User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:00:43 PM EDT
[#1]
Salary = no overtime (compensation time or just suck it up!)
Hourly = overtime (pay x1.5 or x2) (at least in my experence) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:03:19 PM EDT
[#2]
I have no clue, so if it were my wife I'd suggest she call someone who would know for sure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:04:50 PM EDT
[#3]
The law doesn't allow you to treat some kinds of folks as "salaried" -- although it usually is OK with management.
My guess is that there were a few people in "gray areas" that they were treating as salaried, but as to whom the law would require O.T. to be paid if they worked 40+ hours a week. They're trying to get those folks to release claims, and its a pretty unsophisticated effort at it. Have your wife review the letter with an employement attorney. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:05:28 PM EDT
[#4]
If she was salaruy, there isnt any overtime due. overtime only comes with hourly work.
of course I could be wonr, I havne only been hourly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:06:03 PM EDT
[#5]
IS your wife directly in charge of anyone/ Does she have the power to hire/fire? Or if not the power does someone above her take her suggestions to hire/fire? If these she is salaried.
look up exempt and non-exempt employees on google. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:10:38 PM EDT
[#6]
My contention is that she was a salary employee that should have been an hourly employee all along. This is a California company and I have read Californias definition of exempt managers and she is right on the line. She can't fire without approval of others.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:19:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Employment laws changed this past year or two, I have been odd jobbing things so I am way out of what applies to anyone else.
I would research the employment law changes and see exactly when things changed and figure out what applies to your wife. Either several hours of research on your own should eliminate questions, or you will be confused enough to consult someone who does this red tape shit for a living and pay their fee for an hours worth of information and knowledge. Personally I hate paperwork to sign and I would ask the people at work, bosses or human resources or whatever, what the fuck. Then again I tend to piss off people by making them follow the law and that is part of why I left my last job with regular pay and have been odd jobbing it for several years. When I worked for a school I dropped copies of ohio law for some paycheck stuff on the big wigs desk, big wig of money for the school, she went to their lawyer and I wound up being told that yeah I could go to court and win but they would not change anything unless I took them to court. For some odd reason my contract to work on busses and drive busses was not renewed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:20:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Bottom line - what you work for in salary is an agreement between you and the company you work for.
If I knew what my salary was, and I agreed to work for it, then so be it. If I was presented with that paper, I would instantly sign it. Holding out, just because you think you *might be entitled* to more, isn't very honorable, in my opinion. Even if the company you work was breaking the law....(doubtful) we agree to work for what we get. We can leave at any time. I wouldnt view this as a "lottery" opportunity, sign the form, and be thankful for the good living I have been able to make thus far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:33:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Horseshit. If they wrote an employement contract with her that didn't conform to the "law" its in her self interest to have the law enforced. Otherwise she's basically letting them steal from her. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:37:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Guess I dont see it that way. Not at all. I knew what my company was paying me, and I agreed to work for that. I can quit anytime I want. Like I said.... if I was presented with that, I would sign immediately. I dont give a shit what laws changed, or what else happened. Just becuase I become "eligible" for something.... and dont take it, that aint the same as letting a company "steel" from me. That is an entitlement attitude.  By the way - I'll try and not take it personally... but your "horseshit" response was rude.... you really should attempt to debate the issue without the "assholelistic" comments. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:37:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Farmers Insurance? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:38:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Agree. Your wife knew what it paid when she took the job. Sign it and move on. My employer revises my pay at irregular intervals, and I just initial where they tell me to and sign the bottom line. I've got a great boss and make a fair amount of money, and I can leave anytime I want to. I don't want to! 1911fan |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:39:59 PM EDT
[#13]
Yeah, stealing. "I was working for $60,000 a year with flexible hours! They paid me $60,000 year with flexible hours! I was robbed!" |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:40:32 PM EDT
[#14]
DO the math.
Did she get paid the same as salary? Do her wages match the hours with 1x at up to 40 and 1.5x over 40? If not, fill in the difference in that box, sign and turn it in. Hell put a million dollars, then they will be forced to explain the fucking thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:43:32 PM EDT
[#15]
Asking for laws to be rewritten to change what you make after the contract is made is an entitlement attitude. Failing to collect what someone owes you under the laws that already exist is a silly attitude. I'm sorry if you felt my advise that this guy get his wife into a lawyer was "entitlement" based, but they've probably got bills to pay and I think there is WAY too much uninformed advice in this thread. Around here, the "revision of pay category" change coupled with a sign-off on lack of past overtime is one set of paper that the employers get into their files right before a massive lay-off. Nothing wrong with checking into it. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 8:47:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Not Farmers, this is not a huge company. Just to clarify, to the best of my knowledge there has not been a change in any employment law that has prompted this change. I am guessing that someone new in HR has pointed out the employees being incorrectly classified.
