Wage/overtime rules
I've got a few questions on wage and overtime laws and was hoping some of you have had experience with these issues before. I've googled my brain out and looked all over the Dept of Labor and Attorney general sites.
1. Is there a law that requires I be paid the same as or within a certain percentage of coworkers with the same title/seniority/experience?
I am not a minority or protected class.
2. If I am exempt from overtime, (I am not certain that I am) must I still be paid straight time in excess of 40 hours?
3. What are the pros/cons of being exempt vs non-exempt?
Should I expect my employer to challenge it if I try to change my status?
1. Is there a law that requires I be paid the same as or within a certain percentage of coworkers with the same title/seniority/experience?
I am not a minority or protected class.
2. If I am exempt from overtime, (I am not certain that I am) must I still be paid straight time in excess of 40 hours?
3. What are the pros/cons of being exempt vs non-exempt?
Should I expect my employer to challenge it if I try to change my status?
Comments
-
AFAIK, if you are an exempt employee, (salaried) you do not get paid OT.
Even if you have to come in during the weekends.
And no, you do not get paid as if it was a normal day either. To make it simple, you do not get paid.
I do not know about challenging it, but if you signed a contract and in the contract it was stated that you agree to be on call yadee yadee yada, then you are up a certain creek without a paddle.
But im not a lawyer, im sure others will be more aware of these things. -
AFAIK, if you are an exempt employee, (salaried) you do not get paid OT.
Even if you have to come in during the weekends.
And no, you do not get paid as if it was a normal day either. To make it simple, you do not get paid.
I do not know about challenging it, but if you signed a contract and in the contract it was stated that you agree to be on call yadee yadee yada, then you are up a certain creek without a paddle.
But im not a lawyer, im sure others will be more aware of these things. -
My understanding is, you don't have to be paid equivalent to anyone, unless you're in a union and have collective bargaining that makes that happen.
If you're classified as "management" that whole hourly thing goes away anyway, as does OT, potentially. Is that what you mean by "exempt vs non-exempt?"
I don't think there's enough info in your post to help anyone give you really good advice, but I understand why you might not want to bare your situation to a public message board... -
My understanding is, you don't have to be paid equivalent to anyone, unless you're in a union and have collective bargaining that makes that happen.
If you're classified as "management" that whole hourly thing goes away anyway, as does OT, potentially. Is that what you mean by "exempt vs non-exempt?"
I don't think there's enough info in your post to help anyone give you really good advice, but I understand why you might not want to bare your situation to a public message board... -
1. Not sure about this one, but I doubt it.
2. I'm pretty sure exempt from OT means you get straight pay, no matter your hours. When I had a FT, non-exempt position, I got OT pay for hours over what that company specified as FT (37.5 hours per week) IF my crazy boss would sign off on it.
The exempt positions where I was (very large company that employees 10K+ people in NYC) had better overall pay, but more responsibility and didn't get OT no matter their hours.
3. Pros of exempt are that you don't have any pressure to work OT for extra money. It is an incentive to work smarter and faster if you happen to be somewhere that you can either leave a little early in the day or at least spend time goofing off or where you can take on personal projects in that extra time.
Pros of non-exempt are that if you need extra $$ and there's more hours to be had, you can get it.
Your hire contract should have your status in it, but I've never worked anywhere that you could change your status. Businesses are often set up with certain numbers of specific types of positions and making changes to the system is not easy. Their reaction to you asking for a change depends on all kinds of factors: their need of your skills, your performance record, their current stability, how your boss feels about you, etc. You might just be more likely to get a raise or increased benefits (more PTO). -
1. Not sure about this one, but I doubt it.
2. I'm pretty sure exempt from OT means you get straight pay, no matter your hours. When I had a FT, non-exempt position, I got OT pay for hours over what that company specified as FT (37.5 hours per week) IF my crazy boss would sign off on it.
The exempt positions where I was (very large company that employees 10K+ people in NYC) had better overall pay, but more responsibility and didn't get OT no matter their hours.
3. Pros of exempt are that you don't have any pressure to work OT for extra money. It is an incentive to work smarter and faster if you happen to be somewhere that you can either leave a little early in the day or at least spend time goofing off or where you can take on personal projects in that extra time.
Pros of non-exempt are that if you need extra $$ and there's more hours to be had, you can get it.
Your hire contract should have your status in it, but I've never worked anywhere that you could change your status. Businesses are often set up with certain numbers of specific types of positions and making changes to the system is not easy. Their reaction to you asking for a change depends on all kinds of factors: their need of your skills, your performance record, their current stability, how your boss feels about you, etc. You might just be more likely to get a raise or increased benefits (more PTO). -
Re #1, let's say I've been a widget inspector for 5 years and then the company hires a new widget inspector, with no prior experience, at a higher salary. Isn't there something wrong with that? Feels like there should be.
salary is only one of the tests to determine if you get paid overtime. That is, just because you are paid a salary, as opposed to hourly, does not in and of itself mean you don't get overtime. It has to do with the actual work performed, not pay status or job title.
since overtime is defined as time and a half i was thinking that even if one were exempt from overtime they might still be eligible for overtime.
From the dept of Labor:
The FLSA requires that most employees in the United States be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. -
Re #1, let's say I've been a widget inspector for 5 years and then the company hires a new widget inspector, with no prior experience, at a higher salary. Isn't there something wrong with that? Feels like there should be.
salary is only one of the tests to determine if you get paid overtime. That is, just because you are paid a salary, as opposed to hourly, does not in and of itself mean you don't get overtime. It has to do with the actual work performed, not pay status or job title.
since overtime is defined as time and a half i was thinking that even if one were exempt from overtime they might still be eligible for overtime.
From the dept of Labor:
The FLSA requires that most employees in the United States be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. -
vidro3 wrote: Re #1, let's say I've been a widget inspector for 5 years and then the company hires a new widget inspector, with no prior experience, at a higher salary. Isn't there something wrong with that? Feels like there should be.
Ethically...yes. It sucks.
But that's life. If you feel you have a firm grip in the company and want to push that particular issue, then go for it.
Also, was this new inspector a FT salaried hire? Or is he contract or hourly. When he is contract, he probably isnt getting your companies benefits and 401, which would make it seem like hes getting paid more.
Although if he is getting paid more in general...again, that sucks. -
vidro3 wrote: Re #1, let's say I've been a widget inspector for 5 years and then the company hires a new widget inspector, with no prior experience, at a higher salary. Isn't there something wrong with that? Feels like there should be.
Ethically...yes. It sucks.
But that's life. If you feel you have a firm grip in the company and want to push that particular issue, then go for it.
Also, was this new inspector a FT salaried hire? Or is he contract or hourly. When he is contract, he probably isnt getting your companies benefits and 401, which would make it seem like hes getting paid more.
Although if he is getting paid more in general...again, that sucks. -
There is something wrong with someone being hired at more than your salary with no experience, but nothing legally wrong. Just sounds like it is time for you to ask for a raise.
If you are exempt, your boss doesn't need to pay you anything for working extra hours. I've never heard of anyone getting OT who is exempt. Yes, legally your boss could pay an exempt employee some money for working more hours if he wanted to be super nice, but he isn't required to and it would be abnormal.
From some light googling (http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html)
[quote= 1) you're an executive/supervisor, 2) you're a professional (doctor, lawyer, nurse, architect, pharmacist, etc.); or 3) administrative (non manual work, related to operations/business, and you make decisions about important stuff.
At any rate, from the sounds of things - you're probably non-exempt (you'd probably not have mentioned "straight time" otherwise). So your boss should pay you time and a half. And ask for that raise! -
There is something wrong with someone being hired at more than your salary with no experience, but nothing legally wrong. Just sounds like it is time for you to ask for a raise.
If you are exempt, your boss doesn't need to pay you anything for working extra hours. I've never heard of anyone getting OT who is exempt. Yes, legally your boss could pay an exempt employee some money for working more hours if he wanted to be super nice, but he isn't required to and it would be abnormal.
From some light googling (http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html)
[quote= 1) you're an executive/supervisor, 2) you're a professional (doctor, lawyer, nurse, architect, pharmacist, etc.); or 3) administrative (non manual work, related to operations/business, and you make decisions about important stuff.
At any rate, from the sounds of things - you're probably non-exempt (you'd probably not have mentioned "straight time" otherwise). So your boss should pay you time and a half. And ask for that raise! -
Every company I've worked for has hired me higher than current employees and usually with less experience. I don't think its unethical at all- companies will pay you one cent more per year than it takes you to quit. I say I want XXX and if they dont give it, I dont take the job. Don't be upset that someone else was ballsy enough to negotiate.
-
Every company I've worked for has hired me higher than current employees and usually with less experience. I don't think its unethical at all- companies will pay you one cent more per year than it takes you to quit. I say I want XXX and if they dont give it, I dont take the job. Don't be upset that someone else was ballsy enough to negotiate.
-
I am definitely higher than most of my co-workers.
-
I am definitely higher than most of my co-workers.
