Recently Asked Questions

Background: On Jan 1, 2023 we instituted several changes to employee time off accrual policies. We constructed the new vacation accrual policies carefully and gave some of our more senior staff "legacy policies" in order to not decrease any current employee's vacation accrual rate. However, we DID institute a cap on the number of vacation hours an employee could bank at any given time (1/2 a year for FT staff, and 1/4 yr FTE for PT staff). We did this for two reasons: 1) to mitigate financial risk to our library in the event of unforeseen separations, when we pay out any unused vacation time, and 2) to encourage staff to take regular vacations, which prevents burnout and encourages us to understand each other's job responsibilities better when covering for someone else.

Unfortunately, the vacation cap has had some unintended consequences. Some staff members are reticent to take vacation and are bumping up against the cap each month, which effectively means their compensation is being reduced. Also, our PT staff work varying number of hours per week (20-32) but we don't prorate the PT vacation cap (for logistical reasons), which makes it difficult for staff who work close to FT hours to save up enough time to take a longer vacation, or multiple vacations in a relatively short period.

My legal question is: If we were to change our time off accrual policy to allow staff to bank as much vacation as they like but specify that upon separation they could only be paid out 'x' number of hours, could we be accused of wage theft?

It's January 6, 2022, and I am trying to pinpoint what libraries are obligated to do for employees with regard to COVID safety measures.  Are employers still required to provide safety implements such as masks to their employees and encourage social distancing? What about providing testing kits at no cost to employees? There is so much information that it's overwhelming and while https://forward.ny.gov/ is helpful, there is a lot to sift through.

[NOTE:  This question was submitted in response to the guidance posted at Minor Employees and Obscenity in the Library.

After sharing your reply with my board, we have a follow-up question seeking clarification. The question is in regards to the following paragraph:

In that regard, I can only say that inviting concerned parents to review the library's well-thought-out accession, cataloging, and appeal policies is a pro-active way to ensure parents know that the library takes both its role as an employer of their child, and as a champion of a community's intellectual freedom, seriously. Parents or guardians of minors working in New York will have already had to sign working papers; no waiver or disclaimer should be further required.

My president reads your first sentence (and the word "pro-active") and thinks that your advice is to reach out to parents upon or before the hire of a minor in order explain these policies and allay any concerns. If so, then which? Before, or after?

Whereas, I read your second sentence and think that you're saying that we're not liable -- we already have the parent's permission -- but that parents who then express their "concern" to me about any of the training materials should be given said spiel.

Can you please clarify? Thank you!

We have a school district public library board considering requiring background checks for new employees. They are concerned that they may be legally required to background check all current employees. Would there be any legal reason they would need to do so?

Should what we think of as the personnel policy be called Employee Handbook or Personnel Policy?

Sometime in the past, legal counsel advised a library system I was involved in, that the term "Employee Handbook" is correct. The document under now review at my library has what amounts to the rules of employment - typical sections about what the library provides, what we expect the employee to do etc. and does have a page acknowledging receipt of the document.

So what should it be called?

Thank you!