I very well may just have her sign it because her advancement in the company could be harmed by making an issue of it. It just seems very slimey for the company to try and get them so sign away claim to OT pay due them and diguising it as a signoff on thier new hourly rate. Gonzo, if she signs this has she waived all legal claim to wages due her, if any? Thanks for the advice guys |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:02:57 PM EDT
[#17]
I'd talk to an employment lawyer, but odds are that if she signs and there hasn't been full disclosure AND a situation arose where it made a difference, she'd probably have a defense to enforcement of the waiver. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:06:34 PM EDT
[#18]
Your suspicions are correct. The issue is "exempt" vs. "non Exempt" "exempt" means exempt from OT. Managerial, Professional, and Sales are examples. The catagories are pretty well spelled out. Manages 2 or more people, Requires specialized training, paid on commission, at least $450? per week, etc. That's a brief and inacurate synopsis , but the details should be easy to find.
The main question is did your wife think her compensation was fair and appropriate before all of this, and does she feel it is worth the time, aggrevation and risk that any complaint would entail. Her manager is probably in the hotseat for having people in the wrong catagory. It's probably best to move forward and not make trouble, unless she is planning a job change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:32:54 PM EDT
[#19]
California law is clear on exempt vs. non-exempt employess. It is based on the employees responsibility. If she is in management, she should be exempt. Changing her to non-exempt is probably illegal.
My guess is that somebody has been talking to the California Labor Board and the company is about to be busted. Thus, they are collecting signatures to cover their asses. Edited to ADD: If I were you, I would call the CA Labor Board and ask if this company is under investigation for anything. Ask if what the company is doing is legal!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:35:13 PM EDT
[#20]
not everyone's a lawyer. if the company owes, they should pay. if your too lazy to get what's yours, well then, you don't seem to have a problem living w/ yourself. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:37:52 PM EDT
[#21]
mmm. is that a company you really want to committ to? You're worried about her advancing in a slimey company? i'd start searching somewhere else. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:47:45 PM EDT
[#22]
I wish the hell I was hourly...I'd get paid for the extra hours I work AND I'd be making Shift Differential tonight.
SG |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 9:59:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Thank god.
That is precisely the entitlement attitude I am talking about. To me, they owe me exactly what I agreed to work for. I dont give a damn what the government or any pending lawsuits are saying. To the concept of "what is owed" is subjective.... especially to the entitlement mindset.
First off, it is spelled "you're" as in "you are" I hope you aren't too lazy to practice your grammer and spelling.  Secondly... it isn't about being lazy. It is about being honorable. If my company wants to GIVE me more in the form of a raise or bonus, I will take it. But as I said, when presented with something like that paper.... based on my previous employment agreement, I would absolutely sign it. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:11:23 PM EDT
[#24]
In some states salaried employees are required to keep time cards and are supposed to be paid overtime for over 40 hours just like everyone else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:20:35 PM EDT
[#25]
I'd say before signing anything she ought to consult an attorney specializing in labor law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 10:57:19 PM EDT
[#26]
Whatever you get paid is negotiable and there is no govt. "rule" that I know of other than minimum wage and no "law" regarding salaried versus hourly pay - just tradition. There might be a State ruling somewhere out there but I don't know of any.
I've also never worked for a reasonably sized company (or corporation) that didn't have a written pay policy though. Get a copy of hers (the old one?) and see what it says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:14:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Where I work everyone was salaried until few years ago, someone wrote to the state (no one will admit to it) and they sent down some people to go over the prior 2 yrs times sheets and lots of people ended up getting a pretty good size check. The only people that didn't were the managers/supervisors and elected officials.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2006 11:48:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Ya' know - I'm having second thoughts about what I posted above. There may be something regarding managers versus non-managers and who is entitled to OT. State law? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 12:05:33 AM EDT
[#29]
Probably varies from state to state...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:00:45 AM EDT
[#30]
and this little gem,
Wow. Just Wow. Isn't it great that the .gov will step in, screw your employer and benefit you all in one fell swoop? Your employer laid a number on the table. You took it. End of story. Falark is on the money. Mutual agreement on compensation. If you were honorable, you would not care what the .gov would do; You made the agreement. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:19:39 AM EDT
[#31]
Ya know that word was created and has meaning for a reason. THE PERSON IS ENTITLED to something. If the law says you must pay me this (no matter if I agree to it or not) and you don’t them I am ENTITLED to the correct pay. It may have been a simple mistake and it changes nothing as far as what I am ENTITLED to. Labor laws are used to protect people that may not know EXACTLY what they are ENTITLED to. Are you saying we should scrap ALL labor laws? How do you function outside of the four walls of your house? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:35:30 AM EDT
[#32]
I was a manager at a retail store in Washington....and paid hourly. I was also given the combo to the safe, keys to the store, and had the ability to hire/fire employees. And this was a big retail chain, with multi-million dollar inventory. In my opinion i would rather be hourly than salary.......Hourly you get O.T. However, they could use this as a way of cutting your wifes hours hence she would take a huge cut in pay. They are now just required to keep her at full-time hours which maybe be different in NV but i think here in WA it is above 30 or so. Depending on the company and what their management team is like and HR I wouldn't throw a fit about this, cause like you said, she probably would be let go.
I would deffiently ask questions like if she will be guarnteed 40 hrs a week and the same benefits...... But that is just my experiences |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:45:38 AM EDT
[#33]
Here ya go guys, do the honorable thing and sign it...
I __________, acknowledge receipt of Company XYZ's full disclosure of the findings of State Labor Board's investigation into Company XYZ's labor practices. I understand that the State Labor Board found Company XYZ to be in violation of State Labor Codes 12345.6, 12345.7, and 12345.8. I understand that in accordance with state laws, the Attorney General's office and State Court has issued a legal and binding mandate to Company XYZ in order to compensate all affected employees for back pay equal to the amount affected employees would have earned if Company XYZ had followed State Labor Codes. Please check one of the following:
I waive my rights in this case. I will receive no back pay. I will not bring forth civil lawsuit at any time in the future. Company XYZ is hereby released from civil liability in my case. I understand that if I check this option, I will receive no compensation due under state law and judicial findings. signed, ____________ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:59:22 AM EDT
[#34]
Good point. You know dam well these blow hards wont do it. They better not let their wife see it either. I can see them now on their knees infront of their wife asking not to be beaten and it was just AR15.com man talk, I swear honey. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 3:01:51 AM EDT
[#35]
Sorry, bro, I had to. 
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 3:21:51 AM EDT
[#36]
our compnay is doing the same deal,,sorta.
recenlty there is a class action suit against aimco ( a managemnet company) guess they said no more comp time, and no we aint paying what youve earned. so now they are in court. Our company is doing a you dont clock in out and show your time,, you dont get paid even with salary employees . They also have a major issue with our OT, and are trying to get it all straightend out. seems a fellow while back9not my company) sued cuz he was an hourly employee but on call 24/7 at a location by himslef. since he was the only on call guy he sued for the hours he had to "sit" at home for the phone to ring,his Ot and his comp time they refused to pay out hwne they fired him. He won,,alot! i do not know what yer wife does,, but this maybe the reason why. its got a bunch of places in a bind from what ive heard thru the grapevine. just my 2 lil cents |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 3:23:09 AM EDT
[#37]
There are new overtime rules that went into affect the other year. Have you compared her hourly rate to what she was making with her salary? If the hourly pay for 40 hours is the same as the salary and she is guaranteed 40 hours a week then there is no problem signing it. If the hourly pay is less and they claim she can make more with her overtime then you need to see if she fits the new rules where people do not get overtime. Here are the basics.
Rule 1: Any employee who earns more than $100,000 a year is ineligible for mandated overtime, period. Rule 2: Any employee who earns between $23,660 and $100,000 a year, and who is in most executive, professional, or administrative positions, is not eligible for overtime. This does not, however, apply to salespeople. They are still eligible. Rule 3: Managers are not entitled to overtime if they oversee two or more people and have the authority to hire, fire, or recommend that someone be hired or fired. Rule 4: Administrative employees who have decision-making power and run some sort of operation are not eligible. Rule 5: Employees whose job requires imagination, invention, originality, or artistic or creative endeavors are not eligible for overtime. Rule 6: Employees whose main duties are computer-related and involve the implementation, analysis, development, or application of computer systems or designs are also not eligible for overtime. Rule 7: Sales staff that regularly work outside of the employer's place of business are, you guessed it, not eligible either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:23:16 AM EDT
[#38]
Many of them, YES. I believe in a small federal government. I stick to my principles, and the Constitution. Perfect world? Nope.... but closer to how we were designed.