-
Carmen wrote: Every company I've worked for has hired me higher than current employees and usually with less experience. I don't think its unethical at all- companies will pay you one cent more per year than it takes you to quit. I say I want XXX and if they dont give it, I dont take the job. Don't be upset that someone else was ballsy enough to negotiate.
well, you don't always discover these practices as soon as they happen. i have no problem with someone negotiating for a higher salary when they take a job. It's the employer who doesn't rectify the situation when made aware of it that I am bothered by. -
Carmen wrote: Every company I've worked for has hired me higher than current employees and usually with less experience. I don't think its unethical at all- companies will pay you one cent more per year than it takes you to quit. I say I want XXX and if they dont give it, I dont take the job. Don't be upset that someone else was ballsy enough to negotiate.
well, you don't always discover these practices as soon as they happen. i have no problem with someone negotiating for a higher salary when they take a job. It's the employer who doesn't rectify the situation when made aware of it that I am bothered by. -
The employer frequently takes the perspective "why would I pay him more, when he presently working for less?"
...the burden falls on the employee to keep their salary competitive, not the employer.
The employee has the option of leaving if they find the salary unsatisfactory. -
The employer frequently takes the perspective "why would I pay him more, when he presently working for less?"
...the burden falls on the employee to keep their salary competitive, not the employer.
The employee has the option of leaving if they find the salary unsatisfactory. -
whynot_31 wrote: The employer frequently takes the perspective "why would I pay him more, when he presently working for less?"
well yea, obviously they are not going to raise everyone's salary automatically if a new hire negotiates for more.
...the burden falls on the employee to keep their salary competitive, not the employer.
The employee has the option of leaving if they find the salary unsatisfactory.
i guess it just shows that the company is somewhat inept if they want to pay someone with no experience in this position and less education more money than an existing employee. I'll get a new job and then they will have highly paid people who don't know what to do. -
whynot_31 wrote: The employer frequently takes the perspective "why would I pay him more, when he presently working for less?"
well yea, obviously they are not going to raise everyone's salary automatically if a new hire negotiates for more.
...the burden falls on the employee to keep their salary competitive, not the employer.
The employee has the option of leaving if they find the salary unsatisfactory.
i guess it just shows that the company is somewhat inept if they want to pay someone with no experience in this position and less education more money than an existing employee. I'll get a new job and then they will have highly paid people who don't know what to do. -
vidro3 wrote: [quote=whynot_31]The employer frequently takes the perspective "why would I pay him more, when he presently working for less?"
well yea, obviously they are not going to raise everyone's salary automatically if a new hire negotiates for more.
...the burden falls on the employee to keep their salary competitive, not the employer.
The employee has the option of leaving if they find the salary unsatisfactory.
i guess it just shows that the company is somewhat inept if they want to pay someone with no experience in this position and less education more money than an existing employee. I'll get a new job and then they will have highly paid people who don't know what to do.
But thats not necessarily the case- I mean, the workforce is FLOODED with overqualified applicants for virtually every position- maybe the new hire is exceptionally smart? Maybe he or she possesses skills the company is looking for for a future position/management/etc? there are so many aspects of corporate politics that could be going into play- it's not necessarily that the hiring manager is an incompetent asshole. Lots of unexperienced people are very, very smart and could easily learn the job of 5 years of experience in a month.. -
vidro3 wrote: [quote=whynot_31]The employer frequently takes the perspective "why would I pay him more, when he presently working for less?"
well yea, obviously they are not going to raise everyone's salary automatically if a new hire negotiates for more.
...the burden falls on the employee to keep their salary competitive, not the employer.
The employee has the option of leaving if they find the salary unsatisfactory.
i guess it just shows that the company is somewhat inept if they want to pay someone with no experience in this position and less education more money than an existing employee. I'll get a new job and then they will have highly paid people who don't know what to do.
But thats not necessarily the case- I mean, the workforce is FLOODED with overqualified applicants for virtually every position- maybe the new hire is exceptionally smart? Maybe he or she possesses skills the company is looking for for a future position/management/etc? there are so many aspects of corporate politics that could be going into play- it's not necessarily that the hiring manager is an incompetent asshole. Lots of unexperienced people are very, very smart and could easily learn the job of 5 years of experience in a month.. -
i don't believe that to be the case
-
i don't believe that to be the case
-
I can't speak to your specific instance...but if you really fail to have any confidence in the upper management of the company, why do you work there?
-
I can't speak to your specific instance...but if you really fail to have any confidence in the upper management of the company, why do you work there?
-
If you think you should be getting paid more, ask for more. If they won't give you more, go somewhere else where they will. If there isn't another place that will give you more, maybe you're not worth more.
-
If you think you should be getting paid more, ask for more. If they won't give you more, go somewhere else where they will. If there isn't another place that will give you more, maybe you're not worth more.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds







