• 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

Wrong again. I can't believe you're actually arguing that people who receive a salary are not salaried employees.

If they do not meet the requirements of the law, they are hourly employees. Sure, they get paid. Sure you can call their wage a salary if you would like, but they are not salaried by definition. They are hourly employees.
 
Right, they receive a predetermined salary each week - again. OT is not part of a predetermined salary. Despite your unsubstantiated claims.

Yes, they receive a predetermined amount each week, so they are salaried.

The definition I just posted does not say they can't receive additional money. It doesn't say they have to receive the same amount each week. It only says the amount can't be decreased.

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
 
If they do not meet the requirements of the law, they are hourly employees. Sure, they get paid. Sure you can call their wage a salary if you would like, but they are not salaried by definition. They are hourly employees.

There are no salary requirements. Just a definition of salary and the definition includes non-exempt employees.

They are hourly employees.

Really? Hourly, you say?

So what happens when the person with a $400/wk salary only works 30 hours in one week?
 
...........

And if they do not meet those requirements, are they salaried? No.
This makes no sense. What do you think it means to be salaried? A salaried employee is simply someone who has a set annual earnings as opposed to an hourly wage. The FLSA has nothing to do with determining whether or not an employee is salaried.

People that are salaried are not eligible for OT and agrees to a salary for a timeframe (typically a year).
This is inaccurate. People who are salaried are eligible for OT if they are non-exempt because your specific job duties may disqualify you for exempt status despite the fact that you are salaried.
 
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.

Well I did it so I know he's mistaken.
 
Yes, they receive a predetermined amount each week, so they are salaried.

The definition I just posted does not say they can't receive additional money. It doesn't say they have to receive the same amount each week. It only says the amount can't be decreased.

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

If they receive more, due to working more hours, that is not a predetermined amount. That is a predetermined amount + extra money.
 
If they receive more, due to working more hours, that is not a predetermined amount. That is a predetermined amount + extra money.

Correct - the OT is not a predetermined amount

But the salary is.
 
Why would you prefer being exempt?

Because you never have to worry about your hours being cut, or running out of time to complete your tasks well.
 
Turns out I was wrong, on this piece (to make myself feel a little better: I am still correct that exempt employees typically have more flexibility from employers)

Based on this website - and these were a lot of the problems I saw with it, so I can't believe employers actually do it... It is just a bomb waiting to happen.

Why I Don’t Like “Non-Exempt Salaried” Arrangements | Payroll Experts

Don’t do it. It’s a trap. No, I’m not saying that your employees are trying to trap you. What I am saying is that sooner or later the nature of non-exempt salaried arrangements often leads employers to inadvertently violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
 
So what would be your coherent argument against it? What is your argument against people working harder and earning money?

People need the opportunity to find their passion in life, they shouldn't be offered more money to work more hours away from their friends and families, and its not good for their health working longer hours.
 
Salaried employees are paid a flat rate regardless of how many hours they work that week. 'Time off' for things like doctors appointments, illness, long lunch, whatever, doesn't reduce your pay. Salary is more about being goal oriented then clock watching.

IMO, salaried employees are more productive then hourly. There may be times when more hours are needed to complete something, and times when it's not. The employer knows their labor costs regardless of the number of hours to complete the job/project.

But to each her own.

Once more, if this is true, the current administration is jeopardizing full time employment. After all, why pay someone salary if there will be mandatory add ons? Back to hourly.... and two part timers is cheaper then one full timer plus overtime. ;)

Not true. Taking a day for a Dr visit WITHOUT a personal or sick day = one less days pay. Showing up late or leaving early with using personal time or sick time hours doesn't dock pay, but it's usually expected to be "paid" back in the form of longer days after.

From my experience, working for various companies, in various fields, as a salaried worker for the last 15 years.
 
Abused?

They go into it knowing the package. It was their choice to take the job.

Not always true. I was told an average of 45 hours per week, 1 hour lunch each day, etc. I have yet to receive more than 20 minutes for lunch. And my average is 55 hours per week, with holiday season bumping it to 65-70.

And restaurant management was even worse. 20 minute lunches would be a dream to many managers in food service.
 
This a response to an existing problem.

Employers cut payrolls during the recession. The amount of work that needed to be done was not reduced. It fell to the salaried employees (mostly managers, who, at the time, qualified for executive exemption) to take on that burden. The number of hours they worked increased exponentially. PLUS. They were doing the jobs of their hourlies...more than executive or administrative duties. Meaning, they now were no longer eligible for executive exemption of OT.

At first, no big deal. Everyone did their part to survive. It was understood that this was the needs of the business. But in recent years, as wages remain frozen, mid level bonuses still in hiatus, payrolls still slashed, and mid managers still burning the candle on both ends for their employer...but corporate profits and profit margins soaring, executive bonuses and other compensation setting records...the anger built. Lawsuits were filed. Class actions. All across America, managers are suing for lost OT compensation as a result of no longer being exempt due to not having any staff. My company alone is now facing it's THIRD class action in 5 years from mid managers over this same subject.

