Provides relative to the final payment after termination of employment
Impact
The impact of HB352 is significant as it affects existing statutes surrounding employment compensation and termination. By defining the conditions under which commissions and bonuses are considered payable, the bill provides employers with the means to implement policies that can include adjustments based on changes in orders that generate commissions. This is crucial for sectors where earnings are tied closely to sales and performance metrics, as it allows for flexibility while ensuring employees are compensated fairly as per established practices.
Summary
House Bill 352, introduced by Representative Tarver, aims to establish clear guidelines for the payment of compensation, particularly concerning commissions, bonuses, and incentive pay, upon termination of employment. The bill emphasizes that compensation shall only be considered 'due' if it has been earned and aligns with the employer's written policy. This clarity aims to protect both employers and employees by establishing a framework that governs how and when such payouts occur, thereby reducing disputes related to final compensation packages after employment ends.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB352 appears to be generally supportive among legislative members, as it enhances clarity in employment law, which can be a source of contention between employees and employers. There were no recorded votes opposing the bill, which suggests a consensus on the need for clearer regulations regarding how compensation should be managed post-termination. Such agreement could indicate that stakeholders recognize the value of reducing ambiguities in employment contracts and practices.
Contention
While the overall sentiment is positive, potential points of contention may arise regarding how strictly employers can interpret and implement policies related to commission and bonus payments. Critics may argue that overly stringent policies could disadvantage employees, particularly those reliant on variable pay structures. The bill also raises questions about the balance of power between employers and employees, as stricter rules may be perceived as limiting employee rights to compensation earned through their work.
Provides that retaliation against an employee for an absence from work due to genetic testing or a medically necessary cancer screening shall be an unlawful employment practice. (8/1/23)