[passmeby]

My husbands pay has been "off" sometimes, it's never been worth the hassle to really get upset over it until today, he was shorted for 2 entire days worth of hours this time. He is going to attempt to correct this, but he has to wait until Monday as it is a 3-day weekend. Now that he has been shorted several times (that we have noticed, anyway) I want him to be protected in the future. The system where he works is completely computerized, he slides a card and holds his index finger to a fingerprint ID thing to acknowledge that he has clocked in and out, so there really shouldn't be any discrepancies... but there is indeed! The only thing I can think for him to do is to carry a notebook and write down the exact times he clocks in and out, but if we did find another discrepancy, would a handwritten record be sufficient proof? Somehow I doubt it. So my question is, how can he protect himself, and can anyone suggest another idea besides, or in addition to, writing down his exact hours every day? The company he works for is global, it's HUGE... so that might make things even harder for him.

Also, he had a minor work injury (happened at work). He had to go to the ER. I thought that Workers Comp allowed him to go to the hospital and be paid for the remainder of that work day. He also had to take time out of a workday, about 2 hrs, to go to a follow-up appointment for this same injury. He was made to clock out of work for the appointment. Again, I thought that since this is a Workers Comp issue, he should NOT have had to clock out, he should've been paid. I might be totally wrong here, but this is how I thought it worked, this is how it has worked in my personal experience when I had a minor injury at work, although my experience was several years ago so perhaps it has changed. To sum it up, my question is-should he have indeed been paid for the time he was in the ER and follow-up appointment?

[morgaine300]

I really can't answer your question, but just wanted to make note that something like Workers Comp rules can be different in every state. IIRC, in my state you have to be off work something like 10 days before they start paying for work. (Though they'd pay the ER bill.) So to get an answer to that, if you're willing, I think you'd have to say what state you're in.

Ah, the lovely computerized stuff, which is the all-knowing god. It's like calling AT&T to tell them I didn't make that long distance call, and they insist I did cause their computer said so. Can't help, but good luck with that. If it were me, if there's been discrepancies, I'd at least be talking to someone at the company about the fact that something's apparently wrong with that system!

[passmeby]

To answer your question, the state is Oklahoma. I know the rules regarding how long Workers Comp kicks in (in OK, it's 3 days after the injury is deemed covered by comp). BUT... I was prety sure that if you got injured at work and had to leave work to go to the ER for said injury, you were to be paid for the missed hours. Also, after the injury was indeed deemed work related, why wouldn't the follow-up appointment be covered? It just doesn't seem right that he got injured at work and had subsequent Dr appointments for said injury and have to lose pay over it.

[morgaine300]

I realize those are hypothentical questions since no one can explain WHY Workers Comp does anything they do. I can only say that as someone who's done a lot of payroll stuff in the past, I've had to deal with them, and even with me in an administrative role (not an injured employee), they are just a pain in the rear end. Lots of problems in that system, seems like no matter what state you're in. (And it costs the employers big bucks for that crappy service.)

Workers Comp is the main reason I'd hate to see national health care -- it would probably end up with the same problems. Not sure a lot of people realize how bad it gets when a government agency tries to run something, but that's certainly a good example.