[Compensation for] Overtime

[Lynn1987]

The Inside Sales people at my company were informed this week that we were going from salaried (plus commission) exempt - to salaried (plus commission) non-exempt. We were also given some retroactive pay for the extra time worked over the past couple of years. Sounded great...except that they informed us that we would only get half-time (not time and a half) for any hours worked over 40. Is this common practice? I've never heard of this. Does anyone here have experience with this type of pay arrangement? Thanks!
Lynn

[mhc]

You should look at your state laws for non-exempt employees.

[LadyGeek]

(I retitled your thread.) You could also get familiar with the Fair Labor Standards Act: Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor

I did some quick research, which lead to the eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations. In § 778.112 Day rates and job rates.:

If the employee is paid a flat sum for a day's work or for doing a particular job, without regard to the number of hours worked in the day or at the job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for services, his regular rate is determined by totaling all the sums received at such day rates or job rates in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually worked. He is then entitled to extra half-time pay at this rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek.

I'm not a lawyer, and have no idea if this applies to you. However, it does state a condition in which half-time pay is appropriate.

An additional assumption is that you are under employment by will. You don't have to accept the salary change, but consider the consequences.

[island]

Are you sure that's not backward? You are currently salaried exempt and still got some extra pay? IF so consider yourself lucky.

Exempt means you're exempt from rules require your employer to pay you overtime. Employers aren't prohibited from paying overtime if they want, but they don't have to.

Non exempt means you're not exempt from the rule and your employer has to pay you overtime. So sounds like you'll be in a better place going forward...that is unless they tinker with your base pay and commission rates.

Don't know how much they have to pay you, straight pay, double time, whatever. May also depend on if you're already a full time employee at 40 hrs a week or not. May also depend on the state or if you're definitely covered under the FLSA. Here's some scoop on that: http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html

I'm salaried exempt and work in health care and frequently scheduled with more than I can possibly complete in 40 hr/week, not counting paperwork so all that is uncompensated. It's a great deal...for my employer so I'm always interested in learning more about how it works for others.

Please keep us posted on how the rules shake out for you. Good luck.

[joe8d]

If the employee is paid a flat sum for a day's work or for doing a particular job, without regard to the number of hours worked in the day or at the job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for services, his regular rate is determined by totaling all the sums received at such day rates or job rates in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually worked. He is then entitled to extra half-time pay at this rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek.[/

I would read that as Determine a hourly rate of pay then use that + extra half hour for a time and a half payment for each hour over 40. Non- exempt means your employer has to abide by the Fed Wage and Hour Law.

[dm200]

Just a guess ... but I suspect this change was probably not due to your employer just being nice and wanting to pay you more, but rather there may have been some kind of audit that led them (or forced them) to reclassify you. If this was the case, I suspect that they are going by the "letter" of the law (and regulations).

[mhc]

If the employee is paid a flat sum for a day's work or for doing a particular job, without regard to the number of hours worked in the day or at the job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for services, his regular rate is determined by totaling all the sums received at such day rates or job rates in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually worked. He is then entitled to extra half-time pay at this rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek.[/

I would read that as Determine a hourly rate of pay then use that + extra half hour for a time and a half payment for each hour over 40. Non- exempt means your employer has to abide by the Fed Wage and Hour Law.

+1

[Ged]

Are you sure that's not backward? You are currently salaried exempt and still got some extra pay? IF so consider yourself lucky.

If it is backward, it could be do to the weekly pay issue. Employees classified as exempt must be paid for a full week if they work any part of a week. If they are given partial pay for a partial week (say a one day unpaid furlough) they legally become non-exempt.

Companies can revert said situation by going back and paying the employee for the unpaid time. This would put the employee back in an exempt classification where pay for overtime would not be required. It sounds like this is what the back pay could have been about.

Companies sometimes pay supervisory exempt employees overtime so that people promoted from non-exempt jobs won't experience a pay cut after being promoted.

[Lynn1987]

(I retitled your thread.) You could also get familiar with the Fair Labor Standards Act: Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor

I did some quick research, which lead to the eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations. In § 778.112 Day rates and job rates.:

If the employee is paid a flat sum for a day's work or for doing a particular job, without regard to the number of hours worked in the day or at the job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for services, his regular rate is determined by totaling all the sums received at such day rates or job rates in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually worked. He is then entitled to extra half-time pay at this rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek.

I'm not a lawyer, and have no idea if this applies to you. However, it does state a condition in which half-time pay is appropriate.

An additional assumption is that you are under employment by will. You don't have to accept the salary change, but consider the consequences.

Thank you for the links! I still have trouble wrapping my brain around the part that if someone is eligible for the "half" part of overtime, they're not eligible for the additional "regular" part, too. And it seems like the commission would negate the "no other form of compensation".

[Lynn1987]

Are you sure that's not backward? You are currently salaried exempt and still got some extra pay? IF so consider yourself lucky.

Exempt means you're exempt from rules require your employer to pay you overtime. Employers aren't prohibited from paying overtime if they want, but they don't have to.

Non exempt means you're not exempt from the rule and your employer has to pay you overtime. So sounds like you'll be in a better place going forward...that is unless they tinker with your base pay and commission rates.

Don't know how much they have to pay you, straight pay, double time, whatever. May also depend on if you're already a full time employee at 40 hrs a week or not. May also depend on the state or if you're definitely covered under the FLSA. Here's some scoop on that: http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html

I'm salaried exempt and work in health care and frequently scheduled with more than I can possibly complete in 40 hr/week, not counting paperwork so all that is uncompensated. It's a great deal...for my employer so I'm always interested in learning more about how it works for others.

Please keep us posted on how the rules shake out for you. Good luck.

I had been salaried & exempt - no extra pay except for commission when I was eligible (sometimes earn it & sometimes don't - and due to the nature of the business & the fact that the commission is based on a goal set by management, more hours worked don't always mean more immediate sales & therefore qualifying for the monthly commission).

[Lynn1987]

If the employee is paid a flat sum for a day's work or for doing a particular job, without regard to the number of hours worked in the day or at the job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for services, his regular rate is determined by totaling all the sums received at such day rates or job rates in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually worked. He is then entitled to extra half-time pay at this rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek.[/

I would read that as Determine a hourly rate of pay then use that + extra half hour for a time and a half payment for each hour over 40. Non- exempt means your employer has to abide by the Fed Wage and Hour Law.

It's apparently being interpreted to mean that ONLY the half-payment for every hour over 40 is necessary. The regular portion has already been paid by the regular salary - regardless of hours worked. But at least I'll be getting a little more than I was....

[steve roy]

I would check with your state labor commissioner and see if your employer's interpretation of overtime is correct. It might be, but I've never heard of "half-pay" overtime, and I've been a labor rep for awhile.

[Lynn1987]

Just a guess ... but I suspect this change was probably not due to your employer just being nice and wanting to pay you more, but rather there may have been some kind of audit that led them (or forced them) to reclassify you. If this was the case, I suspect that they are going by the "letter" of the law (and regulations).

I'm wondering if something prompted it - but I can see how this could possibly be a negative for the employee and a positive for the employer...there are some instances when it's definitely not to the employee's advantage:
- If I take vacation days on Thursday & Friday, but go in on Thursday & work for 4 hours, I would not get anything extra because I didn't work over 40 hours that week
- The overtime rate paid actually goes DOWN the more hours I work -because it's based on the "regular rate" divided by number of hours worked

But, I guess I should look at the bright side - don't plan to work any more than the 45 or so hours I normally work now per week and at least I'll get something extra...

[bottlecap]

Just a guess ... but I suspect this change was probably not due to your employer just being nice and wanting to pay you more, but rather there may have been some kind of audit that led them (or forced them) to reclassify you. If this was the case, I suspect that they are going by the "letter" of the law (and regulations).

Obviously, no one gives "free" money because they feel nice, but this was my first thought, especially simce back pay was given. Your employer spoke with an attorney who pointed out the potential for lawsuits. There's nothing wrong with this - very few companies could survive close scrutiny of their employment practices and it's good for them to be proactive. Employment law is literally a morass of exceptions and caveats. Even big law firms would have a hard time surviving an audit unscathed!

JT

[island]

there are some instances when it's definitely not to the employee's advantage:
- If I take vacation days on Thursday & Friday, but go in on Thursday & work for 4 hours, I would not get anything extra because I didn't work over 40 hours that week

I don't understand this. Why would you go in to work 4 hours (or any hours) on a day you took for vacation?

[Professor Emeritus]

(I retitled your thread.) You could also get familiar with the Fair Labor Standards Act: Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor

I did some quick research, which lead to the eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations. In § 778.112 Day rates and job rates.:

If the employee is paid a flat sum for a day's work or for doing a particular job, without regard to the number of hours worked in the day or at the job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for services, his regular rate is determined by totaling all the sums received at such day rates or job rates in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually worked. He is then entitled to extra half-time pay at this rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek.

I'm not a lawyer, and have no idea if this applies to you. However, it does state a condition in which half-time pay is appropriate.

An additional assumption is that you are under employment by will. You don't have to accept the salary change, but consider the consequences.

1) the commission makes this section inapplicable.
2) the whole purpose of labor laws is so that you don't have to quit your job if the pay or conditions are unlawful

[BrandonBogle]

I know this may sound like a stupid question, but are you sure you (or the person telling you) didn't misinterpret things and really means you would be paid an extra "half-pay" per hour over and above straight pay -- as in, time and a half? Especially if you are hearing this secondhand, it could very well be someone got mixed up and is misinforming you since they are so used to exempt vs. non-exempt.

[Lynn1987]

there are some instances when it's definitely not to the employee's advantage:
- If I take vacation days on Thursday & Friday, but go in on Thursday & work for 4 hours, I would not get anything extra because I didn't work over 40 hours that week

I don't understand this. Why would you go in to work 4 hours (or any hours) on a day you took for vacation?

You're right - a better example might be if I worked extra hours on Monday through Wednesday in preparation for not being there on Thursday & Friday. If I worked two hours extra each day, there would be no compensation at all for the extra 6 hours.

You should look at your state laws for non-exempt employees.

The state DOL site says they don't have any overtime mandates and defer to federal law.

I know this may sound like a stupid question, but are you sure you (or the person telling you) didn't misinterpret things and really means you would be paid an extra "half-pay" per hour over and above straight pay -- as in, time and a half? Especially if you are hearing this secondhand, it could very well be someone got mixed up and is misinforming you since they are so used to exempt vs. non-exempt.

No - it's definitely half time instead of time + half. This was straight from upper management. Below is the best source I found explaining it.

http://hrforms.thompson.com/samples/HFWGH019_sample.pdf

Of course I am well aware that I'm employed at will and there are a lot of things I like about my job. It just seems like this is allowing them to conform with the letter of the law - as defined by "regular pay", without conforming with the spirit of the law. But it seems this is perfectly legal:

http://www.wagehourlitigation.com/miscl ... e-damages/

It seems especially strange to me how this rate actually goes down the more I work. Can't find now where I saw it, but I believe only CA requires employers to divide the "regular pay" by 40 instead of by actual number of hours worked to prevent this sliding scale.

[dm200]

This whole issue can be very complex (and I am NO HR Compliance expert) - but a few experiences over the decades -

1. Unless this has changed, even an "exempt" employee (properly classified according to the letter and spirit of the law) is to be paid "overtime" when performing duties/tasks that would otherwise classify the employee as "non-exempt". I recall, several decades ago, while classified as an "exempt" employee of a major US Corporation, we had to go back (try to remember) several years of what we worked on or did so that the company could pay us for such duties. I received a few dollars. Then, even though "exempt", we were supposed to record overtime hours so that, should any tasks be "non-exempt" we would be paid overtime. I suspect this was all the result of some kind of audit.

2. Later on, again working for another major US employer, I was also in several exempt positions. For details to complex to elaborate here, there was an interesting company policy regarding "snow days" (or similar weather-related situations). The company "policy" was that (despite how bad the roads were, despite what public officials said about staying home, etc.) - the office was never closed for "snow" (or similar. This was very easy to interpret. NEVER!. So, if you were non-exempt, and did not show up, that was either non-paid or a vacation day. If a non-exempt employee arrived late or left early because of snow/weather, only paid for hours worked - balance was non-paid or vacation hours. HOWEVER, if you were an "exempt" employee, if you did not show up or make it in at all, no pay or a vacation day. If you made it in - however late or for however long you stayed, that was considered a FULL work day. So, exempt employees would, if at all possible, make it in to the office, say "hello" to whoever was there sufficient to "document" that you were physically there, then go home.

3. I think there may have been some recent changes in the rules/laws about either 40 hours in one week or 80 hours in 2 weeks increasing the flexibility of employers to not pay overtime to non-exempt employees.

4. Some of the details of the rules may also be affected by which category the "exempt" classification is justified by.

[island]

there are some instances when it's definitely not to the employee's advantage:
- If I take vacation days on Thursday & Friday, but go in on Thursday & work for 4 hours, I would not get anything extra because I didn't work over 40 hours that week

I don't understand this. Why would you go in to work 4 hours (or any hours) on a day you took for vacation?

You're right - a better example might be if I worked extra hours on Monday through Wednesday in preparation for not being there on Thursday & Friday. If I worked two hours extra each day, there would be no compensation at all for the extra 6 hours.

Yeah, but you're salaried so I imagine you get paid vacation days?? 40 hour work week and take 2 days off for vacation. You add 16 hrs of vacation to the 24 regular hrs of the 3 previous work days to total 40 hours. Then add in those 6 extra hours and you have 46. So they still owe you for 46hrs. Isn't that how it would work?

Many places require you to get approval in advance to work overtime to insure employees aren't padding their hours, especially for salaried rather than hourly clock punchers. Is that how it is with your employer?

Lynn, sorry maybe I missed it, but can you confirm what state you live in?

[Lynn1987]

Yeah, but you're salaried so I imagine you get paid vacation days?? 40 hour work week and take 2 days off for vacation. You add 16 hrs of vacation to the 24 regular hrs of the 3 previous work days to total 40 hours. Then add in those 6 extra hours and you have 46. So they still owe you for 46hrs. Isn't that how it would work? I do have paid vacation days, but you have to actually work more than 40 hours in a week to get the extra half-pay. If there are any vacation days & thus less than 40 hours actually worked, there is no extra.

Many places require you to get approval in advance to work overtime to insure employees aren't padding their hours, especially for salaried rather than hourly clock punchers. Is that how it is with your employer? Will have to clarify that with them; up until now it hasn't mattered how much I've worked, so not sure

Lynn, sorry maybe I missed it, but can you confirm what state you live in? Tennessee

[Lynn1987]

This whole issue can be very complex (and I am NO HR Compliance expert) - but a few experiences over the decades -
Yes it is complex - and confusing - thanks for sharing your experience!

1. Unless this has changed, even an "exempt" employee (properly classified according to the letter and spirit of the law) is to be paid "overtime" when performing duties/tasks that would otherwise classify the employee as "non-exempt". I recall, several decades ago, while classified as an "exempt" employee of a major US Corporation, we had to go back (try to remember) several years of what we worked on or did so that the company could pay us for such duties. I received a few dollars. Then, even though "exempt", we were supposed to record overtime hours so that, should any tasks be "non-exempt" we would be paid overtime. I suspect this was all the result of some kind of audit.

2. Later on, again working for another major US employer, I was also in several exempt positions. For details to complex to elaborate here, there was an interesting company policy regarding "snow days" (or similar weather-related situations). The company "policy" was that (despite how bad the roads were, despite what public officials said about staying home, etc.) - the office was never closed for "snow" (or similar. This was very easy to interpret. NEVER!. So, if you were non-exempt, and did not show up, that was either non-paid or a vacation day. If a non-exempt employee arrived late or left early because of snow/weather, only paid for hours worked - balance was non-paid or vacation hours. HOWEVER, if you were an "exempt" employee, if you did not show up or make it in at all, no pay or a vacation day. If you made it in - however late or for however long you stayed, that was considered a FULL work day. So, exempt employees would, if at all possible, make it in to the office, say "hello" to whoever was there sufficient to "document" that you were physically there, then go home. They emphasized that we would not be docked for time taken for doctor's appointments, etc - that we would always be paid at least 40 hours - since we were salaried non-exempt instead of hourly.
3. I think there may have been some recent changes in the rules/laws about either 40 hours in one week or 80 hours in 2 weeks increasing the flexibility of employers to not pay overtime to non-exempt employees.

4. Some of the details of the rules may also be affected by which category the "exempt" classification is justified by.

[island]

No - it's definitely half time instead of time + half. This was straight from upper management. Below is the best source I found explaining it.

http://hrforms.thompson.com/samples/HFWGH019_sample.pdf

Of course I am well aware that I'm employed at will and there are a lot of things I like about my job. It just seems like this is allowing them to conform with the letter of the law - as defined by "regular pay", without conforming with the spirit of the law. But it seems this is perfectly legal:

http://www.wagehourlitigation.com/miscl ... e-damages/

It seems especially strange to me how this rate actually goes down the more I work. Can't find now where I saw it, but I believe only CA requires employers to divide the "regular pay" by 40 instead of by actual number of hours worked to prevent this sliding scale.

I looked at those links and OK now I think I understand the calculation in the first one and yeah, I get how it definitely benefits the employer.

From the example they gave it looks like it's weekly salary divided by hours worked to yield an hourly wage that you half to get the overtime rate. More hours worked the smaller that hourly rate. It's easier to see if you look at the example in your first link and calculate it out:

If you worked 50 hrs:
$500 weekly salary/50 hrs worked =$10hr. Half that to yield overtime rate of $5hr x 10hrs of overtime = $50 in overtime pay.

But if you work 60 hrs its:
$500 weekly salary/60hrs worked = $8.33hr. Half that to yield overtime rate of $4.17hr x 20hrs of overtime = $83.40 in overtime pay.

See how the hourly rate goes down as hours increase? More you work in overtime the less you make per hour and the less it costs the company. You're making more money, but break it down by hour and it's a different picture. Seems like the more you and your coworkers work overtime the fewer of you they'd need eventually!

HOWEVER sounds like you got that info from a search rather than your employer and from what I'm finding that looks like a calculation used for salaried employees with fluctuating hours rather than a fixed schedule and is sometimes called "Chinese Overtime".

If true half time the overtime wage per hour would not vary per hrs worked. Weekly salary/40hrs to yield an hourly rate. Half that hourly rate x hours of overtime = overtime pay.
Example weekly salary for 40 hrs = $500/40 =$12.5hourly rate. Half that = $6.25hr x hours of overtime and the $6.25 is a constant, used to calculate every overtime hour.

Check out the FAQs here to read about the differences, especially in section #1 and #5
http://www.overtime-flsa.com/faq

Hope yours is true half time!

Also the 2nd link you provided looks a calculation used to capture back pay owed for employees misclassified as exempt so I wouldn't trust that as applying to you either.

Best to check with your HR and ask them to give you some examples with your salary.

Interesting stuff; please keep us posted.

[LadyGeek]

I would also be cautious on how this subject is broached with HR. The job of HR is to protect the company's reputation, not yours.

I would simply say that the new salary structure is confusing and that you'd like some examples to help plan your home expenses (pay the bills, etc.).

If you go in there with guns blazing (how can you possibly cut my salary??), you'll either be first on the "unofficial" layoff list, or, at the bottom of the promotion list.

[SteveB3005]

Odd corporate culture, to pull something out of the bag that would seem so worker unfriendly, without putting some positive spin on it beforehand.

[BrandonBogle]

Odd corporate culture, to pull something out of the bag that would seem so worker unfriendly, without putting some positive spin on it beforehand.

The "positive spin" is likely "you are getting retroactive overtime pay". Greedy minds likely wouldn't be thinking too hard about this like the Op has.

[Lynn1987]

No - it's definitely half time instead of time + half. This was straight from upper management. Below is the best source I found explaining it.

http://hrforms.thompson.com/samples/HFWGH019_sample.pdf

Of course I am well aware that I'm employed at will and there are a lot of things I like about my job. It just seems like this is allowing them to conform with the letter of the law - as defined by "regular pay", without conforming with the spirit of the law. But it seems this is perfectly legal:

http://www.wagehourlitigation.com/miscl ... e-damages/

It seems especially strange to me how this rate actually goes down the more I work. Can't find now where I saw it, but I believe only CA requires employers to divide the "regular pay" by 40 instead of by actual number of hours worked to prevent this sliding scale.

I looked at those links and OK now I think I understand the calculation in the first one and yeah, I get how it definitely benefits the employer.

From the example they gave it looks like it's weekly salary divided by hours worked to yield an hourly wage that you half to get the overtime rate. More hours worked the smaller that hourly rate. It's easier to see if you look at the example in your first link and calculate it out:

If you worked 50 hrs:
$500 weekly salary/50 hrs worked =$10hr. Half that to yield overtime rate of $5hr x 10hrs of overtime = $50 in overtime pay.

But if you work 60 hrs its:
$500 weekly salary/60hrs worked = $8.33hr. Half that to yield overtime rate of $4.17hr x 20hrs of overtime = $83.40 in overtime pay.

See how the hourly rate goes down as hours increase? More you work in overtime the less you make per hour and the less it costs the company. You're making more money, but break it down by hour and it's a different picture. Seems like the more you and your coworkers work overtime the fewer of you they'd need eventually! My thoughts exactly!!

HOWEVER sounds like you got that info from a search rather than your employer and from what I'm finding that looks like a calculation used for salaried employees with fluctuating hours rather than a fixed schedule and is sometimes called "Chinese Overtime". Yes this would make more sense if we actually had varying work schedules (scheduled to work more hours in some weeks and less in others based on work demand), but we do not. We're expected to work at least an 8 hour day 5 days a week - unless we have a holiday, vacation day, or are out for a couple of hours for a doctor's appointment. It sounds like this calculation was initially intended for jobs where there were significant variations in the workload from week to week.

If true half time the overtime wage per hour would not vary per hrs worked. Weekly salary/40hrs to yield an hourly rate. Half that hourly rate x hours of overtime = overtime pay.
Example weekly salary for 40 hrs = $500/40 =$12.5hourly rate. Half that = $6.25hr x hours of overtime and the $6.25 is a constant, used to calculate every overtime hour.

Check out the FAQs here to read about the differences, especially in section #1 and #5
http://www.overtime-flsa.com/faq

Hope yours is true half time! It is not - it is the "Chinese Overtime" calculation.

Also the 2nd link you provided looks a calculation used to capture back pay owed for employees misclassified as exempt so I wouldn't trust that as applying to you either. We've already received the check for the retroactive pay, along with details showing how they calculated it for each week - and will be how it's calculated going forward. The weekly pay was divided by the actual number of hours worked.

Best to check with your HR and ask them to give you some examples with your salary.

Interesting stuff; please keep us posted.

I would also be cautious on how this subject is broached with HR. The job of HR is to protect the company's reputation, not yours.

I would simply say that the new salary structure is confusing and that you'd like some examples to help plan your home expenses (pay the bills, etc.).

If you go in there with guns blazing (how can you possibly cut my salary??), you'll either be first on the "unofficial" layoff list, or, at the bottom of the promotion list.

Excellent advice, LadyGeek - thank you and will heed this.

Odd corporate culture, to pull something out of the bag that would seem so worker unfriendly, without putting some positive spin on it beforehand.

The "positive spin" is likely "you are getting retroactive overtime pay". Greedy minds likely wouldn't be thinking too hard about this like the Op has.

Yes - upper management made quite a big deal of the fact that everyone was getting a check for retroactive pay and they did not have to do that, but decided it was the right thing to do. They started out as salespeople and are still quite good at it. Everyone seemed thrilled that they were getting an unexpected check and "overtime' going forward.

[Phineas J. Whoopee]

I remember one situation in which a corporation reclassified everybody in a particular job role (hundreds and hundreds of them) as non-exempt, with weekly time reports and everything.

It turned out to be a prelude to very considerable force reductions for those people. By making everybody non-exempt they only had to pay for hours worked, and began ramping down schedules. There were few actual layoffs. Mostly the employees quit to get other exempt jobs elsewhere.

I had already predicted, quietly, only to myself really, that the function they filled was soon to be reduced due to a massive productivity boost that came from applying new technology.

The ones hurt the most were those who told themselves it was only a temporary setback.

The ones most helped were those, mostly new hires from outside, who were already skilled with the technology. Sorry, that should be the employees most helped. The ones most helped were the customers and the shareholders.

PJW

[dm200]

I remember one situation in which a corporation reclassified everybody in a particular job role (hundreds and hundreds of them) as non-exempt, with weekly time reports and everything.

It turned out to be a prelude to very considerable force reductions for those people. By making everybody non-exempt they only had to pay for hours worked, and began ramping down schedules. There were few actual layoffs. Mostly the employees quit to get other exempt jobs elsewhere.

I had already predicted, quietly, only to myself really, that the function they filled was soon to be reduced due to a massive productivity boost that came from applying new technology.

The ones hurt the most were those who told themselves it was only a temporary setback.

The ones most helped were those, mostly new hires from outside, who were already skilled with the technology. Sorry, that should be the employees most helped. The ones most helped were the customers and the shareholders.

PJW

A few employment experiences in large companies:

1. When there is a management change at the top of an organization, and the new guy/gal in charge announces: "I am not here to 'clean house' !" TRANSLATION: "I AM here to 'clean house' "

2. At two different employers, eliminating free coffee preceded large layoffs by 2-3 months.

3. I endorse 100% that post that HR's responsibilities are exclusively (or almost exclusively) for the benefit of the employer, stockholders (if applicable) and the top management of the company/organization.

[island]

I'm not an attorney, HR specialist or expert in anyway, but the more we discuss it and the more I read on those websites the more half rate overtime seems wrong in your case. I'm probably missing some things, but it looks like the rules are clear that the half time rate is only for non-exempt salaried employees who have fluctuating schedules and you don't. Otherwise non-exempt salaried employees are legally owed time and a half.

Or maybe they're also redefining your work week as not based on 40 hours, salaried based on a day rate, or??

And with the half time calculation it looks like they're supposed to add in commissions (salary aguments) to figure the overtime rate if any are earned the same week you work overtime. Do you know if that's going to happen?
http://www.flsa.com/overtime.html

Google labor law websites. You might find some where you can ask a question and get a response.

Interesting topic.

[Lynn1987]

From what I've read, I think the FWW method was intended for those who work substantially fluctuating work weeks (maybe a firefighter who is "on duty" for several days, then "off duty" for a few days) because he might have substantial overtime one week, then work less than 40 hours the next. However, this seems to be a loophole that companies have discovered and taken advantage of to avoid paying "real" overtime. I saw a recent court case where it was upheld to be used for those with slightly fluctuating work weeks (will post the link when I have more time to look for it). I'm still not clear on whether that applies only if you're scheduled to work different hours from one day or one week to the next. I'm not - I have core hours I'm expected to work, but work more on most weeks to get my workload completed (as does everyone in my department).

Thank you to everyone who has taken time to research and give their experiences to weigh in on this. I'm learning a lot from this site - until recently I thought that a financial advisor who was paid on an AUM fee basis would automatically have my best interest in mind - and that part of HR's function was as sort of a "liaison" between the company and the employee. Have found out that neither of those is true.

island - yes, the commission (broken down into a weekly amount) is included in the amount used to determine the weekly "regular rate".

Now, I'm off to work to see if there's a donation box by the coffee machine this morning.

[dm200]

Now, I'm off to work to see if there's a donation box by the coffee machine this morning.

Yes, it was interesting that my being a "casualty" of significant company downsizing/layoffs for the two different companies were both preceded by the elimination of the "free coffee" employee benefit.

[Lynn1987]

Now, I'm off to work to see if there's a donation box by the coffee machine this morning.

Yes, it was interesting that my being a "casualty" of significant company downsizing/layoffs for the two different companies were both preceded by the elimination of the "free coffee" employee benefit.

So far the coffee is still free and no reduction of flavors - so we're good on that count. It's been an unusually slow week, so the overtime hasn't come into play. We were advised that an assistant who's been helping with some routine tasks would be taking on some other duties for another department and not able to help us as much. So that does sound like they're planning to get more work out of fewer people. Guess I'll have to wait until we are busier to see how this is really going to play out...