Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless you meet the rules of an exempt employee, they must pay you overtime, it's the law.
If you are exempt, then your pay and ability to leave early or come in late at times are "supposed to" make up for it. Any time you accept an exempt position, you have to expect longer hours.
Interesting topic. My position was offered as a non-exempt salaried position. About a year into the job, management decided to change us to exempt. They did give us an 8% increase in salary, however, I wasn't given much notice or choice about the decision. They gave us three days to either accept the new role or I assume be let go. Does this sound shady to anyone else? How does a position go from being non-exempt to exempt in less than a year, with absolutely no changes to the job description?
You find me an upstanding company that will openly admit to forcing 12+ hour days on salaried employees during the interview phase and I'll show you the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
Fair point. I guess what I should have said was if you have a problem with working tons of unpaid OT you need to bring the issue up ASAP. Don't let your supervisor think you are OK with it. If you let it go on for months or years and then complain it is going to be too late. Bringing it up the first few times it happens may get you fired but at least you aren't being taken advantage of. Like I said, life is too short.
To those saying the job market is so bad that people need to accept whatever their employer requires think about this... Working 10 + hours per day for say.... $40K per year really comes out to little more than minimum wage when you figure it per hour. Might as well go work for minimum wage then and not deal with the stress.
Interesting topic. My position was offered as a non-exempt salaried position. About a year into the job, management decided to change us to exempt. They did give us an 8% increase in salary, however, I wasn't given much notice or choice about the decision. They gave us three days to either accept the new role or I assume be let go. Does this sound shady to anyone else? How does a position go from being non-exempt to exempt in less than a year, with absolutely no changes to the job description?
Unless I was making close to six figures 8% wouldn't cut it. Get closer to 20% and then I'd be OK with 50 hours a week or whatever. I better get a lot more autonomy in addition to the raise too.
Interesting topic. My position was offered as a non-exempt salaried position. About a year into the job, management decided to change us to exempt. They did give us an 8% increase in salary, however, I wasn't given much notice or choice about the decision. They gave us three days to either accept the new role or I assume be let go. Does this sound shady to anyone else? How does a position go from being non-exempt to exempt in less than a year, with absolutely no changes to the job description?
Er, this sounds highly illegal. Your employer does not determine if you are exempt, the US Department of Labor does. Now it could be that they though you were non-exempt but managed to convince the DOL that the position was not. I had the opposite happen. For nearly a year they treated a group of us as exempt until the DOL came and beat them in to submission. I would file a inquiry with the DOL and see if what the company is doing is legal. This is not something the Feds take lightly.
Seems we are hearing more and more stories about management abusing the workers, yet folks proclaim-------..............---" unions are no longer needed"-------------" there once was a need ,but there is none now "---------
REALLY ?
Someone already mentioned it and this still comes up...unions were never involved in the position's OP is holding and never will be! Unions are just a middleman to the unionized employee. Sure there are probably some jobs where this oversight is needed but it shouldn't be with the advent of OSHA.
Someone already mentioned it and this still comes up...unions were never involved in the position's OP is holding and never will be! Unions are just a middleman to the unionized employee. Sure there are probably some jobs where this oversight is needed but it shouldn't be with the advent of OSHA.
Unions had their place and did a lot of good but now when I think union I think 10 fat, lazy guys in jorts making $49.54 an hour while sitting around doing nothing "supervising" one guy actually working. Union Yes! LOL not if you want anything done in a timely manner
Unions had their place and did a lot of good but now when I think union I think 10 fat, lazy guys in jorts making $49.54 an hour while sitting around doing nothing "supervising" one guy actually working. Union Yes! LOL not if you want anything done in a timely manner
Really ?
At a union place I worked for 10 years ( privately owned) the owner had 3 plants.
Ours was union, the other 2 weren't.
Surprising that the one union plant always got the most difficult project to run, had the lowest employee turnover rate, the lowest absenteeism, and was the most profitable.
I knew a master union pipefitter out of Minneapolis.
He stated he would issue a challenge to any non-union big mouth union basher to work next to him on the job and out perform him.
He offered his only son a job and the son refused saying his dad was a slave driver on the job.
Talk is cheap, dubyanumberone !
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.