YAWT: Overtime on salaried position

[Reel]

Originally posted by: Reel

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet
Uh...hmm...I'd like to know how they get away with that...are you an independant contractor?

Anything over 40 straight-time hours per week (federal) is OT. You work over 45 hours last week? You receive 5 hours OT. OT is time & a half. OT is not paid at the standard rate.

What part of salaried non-exempt do you not get?

I don't know specifics of how it works. I will be an actual employee of the company. The 45 hours is due to the 9/80 work week. One week is 44 hours and one is 36 hours. I am not sure if it scales based on the week though. I have a lot of the documentation to review and you have me curious so I will start reviewing and get back to you.

Ok. So a quick glance at the paperwork says that this is an exempt position. I guess they pay OT out of the kindness of their heart.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Reel
Ok. So a quick glance at the paperwork says that this is an exempt position. I guess they pay OT out of the kindness of their heart.

:music:
Welcome,
Welcome to the machine.
:music:

 

[vital]

For my first annual review on my first job after college, my boss told me I wasn't putting enough OT hours compared to my coworkers. He got in trouble by upper management for poor workload distribution. Apparently as a professional, you're expected to work overtime. I had to learn the hard way and not get the raise I expected.

 

[fleshconsumed]

OK, upon further searching this is what I found

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=4th&navby=case&no=971099p

It seems that normally, under 29 CFR 778.113 any salaried non-exempt position must be compensated at 1.5x normal hourly rate for any hours working beyond 40 hours a week. However, certain exceptions can be made such as in section 778.114 where employer may recognize that working hours may fluctuate in which case he still pays full salary even if employee worked only 38 hours a week, however he only has to pay 0.5x overtime for any hours working beyond 40 hours a week (can be more, but 0.5x or minimum federal wage is minimum whatever is greater).

It would seem that my current perspective employer operates under 778.114.

Me also thinks that many of the people who responded here about no overtime are actually getting screwed by their employers simply because they are too stupid to look into actual laws. ATOT at its greatest :thumbsup:

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
OK, upon further searching this is what I found

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=4th&navby=case&no=971099p

It seems that normally, under 29 CFR 778.113 any salaried non-exempt position must be compensated at 1.5x normal hourly rate for any hours working beyond 40 hours a week. However, certain exceptions can be made such as in section 778.114 where employer may recognize that working hours may fluctuate in which case he still pays full salary even if employee worked only 38 hours a week, however he only has to pay 0.5x overtime for any hours working beyond 40 hours a week (can be more, but 0.5x or minimum federal wage is minimum whatever is greater).

It would seem that my current perspective employer operates under 778.114.

Me also thinks that many of the people who responded here about no overtime are actually getting screwed by their employers simply because they are too stupid to look into actual laws. ATOT at its greatest :thumbsup:

No, those whose jobs actually meet the requirements of "EXEMPT", are not being stupid, (well maybe, since IMO, the company is raping them ) but are fully within compliance of the Federal labor laws. HOWEVER, quite often, (as I noted earlier) many companies rate their employees as exempt, when in actuality, they DO NOT meet the standards for that.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/fact_exemption.htm

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
OK, upon further searching this is what I found

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=4th&navby=case&no=971099p

It seems that normally, under 29 CFR 778.113 any salaried non-exempt position must be compensated at 1.5x normal hourly rate for any hours working beyond 40 hours a week. However, certain exceptions can be made such as in section 778.114 where employer may recognize that working hours may fluctuate in which case he still pays full salary even if employee worked only 38 hours a week, however he only has to pay 0.5x overtime for any hours working beyond 40 hours a week (can be more, but 0.5x or minimum federal wage is minimum whatever is greater).

It would seem that my current perspective employer operates under 778.114.

Me also thinks that many of the people who responded here about no overtime are actually getting screwed by their employers simply because they are too stupid to look into actual laws. ATOT at its greatest :thumbsup:

No, those whose jobs actually meet the requirements of "EXEMPT", are not being stupid, (well maybe, since IMO, the company is raping them ) but are fully within compliance of the Federal labor laws. HOWEVER, quite often, (as I noted earlier) many companies rate their employees as exempt, when in actuality, they DO NOT meet the standards for that.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/fact_exemption.htm

Yes, I do realize that what I quoted above only applies to non-exempt jobs whether they are salaried or not, and that exempt jobs are not required to pay any overtime.

However, the point I made is still valid - there are far too many responses in this thread that blindly state salaried position = no overtime pay which is simply not true. For the n-th time I see another example of ATOT speaking of something they've been told and repeating it as a broken record and not bothering to do actual research. Waggy + mugs comment about entitlement were especially funny.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: vital
For my first annual review on my first job after college, my boss told me I wasn't putting enough OT hours compared to my coworkers. He got in trouble by upper management for poor workload distribution. Apparently as a professional, you're expected to work overtime. I had to learn the hard way and not get the raise I expected.

In a good company you are not expected to work overtime. You are expected to do your job. If you do your job to the best of your abilities, but you cannot complete it in 40 hours a week, it means that either (1) your have poor management who can't set realistic deadlines or (2) company is exploiting you.

 

[snowdogg187]

salary sucks, I strive to work the 40 hrs

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: vital
For my first annual review on my first job after college, my boss told me I wasn't putting enough OT hours compared to my coworkers. He got in trouble by upper management for poor workload distribution. Apparently as a professional, you're expected to work overtime. I had to learn the hard way and not get the raise I expected.

In a good company you are not expected to work overtime. You are expected to do your job. If you do your job to the best of your abilities, but you cannot complete it in 40 hours a week, it means that either (1) your have poor management who can't set realistic deadlines or (2) company is exploiting you.

You are way too idealistic. I hope you can handle it when you finally grow up and remove your head from the sand. For being "experienced" you sound like a high school senior.

 

[tallest1]

why is this thread so long?

Sir, you are not a salaried employee. You were told what you'd earn if you worked 40 hours a week. You will NOT be working 40 hours a week or anything close to it. The overtime you're getting is called Chinese Overtime. The more hours you work over 40, the less you get. It is legal and commonly used in retail management positions. Its my first time hearing it being used in a different industry. If you don't like it, don't take the job.

 

[LS20]

MOVE TO EUROPE.


btw, 9-8 schedule rocks so harddddd

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: vital
For my first annual review on my first job after college, my boss told me I wasn't putting enough OT hours compared to my coworkers. He got in trouble by upper management for poor workload distribution. Apparently as a professional, you're expected to work overtime. I had to learn the hard way and not get the raise I expected.

In a good company you are not expected to work overtime. You are expected to do your job. If you do your job to the best of your abilities, but you cannot complete it in 40 hours a week, it means that either (1) your have poor management who can't set realistic deadlines or (2) company is exploiting you.

You are way too idealistic. I hope you can handle it when you finally grow up and remove your head from the sand. For being "experienced" you sound like a high school senior.

I'm being realistic here. Tell me, which part of what I just said is not true?

Originally posted by: tallest1
why is this thread so long?

Sir, you are not a salaried employee. You were told what you'd earn if you worked 40 hours a week. You will NOT be working 40 hours a week or anything close to it. The overtime you're getting is called Chinese Overtime. The more hours you work over 40, the less you get. It is legal and commonly used in retail management positions. Its my first time hearing it being used in a different industry. If you don't like it, don't take the job.

Please read above. That is a salaried non-exempt position. I already figured that they work under 29 CFR 778.114. The only question is how they handle their deadlines.

 

[child of wonder]

I don't get anything for OT work. My boss often won't even let me have a little extra time off because of it.

Part of the reason is because we're understaffed.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
OK, upon further searching this is what I found

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=4th&navby=case&no=971099p

It seems that normally, under 29 CFR 778.113 any salaried non-exempt position must be compensated at 1.5x normal hourly rate for any hours working beyond 40 hours a week. However, certain exceptions can be made such as in section 778.114 where employer may recognize that working hours may fluctuate in which case he still pays full salary even if employee worked only 38 hours a week, however he only has to pay 0.5x overtime for any hours working beyond 40 hours a week (can be more, but 0.5x or minimum federal wage is minimum whatever is greater).

It would seem that my current perspective employer operates under 778.114.

Me also thinks that many of the people who responded here about no overtime are actually getting screwed by their employers simply because they are too stupid to look into actual laws. ATOT at its greatest :thumbsup:

No, those whose jobs actually meet the requirements of "EXEMPT", are not being stupid, (well maybe, since IMO, the company is raping them ) but are fully within compliance of the Federal labor laws. HOWEVER, quite often, (as I noted earlier) many companies rate their employees as exempt, when in actuality, they DO NOT meet the standards for that.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/fact_exemption.htm

Yes, I do realize that what I quoted above only applies to non-exempt jobs whether they are salaried or not, and that exempt jobs are not required to pay any overtime.

However, the point I made is still valid - there are far too many responses in this thread that blindly state salaried position = no overtime pay which is simply not true. For the n-th time I see another example of ATOT speaking of something they've been told and repeating it as a broken record and not bothering to do actual research. Waggy + mugs comment about entitlement were especially funny.

Waggy and spidey made comments about entitlement, I didn't. My perspective, as stated a few times, is that you are sacrificing long-term success for marginal increase in pay. You may get your company to pay you time and a half for overtime, but you'll never get a promotion from that company.

What reason do you have to think that the position you're applying for is non-exempt?

