| Does this situation legally define a "bait-and-switch" with punitive results? | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Total Votes : 7 | ||||||||||||||
Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 21
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 4:38 am Post subject: Vacation Ripoff! | |
After working for Lowe's for over a year I decided to take my ten day vacation I was promised when I started working there. Oops, I only have 32 hours of accumulated vacation time. Oh, I could take two weeks, but I would have to work a whole other year again before I got out of my vacation debt. So I quit after they told me they changed to a new system and explained it to me as though it was like that from the beginning, by the very same zone manager who told me two weeks prior "Hey, you're up for a two week vacation aren't you"? 
|
|
Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 50
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:39 pm Post subject: | |
|
CNOTE: I hope you kept the orientation paperwork from when you were hired. Also, did HR go over any changes to policy with you, or any other employees? You need to get something in writing, and present a case to the DM, the area/district HR - or speak to GO HR rep.- make them defend whatever position they have, or authorize vacation.
If you have quit and aren't coming back, talk to an atty., find other employees that have been screwed out of accrued vacation time - make a stink. You have been inconvenienced. Anyone else out there losing accrued timeoff ? |
|
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 214
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:29 am Post subject: | |
| They took everyones vacation this year. Old policy was you had to work a full year and at the start of the new year you would have vacation coming. To start this year we were told that we no longer get it that we had to earn our vacation all over again. Under the old policy if i was fired or quit at the start of the year they had to pay me for my vacation time. Now we have to re-earn our vacation. I can borrow a weeks vacation, but if i should leave Lowe's before i earn that week, i have to pay it back, it'll be held out of my final check. So what it amounts to is all the thousands of employees who had worked the year before to earn vacation for the next year had it taken away from them. Thats alot of money the company kept to make the bottom line look better. And now this smoking policy that totaly discriminates against employees. It doesn't effect customers or vendors only employees. It's not that they want a smoke free workplace, it' s that they don't want smokers to go outside & take a break. If they were concerned about our health it would be for everyone even the customers but they're affraid they'll lose bussiness. A big mistake they make is not seeing that the employees are customers also, I have to work there but theres other places i can shop. | |
Joined: 10 Aug 2003
Posts: 4
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:41 pm Post subject: | |
|
I just wonder if the 'new' vacation policy applies to top
executives at G.O. also? |
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 21
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:45 pm Post subject: Corporate Strategy | |
I heard from a friend at store #200 that a Judge is monitoring the practices that Lowe's officials are taking toward ridding themselves of employees who were long-time employed and paid much above minimum wage. Soon the pattern will emerge and we shall all be well-compensated. 
|
|
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Posts: 4
Location: I live at Lowe's
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:56 am Post subject: | |
| Guys, you can take your vacations just like normal even if you don't have 40 hours accumulated. Your pay for the vacation will be the same as usual. The only differance is that if you should quit after you have taken this vacation, the amount of hours you had not yet earned will be subtracted from your final pay check. If you don't have plans on quitting, then you should have no worries. | |
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 41
Location: out west
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:33 am Post subject: | |
| I have to disagree with you on the "nothing has changed" statement. When I started with this company 9 years ago, if I would have quit after 1 year and 1 day or 1 hour or even 1 minute, I would have received 1 week vacation pay. Now in order to cook the books, policy has been changed to screw the goose, we receive nothing. When do you quit? If you work for 10 years and want to retire or quit(whatever) do you want to give the company those 3 weeks that you have already earned? I don't! They were mine, they were promised to me when I started and I want them. What they are saying would be similar to saying "work for me for a week then you will have earned the right to receive money for that first week only if you work the second week, otherwise you lose it all! Now does that make sense to you? If you want to follow the company line that is fine. You seem willing to believe whatever line of crap they want to feed you, but some of us know that what they have done is illegal, immoral and just plain wrong. I do want you to know that I work with a lot of dept./managers that I respect, because you are right, you do end up doing the lions share of the grunt work because of cutbacks in the labor force. Good luck on your aspirations but don't lose sight of the fact, corporate is not above screwing you(us) no matter what position you have with the company!!! | |
Joined: 20 Jul 2003
Posts: 13
Location: Metro Atlanta
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 1:15 pm Post subject: | |
|
The only problem I have with the new vacation policy is that you can only go 40 hours in "debt" with your vacation. What that means is that if you want to take one of your vacation weeks in March, that's fine. BUT, if there was something in April that you wanted to take your second week for, you couldn't because you hadn't built up enough vacation time. That's the part about it that chaps me.
