Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. So what you are saying is the 8 hours originally paid as holiday time, then switches over to time worked, even though this is never recorded anywhere. That's interesting, thanks.
  2. I work in CT for a smaller company which pays us for major holidays. Many non-exempt employees work over 40 hours per week and receive time and one half for hours worked over the 40. However, during a week which contains a major paid holiday, if someone works an extra 8 hours, say on Saturday, they will not get paid for those hours at all. The company's reasoning is employees have already been paid for 8 hours holiday time which they did not work, so they are effectively in arrears with their time earned. I understand companies do not have to pay for holidays but they do have to pay for time worked and holiday policies should not void that time. Every other company I have worked for or heard about in holiday situations would pay the employee at straight time for those extra 8 hours. I understand and agree with that logic. In this example, is refusal to pay 8 straight time hours during a holiday week legal?
  3. In a private parking lot where I work in CT there was an out of state parked car which burst into flames and damaged three cars surrounding it as well as part of the lot. Two of the car owners and the building owner just received notice from the insurance co. of the owner of the car which burst into flames, who said they are not liable and all claims are denied except their client. It was never determined how the fire started and the other vehicle owners were told to either put a claim through their own insurance or sue the building for damages. Is it true that even though there was no known cause of the fire the insurance co. has no responsibility toward the other claimants? The other claimants are hesitant to make a claim against their own insurance and especially don't believe the building has any liablitly.
  4. The letters are mailed to employees with only their own SSN contained on them. The letters contain financial information regarding that employee. This is what I was using as a guide: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0369.htm It was the employee receiving the letters who had complained to Human Resources. It's not a big deal for them to redact the SSN. The EE is a retired military person (our company works with the military although we are civilian) and said the government would never mail out documents with confidential information on it. Of course it doesn't take much to imagine what one can do if someone steals another's SSN. We would prefer that no one has the opportunity. Since management isn't too concerned about this must we wait until an identity theft or the like happens or is there a state agency to which this can be reported?
  5. I have a question about the CT law regarding the protection of Social Security numbers. I work in CT and my employer routinely mails out letters with the entire SSN printed on it. The law seems to say a company must take special care of documents containing sensitive information within its office but it doesn't mention anything about the mailing of documents so I'm guessing sending these through the mail is fine. As far as I know nobody has had an issue with identity theft because of this practice but it seems extremely irresponsible to me. Someone has complained about this and they are not concerned. Being a victim of identity theft via another avenue I am extremely distressed by their carelessness and wonder if they have any culpability if anything were to happen.
  • Create New...