http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17g_salary.pdf
If someone receives OT, there is nothing in the DOL's definition that makes them not be salaried.
Wrong again. I can't believe you're actually arguing that people who receive a salary are not salaried employees.
Right, they receive a predetermined salary each week - again. OT is not part of a predetermined salary. Despite your unsubstantiated claims.
Being paid on a “salary basis” means an employee regularly receives a predetermined amount of compensation
each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent, basis. The predetermined amount cannot be reduced because of
variations in the quality or quantity of the employee’s work
If they do not meet the requirements of the law, they are hourly employees. Sure, they get paid. Sure you can call their wage a salary if you would like, but they are not salaried by definition. They are hourly employees.
They are hourly employees.
...........
This makes no sense. What do you think it means to be salaried? A salaried employee is simply someone who has a set annual earnings as opposed to an hourly wage. The FLSA has nothing to do with determining whether or not an employee is salaried.And if they do not meet those requirements, are they salaried? No.
This is inaccurate. People who are salaried are eligible for OT if they are non-exempt because your specific job duties may disqualify you for exempt status despite the fact that you are salaried.People that are salaried are not eligible for OT and agrees to a salary for a timeframe (typically a year).
He keeps ignoring the "all the requirements" part. Even worse, he's arguing that when a worker receives OT for working more than 40 hours, it means they're not receiving a salary, even if they are.
Yes, they receive a predetermined amount each week, so they are salaried.
The definition I just posted does not say they can't receive additional money. It doesn't say they have to receive the same amount each week. It only says the amount can't be decreased.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17g_salary.pdf
If they receive more, due to working more hours, that is not a predetermined amount. That is a predetermined amount + extra money.
Why would you prefer being exempt?
Don’t do it. It’s a trap. No, I’m not saying that your employees are trying to trap you. What I am saying is that sooner or later the nature of non-exempt salaried arrangements often leads employers to inadvertently violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
So what would be your coherent argument against it? What is your argument against people working harder and earning money?
Salaried employees are paid a flat rate regardless of how many hours they work that week. 'Time off' for things like doctors appointments, illness, long lunch, whatever, doesn't reduce your pay. Salary is more about being goal oriented then clock watching.
IMO, salaried employees are more productive then hourly. There may be times when more hours are needed to complete something, and times when it's not. The employer knows their labor costs regardless of the number of hours to complete the job/project.
But to each her own.
Once more, if this is true, the current administration is jeopardizing full time employment. After all, why pay someone salary if there will be mandatory add ons? Back to hourly.... and two part timers is cheaper then one full timer plus overtime.
Abused?
They go into it knowing the package. It was their choice to take the job.
Right.. and if they are not meeting those requirements..> What are they again? Oh, that's right. Hourly. Geeze man. You can't pay a salaried individual OT, as that would clearly make them hourly emplyoees
What is Exempt - What is an Exempt Employee - Exempt Employee Definition
Turns out I was wrong, on this piece (to make myself feel a little better: I am still correct that exempt employees typically have more flexibility from employers)
Based on this website - and these were a lot of the problems I saw with it, so I can't believe employers actually do it... It is just a bomb waiting to happen.
Why I Don’t Like “Non-Exempt Salaried” Arrangements | Payroll Experts
Sadly, it's not addressing the real. Which is, despite record busting profitability, companies are staying the course of slashed payrolls. I have my OPINIONS as to why this is, as I'm sure all of you do as well.
Not true. Taking a day for a Dr visit WITHOUT a personal or sick day = one less days pay. Showing up late or leaving early with using personal time or sick time hours doesn't dock pay, but it's usually expected to be "paid" back in the form of longer days after.
From my experience, working for various companies, in various fields, as a salaried worker for the last 15 years.
And that's why we're seeing an increase in the # of lawsuits claiming that employers are illegally denying their employees overtime.
Even fast food managers have more flexability then the hourly employees, at least in many cases.
Anyway, if what you say is true and there really are an increase in the amount of lawsuite, it would seem that law is already sufficient and some companies are simply breaking the law.
Just because someone's job title has the word "manager" in it, that doesn't mean they actually do any managing, qualify as exempt, or have any flexibility
If the law was sufficient, then why would an increasing # of employers decide to break the law?
Just as there are 'employees' who would break the law in any number of ways, there will be 'employers' who will do the same.
But it all boils down to the fact if they break one law on the subject, what makes the government think they will adhere to another?
Well, frankly, I think something should be done. Companies too often pay salaries and then expect sixty hours a week with no comp time. Just exactly how fair is that?
Folks, I think we're just going to have to get used to paying more for things. Workers need some help to assure their fair treatment. It's time we all realized that.
I was offered a managerial job ten-plus years ago. The offer letter came to me with a salary promise, description of benefits, and a caveat that I would be expected to work sixty hours a week. So, I'll ask again: Just exactly how fair is that?
Just because someone's job title has the word "manager" in it, that doesn't mean they actually do any managing, qualify as exempt, or have any flexibility
If the law was sufficient, then why would an increasing # of employers decide to break the law?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?