redsled R3 D892 |
|
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 20
Location: anywhere , America
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:11 pm Post subject: MANAGER is forgetting one point..... | |||
|
|||
Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 50
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 2:52 pm Post subject: | |
|
Employees filing lawsuits against the company is a far more effective way to get the illegal or unethical personnel practises addressed. A suit brings specific grievance to the appropriate court, and the suit can be addressed as a class action.
Who is this judge looking into Lowes recent purging of employees? Is he a buddy of Lowes mangement, or sincerly interested in the company's personnel practise? Each of the many term'd. employees has a personnel file stuffed full of "evidence" showing how they were in league with terrorists, or were caught selling WMD to customers. Anything will do - the catch all "Insubordination" is enough. Lowes is an at will employer. Lowes managers thinks they can hide all their personnel practises behind that carte blanche wall. When someone pulls open the door and shines a light into the dark corners, the truth will be public, and all the little bugs will scurry. In case you are wondering what is going on with Lowes lately, It's ALL about the value of the shares, people - the large portfolio's held by upper mangement. It is NOT about customer service anymore, it is NOT about having and keeping quality employees, it is NOT about being a valuable member of the many communities Lowes has moved into. I believe Lowes has lost touch with the whole concept of HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS with CUSTOMERS and EMPLOYEES. The corporate nonesense has completely taken over all decision making. The imperical "Kiss my ring - I've got a company plane" visits by the upper managers is far more important than taking care of customers. |
|
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 41
Location: out west
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 5:54 pm Post subject: | |
| Boy you said a mouthful there Action! Every word is true, which is unfortunate, for us(the employees), for customers and for the communities in which this corporate monetary hog feeds. I love the way they preach community involvement yet I have never seen a little league team or a community social event or any local event sponsored by lowes. I think this all falls back on the store manager whose pay will be affected by such events. The company should have a bonus program for the store that has the most positive community feed-back for such involvement. But we would rather buy a nascar race track that is falling apart and killing people. I am not against national sponsership of nascar(I rather enjoy it) but take care of your communities first. Just my take! | |
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 20
Location: anywhere , America
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 3:37 pm Post subject: community involvement | |
So true, Oldskool. Where is the community involvement? There was once a manager in my district who stepped up to the plate after a tornado tore thru the community a couple of years ago. People had no power for as long as 5 days. It was a cold October. This manager immediately got on the phone and arrainged a semi full of generators from other Lowe's. Yes, there were financial benefits ( incredible $ numbers, impossible to comp the following year...  ) He loaded the rental truck with supplies such as work gloves, lawn bags, tarps, and earplugs. He then sent it out into the damaged areas where they handed them out to those trying to clean up the mess. When he found out his own employees were affected, had damage to their houses and property, and had no where to stay ( either they had pets to care for, no money for a hotel, or had no relatives to stay with ), he loaded generators on the delivery truck and had them sent to the employees houses. They hooked them up and got them running. One employee was out from 8:00 am till 9:00 pm to make sure no one had to go thru another night without power The employees borrowed them long enough to have running water and heat until the electric company could fix the power. He then had to sell these generators at a large discount because they were used. This manager was terminated the following year.
Managers nowadays won't donate door prizes to fund raisers, don't help sponser any events, and don't even participate in Home Shows or Homebuilders Association events. I consistantly watch the sponser lists at community events and never a mention of Lowes. I see Menards and Home Depot. Lowe's no longer have picnics or Christams parties for employees, not because of cutbacks, but because of legal risk for being a sponser. Yet, the dreaded Nascar racetrack still proves to be the biggest legal risk and they still keep their name on the sign. What's wrong with this picture????????? 
|
|