• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Lowes class action law suit.

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,501
1,661
126
Geeze...can't people just get a job instead of suing every store they go to :roll:
 

Kaspian

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2004
1,713
0
0
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Geeze...can't people just get a job instead of suing every store they go to :roll:
Do you even know wtf the lawsuit is about?

 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
11
81
Originally posted by: Kaspian
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What's the lawsuit about?
The so called "chinese overtime" on salary employees.
Technically, that is legal in certain circumstances. There does exist an FLSA status that is known as "Salaried Non-Exempt" where a person is paid a fixed salary for any work 40 hours or less per week and any time over 40 hours is paid out at 1/2 of what the hourly rate would be.

However, there are strict qualifications that a job must meet to be eligible for that FLSA status and it seems that Lowes may not have met them.

What would have gotten Lowes in real trouble wasn't the "chinese overtime" but the allegations that hourly employees were required to work during times when they were not clocked in.

ZV
 

imported_Baloo

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2006
1,782
0
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Kaspian
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What's the lawsuit about?
The so called "chinese overtime" on salary employees.
Technically, that is legal in certain circumstances. There does exist an FLSA status that is known as "Salaried Non-Exempt" where a person is paid a fixed salary for any work 40 hours or less per week and any time over 40 hours is paid out at 1/2 of what the hourly rate would be.

However, there are strict qualifications that a job must meet to be eligible for that FLSA status and it seems that Lowes may not have met them.

What would have gotten Lowes in real trouble wasn't the "chinese overtime" but the allegations that hourly employees were required to work during times when they were not clocked in.

ZV
Overtime is paid at regular rate plus 1/2 - not 1/2 of the regular rate.

Without knowing any more details than are present here, it does not sound like an issue with Salaried-exempt employees being treated as non-exempt - in which case Lowes would have been paying them overtime. But rather, Salaried-exempt employees being treated as salaried non-exempt, in which case Lowes owes them money.
 

Epic Fail

Diamond Member
May 10, 2005
6,252
0
0
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Geeze...can't people just get a job instead of suing every store they go to :roll:
They have jobs and are called attorneys.
 

Itchrelief

Golden Member
Dec 20, 2005
1,399
0
71
Originally posted by: Baloo

Overtime is paid at regular rate plus 1/2 - not 1/2 of the regular rate.
Isn't that the same as non-exempt?

edit: confusion seems to be the usage of non-exempt when exempt probably was meant

or not. wow just ignore me. bad logic day.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
11
81
Originally posted by: Baloo
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: Kaspian
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What's the lawsuit about?
The so called "chinese overtime" on salary employees.
Technically, that is legal in certain circumstances. There does exist an FLSA status that is known as "Salaried Non-Exempt" where a person is paid a fixed salary for any work 40 hours or less per week and any time over 40 hours is paid out at 1/2 of what the hourly rate would be.

However, there are strict qualifications that a job must meet to be eligible for that FLSA status and it seems that Lowes may not have met them.

What would have gotten Lowes in real trouble wasn't the "chinese overtime" but the allegations that hourly employees were required to work during times when they were not clocked in.

ZV
Overtime is paid at regular rate plus 1/2 - not 1/2 of the regular rate.
Technically correct, I explained poorly. Better explanation below:

An employee who is in the "Salaried Non-Exempt" FLSA classification can legally be assigned a salary for any number of hours. If a company sets the salary as applicable to 50 hours a week, they still have to pay overtime for any time worked over 40 hours, but the employee's base rate is then computed by taking the weekly salary and dividing by 50 hours. Additionally, any overtime up to 50 hours has already been paid out at the base rate, meaning that the employee is legally only due the difference between base rate and base plus half for the first 10 hours of overtime. In this case, an employee's overtime appears to be paid out at 1/2 rate.

Hypothetical examples from here:

...if nonexempt employee "A" is paid a salary of $400 per week for a normal 40 hour work week, the hourly equivalent is $10 per hour. However, the FLSA does not prescribe how many hours per week of straight time a salary must be intended to compensate. This is left to the market, and the arrangements between employers and employees. Thus, for example, a nonexempt employee ("B") may be hired at a salary of $400 as straight time compensation for a normal work week of 50 hours. In that situation, the hourly equivalent of this salary is $8 per hour. If the employee ("C") is hired at a salary of $400 per week for 37.5 normal straight time hours per week, the hourly equivalent is $10.67 per hour.

