🚀 go-pugleaf

"Jeffrey Siegal" <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote in message
news:3DE94A7C.9000008@quiotix.com...
> John R Pierce wrote:
> > what if you are paid on a weekly/monthly/annual basis rather than
hourly?
> > i.e.  salary rather than wages?
>
> The test is going to be based on on the wages paid divided by the hours
> worked, and if the hours worked exceed 40 hours in a week (with some
> other complicating factors I don't remember), overtime is also due.
>
> If you're being paid on weekly/monthly/annual basis, then your employer
> is claiming that you are exempt.  Whether or not that is a valid
> position is going to depend on the actual facts and circumstances, not
> just what the employer claims.
>
> There have been several high profile lawsuits of this sort, some of
> which have been lost at great expense by the employers (must pay back
> pay for overtime, plus interest, and probably penalties), and countless
> lower-profile disputes that have been settled quietly.
>
> A lot of people in the software field who have no managerial
> responsibilities or authority and don't satisfy the wage test are being
> improperly classified as exempt and should be getting paid by the hour,
> plus overtime.  For that matter, a lot of people who have no basis for
> being classified as exempt at all are improperly classified as exempt.
>
> Aside from the software industry, another industry that is rife with
> abuse is retail, where so-called "managers" who have no real managerial
> responsibilities or authority are improperly classified as exempt, and
> they aren't paid as well as most software developers either.

Someone should write a program that figures this out.
--

William D. Gazatchorn