Millions more workers would be eligible for overtime pay under new federal rule

[Samhain]

I fail to see how this rule adjustment (and seriously, it only increases the floor at which salaried employees can be exempt from the 40 hour work week without paying overtime) impacts flexibility - at least in regards to working fewer hours. This rule only requires that, if a person works more than 40 hours, that they be compensated for their overtime. There is no corrollary that the individual be paid less for working fewer than 40 hours.

Now, if the companies restructure the employee's contract such that they are now hourly instead of salaried employees, that is their perogative and you could argue that is an unintended consequence of this rule change. I would counter by noting that such a change might make the position less desirable and/or the added time or added income for the workers will still be a net positive.

I would think that non-exempt salaried positions wouldn't be a norm, unless the pool of available resources call for it.

 

[Southern Dad]

Presuming your experience is true and accurate, you just might be the first salary employee who actually benefited via flex time that I have encountered. Yeah, I know how it's supposed to work, but in both my experiences and observations it pretty much always favors the employer and screws the employee. Average out over the course of a year and the salaried employee either averaged more than 40 hrs per week with those extra hours being freebies, or averaged 39.5 hrs per week and caught serious crap for doing so... and it didn't matter if the 39.5 hr guy got all his work done, he still caught crap for it.

I'm in the newspaper business. We've got multiple properties and all have entry level managers who mange the carriers. In all my years in the newspaper business including when I was a District Manager, Zone Manager, Branch Manager, Circulation Manager... Heck, even as a Director, Vice President, and Senior Vice President no one has told me what hours to work. Here's what needs to be done, make it happen. There are times of the year, like between Thanksgiving and Christmas or the night after a major election where our managers will pull a 50+ hour week. There's just as many weeks when everything is humming along that they will work from press start until last carrier is out of the building. That's usually a five or six hour window.

It really boils down to how your run your district. Managers who are pro-active work less than those that are re-active.

 

[Southern Dad]

I fail to see how this rule adjustment (and seriously, it only increases the floor at which salaried employees can be exempt from the 40 hour work week without paying overtime) impacts flexibility - at least in regards to working fewer hours. This rule only requires that, if a person works more than 40 hours, that they be compensated for their overtime. There is no corrollary that the individual be paid less for working fewer than 40 hours.

Now, if the companies restructure the employee's contract such that they are now hourly instead of salaried employees, that is their perogative and you could argue that is an unintended consequence of this rule change. I would counter by noting that such a change might make the position less desirable and/or the added time or added income for the workers will still be a net positive.

It impacts flexibility because no company is going to make these managers salaried non-exempt where they get paid overtime if they go over forty but still get salary if they work less. They are going to be going to hourly wage. That means punching a clock and scheduling.

 

[Southern Dad]

I would think that non-exempt salaried positions wouldn't be a norm, unless the pool of available resources call for it.

Nobody uses Salaried Non-Exempt positions. That's a total screw over of the employer in favor of the employee.

 

[jaeger19]

I'm in the newspaper business. We've got multiple properties and all have entry level managers who mange the carriers. In all my years in the newspaper business including when I was a District Manager, Zone Manager, Branch Manager, Circulation Manager... Heck, even as a Director, Vice President, and Senior Vice President no one has told me what hours to work. Here's what needs to be done, make it happen. There are times of the year, like between Thanksgiving and Christmas or the night after a major election where our managers will pull a 50+ hour week. There's just as many weeks when everything is humming along that they will work from press start until last carrier is out of the building. That's usually a five or six hour window.

It really boils down to how your run your district. Managers who are pro-active work less than those that are re-active.

And I darn well guarantee that you might not be told what hours to work.. but your workload was designed such that you worked AT MINIMUM 40 hours per week.

I find it hard to believe that any successful company was making people salaried full time with the idea that the hours they worked would be less than 40 hours per week.

I mean.. its seems ludicrous to believe companies are paying regular folks salary to sit on their butt doing nothing, or go home and watch television.

 

[MrT]

Re: Will this end salaried entry level management positions?

I don't see that it makes much sense to allow governemnt to interfere at all. Jobs are so different that making "fits all" regulations and laws is ignorant of reality and harmful for the citizens in most cases.

Without governmental "interference" or "fits all" regulations, then private enterprise is free to pursue its own best interest. And while that may sound nice in the abstract, the real world results of businesses pursuing their best interests are things like child labor, no overtime pay, 60 hour work weeks, dismissing workers injured on the job, etc.

 

[prometeus]

...this Administration and the left will do anything it can to screw over businesses (job creators).

Right, after all there is nothing like using labor and not paying for it.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Will this end salaried entry level management positions?

While that my be true, there are many businesses that are fighting just to stay in business. But you are right, those businesses that aren't the profitable should close. They should just layoff all their employees and liquidate the assets so the owners can enjoy retirement rather than worrying about cutting this expense or trying to find additional revenues.

As opposed to rebuilding, making profit and shafting the workers?

 

[jaeger19]

Re: Will this end salaried entry level management positions?

Without governmental "interference" or "fits all" regulations, then private enterprise is free to pursue its own best interest. And while that may sound nice in the abstract, the real world results of businesses pursuing their best interests are things like child labor, no overtime pay, 60 hour work weeks, dismissing workers injured on the job, etc.

Lets not forget unsafe working conditions, sexual harassment, discrimination based on race or sex, worker intimidation.. paying with script... and the list of historical abuses goes on.

 

[jaeger19]

It impacts flexibility because no company is going to make these managers salaried non-exempt where they get paid overtime if they go over forty but still get salary if they work less. They are going to be going to hourly wage. That means punching a clock and scheduling.

Right.. and of course companies are higher tons and tons of lower managers at 24K at full time salary.. because they work less than 40 hours a week on average. :roll:

Please.

Punching a clock and scheduling means that they will get paid for their time.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Will this end salaried entry level management positions?

Far better that people be unemployed than work for pay that they may be willing to, but which I wouldn't want to. Out on the street with them.

Sure and soon all can wear diapers so they do not have to take bathroom breaks, like poultry workers. But hey, it helps with the profits...

 

[MrT]

I would think that non-exempt salaried positions wouldn't be a norm, unless the pool of available resources call for it.

My understanding is that this rule will impact roughly 4.6 million workers. So, while it is not the "norm," it is certain quite common.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Come on, SD. That's a little dramatic. We're talking about adults, exempt employees, making a decent salary in most parts of this country. Nobody is talking about discrimination and child labor and sweatshops.

23k a year is a "decent salary"? Let me remind you that the opening post is complaining that you no longer salary someone at 23k a year and have them exempt from overtime pay.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Okay, do you feel the same way if a salaried individual doesn't work forty hours in a given week are they stealing from the company? Are they practically criminal? Or is this a one way street on your screw the employer?



Yes. Vacation, Personal Days, and Sick Days. We have them. But there are times as salaried individuals when we don't quite do an on the books day off, or even few days off. After all, if a manager has things together there are times that another manager can handle things for them. It's a two way street. Very few entry level managers have 23 days of vacation. Our entry level managers have 10 vacation days, 3 personal days, and sick days cannot be used for going to a graduation so they aren't relevant. Sometimes they want to use those for something else.

Wait a second here. You could pay someone just 23k a year and they would be exempt before this change. So what your saying is that you had someone working for salaried at 23k a year and you were so benevolent as to give them 4 paid days off for a family event.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Oh hey, look!


View attachment 67201513


A Strawman!




When you reduce the ability of employers and employees to come to mutually beneficial terms, you reduce the incidence of it occurring. Why this is beyond the ken of so many, I really don't understand. It's like we want to deny math as soon as it applies to us.

Either you have labor regulations or you don't.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Will this end salaried entry level management positions?

I don't see that it makes much sense to allow governemnt to interfere at all. Jobs are so different that making "fits all" regulations and laws is ignorant of reality and harmful for the citizens in most cases.

This is a common theme really, "anything that the government does is bad!" (Usually only applied to things that THEY wish to happen to don't happen) In reality government interference is not near as bad as many people seem to think. Can it have bad side effects or bad over all consequences? Most certainly. With out a doubt. But not having government interference can be just as bad.

Businesses have proven that when it comes to wages they only think in short term gains as far as the employee goes and have no problem screwing over their employees for their own short and long term gains. Individual people have no power over a company and poor people have even less power. They HAVE to take the jobs that are available regardless of the wage or amount of work involved related to that wage. Especially when it comes to work that is not skilled work. Sure, they can form a union (or try to) but Unions have their own drawbacks that to some may outweigh any gains. Which leaves them to petition the government for help. Which is why the Feds have made this rule. Its not like the government made this rule for no reason out of thin air after all.

 

[MrT]

It impacts flexibility because no company is going to make these managers salaried non-exempt where they get paid overtime if they go over forty but still get salary if they work less. They are going to be going to hourly wage. That means punching a clock and scheduling.