See..... some people cant debate the issue, so they resort to a personal affront. It exposes you for who you are, and displays your maturity level. To answer your question.... I function just fine. My word is my bond. I want the government out of my life. I will live with some of the "negative" consequences. And when it comes to pay.... I will negotiate that at hiring, myself. That is all I will expect. And if I dont get it.... I can leave. I am not out to "get what's mine". My finanacial situation is MY responsibility and nobody elses. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:37:46 AM EDT
[#39]
The only "AR15.com man talk" is spewing forth from your orifice.... We are discussing our principles. Handed THAT letter (FAR different than the one actually being discussed), would all who feel as I do, sign it a not take the $87,000? I doubt it. Money has a strong pull on people. What would I do with THAT letter? I cant answer.... I am not in that situation. But I HOPE I would hold true to my principles. I would seriously sit down and think about the entire situation. I'd probably have a conversation with my boss about it, and get his perspective. In the end, waving a check for $87,000 in front of someone's face will cause many to compromise their ethics.... I can see where YOU stand for sure. Let me add something to the scenario: Company XYZ is a smaller company, with 15 employees. Company XYZ makes Widgets, which are a unique niche market. You have been there 10 years, and love the job. It allows you a good salary, and enables you to live as you desire in a smaller town.... with fewer job opportunities. You, and 4 others get this letter. You all discuss it, and decide to take the money... "why not... Ima git whutz mine!" Company XYZ writes out checks for $435,000 on the spot, as mandated by the state. Company XYZ has no operating capital, and is overextended to be able to borrow money for raw materials. The shop has to close, and the owners are forced to move. You are now out of your job. Enjoy that $87,000. "[7]For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.  But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. [9]People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. [10]For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:38:35 AM EDT
[#40]
DOH!  How did that happen? 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:55:57 AM EDT
[#41]
Did your wife feel like she was being shorted before receiving this letter?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 5:07:13 AM EDT
[#42]
Ask your LAWYER, it's a trap!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 5:13:28 AM EDT
[#43]
In my HR management experience, no good EVER comes from an employee being switched from salary to hourly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 5:51:49 AM EDT
[#44]
thanks for pointing that out before i could get to it this morning. Is that a run-on sentence? How did that happen FALARAK? Maybe it's called arrogance.   In all seriousness here, someone mentioned above the possibility of the method of tabulating wages as being incorrect and in violation of the states guidlines. Anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to the news understands the willingness of companies to play w/ numbers and that willingness will be applied to their employees paychecks too. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 5:52:21 AM EDT
[#45]
The only reason she is being asked to sign the letter is because someone in the Company found out that the Company was violating the law. They are now trying to endemnify themselves against any suit brought against them. I guarantee that someone checked hours worked by employees and found them to be on average, more them 40 hours per week and OT pay was owed that was not paid to the employees. I'm sure it was something that they could care less about when your wife was saleried as she was receiving a set sum of money for a position. But now that the company changed her to hourly it does become a big deal.
In the end tho, she has to figure out if it is worth the hassle for some unknown amount of money. Thats why I always "black book" my hours. Companies are more then willing to screw anyone over to include workers and investors as long as they think they can get away with it. If you don't believe that, you've been in a room by yourself smoking crack for the past 15 years with no outside contact. However, no one can take advantage of you unless you let them. It's a two way street. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 5:56:03 AM EDT
[#46]
I tried not to, but it was too tempting for my resolve . If you look, I added a period in red to end the run-on, as well. Yeah, I'm a dick BigBang Why not just ask your wife what her morals tell her to do? I mean, this is an interesting conversation and all, but she is the one who will need to live with her decision. What says the better half? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 6:01:09 AM EDT
[#47]
I hate to sound soft here, but will point out two things. Some people may not be savvy enough to realize that they are being taken advantage of. Also, some companies/lawyers/accountants are SO savvy, few people would know they are being taken advantage of. Thus, the need for laws which must be enforced so crooked, slimey companies do not take advantage of their employees. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 6:06:30 AM EDT
[#48]
There is Salaried -Exempt and Salaried-NonExempt. Salaried Non-Exempt allows for overtime after the first 40 hours at the standard (1/1.5) or overtime premium rate. Salaried Exempt does not. Of course, hourly allows for overtime. Sounds like they are fixing it so she can have her wages cut if she is out - that is obvious. How did this affect sick time? Vacation? Moving her to an hourly wage pretty much ensures she cannot miss any days to stay at the same pay. Looks like they changed the deal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 6:17:51 AM EDT
[#49]
It's quite easy to track hours worked and how much was paid, either at straight time, time and a half or double time. A daily/weekly log is quite simple to track and the paycheck amount figured out to match. That is simple enough that anyone can do with a $2.00 calculator. I guarantee someone in the company was not being paid OT or DT, possibly everyone who had been shifted from salary to hourly. [because of course, it saved money, probably because someone higher up was lying about the true number of hours a position needed each week] I work at a pretty decent company that tracks pay pretty good. However, occasionally, some asshole in payroll decides to take some part of it because they don't think it is owed. No problem if there is a mistake, but the RULES made by the company state that before that happens it is required that the employee is contacted to see what the deal is. 99.9% IF that is done, all is well. That is why the requirement was made in the first place. I guarantee someone broke down the hours and found OT was not paid for +40hrs. CYA is now at work. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 6:21:16 AM EDT
[#50]
why do you say that? I would have expected just the opposite. It would be easier to eliminate OT to a salaried employee, would it not? |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