 

[Nutdotnet]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet
Ok, so you follow their Policies & Procedures right? Ask to look at what they define as a standard workweek. I'd also ask what the standard workweek is based on. Like I said in the post to spidey, the standard workweek according to the Department of Labor is 40 hours per week.

AFAIK- a company cannot make up their own "standard workweek hours" and only pay OT for anything over it. If they did then I could see a ton of companies saying, "standard workweek may be up to 80 hours"...which a person may never work but 50, 60, 70 hours would all be straight-time...doesn't make sense.

I've worked at places where the standard hour and workweek were outlined as you speak.

Start = 8:30 - 5:00
1 hour lunch
Hours per week salaried = 37.5.

Yup, that's A-OK. Don't get me wrong, a company can state a workweek as being 50 hours...they just have to pay OT for any hours worked over 40 for non-exempt employees.

 

[Nutdotnet]

Originally posted by: Reel

Originally posted by: Reel

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Nutdotnet
Uh...hmm...I'd like to know how they get away with that...are you an independant contractor?

Anything over 40 straight-time hours per week (federal) is OT. You work over 45 hours last week? You receive 5 hours OT. OT is time & a half. OT is not paid at the standard rate.

What part of salaried non-exempt do you not get?

I don't know specifics of how it works. I will be an actual employee of the company. The 45 hours is due to the 9/80 work week. One week is 44 hours and one is 36 hours. I am not sure if it scales based on the week though. I have a lot of the documentation to review and you have me curious so I will start reviewing and get back to you.

Ok. So a quick glance at the paperwork says that this is an exempt position. I guess they pay OT out of the kindness of their heart.

Yup, if it's exempt, and is a LEGAL exempt position then the OT requirement is waived...they are simply doing it as a benefit to employees.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
OK, upon further searching this is what I found

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=4th&navby=case&no=971099p

It seems that normally, under 29 CFR 778.113 any salaried non-exempt position must be compensated at 1.5x normal hourly rate for any hours working beyond 40 hours a week. However, certain exceptions can be made such as in section 778.114 where employer may recognize that working hours may fluctuate in which case he still pays full salary even if employee worked only 38 hours a week, however he only has to pay 0.5x overtime for any hours working beyond 40 hours a week (can be more, but 0.5x or minimum federal wage is minimum whatever is greater).

It would seem that my current perspective employer operates under 778.114.

Me also thinks that many of the people who responded here about no overtime are actually getting screwed by their employers simply because they are too stupid to look into actual laws. ATOT at its greatest :thumbsup:

No, those whose jobs actually meet the requirements of "EXEMPT", are not being stupid, (well maybe, since IMO, the company is raping them ) but are fully within compliance of the Federal labor laws. HOWEVER, quite often, (as I noted earlier) many companies rate their employees as exempt, when in actuality, they DO NOT meet the standards for that.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/fact_exemption.htm

Yes, I do realize that what I quoted above only applies to non-exempt jobs whether they are salaried or not, and that exempt jobs are not required to pay any overtime.

However, the point I made is still valid - there are far too many responses in this thread that blindly state salaried position = no overtime pay which is simply not true. For the n-th time I see another example of ATOT speaking of something they've been told and repeating it as a broken record and not bothering to do actual research. Waggy + mugs comment about entitlement were especially funny.

Waggy and spidey made comments about entitlement, I didn't. My perspective, as stated a few times, is that you are sacrificing long-term success for marginal increase in pay. You may get your company to pay you time and a half for overtime, but you'll never get a promotion from that company.

What reason do you have to think that the position you're applying for is non-exempt?

See the great thing about labor laws is that if you can sue for past damages. Work there for a year make sure you and your boss knows the hours you worked then sue them for back wages and get paid one hell of a end of the year bonus of 4.5 (1.5 * hour rate * 3 for statutory damages). Then sue them again if they fire you over it or don't promote you.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: child of wonder
I don't get anything for OT work. My boss often won't even let me have a little extra time off because of it.

Part of the reason is because we're understaffed.

I bet he would if you threatened to quit.

 

[jdini76]

As far as I know a company can't force you to work more than 40 hours a week. Especialy if they are not paying the labor law's rate of time and a half. But the company can choose to not keep you as an emplyee if you do not work to their expectations. You can take the job to get experience you never know you may like it.

 

[Phokus]

If you work lots of OT, i would take it.

 

[SampSon]

The fact that you actually get OT pay on a salaried job is incredible.

 

[kranky]

This seems like a good time to mention the results of the Information Week 2007 Salary Survey which I got this week.

Age 25 or less, average salary for IT staff is $40,000.

[Based on a survey of 3,561 IT staffers nationwide.]

What does that mean? It probably means some people in this age group who live in high cost of living areas are making $70,000, people in low cost of living areas are making $30,000, and people in areas with an average cost of living make $40,000.

Remember you can't compare salaries without factoring in the location.