• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

OVERTIME OVERHAUL Obama reportedly to issue order expanding eligibility

Nonsense. If the boss wants their non-exempt employees to be present during specified hours then they have to be there. Exempt status has nothing to do with flexible hours. The reason why some people have more flexible hours than others is because their boss allows it. Bosses can give non-exempt employees just as much flexibility as they give exempt ones, if they so choose.



Correct, which goes to my point that there is no added flexibility associated with being exempt or non-exempt.

I agree.

I once worked for a Semiconductor manufacturing company. They let us work the hours we wanted assembling and testing equipment as long as the work got done. It was the best job I ever had. On occasion, they required up to be there for certain hours, but we generally just set our own hours.
 
Are you offering to find a new job for those that are being abused? Otherwise STFU
Abused?

They go into it knowing the package. It was their choice to take the job.
 
If you are salaried, you are defiend as exempt. To qualify as an exempt employee, you have to be salaried. It's the first bullet point below:

First of all, your own quote (with no link?) contradicts your claim that all salaried employees are exempt. That why they say "may be classified as exempt if they meet the following criteria: " and not "are always classified as exempt if they meet the following criteria: "

Furthermore, there are additional requirements in order to be considered exempt.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17a_overview.pdf

Executive Exemption
To qualify for the executive employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met:
• The employee must be compensated on a salary basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less
than $455 per week;
• The employee’s primary duty must be managing the enterprise, or managing a customarily recognized
department or subdivision of the enterprise;
• The employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two or more other full-time
employees or their equivalent; and
• The employee must have the authority to hire or fire other employees, or the employee’s suggestions
and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of
other employees must be given particular weight.
Administrative Exemptions
To qualify for the administrative employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met:
• The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not
less than $455 per week;
• The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to
the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and
• The employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect
to matters of significance.

Professional Exemption
To qualify for the learned professional employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met:
• The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not
less than $455 per week;
• The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge, defined
as work which is predominantly intellectual in character and which includes work requiring the
consistent exercise of discretion and judgment;
• The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning; and
• The advanced knowledge must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual
instruction.
To qualify for the creative professional employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met:
• The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not
less than $455 per week;
• The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of work requiring invention, imagination,
originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavo

The link goes on to describe a number of other categories of exemptions. It is not nearly as simple as you claim
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. If the boss wants their non-exempt employees to be present during specified hours then they have to be there. Exempt status has nothing to do with flexible hours.

Of course, but that hardly changes the fact that most exempt employees have far more flexability than non-exempt.

There are many links that will disuss this, and here is simply one of them:

What Are the Benefits of Being Exempt Vs. Non-Exempt? | Chron.com

Exempt Benefits: Flexibility
Because exempt employees are compensated for the jobs they do and not the time it takes them, they often have a more flexible work environment than non-exempt employees. Employers are often more interested that these workers complete their jobs than the time it takes them to do those jobs, so employers may be less concerned if workers take longer lunch breaks, come in late or work in areas other than the office.
 
First of all, your own quote (with no link?) contradicts your claim that all salaried employees are exempt.

<snip>

Regardless, there is some truth to underhanded upper management. On employer I worked for paid their salaried employees for the extra hours worked, but only under authorized conditions. I once asked on of the supervisors why they weren't claiming overtime. They were working 10-12 hr days without extra pay. They said if they claimed too much overtime, that they were afraid the company would replace them with someone who wouldn't claim it.

Still, I maintain my position that people going into these jobs know the score.
 
First of all, your own quote (with no link?) contradicts your claim that all salaried employees are exempt. That why they say "may be classified as exempt if they meet the following criteria: " and not "are always classified as exempt if they meet the following criteria: "

Furthermore, there are additional requirements in order to be considered exempt.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17a_overview.pdf



The link goes on to describe a number of other categories of exemptions. It is not nearly as simple as you claim

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

An exempt employee is considered to be exempt from overtime. Only certain types of employees are exempt: managerial, supervisory, and professional employees. Exempt employees are salaried; that is, they are paid annually. They do not have to be paid overtime, like hourly employees.
 
I've seen no credible evidence that the exempt have more flexibility than the non-exempt. I don't consider your source to be credible

I have little doubt no matter how many links I provide, you wouldn't find them credible. The simple fact is, exempt employees are typicalyl given far more flexability than an hourly emplyoee.

Let's try my theory. Here's another one for you to dismiss:

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/09/business/fi-35415

Executives, administrators and professionals are more highly paid than regular employees and have some control over their working hours. They determine which tasks require their attention and how much time they will devote to each task. Their hours may vary from week to week, so that a slow week may be followed by a period of intense work.
 
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

Wrong. If they don't meet the requirements, they may be salaried but don't meet the other conditions such as having "the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance."

Just admit that you were wrong to say that "if you are salaried, you are exempt by definition." (BTW, I'm paraphrasing what you said)


Saying "all exempt employees are salaried" is not the same as saying "all salaried employees are exempt". You said the latter
 
I have little doubt no matter how many links I provide, you wouldn't find them credible. The simple fact is, exempt employees are typicalyl given far more flexability than an hourly emplyoee.

There is nothing simple about it and it is not a fact

It is an opinion
 
Wrong. If they don't meet the requirements, they may be salaried but don't meet the other conditions such as having "the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

If they are exempt they do not qualify for OT and they are salaried emplyoees. If they are non-exempt, they qualify for OT and are not salaried employees. Feel free to provide a cite proving that wrong.
 
A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.
 
If they are exempt they do not qualify for OT and they are salaried emplyoees.

That is not what you said before. You said "if they are salaried, they are exempt" which is not true

If you are salaried, you are defiend as exempt.


If they are non-exempt, they qualify for OT and are not salaried employees. Feel free to provide a cite proving that wrong.

Wrong. I already posted a link to DOL which proves that being salaried is not sufficient to be considered exempt

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17a_overview.pdf

For example, if your salary is less than $455/wk, you are salaried *and* non-exempt
 
There is nothing simple about it and it is not a fact

It is an opinion

Not really. It is a fact that exempt employees typicalyl have far more flexability than hourly.

Here is another source for you to proclaim unreliable:

So Which Is Better?

That depends on you. Some workers would rather be employed in nonexempt positions to ensure they're paid for every hour they work. Others prefer the latitude that comes with salaried positions. For example, most nonexempt employees are going to be held to a more stringent standard regarding things like casual time. Exempt employees can ordinarily spend a reasonable amount of time around the watercooler without incurring the boss's wrath; nonexempt employees' time tends be more closely monitored, and designated breaks are allowed only at certain times during the workday.

Generally, exempt employees are paid more than nonexempt employees, because they are expected to complete tasks regardless of the hours required to do them. If staying late or coming in early is required to do the job, exempt employees are frequently expected to do just that. Nonexempt employees typically work only the prescribed number of hours.

This article is intended to be a primer on this issue, but HR laws and regulations can be enormously complex. For more information, visit the Department of Labor's Web page that addresses these issues.

What's the Difference Between Exempt and Nonexempt Workers?
 
For example, if your salary is less than $455/wk, you are salaried *and* non-exempt

No, if the salary is less than $455/week, you are not salaried, as you are then eligible for OT, which would then make you an hourly non-exempt employee.
 
No, if the salary is less than $455/week, you are not salaried, as you are then eligible for OT, which would then make you an hourly non-exempt employee.

" if the salary is less than $455/week, you are not salaried" :lamo
 
" if the salary is less than $455/week, you are not salaried" :lamo

Exactly. So what happens when your supposed salaried individual works 41 hours?
 
" if the salary is less than $455/week, you are not salaried" :lamo
I agree.

That's pretty pitiful for a salaried job. Even $1,000/week is low in my opinion.
 
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?

So we have to accept that we will need to pay more for things so that we can get paid more in order to afford the rising costs of things? What is this actually accomplishing?
 
It depends on whether or not they are exempt.

Since they make less than the minimum, they are non exempt.

So again, what happens to your supposed salaried individual when he works 41 hours?

Originally Posted by sangha
" if the salary is less than $455/week, you are not salaried"
 
Back
Top Bottom