I still stand by my later point. To the extent that this rule prompts some employers to shift the contract of their salaried employees, then the employee will have the right to weigh the impacts of that shift onto their new position. They can then choose to leave the company or accept the new position and benefit from either being compensated when they have to work overtime while recognizing a potential trade off that they may not work a full 40 hours every week.

One other impact of that shift is that employers will be less likely to demand that these types of employees not seek other simultaneous employment. In a salaried position where the hours might fluctuate dramatically, the employer could use the fact that the position is salaried to require that the individual not work elsewhere so that they can be flexible. If that maintain that type of demand despite the fact that work hours in a week might be significantly less, then the employer will probably not attract the best talent because such a demand would seem unreasonable to most.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And I darn well guarantee that you might not be told what hours to work.. but your workload was designed such that you worked AT MINIMUM 40 hours per week.

I find it hard to believe that any successful company was making people salaried full time with the idea that the hours they worked would be less than 40 hours per week.

I mean.. its seems ludicrous to believe companies are paying regular folks salary to sit on their butt doing nothing, or go home and watch television.

The maintenance staff for apartments and convenience stores are examples of salaried jobs that often require less than 40 hour weeks, but they also include a signifcant amount of "on call" time. It makes sense for such employers to keep and pay their own HVAC, electrical and mechanical maintenance staff that way because the alternative "emergency" service call costs would be far more expensve.

 

[Southern Dad]

And I darn well guarantee that you might not be told what hours to work.. but your workload was designed such that you worked AT MINIMUM 40 hours per week.

I find it hard to believe that any successful company was making people salaried full time with the idea that the hours they worked would be less than 40 hours per week.

I mean.. its seems ludicrous to believe companies are paying regular folks salary to sit on their butt doing nothing, or go home and watch television.

The hours fluctuate a lot. There are good weeks and bad weeks. If all the carriers are doing their jobs, the manager's job is an easy one. Make sure the papers get out and field a few complaints. It is when the carriers fail to show up, drop route, or quit without notice that a manager winds up working crazy hours. It all goes back to leadership and planning. Did you contract the first warm body that walked in the door.

 

[Samhain]

My understanding is that this rule will impact roughly 4.6 million workers. So, while it is not the "norm," it is certain quite common.

Those 4.6 million are currently exempt salaried, and after the ruling, they will be converted to hourly, overtime eligible employees. Are there actual stats around the use of non-exempt salaried? I would think its near 0 and would stay near 0 after this ruling.

 

[David_N]

Either you have labor regulations or you don't.

According to textbook Econ models, any regulation is a "disturbance." I'm sure that's where will gets this nonsense from. Then again, these are the same people who believe that employees have sufficient bargaining power across the board.

 

[David_N]

23k a year is a "decent salary"? Let me remind you that the opening post is complaining that you no longer salary someone at 23k a year and have them exempt from overtime pay.

If 23k a year is a decent salary, I question what planet some people are living on.

 

[David_N]

Re: Will this end salaried entry level management positions?

Sure and soon all can wear diapers so they do not have to take bathroom breaks, like poultry workers. But hey, it helps with the profits...

Don't you know? If there weren't any damn government regulations in regards to poultry, then the poultry workers would be able to make a mutually beneficial arrangement with their employer and the world would be perfect! (Yes, this is essentially what is being said.)

 

[MrT]

Those 4.6 million are currently exempt salaried, and after the ruling, they will be converted to hourly, overtime eligible employees. Are there actual stats around the use of non-exempt salaried? I would think its near 0 and would stay near 0 after this ruling.

No, the ruling does not convert them into hourly, overtime eligible employees. The rule does not change the employment contracts - it only requires that these individuals be compensated for overtime. One potential consequence of the rule is that these individuals may have their contracts altered by their respective employers to make them hourly. That type of decision carries risks like causing the employee to quit or to demand other concessions in response.

So, 4.6 million is the number you seek. That number will likely change after this ruling has been in effect for a few years.

Edit: After re-reading your post, it appears that you are looking for the number of salaried employees that are exempt from this rule? Well then you are looking at millions upon millions because the rule exempts any salaried employer that makes more than 46k a year (currently 23k a year).

 

[Russell797]

Work an hour, get paid for an hour. Work 60 hours, get paid for 60 hours at time and a half over 40 hours. Everyone. No special exemptions. No privileged class. Per hour rate varies according to the particular job, individual skills etc. This is completely equitable and no one can complain.

With salaried positions there are winners and losers and a whole lot of unfairness.