Should he still be paid?

[Smarties]

Why? He isnt trained to do anything else. I get this a lot with my aides. If their client goes into the hospital,they dont get paid

If that's made known up front about that possibiity, that's fair.

I think this is an interesting contrast to another post a few weeks ago where a city was paying people who worked in one of its buildings even though the buidling wasn't able to be used for some reason for awhile. So the people weren't actually working but were still collecting paychecks, and not all of them were salaried. Most everyone thought that was the right thing to do then. Strange how the opinions so far here are mostly opposite.

I never saw that post but in that scenario I would say too that the hourly employees should not get paid. Salaried employees should. That's part of the difference of being salaried vs hourly. The only exception for hourly employees would be if they had some sort of contract stating otherwise.

I've been both before. When I was salaried I absolutely expected to be paid even if I wasn't there working for some reason. As hourly, if I'm not there working, I don't get paid. I accepted that as part of the deal when I accepted an hourly position (which I'm in now as it is).

If you work a job thats like that, with a varying schedule or construction or something that you know isn't a stable 40 hour work week or depends on work availability, I think that's fair. If it is a steady schedule I think its the library's job to figure out how to keep him productive and pay him if they have a screw up on their end.

I think I remember maybe one person who thought the city workers shouldn't be paid in the other post.

[Pjmm]

The library needs to find other things for him to do and pay him.

Why? He isnt trained to do anything else. I get this a lot with my aides. If their client goes into the hospital,they dont get paid

If that's made known up front about that possibiity, that's fair.

I think this is an interesting contrast to another post a few weeks ago where a city was paying people who worked in one of its buildings even though the buidling wasn't able to be used for some reason for awhile. So the people weren't actually working but were still collecting paychecks, and not all of them were salaried. Most everyone thought that was the right thing to do then. Strange how the opinions so far here are mostly opposite.

The right thing to do would be pay him. Unfortunately that is up to the employer. When I was hourly I had to clock out for lunch and when I was a part time worker at Wendy's I got no paid vacation. This was 1985 though. I've only been full time hourly once and not for long. So Idk how vacation time works. I'd file for unemployment.

[Traci_Momof2]

If that's made known up front about that possibiity, that's fair.

I think this is an interesting contrast to another post a few weeks ago where a city was paying people who worked in one of its buildings even though the buidling wasn't able to be used for some reason for awhile. So the people weren't actually working but were still collecting paychecks, and not all of them were salaried. Most everyone thought that was the right thing to do then. Strange how the opinions so far here are mostly opposite.

I never saw that post but in that scenario I would say too that the hourly employees should not get paid. Salaried employees should. That's part of the difference of being salaried vs hourly. The only exception for hourly employees would be if they had some sort of contract stating otherwise.

I've been both before. When I was salaried I absolutely expected to be paid even if I wasn't there working for some reason. As hourly, if I'm not there working, I don't get paid. I accepted that as part of the deal when I accepted an hourly position (which I'm in now as it is).

If you work a job thats like that, with a varying schedule or construction or something that you know isn't a stable 40 hour work week or depends on work availability, I think that's fair. If it is a steady schedule I think its the library's job to figure out how to keep him productive and pay him if they have a screw up on their end.

I think I remember maybe one person who thought the city workers shouldn't be paid in the other post.

No, I don't necessarily agree. I work a steady schedule. It's supposed to be 11 - 5 Mon - Fri. I'm supposed to be able to depend on 30 hours a week. But things happen. I know I'm not guaranteed those hours. Right now for this week, there's only one day the whole week I've actually put in the 6 hours for the day because of my husband's surgery. Now yes, that is a ME issue, not an employer issue. But my employer could come in today and say "I am closing the office all week next week for XYZ reason, don't come in and work" and I would not expect to be paid for that week. If I'm not doing anything for the productivity of his business why should I take his money?

Now I'm partial to small business owners. My employer is an individual business owner with two employees. All the clients I work with are individual business owners with 10 or fewer employees. A small thing like paying an employee for a week or two when there is no work is a HUGE deal to them. If we were talking about a mega-corporation I would probably be singing a different tune. Now in the case of a city or a library - they can vary greatly in size too and therefore vary greatly in their budget and ability to hand out money for nothing.

[Anonymous 8]

Our company pays you if you were scheduled to work, but couldn't because of a store close or something. They should pay him.

[Anonymous 9]

No

[Anonymous 10]

Only if he is salaried

[Deleted User 172]

Unless he is salary no he shouldnt get paid

He isnt working

I'm hourly, didn't work today but still got paid.

I even get paid when something weird happens like the building has no power so we can't work.

[Anonymous 11]

If when he was hired he was told, "You only get paid for the hours you work," then, no. He should not get paid during this outage.

[Kikibix]

He needs to be paid. It’s also more cost effective in the long run for employee retention rather than having to spend time interviewing screening and setting up a new hire. Have him come in to work anyways, clean the vehicle, sort stuff or just sit and twiddle his thumbs. Every workplace has times they are not busy, people shouldn’t be penalized for that.

[Anonymous 12]

My dh's shop closes for 2 weeks right b4 Christmas, if he doesn't save vacation time, he doesn't get paid.