Family leave act

[4Raven]

Question.My employer has less than 50 employees however the company is owned by a parent company that has hundreds of employees...do they count towards the amount needed to have a family leave policy? Also is there a law governing HR as the HR President is part owner of both companies...and therefor does not truly and honestly advocate for the employee but for the company she is part owner of?

 

[cbg]

The answer to your first question is, probably but it depends on the exact structure between the companies.

The answer to your second question is no, there is no law governing HR or prohibiting HR from being part owner of the company. You are also mistaken if you believe that HR's function is to advocate for the employee. ONE of HR's many functions is to see that employment law is to see that employment law is followed by both employer and employee, which MAY mean advocating for the employee in some circumstances. But there is no mandate that HR take that position.

 

[4Raven]

The people who own the parent company also own this company.The people who own the parent company govern the smaller company...help with some hiring...their HR governs our HR and the decide on discipline and employee handbooks etc. My company also makes and supplies them with parts they need for their company. The two companies work together have board meetings and make decisions together as if they are one.

I realize that HR is suppose to be a buffer between the employee and the company...but in being share holder within the company I see them do unhanded things I would not deem correct.I have also seen them terminate an employee who was pregnant with a difficult pregnancy and needed to see the doctor weekly...they told her it would all be excused if she had doctors notes...and then turned around and fired her for it....and she did have the notes.In Wis you can fire for any reason...but it doesn't make it fair or right.They have also told ppl they will keep them on as temps but will never hire them because of their criminal background...not so sure that one is legal...I would think that falls under discrimination....employees are not allowed to leave work ever early for medical appointments either...which can not always be scheduled after hours.That is why I ask about the Family medical leave...

 

[Patricia_Young]

To add to what cbg said, that is assuming that the more than 50 employees you mention work at your job location or within a 75-mile radius. Plus, all doctor's appointments are not automatically FMLA. The reason must be for a "serious medical condition".

There is no requirement in any state to convert temps to regular employees, no matter how long they've worked there.

 

[4Raven]

Define a serious medical condition. How about cancer treatments?

"There is no requirement in any state to convert temps to regular employees, no matter how long they've worked there."

I realize there is no requirement...and I did not say there was...but to openly NOT hire because of a conviction I really do not believe is legal.

Even when you check employees out on the circuit court access sight as they do it clearly states~


"Notice to employers: It may be a violation of state law to discriminate against a job applicant because of an arrest or conviction record. Generally speaking, an employer may refuse to hire an applicant on the basis of a conviction only if the circumstances of the conviction substantially relate to the particular job."

the convictions of these two employees that were denied had absolutely nothing to do with this line of employment.
The shame of it is these two were outstanding employees.I happen to know they were not hired for that reason because of a my management position and upper management told me so when I pushed for them to be hired on.

I guess for me I have a hard time seeing what goes on behind the scene, the games and bad treatment of others just because you can.

thanks...

 

[Patricia_Young]

Yes, I agree that cancer is a "serious medical condition". If you had SAID "cancer" in your earlier posts, I would not have mentioned aword about it.

I missed that you were in Wisconsin as regards criminal convictions. I apologize.