Assuming that the salary is the entire compensation received by the employee for work, the employee's regular rate of pay -- and therefore the FLSA overtime rate of pay -- varies depending on what the salary is "for." Assume the hypothetical employees described above actually worked 55 hours in a work week -- 15 FLSA overtime hours. Employee "A's" regular rate is $10 per hour, which paid straight time for 40 hours. S/he is due $15 per hour for each FLSA overtime hour, or an additional $225, for total pay due of $625.

Employee "B" is different. S/he is also due time and one-half for 15 FLSA overtime hours worked, but s/he has "already" been paid the straight time rate of $8 per hour for the first 50 hours. S/he is therefore due "the difference" between the $8 of straight time already paid for these hours and the time and one-half overtime rate of $12 per hour for these hours, or an additional $4 per hour for 10 hours, or an additional $40. S/he has been paid nothing for hours 51-55, and is due $12 per hour for each of these. Thus, total wages due hypothetical employee "B" are $400 + $40 + $60 = $500. This kind of regular rate computation is sometimes, but inaccurately, known as a "half time" pay system.

Employee "C" has a regular rate of $10.67 per hour, and therefore an FLSA overtime rate of $16 per hour. The salary did not compensate for any of the FLSA overtime hours (hours 41-55), so s/he is entitled to an additional $240 for these. However, s/he also worked hours 37.5-40, which are not FLSA overtime hours. In a workweek when employee "C" did not work any FLSA overtime, how s/he was paid for hours 37.5-40 would not be an FLSA concern at all. However, an FLSA regulation requires that in FLSA overtime workweeks, the employee must be paid "all straight time due" in addition to all FLSA overtime due. Absent some peculiar employment arrangement governing payment for hours 37.5-40 (and no such arrangement exists in the hypothetical), employee "C" must be paid straight time for those, or 2.5 hours at $10.67 per hour = $26.68. Total pay due employee "C" is therefore $400 + $26.68 + $240 = $666.68.
ZV
 

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,367
587
126
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: Kaspian
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What's the lawsuit about?
The so called "chineese overtime" on salary employees.
So quit and get a different job?

*sigh*
So you're advocating the mistreatment of employees? You simply say "get another job".

In a lot of states (all?), if you quit your job you cannot get unemployment. What is a single mother/father or anyone for that matter supposed to do if they get mistreated in the work place, but they do not have the financial stability to just up and quit their job?

You're a major asshat if you really think a company should be allowed to mistreat their employees.
 

Kaspian

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2004
1,713
0
0
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: Kaspian
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What's the lawsuit about?
The so called "chineese overtime" on salary employees.
So quit and get a different job?

*sigh*
Hello everyone. My name is Fritzo and I have over 15,000 of worthless thread replies.:roll:


 

Kaspian

Golden Member
Aug 30, 2004
1,713
0
0
The lawsuit got started almost a year after I quit working for them. The reason why I quit had NOTHING to do with the PAY. After 6 years of working for them, I got a better job offer. Almost a year after leaving lowes I received a small package in the mail. Info about the lawsuit, the lawfirm handeling the case and some other information was in it. Every so often (since this whole thing got started 5 year ago or so) I get something in the mail from the firm telling me to sign here, date there, initial this (well you get the point) and mail it back.

I dont know how the firm got my information. Lowes probably handed over list of salaried employees or former employees (within a time frame) to the law firm.
 

Agentbolt

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2004
3,340
1
0
So quit and get a different job?
If you don't like the labor laws here, feel free to quit and move to another country, douchebag. The solution to an employer breaking the law and mistreating it's employees isn't "Well they should've just quit". Grow up.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,501
1,661
126
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: Kaspian
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What's the lawsuit about?
The so called "chineese overtime" on salary employees.
So quit and get a different job?

*sigh*
So you're advocating the mistreatment of employees? You simply say "get another job".

In a lot of states (all?), if you quit your job you cannot get unemployment. What is a single mother/father or anyone for that matter supposed to do if they get mistreated in the work place, but they do not have the financial stability to just up and quit their job?

You're a major asshat if you really think a company should be allowed to mistreat their employees.

Dude...let's put this in perspective here. These are not "career" jobs we're talking about here. When you have a "salaried" position that breaks down to $9-$11 an hour, yeah- get another job instead of suing. If they can't find employees because of their work practices, they'll change.
 

Agentbolt

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2004
3,340
1
0
Dude...let's put this in perspective here. These are not "career" jobs we're talking about here. When you have a "salaried" position that breaks down to $9-$11 an hour, yeah- get another job instead of suing. If they can't find employees because of their work practices, they'll change.
That'll never happen because there's always stupid, lazy people who are desperate for a job. Your tacit claim that companies should be able to take advantage of this and BREAK US LABOR LAWS is moronic.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,501
1,661
126
Originally posted by: Agentbolt
Dude...let's put this in perspective here. These are not "career" jobs we're talking about here. When you have a "salaried" position that breaks down to $9-$11 an hour, yeah- get another job instead of suing. If they can't find employees because of their work practices, they'll change.
That'll never happen because there's always stupid, lazy people who are desperate for a job. Your tacit claim that companies should be able to take advantage of this and BREAK US LABOR LAWS is moronic.
I'm saying TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF. Nobody is forcing people to work there. If you don't like the way they're doing something, go work at Home Depot. They're hiring too, and they're paying the same.
 

Scarpozzi

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
26,007
1,511
126
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: Agentbolt
Dude...let's put this in perspective here. These are not "career" jobs we're talking about here. When you have a "salaried" position that breaks down to $9-$11 an hour, yeah- get another job instead of suing. If they can't find employees because of their work practices, they'll change.
That'll never happen because there's always stupid, lazy people who are desperate for a job. Your tacit claim that companies should be able to take advantage of this and BREAK US LABOR LAWS is moronic.
I'm saying TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF. Nobody is forcing people to work there. If you don't like the way they're doing something, go work at Home Depot. They're hiring too, and they're paying the same.
Maybe, but with Lowes (at least how they used to be), you can get discounted stock options. Once you are in the company for a number of years, you can build up a decent chunk of common stock that you can ultimately sell when you retire.

The point is, once you're there for so many years, it's more difficult to leave because you'd be shorting yourself in the long run because it's unlikely you'll have stock options that would amount to anything by the time you'd retire.

Some people work at Lowes for 20+ years and walk away with a large sum of money...they just work hard up until then and live paycheck to paycheck until then. (thus the lawsuit)
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
76
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: Kaspian
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What's the lawsuit about?
The so called "chineese overtime" on salary employees.
So quit and get a different job?

*sigh*
So you're advocating the mistreatment of employees? You simply say "get another job".

In a lot of states (all?), if you quit your job you cannot get unemployment. What is a single mother/father or anyone for that matter supposed to do if they get mistreated in the work place, but they do not have the financial stability to just up and quit their job?

You're a major asshat if you really think a company should be allowed to mistreat their employees.

Dude...let's put this in perspective here. These are not "career" jobs we're talking about here. When you have a "salaried" position that breaks down to $9-$11 an hour, yeah- get another job instead of suing. If they can't find employees because of their work practices, they'll change.
The salaried positions at the big box stores are not really $9-$11 an hour jobs. They're (at least at Home Depot in the NE) $40,000+/year jobs. The ASMs here make anywhere from low to high $40s with the opportunity to bonus for several thousand dollars more once a year. Store managers make considerably more (in one of the stores I worked, the SM had a bonus of over $30,000). Department heads are not salaried, and they're typically paid at least around $14-$15/hour.

For Lowes in my area, these are the pay grades:

http://i223.photobucket.com/al...For_Class_5_Stores.jpg

Look at salaried positions' salaries. Starting is $13.59 an hour, with some of those salaries being pretty decent.

So would you want to be fvcked over 100s of hours at $13/hour+?
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
76
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: Agentbolt
Dude...let's put this in perspective here. These are not "career" jobs we're talking about here. When you have a "salaried" position that breaks down to $9-$11 an hour, yeah- get another job instead of suing. If they can't find employees because of their work practices, they'll change.
That'll never happen because there's always stupid, lazy people who are desperate for a job. Your tacit claim that companies should be able to take advantage of this and BREAK US LABOR LAWS is moronic.
I'm saying TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF. Nobody is forcing people to work there. If you don't like the way they're doing something, go work at Home Depot. They're hiring too, and they're paying the same.
So just let companies keep on breaking the law until it no longer pays off. That's your solution?
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,501
1,661
126
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: Agentbolt
Dude...let's put this in perspective here. These are not "career" jobs we're talking about here. When you have a "salaried" position that breaks down to $9-$11 an hour, yeah- get another job instead of suing. If they can't find employees because of their work practices, they'll change.
That'll never happen because there's always stupid, lazy people who are desperate for a job. Your tacit claim that companies should be able to take advantage of this and BREAK US LABOR LAWS is moronic.
I'm saying TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF. Nobody is forcing people to work there. If you don't like the way they're doing something, go work at Home Depot. They're hiring too, and they're paying the same.
So just let companies keep on breaking the law until it no longer pays off. That's your solution?
I've been in that situation twice. I've always left and found a better job. Why don't they get a union together if it's so bad?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY