The Glade 4.0

That contract also specifies a certain number of hours per year, and/or the amount of overtime to be included in that contract. If you are working hours that are not part of that contract...
...exactly. And that's the situation we're discussing here. So basically, you agree with me, but felt like disagreeing.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Hi! Welcome to the Glade! /bonk

No, I'm not. You're specifically talking about breach of contract, which is a civil wrong regardless.

In other words, it has nothing to do with enslaving employees, or fat cat corporations, or any of that nonsense. It's a simple matter of the contract either specifies overtime after 40 hours, or it doesn't. If it doesn't (which is pretty often the case for salaried employees) then no one is being "robbed" or "enslaved" or any of that melodramatic nonsense. In fact, even if it DOES happen it's a simple matter of a civil wrong. No oppression here, move along.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

We don't do hypotheticals that way. We do them on the basis of all other factors being equal. Maybe that one person does, but when we get into the 12-person scenario, on average, they are going to get done 37 hours of work in 37 hours.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The fact that women, on average, work fewer hours than men doesn't tell us much of anything about comparative productivity on either a per hour or per full-time position basis. I suspect that all it really tells us is that women are more likely to have part-time jobs or to opt for flex-time arrangements if they're available, which makes sense given the cultural preference for men to be the primary wage-earners and for women to be the primary caregivers to kids.

You are discussing rare specific situations. I'm talking about the norm.

If the contract specifies a standard work week/40 hours, and says nothing about overtime, then requiring unpaid overtime is effectively breech of contract. Paying for overtime is both the standard, and in most places, for most salaried positions, the law.

If your contract says instead that the salary includes an availability for a certain amount of overtime, then they are well within their rights to ask for it. But without that stipulation, the obligation is on the employer to compensate for overtime, not on the employee to selflessly give of themselves to their masters.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Very few American employees sign employment contracts anymore, Taly. You can thank the Unions for the disappearance of employment contracts. Employment agreements are less binding, generally at-will, and produce far less legal force. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides all sort of wonderful rules for overtime exempt employees, but they're mostly unimportant because most of the United States adheres to Right-to-Work standards. Consequently, in most cases it's a terminable offense to bring legal action against your employer. As such, filing a labor dispute generally costs you your job.

_________________

As an exempt at-will employee, my employer does not have to have a reason to terminate me.

Personally, I was just happy when my firm decided to do away with the testicle clamps attaching us to our desks until we hit our billable hours quota. Those things were really uncomfortable. I mean, the new electronic perimeter and mini shock collars aren't exactly fun either, but at least we can move around the office now.

No, you are not talking about the norm, and I am not talking about "rare" situations at all. It might appear that way because many hourly positions present an annual "salary" for comparison purposes based on a full year of 40 hour weeks (generally, based on working 2000 hours) that does not include overtime, but they are still considered hourly positions for purposes of overtime. Most government positions are like that. I have an annual "salary" based on my GS level, but that is a theoretical number based on me working no overtime, and not counting my night differential, holiday pays, etc. The position is actually paid on an hourly basis though; it is not a salaried position. This is particularly true of jobs like mine where working at odd hours and on weekends is the norm; the idea of a 40-hour salaried positon carries the assumption of working on weekdays during normal business hours.

If the contract specifies a 40 hour work week as the norm and says nothing about overtime, then it just says nothing about overtime. If the position is hourly, overtime is understood; if it is salaried then it is not. That's what the norm is. There is no need for any "stipulation" and it is not the obligation of the employer to compensate for overtime unless local law (or in your case, Canadian law, but most of us are not Canadian here) specifically says so. This nonsense about "selflessly giving to their masters" is just you not liking the idea of that being the case and focusing on yourself as the worker and presenting that as the "good" side and the company as "bad" through prejudicial language.

The law generally specifies what kinds of jobs can be salaried and what can't, so despite Xeq's carrying on about underhanded;y making certain positions salary to get out of overtime, that is already a violation of the law in most cases. If it isn't, then you get what you contracted for.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No employer i've ever worked for would consider trying to make their average salaried employees work unpaid overtime. This concept is alien to me. American thing I guess? It's not an issue of male or female workers. No man who works for me would be working extra without getting something out of it, either.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No, the difference is simply this: in America, if you're salaried it's because you're legally exempt from overtime. Otherwise, you have an hourly wage.

Thus, it shouldn't be surprising that it's common for salaried people to be called on to work unpaid overtime. Otherwise, you'd be an hourly employee, and your employer would probably classify your benefits lower and whatnot as a benefit to them for doing so.

My current job is a prime example. When I was hired in, my position was considered exempt. Meaning I was a salaried employee with a fixed paycheck. We're expected to provide service/cover certain hours, which amounts to a 40 hour work week.

Then, a few years ago, HR realized that there were about some employees around campus who were considered exempt who shouldn't be -- by Ohio guidelines, our positions demand that we get paid overtime rates if we exceed a 40 hour work week, based on the duties we perform. So they went and did a thorough evaluation of everybody's responsibilities on campus, as laid out in job descriptions and described by supervisors, to make sure they caught everybody. The audit turned up about a dozen of us.

So they reclassified our position. Now, I'm hourly. So are the two people who've been hired into the same position since then. The difference? I get 4 weeks vacation a year, as I grandfathered my "administrative" benefits, whereas the newer guys get 2 weeks a year because that's what all "classified" employees get. And now I get time and a half comp time (because HR shovels bullshit about not being able to pay overtime based on the way they budget. This is legal for some state government employers in the state of Ohio to substitute instead of time and a half pay for overtime).

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Whereas here, salaried employees still get overtime. Although from several responses above, I would get the impression that's also the norm in most of the USA. it's only certain overtime-exempt job classifications that don't get overtime..it has nothing to do with being salaried or not.

Your description:



That's the norm here (including the time and a half, with an option for time-off-in-lieu instead of overtime--my choice). Except we're not hourly, we're salaried. I don't get paid by the hour, I get a yearly salary divided by the number of paychecks in the year. I get full benefits, full vacation (currently 3 weeks, will be going up to 4 weeks in a couple years). If I happen to work more than my standard work week, I still get overtime. If I work less than my normal time (which is rare, but can happen), i don't have to make it up. I'm a salaried employee.

Now, my manager's manager, two steps up from where I am, is overtime exempt. (Typically much of middle-management and most upper-management is.)

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

In Pa salaried work is based on a 44 hour work week. Salaried workers are exempt from overtime however if work hours regularly exceed 44 the salary has to be adjusted to reflect those worked hours (almost no one follows this law to the degree I doubt it is actually enforced).

Hourly workers get overtime at time and a half.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Your position would be considered "hourly" here in the U.S.

Benefits and vacation are not really related to hourly vs. salaried; they're related to part-time vs. full time and how valuable the position is. Workers in higher-paying hourly jobs generally have benefits commeasurate with an equivalent salary.

The thing is, when a salaried employee goes over 40 hours without extra pay it is not overtime, paid or otherwise, unless the contract says so. It's an expectation based on the nature of the job - and as Coro pointed out, a lot of them pay very high salaries because of that expectation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I notice that the definition of salaried and who gets overtime is different from just about everybody who posted here. I suspect that the definition may be very different from state-to-state (let alone just US vs. Canada) and even company-to-company.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

It's not really determined by the state. It's determined by the company.

I've been a salaried employee at several places. One had a 37.5 hr work week, others had expected 45 hr work week, even though the paperwork stated it was for 40 hours. The general rule in the US is that if you're salaried is that you work however long it takes to get what needs to be done, done. Some people are good about figuring out how to do that in 40-ish hrs, others not so much. Then there's the whole good boss vs bad boss scenario.

productivity is quite simple in Australia.

If you want to stay in your job, then you finish all your tasks, doesn't matter if it takes you 20 hours or 80 hours a week. You get measured by your performance, not just by your manager, but also your manager's manager (basically if you haven't done anything stupid, you'll be fine).

If you don't finish all your task for several consecutive quarters, then if cuts are made your name comes up.

If you want to advance in your career, then you go above and beyond and put in the extra work to get noticed.

Nothing to do with gender, time input or pay, it's about ability to deliver.

That being said, my normal week is anything between 30-60 hour and I'm in the advancing career category so it's not too bad here I guess.

Oh and no paid overtime, you're not required to work more than the normal 37.5 hours a week, but your ability to do stuff in those 37.5 hours will determine which category you fall under at review time.

In my experience, salaried positions are sold to people based on the assumption of a 40 hour week. ("If you take this promotion, you'll be making $8000 more a year!) They wait until you've been in the job a few months to spring the overtime. Everyone I know who went on salary ever ended up taking a major per hour pay cut to do so despite it being sold as a promotion.

You never get to leave early on slow days to make up for the overtime days either, they expect you to help others or just do busy work those days. "These are your responsibilities, you can leave when they're done" never happens.

Even worse is when you have someone in your department that doesn't perform, and now you have to work extra hours unpaid to pick up their slack. Management has no incentive to fix the problem like they do when they have to pay out 150% to get someone to cover. I already average 10 hours overtime a week because other people can't do their jobs, if they didn't have to pay me extra they'd probably demand I stay 70 hours every week.

It's pretty normal. I am not paid to work X number of hours. I am paid to do X job. If it takes me more than 40 hours in a week, so be it. If it takes me less, so be it. I'm still promised 40 hours of pay per week. Now, some things to note, I don't get to go home if I finish my work. But if I'm sitting here staring at my computer with nothing to do, I'm getting paid.

Further, and this is not normal, if I'm working on billable work (can invoice the client for my time) for more than 40 hours, my company will pay me straight time (no time and a half) for those hours. But this is rare; there's usually non billable work that knocks me below 40 hours billable.

Then your experience is an example of shitty employers. None of these has held true for me, nor anybody I know in salaried roles.



Not never, but this is HIGHLY variable by company, with more companies moving to integrate it.



This is another example of poor anecdotal experience. Only organizations with unclear ownership of tasks would work this way. In which case, you should get a new job anyway.



Talya: The 'norm' in the US is guided by FLSA, as Khross stated. The norm is for 'management' to be exempt, and for some non-management to be exempt. This classification, I'm sure you can see, was driven by the big unionization of the country decades ago. Exempt vs. non-exempt status is driven by work duties.

If you're exempt, there is no overtime*. If you're non-exempt, there is.


*Unless, of course, your state requires different rules** or standards than the Feds do. These additional, different, or stricter standards could have different classifications for the same job role. An employer must comply with both, so usually states don't actually qualify people differently (into exempt vs. non-exempt) but may create additional standards for how you treat exempt.

**Different rules or policies could also be set by each employer, choosing to be more generous than the law requires. For example, my current organization extends MOST benefits of FMLA to employees who do not normally qualify for FMLA benefits, as a sort of 'perk' to those employees. Another example would be if an employer gave 'comp' time to exempt employees. In other words, the Fed rules are the guidelines and minimums, not the be-all, end-all. Thus, leading to the differing answers you're seeing here.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I do sometimes need to clean up work after someone else has screwed it up, but I'm salaried and I generally work less than 40 hours a week. If I'm completely honest I really am only "working" for 30 hours a week or so. I'm supposed to work 9-5:30 but I generally don't show up until 9:30, take an hour lunch around 1pm and leave at or just after 5.

This is an easy trap to fall in to. As long as you are critical, the company's making money, and you're not needed within your schedule but outside of when you are actually there, you will get away with this.

But you KNOW what you should be doing, and are paid to do. You're creating a situation that could cause you serious trouble in the future. Be at work on time. Leave on time.

Integrity.

My bank account would be so much happier if I got paid overtime. Alas, it's not part of how my company operates either.

My job boils down to a software engineer, and it ends up being 40 hours a week most of the time. Come deadlines, however, it gets well past 40.

In my 15 or so months there so far, this has worked out to happen 3 times, and each time it varies in duration. The programmers have been having a very rough 5 weeks or so now, with another 5 on the horizon... but the previous deadline was only a 1-2 week total thing.

It definitely falls under the "You get paid to do X job" thing Arathain mentioned above.

It sorta sucks, but all in all it's a pretty good job so I can't complain too much. Getting paid to do X job means my start and end time is flexible... company policy says 8:00-5:00, but a good half or more of the employees come in pretty much any time before 9:00, and some even later. For myself, I make sure I don't leave any earlier than 8+1 hours after I walked in the door. Management seems perfectly happy with that, though they know I'm willing to stick around longer than 8 hours when there's a cause for it, so I'm not sure how much that factors in.

Besides, we also do pretty cool stuff and work with some pretty cool government/military peoples, so all in all it's not shabby.

Lack of a 401k, on the other hand... :p But that's another story.