Originally posted by: Fritzo
Geeze...can't people just get a job instead of suing every store they go to :roll:
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What's the lawsuit about?
Originally posted by: Kaspian
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What's the lawsuit about?
The so called "chinese overtime" on salary employees.
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
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Geeze...can't people just get a job instead of suing every store they go to :roll:
Originally posted by: Baloo
Overtime is paid at regular rate plus 1/2 - not 1/2 of the regular rate.
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.
...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.
Originally posted by: Kaspian
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
What's the lawsuit about?
The so called "chineese overtime" on salary employees.
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*
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*
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 quit and get a different job?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?