Some background- I was on leave from November- mid-April so 5 1/2 months (1 month before the girls were born and the rest maternity leave).
When I returned to work I completed my yearly performance eval (around June)- I met with my boss and we went over my report, everything was great, she had great things to say, etc. In preparation for my leave I trained 3 people to fill in for me, created a manual of work duties, was available for email or phone while I was gone, etc.
Well on Friday everyone got letters from our boss with raise info- I got a 1% raise and in my letter the reason given for that was because I was gone almost 1/2 the year. The average was only 2% so it's not like I'm missing out on a whole lot but I'm upset about it. On one hand I can kind of understand the logic but on the other hand it sets me up for inequity for the remaining time I'm in this job. I'm no lawyer so I may be talking out of my ass but it also seems like it might be illegal. What do you think?
Where are you located and were you covered by FMLA? If you were, a part of FMLA is that you're time off can't be used against you - which they are clearly doing.
I don't know where you are, but in Canada, you are not allowed to be penalized in any way for taking maternity leave. I would consider that a penalty and fight it.
Where are you located and were you covered by FMLA? If you were, a part of FMLA is that you're time off can't be used against you - which they are clearly doing.
This is not true. FMLA ensures that the same position (or similar position with same benefits and pay) is available following the leave, but it clearly states this regarding bonus / additional payment.
"If a bonus or other payment, however, is based on the achievement of a specified goal such as hours worked, products sold, or perfect attendance, and the employee has not met the goal due to FMLA leave, payment may be denied unless it is paid to an employee on equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave."
ETA - I would still fight it, but just wanted to point out the language in the law that may work against you.
ETA again - This is further proof that maternity leave / FMLA in the US falls fall short of where other nations stand.
Where are you located and were you covered by FMLA? If you were, a part of FMLA is that you're time off can't be used against you - which they are clearly doing.
This is not true. FMLA ensures that the same position (or similar position with same benefits and pay) is available following the leave, but it clearly states this regarding bonus / additional payment.
"If a bonus or other payment, however, is based on the achievement of a specified goal such as hours worked, products sold, or perfect attendance, and the employee has not met the goal due to FMLA leave, payment may be denied unless it is paid to an employee on equivalent leave status for a reason that does not qualify as FMLA leave."
ETA - I would still fight it, but just wanted to point out the language in the law that may work against you.
ETA again - This is further proof that maternity leave / FMLA in the US falls fall short of where other nations stand.
Ah... I stand corrected.
I do believe, though, that they can't use the time against you in your review, though. As in attendance - they can't say your attendance sucked because you were on FMLA. They can only use the time you weren't on FMLA.
So, the wording may go against her monetarily, but it may still be something she can fight.
Thanks for posting that underwater. So it sounds like it's not illegal. I don't like confrontation but I may say something to my boss. This might just be the fire under my ass that I need to really look for a new job.
Post by underwaterrhymes on Aug 15, 2012 8:56:03 GMT -5
ECB - Yes, I think you are correct there. It's definitely worth her trying to fight, I'm just not entirely optimistic. OP - definitely do your research and see if you can dig around and find other cases that support you in your state.
CE&P had a really interesting post the other day about where the United States stands with regard to other nations and parental benefits / leave. We are one of only THREE nations that fail to offer paid maternity leave (along with Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.) And even then FMLA is only required of companies that have more than 50 employees (although smaller ones do offer it). In this regard, we suck big time.
ETA again! - Some states do have supplemental unpaid leave policies for companies that have fewer than 50 employees and thus aren't offering FMLA to their employees.
Yes, I recently read an article about how our maternity leave compares to other nations and it was depressing.
Thanks, I'll do some digging. I don't want to cause a big issue if it is perfectly legal for them to do this but at the same time I feel like I need to say something to my boss so she at least knows that it bothers me. She handed me the sealed envelope at about 4:55 on Friday and quickly ducked out of my office so I think she knew that I wouldn't be too happy about it.
I think I'd set up a meeting to discuss your raise/performance and remind her that based on your performance review you were meeting/exceeding expectations and the raise does not reflect that.
I know where I am a raise is a raise. It doesnt' matter if you were on leave or started halfway through the year or weren't full time for any reason, if the average raise is 2% that's what you get if you met expectations. However what would be affected is bonus payouts which are prorated.
And you should definitely bring up the prep work you did (extra work really) to keep things running smoothly during your leave.
Post by revolution on Aug 15, 2012 10:20:10 GMT -5
My first maternity leave my review was above average, but my raise was below company average. I did not get far in my fight - I did not get a lawyer or anything though.
I got full raises and bonuses following my maternity leaves. That's crap, honestly, and it seems to me you are being penalized. I'd ask her about the criteria. If they are based on performance and your review was strong, you left things in excellent shape and were accessible (though if you are on STD you are not supposed to be) while on leave, I would ask her where, exactly, your performance was sub-par.
Merit increases are discretional even if the average is 2% not everyone gets 2%. We have a 3% merit pool but managers divide that up among their direct reports. You were still returned to the same position at the same or similar rate of pay you were at prior to your leave. You were gone for almost half the year and they are pro-rating your merit increase, I don't see what there is to dispute here. We do fiscal reviews so everyone is reviewed at the same time and if we have a new employee who only worked 6 months of the year before their review, they also get a prorated merit increase. It is perfectly legal for them to do this. I know it sucks and it doesn't feel fair but it is what it is.
Post by vanillacourage on Aug 15, 2012 10:49:18 GMT -5
You were gone for almost 6 months, that's way beyond the standard ML in the US - even FMLA. I agree that it sucks, but I see where the company is coming from and I would be really careful how you proceed.
ETA - I would bring it up with your boss and just say that you were surprised to see the amount of the merit increase since your last review (bring it to the meeting) showed that you were on track for a raise in the range of X percent. If they say it was because you were on leave, say that you understand that but have been back on the job and contributing to company success for several months since then. If they still don't budge, ask for a mid-year review six months from now where the issue can be revisited, so that this discrepancy in salary vs. other employees at your same level doesn't continue to persist, as you think they would agree that it's unfair to permanently penalize you for having taken maternity leave (and I would phrase it exactly like that).
Merit increases are discretional even if the average is 2% not everyone gets 2%. We have a 3% merit pool but managers divide that up among their direct reports. You were still returned to the same position at the same or similar rate of pay you were at prior to your leave. You were gone for almost half the year and they are pro-rating your merit increase, I don't see what there is to dispute here. We do fiscal reviews so everyone is reviewed at the same time and if we have a new employee who only worked 6 months of the year before their review, they also get a prorated merit increase. It is perfectly legal for them to do this. I know it sucks and it doesn't feel fair but it is what it is.
This is how it works for my company too (a very large Fortune 50) company. It sucks, but I have no doubt it's common and legal. It happened to me too because I was on bed rest for 2 months and then took another 3 months off after DS was born.
Post by manzer1979 on Aug 15, 2012 11:29:30 GMT -5
Thanks rand- I think I will set up a meeting with her and just ask if there is any rationale besides I was gone for 1/2 the year. Unfortunately all the people I work with are either men or women beyond child-bearing years. I'm the first one since I've been here (4 years) to go on maternity leave.
Evy- I understand what you're saying and that's how it works here but since I've been here everyone pretty much gets the average across the board. Since I'm getting less I'm wondering if the $$ is going to the people who filled in for me. I don't think that's fair because that will put me at a disadvantage for however long I'm here and will put them at an advantage for however long they're here.
Post by manzer1979 on Aug 15, 2012 11:39:22 GMT -5
At my organization you can be gone for an entire year and still maintain your original position. I was on LTD before the girls were born, maternity leave for 8 weeks, STD and vacation for the rest of the time. All well within what is allowed. But I see your point, since I wasn't protected b FMLA the entire time it could make a difference.
I'm going to get flamed for this, but COME ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.
Did you ever think about the possibility that you really only deserved 1%, regardless of your maternity leave? So what that you prepped and cross-trained your maternity cover -- you think you deserve some extra kicker for that?
Post by manzer1979 on Aug 15, 2012 11:59:34 GMT -5
Fields, I don't think I deserve extra for training replacements or anything like that. When I met with my boss in June she had nothing but good things to say about my performance and even in the letter I received she's the one pointing out that I made it such a smooth transition because of the work I did before my leave, etc. I've actually never had negative feedback from her. When I first got the letter I was a little disappointed but thought it wasn't a huge deal but as I got to thinking about it more and it does set me up for inequity for the future. I wanted to get opinions about what others thought.
I don't see how this sets you up for inequity in the future - it's an ANNUAL review. As a manger, I base performance and raises on the performance for the given time period of the review and that's it. Someone who does a satisfactory job gets a satisfactory raise.
I truly think you would do more harm than good fighting this.
Post by manzer1979 on Aug 15, 2012 13:09:15 GMT -5
I'm definitely not going to lawyer up or anything. I'm just going to bring it up to my boss in a non-confrontational way. I get that it's an annual review/raise but the raise is a % of your previous year salary.