Frankly, most of us don't WANT to be made hourly...we just want our staff back. Pay them...or pay us.

This attempt by the current administration seems to be an effort to fix the issue on a broader scale without having to settle suit after suit after suit.

Sadly, it's not addressing the real. Which is, despite record busting profitability, companies are staying the course of slashed payrolls. I have my OPINIONS as to why this is, as I'm sure all of you do as well.
 
Turns out I was wrong, on this piece (to make myself feel a little better: I am still correct that exempt employees typically have more flexibility from employers)

Based on this website - and these were a lot of the problems I saw with it, so I can't believe employers actually do it... It is just a bomb waiting to happen.

Why I Don’t Like “Non-Exempt Salaried” Arrangements | Payroll Experts

Well, if it helps you feel better, I can understand why you believe that exempts have more flexibility. For one thing, you're a professional and I assume you work with other professionals. Being highly skilled and educated makes you (and them) more valuable to the employer, and as a result the employer is motivated to do more to keep such workers happy and not just financially. This is why it used to be true for the overwhelming majority of exempt

However, this is not the rule as it once was. Many employers have used exempt status to limit their labor costs and as a result many people who are not quite as skilled or educated as you and I have been classified as exempt. It's no longer for the highly skilled and now applies also to secretaries, fast food workers, sales "associates", etc - IOW, people that are more easily replaced so the employer doesn't have to allow them as much flexibility as what you have experienced.

And that's why we're seeing an increase in the # of lawsuits claiming that employers are illegally denying their employees overtime.
 
Sadly, it's not addressing the real. Which is, despite record busting profitability, companies are staying the course of slashed payrolls. I have my OPINIONS as to why this is, as I'm sure all of you do as well.

Sure. There is high unemployment and they can get away with it. When there is demand for employees instead of demand for jobs, that will reverse itself. Why would that surprise anyone. Unemployment is at the base of all the fiscal problems of the current economy.
 
Not true. Taking a day for a Dr visit WITHOUT a personal or sick day = one less days pay. Showing up late or leaving early with using personal time or sick time hours doesn't dock pay, but it's usually expected to be "paid" back in the form of longer days after.

From my experience, working for various companies, in various fields, as a salaried worker for the last 15 years.

Perhaps that is your personal experience, but it's not mine.

I've been with this company for 14 years, and it's been the same for at least 12 years of it: making sure the work is done is the goal. I've not had to use personal time, vacation time or offset time. Boss does not track my hours, I don't 'punch a clock'. He's called when he's needed something on weekends, nights, even when I have officially been on vacation. He doesn't question where my time is spent. I advise him when I'll be out from courtesy.

Perhaps it's the attitude of the worker that sets the parameters of what salary is. Those who are belligerent and display an attitude of 'it's ALL about MY paycheck' rather then truly caring how the company does, that sets the employers attitude towards the employees.
 
And that's why we're seeing an increase in the # of lawsuits claiming that employers are illegally denying their employees overtime.

Even fast food managers have more flexability then the hourly employees, at least in many cases. Anyway, if what you say is true and there really are an increase in the amount of lawsuite, it would seem that law is already sufficient and some companies are simply breaking the law.
 
Even fast food managers have more flexability then the hourly employees, at least in many cases.

Just because someone's job title has the word "manager" in it, that doesn't mean they actually do any managing, qualify as exempt, or have any flexibility


Anyway, if what you say is true and there really are an increase in the amount of lawsuite, it would seem that law is already sufficient and some companies are simply breaking the law.

If the law was sufficient, then why would an increasing # of employers decide to break the law?
 
Just because someone's job title has the word "manager" in it, that doesn't mean they actually do any managing, qualify as exempt, or have any flexibility

If the law was sufficient, then why would an increasing # of employers decide to break the law?

Just as there are 'employees' who would break the law in any number of ways, there will be 'employers' who will do the same.

But it all boils down to the fact if they break one law on the subject, what makes the government think they will adhere to another?
 
Just as there are 'employees' who would break the law in any number of ways, there will be 'employers' who will do the same.

But it all boils down to the fact if they break one law on the subject, what makes the government think they will adhere to another?

When a certain type of crime is increasing, it is common for the law to toughen the penalties for those who break it on the belief that more punitive measure will have a deterrent effect.
 
With all these unilateral changes, when do we stop the charade and declare Obama the benevolent leader of America til death?
 
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?

Did you take it? I am in business for myself I don't use employees anymore and will never use them again. I hire contractors. Its cheaper and I can get rid of them at will if I so choose. Further I have to obligatory FEELINGS. Its all business. Business people don't get overtime. They get whatever the customer pays for service. Is willing to pay. If you are not treated fairly at a job then I would suggest either getting another job or starting your own business. Making more laws and regs just screws things up more.
 
Just because someone's job title has the word "manager" in it, that doesn't mean they actually do any managing, qualify as exempt, or have any flexibility

If they truly do not qualify as exempt, then the company is breaking the law.

If the law was sufficient, then why would an increasing # of employers decide to break the law?

This seems like a silly comment... It sounds like your problem is with the enforcement of the law, not a problem with the law itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom