• 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

buck said:
No, but it sure does indicate:


if they are making more because of OT, that is not predetermined. If they are non-exempt, the company has to keep track of the employee's hours, unless they want to risk breaking the law, the employee would be eligible for OT and other protections and they would no longer be considered salaried.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. They *are* receiving the pre-determined amount....plus OT.

And if an employee is non-exempt then yes the employer does have to track their hours. That's true whether they are salaried or not.
 
MrVicchio said:
You forced to work for those wages or conditions? No jyst wait for government to fix it for ya! Gotta hand it to the king, doesnt matrer the negative real world damage he's doing, it feels good to emotionally vulnerable helpless folks who cant function unless government makes it FAIR.
Click to expand...

But you are one of those emotionally vulnerable helpless folks who cant function unless government makes it FAIR.....

MrVicchio said:
I work at for a company, big insurance/bank that services military members. But to work for them, I work for a contractor. The first employer I had got fired. They were sued for not paying us for breaks among other bad moves. New employer comes in, this is a foreign contract company. They made us salaried, non-exempt. All good, my pay jumped, good bennies. We work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. They also chose to not pay for breaks, this was pointed out as why our last contractor was fired, so now we get a one hour lunch. With me so far? Good. Here's where it get's fubar. They have declared us "Flexible Work Week" employees. Thus if I work ANY overtime, it's paid at a .5x rate. Now according to the labor department, there are a few requirements to be FWW designated.

Labor: Paying salaried non-exempt employees using the fluctuating workweek method

They sent an HR rep after people voiced displeasure at this apparent violation of the law, and their answer was "you may take calls that last past then end of your shift, so your work week "flexes". The number of people talking lawyer is insane right now. This of course means that come the Holidays, good luck getting anyone to show up![/FONT][/COLOR]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/176379-labor-law-violation-personal-story-3.html
Click to expand...

MrVicchio said:
Due pay for working overtime. They are abusing the law, to claim they don't have to pay us 1.5x over time. I make, in hourly rate, 16.3 an hour. Under their rules, I'd make 8.15 an hour for each hour of overtime, but it gets worse, with these rules, the MORE overtime I work, the lower the payment. For example, I worked ten hours on Labor day (at the time on a 4x10 schedule), under normal over time rules that should have been base pay +1.5x per hour. I got 22 dollars over for working the holiday.

22.

It should have been 224.5

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/176379-labor-law-violation-personal-story-2.html
Click to expand...

****ing hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Not confusing that at all. The law doesn't require exempt employees to have more flexability and I have never claimed that it did.

But the fact is, that exempt employees typically have more flexibility than non-exempt employees.
Click to expand...
This debate started because you stated that you (and your fellow employees) objected to being converted into non-exempt employees because then you would have less flexibility. My point is that the lack of flexibility was not determined by any law, but by your employers choice and you could negotiate to retain that flexibility.
 
buck said:
Not intentionally. There is no law that exempt employees have to be given more flexability. However, they typically are, right?
Click to expand...

Of course not intentionally
 
buck said:
This is a different argument. If someone is salaried, they are exempt. If someone does not meet they requirements of the law, then they are not salaried (and not exempt from the law), they are hourly and are eligible for OT.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Being exempt and being salaried are two different things. If someone doesn't meet the requirements of exemption, then they are non-exempt. But they may be salaried, or maybe not.
 
Utility Man said:
But you are one of those emotionally vulnerable helpless folks who cant function unless government makes it FAIR.....





****ing hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Negatory. Fail post. My issue is my employer is cheating the laws as they are. Big difference
 
sangha said:
That isn't true. They *are* receiving the pre-determined amount....plus OT.

And if an employee is non-exempt then yes the employer does have to track their hours. That's true whether they are salaried or not.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. If they are a salaried employee, they are also exempt.

Employee Compensation Law & Legal Definition

As a consequence of legislative language, salary-earning employees are sometimes referred to as "exempt" employees and hourly workers as "non-exempt"; in other words the first are exempt from the requirements of Fair Labor Standards Act (discussed below), the latter group are covered.
Click to expand...

Since they are covered by the law in question, they are not salaried. They are hourly. The employee has to pay them and ensure they are not working more or less then otherwise stated.
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Of course not indeed. Exempt employees often have more flexibility than non-exempt employees, correct?
Click to expand...

You seem to keep flipping back and forth between two issues and it is giving the appearance that you are either confused or contradicting yourself. So let me try to clarify your position for myself. Are you saying -

1-all salaried employees are exempt (so an employee can not be salaried and non-exempt)
2-all salaried employees have a more flexible work schedule
 
buck said:
Of course not indeed. Exempt employees often have more flexibility than non-exempt employees, correct?
Click to expand...

