We are a small manufacturing company (under 50 employees) in Michigan, USA. For years now, due to demand and lack of workers, we have required our production workers to work overtime (5 days a week, 10 hours a day for 50 hours total per week), occasionally working 55 or 60 hours. We pay them 1.5x OT as the law requires. As the law also requires (Obamacare) and per our policies, we provide full-timers with health insurance benefits as well (FT defined in our handbook decades ago as 40 hours, but we understand with Obamacare that is now 30). They, of course, get other benefits for being FT like vacation, holidays, sick days, etc.
Now, we have a good temp agency employee we are considering hiring. They have a special ADA situation and can only work 40 hours as they need to use a special limited bus schedule and can't drive. My HR team is saying if we hire them and offer them benefits for working 40 hours, then we will get other employees who are tired of working mandatory OT saying, "I only want to work 40 hours, too, and still get FT benefits," and refuse to work OT. (Yes, they probably will; we have many who already express wanting to work 32-40 and get benefits). Then we will negatively impact our productivity, keeping up with orders, and lose sales. But if we hire this person and they work 40 and we don't give them FT benefits, then HR thinks we run afoul of the law and/or discrimination. We also know the person can't work 50 (the bus schedule would never work, plus they're older and likely not able to handle it anyway), and we don't want to run afoul of discriminating against ADA in not accommodating them.
How can we safely and legally hire this person at 40 hours and keep others at 50 hours, not discriminate, and yet not have employees mad that they have to work more/differently for the same level of benefits, as this is also potential discrimination? Any laws, rulings, backings, or other things you can cite that we can use as backing are appreciated. Thanks.
Now, we have a good temp agency employee we are considering hiring. They have a special ADA situation and can only work 40 hours as they need to use a special limited bus schedule and can't drive. My HR team is saying if we hire them and offer them benefits for working 40 hours, then we will get other employees who are tired of working mandatory OT saying, "I only want to work 40 hours, too, and still get FT benefits," and refuse to work OT. (Yes, they probably will; we have many who already express wanting to work 32-40 and get benefits). Then we will negatively impact our productivity, keeping up with orders, and lose sales. But if we hire this person and they work 40 and we don't give them FT benefits, then HR thinks we run afoul of the law and/or discrimination. We also know the person can't work 50 (the bus schedule would never work, plus they're older and likely not able to handle it anyway), and we don't want to run afoul of discriminating against ADA in not accommodating them.
How can we safely and legally hire this person at 40 hours and keep others at 50 hours, not discriminate, and yet not have employees mad that they have to work more/differently for the same level of benefits, as this is also potential discrimination? Any laws, rulings, backings, or other things you can cite that we can use as backing are appreciated. Thanks.