ years. I feel as if this contract is very "unique" in comparison to your average security contract. But without being allowed the option to read it, I find myself here on an online forum board asking for possible options

 

[cbg]

The contract is between the employer and the client. You are not a party to it. You have no legal standing to view the contract.

 

[Tax Counsel]

But without being allowed the option to read it, I find myself here on an online forum board asking for possible options

You are an at will employee unless there is a contract for a specific period of time between YOU and your employer. The contract between your employer and the employer's CLIENT does not matter to this. You are not a party to that contract and have no right to see it.

As an at will employee, if the employer is meeting the minimum wage rules that is all it must pay you. Other than that, it has to pay you what you and the employer agreed the pay would be. If the employer is free to add duties or change the pay rate at any time going forward and your options are to accept those changes or reject them. If you reject the changes, though, you may end up being fired.

If you do have an actual contract between you and the employer for some specific period of time you should have a copy of that. Take out that contract and see what it says. Not many people have this kind of set term employment contract but I mentioned it earlier just in case you were one of those few who did.

 

[cbg]

Also, please understand that a general pay ranking scale such as you've described is NOT legally binding in and of itself. Only if YOU and your employer have a contract guaranteeing these rates does that ranking have any more legal weight than a chart that I made up for you to give your employer would.

 

[devious840]

I understand much more clearly now. It has just become so apparent to all of us over the last few years that the contract hasn't been upheld to the previous standards it has been for the last 10+ years and we all feel as if we are now just scapegoats responsible for billions of dollars worth of product and that we don't have a voice anymore. Its been very apparent the relationship between our account manager and client has not been a good one for the past 2 years so i was mainly just curious about if we as employees suspected fowl play regarding what our manager tells the client is happening and what is actually happening, that if there was anything we could do about it. I now understand the answer is "no" because none of us actually signed it ourselves which makes sense, i just wanted a bit more clarity since i know this is a unique situation seeing as to how large of a contract this is (If i could mention the name of the client you would understand more clearly why I say all of this however I cannot unfortunately). We work side by side with our client managers everyday and when we do speak to them about these issues they seem clueless as to why they occur and seem to get visibly upset, however anytime somebody does that they get scolded for telling the client anything at all and for not reporting directly to our account manager instead. The whole situation just seems so fishy but i guess the only options we really have are to unionize or to keep treading water until the client brings in yet another security company with a different account manager and extends us an offer with said new company like they already have so many times in the past. Thank you everyone for your patience and time for assisting me in understanding all of this more clearly without the obvious "smart-ass" remarks. I hope that most of you can understand why i needed clarification seeing as to how this isn't a "typical job" and is also my first contracted position. I know most contracted positions i'm aware of would have you stay with the employer company and change sites, however it seems more as if we all work for the client at the site and are literally only payed and scheduled by our employer.

 

[adjusterjack]

I hope that most of you can understand why i needed clarification seeing as to how this isn't a "typical job" and is also my first contracted position.

I don't recall you saying that YOU had a contract with your employer. (If you do, correct me.) If you don't, then it IS a typical job in that your employer tells you what to do and pays you what he wants to pay you regardless of what his agreement is with HIS client. That is what I was getting at earlier. I can tell that you are having trouble accepting that.

 

[devious840]

I don't recall you saying that YOU had a contract with your employer. (If you do, correct me.) If you don't, then it IS a typical job in that your employer tells you what to do and pays you what he wants to pay you regardless of what his agreement is with HIS client. That is what I was getting at earlier. I can tell that you are having trouble accepting that.

No, I'm not having trouble accepting anything. I was having trouble understanding the reasoning behind it all and why it is set up that way, which is why I asked for insight and clarification. Is that not the purpose of this forum board and community? Your short and ego backed opinion wasn't appreciated or warranted. How dare I question things in order to gain a better understanding, right?! Especially when my current employer is notorious for class action lawsuits. I specifically asked for insight, and your reply offered nothing of the sort and came off as purely disrespectful. Even now after I've thanked everybody else for actually clarifying things for me, here you are posting again to my thread essentially just to pat your ego on the back. As far as my job being "typical" goes ignorance is bliss, like I stated earlier most contracted employees work for an employer and rotate sites, not vice versa where we work at the site and rotate employers constantly. I guess I'm automatically supposed to just assume that my site, which literally brings in tens of millions a week, is comparable to a shopping plaza contract (because billion dollar job sites are "typical"). How dare I try to understand if there are different kinds of contracts or how the law pertains to them. I never asked for somebody to ignorantly generalize my situation and call it "typical" stating "get used to it". How you are a moderator is beyond me. The fact that you are knowledgeable in a subject that I am inquiring in doesn't give you the right to be an asshole just to feel better about yourself.

 

[hrforme]

No, I'm not having trouble accepting anything. I was having trouble understanding the reasoning behind it all and why it is set up that way, which is why I asked for insight and clarification. Is that not the purpose of this forum board and community? Your short and ego backed opinion wasn't appreciated or warranted. How dare I question things in order to gain a better understanding, right?! Especially when my current employer is notorious for class action lawsuits. I specifically asked for insight, and your reply offered nothing of the sort and came off as purely disrespectful. Even now after I've thanked everybody else for actually clarifying things for me, here you are posting again to my thread essentially just to pat your ego on the back. As far as my job being "typical" goes ignorance is bliss, like I stated earlier most contracted employees work for an employer and rotate sites, not vice versa where we work at the site and rotate employers constantly. I guess I'm automatically supposed to just assume that my site, which literally brings in tens of millions a week, is comparable to a shopping plaza contract (because billion dollar job sites are "typical"). How dare I try to understand if there are different kinds of contracts or how the law pertains to them. I never asked for somebody to ignorantly generalize my situation and call it "typical" stating "get used to it". How you are a moderator is beyond me. The fact that you are knowledgeable in a subject that I am inquiring in doesn't give you the right to be an asshole just to feel better about yourself.

you are taking adjusterjack's responses way too personally and everything he has stated is correct. The fact that he didn't explain it exactly the way you needed to hear it doesn't mean that he is an a$$hole. What he said was not useless, but the unvarnished truth. While it could have been fluffied up a bit, it wasn't incorrect. When you post on any free public forum, you are going to get all sorts of responses. It was a "quick answer" rather than a flowery one.

Most people do think that their situation has some type of specialness when usually under the current employment laws, they don't. The only things that really can change that are a specific contract between the employee and the employer OR a union collective bargaining agreement