I went from hourly to salary with my company.

i have a lot more free time now as a salary employee than i did as hourly.

as an hourly employee i had to come into the office and ensure that i logged all my hours etc... i had a super that was pain in the rear which is why i worked the night shift to avoid that mess.

i got a promotion a nice raise was making more than i could make as an hourly person. now i get to work from home. as long as my work get done no one questions it.
i have to track hours just for auditing purposes and the fact that i charge other departments.
 
opendebate said:
You seem to keep flipping back and forth between two issues and it is giving the appearance that you are either confused or contradicting yourself. So let me try to clarify your position for myself. Are you saying -

1-all salaried employees are exempt (so an employee can not be salaried and non-exempt)
2-all salaried employees have a more flexible work schedule
Click to expand...

1) Employers often offer exempt employees more flexibility than they do to non-exempt employees.

2) all salaried employees are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, you can not be salaried and will be an hourly employee eligible for OT and the like.
 
ludin said:
I went from hourly to salary with my company.

i have a lot more free time now as a salary employee than i did as hourly.

as an hourly employee i had to come into the office and ensure that i logged all my hours etc... i had a super that was pain in the rear which is why i worked the night shift to avoid that mess.

i got a promotion a nice raise was making more than i could make as an hourly person. now i get to work from home. as long as my work get done no one questions it.
i have to track hours just for auditing purposes and the fact that i charge other departments.
Click to expand...

Exactly. most businesses are like that. I had the same experience. but am now back to hourly. I hate it, but I still like my job... So what can I do...
 
buck said:
1)
Click to expand...

Employers often offer exempt employees more flexibility than they do to non-exempt employees.
Click to expand...
true

2) all salaried employees are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, you can not be salaried and will be an hourly employee eligible for OT and the like.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. All salaried employees are not exempt.

In order for an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the Department’s regulations.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17a_overview.htm

There are additional requirements that must be met it is not as simple as you appear to be saying here.
 
buck said:
You are incorrect. If they are a salaried employee, they are also exempt.

Employee Compensation Law & Legal Definition
Click to expand...

I can't speak for you, but I consider the DOL a more credible authority on the law than some website, not to mention that "sometimes referred to" does not mean "is"

Or do I have to explain what the meaning of the word "is" is?


Since they are covered by the law in question, they are not salaried. They are hourly. The employee has to pay them and ensure they are not working more or less then otherwise stated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, I know...people who get a salary are not "salaried" :lamo
 
opendebate said:
You seem to keep flipping back and forth between two issues and it is giving the appearance that you are either confused or contradicting yourself. So let me try to clarify your position for myself. Are you saying -

1-all salaried employees are exempt (so an employee can not be salaried and non-exempt)
2-all salaried employees have a more flexible work schedule
Click to expand...

And #1 is just not true while #2 has yet to be proven. I think #2 is just conventional wisdom that is not nearly as common as it once was.
 
buck said:
1) Employers often offer exempt employees more flexibility than they do to non-exempt employees.

2) all salaried employees are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act, you can not be salaried and will be an hourly employee eligible for OT and the like.
Click to expand...

#2 - If your salary is less that $445/wk, you are salaried and exempt.

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



This is incorrect. All salaried employees are not exempt.

In order for an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the Department’s regulations.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17a_overview.htm

There are additional requirements that must be met it is not as simple as you appear to be saying here.
Click to expand...

He keeps ignoring the "all the requirements" part. Even worse, he's arguing that when a worker receives OT for working more than 40 hours, it means they're not receiving a salary, even if they are.
 
opendebate said:
In order for an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the Department’s regulations.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17a_overview.htm

There are additional requirements that must be met it is not as simple as you appear to be saying here.
Click to expand...

Right, you are exactly correct. And if they do not meet those requirements, are they salaried? No. They are hourly employees and will be eligible for such things as OT. People that are salaried are not eligible for OT and agrees to a salary for a timeframe (typically a year).
 
sangha said:
I can't speak for you, but I consider the DOL a more credible authority on the law than some website, not to mention that "sometimes referred to" does not mean "is"
Click to expand...

Actually that website completely agrees with the DOL. As for the "sometimes" part, I guess if you don't take the entire statement in context you are correct. But, it clearly states that the those referenced first (the "exempt employees" sometimes referred to as "salaried employees") are exempt from the law and are therefore hourly employees.
 
buck said:
Right, you are exactly correct. And if they do not meet those requirements, are they salaried? No. They are hourly employees and will be eligible for such things as OT. People that are salaried are not eligible for OT and agrees to a salary for a timeframe (typically a year).
Click to expand...

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17g_salary.pdf

Being paid on a “salary basis” means an employee regularly receives a predetermined amount of compensation
each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent, basis. The predetermined amount cannot be reduced because of
variations in the quality or quantity of the employee’s work.
Click to expand...

If someone receives OT, there is nothing in the DOL's definition that makes them not be salaried.
 
buck said:
Actually that website completely agrees with the DOL. As for the "sometimes" part, I guess if you don't take the entire statement in context you are correct. But, it clearly states that the those referenced first (the "exempt employees" sometimes referred to as "salaried employees") are exempt from the law and are therefore hourly employees.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I can't believe you're actually arguing that people who receive a salary are not salaried employees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom