Overtime pay 1

[mendel]

Anyone out there -
a salaried worker,
working overtime,
and not getting paid for it?

This includes if your job needs special garb which requires time before and after actual job-time, for which you don't get paid. Or if you have to work through lunch.

You've got rights, and one of them is that for working overtime you MUST get paid time-and-a-half.

And there are ways to get this back, if you haven't gotten it.

 

[quark]

huh...if, at all, this issue is not subjected to geography.

Regards,


Believe it or not : Though he couldn't prove, Einstein never agreed with Heisenberg on his Uncertainty Principle.

 

[corus]

Whether you get paid overtime or not is determined by your contract of employment. Working though your lunch break is not, as this is covered by Health and Safety regulations, at least in the UK. Not having a break will make you more of a safety risk, not only to you but your colleagues, hence the legislation.

corus

http://www.corusresearch.com

 

[micjk]

"You've got rights, and one of them is that for working overtime you MUST get paid time-and-a-half."

I agree with "You've got rights", but unfortunately the government has standards that state differently (Here in the US anyways). For example, I know people that work for plant nurseries putting in 60+ hrs a week, getting paid for 60+ hrs a week at straight time pay. Why, because the government doesn't require them to be paid OT. Why don't they, can't answer that. If you've contracted into a "Salaried" position, this means you have agreed to a flat rate yearly pay. Some companies offer Comp time pay but for the most part I don't believe it's common practice (and I may be wrong). Now you can opt to do your 40 and pack it in, but (and especially in the "Right to work" or non-union states)employers can "find" reasons to opt you out of a job. I've worked many jobs where the attitude is for every unhappy employee there are 100 standing at the gate that would be very happy just to be employed (once again this is in "right to work" states). These comments are based on what I've seen and do not mean that I agree with the way things are run. I'm thankful that I am salary non-exempt, I get paid OT, but of course with the "Save, Save, Save" attitudes of corporations in todays economy, thats "subject to change just like a school lunch menu".
Regards,


Roy Gariepy
Maintenance and Reliability Dept.
Bayer Corporation Dorlastan Fibers Div.
Goose Creek, South Carolina USA

 

[patdaly]

Ok mendel, lay it on us US "Exempt" people who do not get paid for our overtime.

 

[CanEngJohn]

While I might not get paid I get a fringe benefit for working overtime.

I get to keep my job. Up north here I am required to work 40 to earn my base pay. My employer is not recommended to pay for overtime until the hours are over 48.

However all these guidlines are recommendations subject to agreements by both parties. Should both parties agree that I do not get paid for overtime then that is the law for this agreement.

Also it is not against the law to be unemployed. Heck - last time I checked most countries charters of rights and freedoms (or equivalents) I did not see anything that mentioned a right to work or a right to overtime pay.

 

[ChrisConley]

Workers of the World Unite!!

I can't agree more with CanEngJohn. Where I work 'professionals' are not paid overtime. The idea being that we aren't expected to punch a time clock, but rather to work to the project. That is why we aren't paid like McDonald's workers.

A person always has the right to not work for a company if they disagree with that companies policies. One of my largest complaints with the world is people complaining that the world should change itself to make them happy, rather than trying to change themselves.

Not happy with you career....quit, try something else. Don't sit in the same job for the next 40 years complaining about it.

 

[ctopher]

I am salary. I do not get paid for first 4 hours of OT. The reason why I don't do it.

 

[RDK]

While I agree with CanEngJohn and CrisConley about salary being based on doing the job not the time spent, I cannot help but to notice two things.

The first is that this seldom if ever goes both ways. If you are at a slack time in your project and can spare the time, why not have a game of golf? If the pay is for doing the job and not being there a set number of hours, then if the job is done then you should be on your own. (I once worked 13 weeks straight, every day, and averaging 80 hours a week to get a job done. I was then told that because I had left on Friday after completing the assignment at 3PM that we were even.)

The second is that there are some consulting firms out there that will bill the client for all the OT and not compensate the employee for the extra effort.

If you are on a salary then this salary should be based and staffing levels set on the assumption that everyone will average a 40-hour week. If you work more hours than that then something will have to give. This could be your personal life, the quality or your work product, the safety of you and those around you on the job site or your personal health.

An enlightened employer will know these things and try to set up their operations in such a way that is to the best benefit of everyone involved, not just their own pockets in the short term.

Medel if you are as unhappy with your present situation as i I believe, then it is up to you to make the changes necessary. As Ann Landers says no one can take advantage of you without your permission.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[AndrewTX]

Actually I do get paid overtime, but at straight time pay.

I've always been "salaried" but every company I've worked for has paid for approved overtime. The key is getting the approval. My current project has blanket approval for 10 hours OT a week, and I usually work at least 5.

I would be surprised if there actually is a law on the books that requires 1.5 pay for all hours over 40 for everyone.

 

[Rich2001]

Here is asite that has information on overtime pay, etc. in the US.

http://www.overtimescams.com/index.html

 

[CanEngJohn]

In Ontario there are laws on the books. However there is a clause in the law that it cannot ovveride any general agreement between employer and employee.

This is one area where I am quite glad we have lawyers to sort the mess out. The bottom line is though if the employer tells you they don't pay for overtime and you accept the job then you have made an agreement with your employer that you accept to work overtime as required without extra renumeration. If they tell you they pay straight time then you get straight time should you choose to work there.

If your employer gives you a paycheck with straight time and you were expecting 1.5 and nothing has been said prior then you have a choice at that point to aceept the contract as presented or to reject it. If you take the cheque and cash it without saying anything at the time you notice the discrepancy then you are deemed to have accepted the new terms as presented.

In Ontario a standard work week is 40 hours but time and a half is not required by the employer until 48 hours are worked. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the employer and emplyee. The reason for this law however is not to enforce extra pay but to define a rational for wrongful dismissal.

 

[brad]

Rich2001's link pretty much sums up the law as it applies to me (and most engineers):

http://www.overtimescams.com/executiveprofessional.html

In fact, the majority of engineers (other than junior engineers) in industry fall under "exempt". As such, Mendel's original statement is not correct under US law.

Brad

 

[pablo02]

When I got laid off at my previous employer (good ol' USA), I estimated I had over 4 years of "comp time" built up -- the plus side for being exempt, I never missed a program, a teachers' conference, some field trips, emergencies, hospital visits for my kids ...

They promoted some of the hourly rank & file to fill our positions (at a slightly lower pay scale) -- they then complained that they made less money as supervisors (overall) -- we told them, "yeah, and you didn't believe us when we said we actually made less (than the hourly employee w/ OT)"; and we put in more hours than they did...

I am happy to be employed -- in my 50's, and I'm supposed to put in 45 hrs a week -- at the end of 10 months this year, I've already accumulated 6 weeks of comp time -- but I'll never see it !!!

 

[brad]

Note that "exempt" does not hold any guarantee of comp time; only an allowance for the employer to not pay overtime. Hence an exempt employee, by law, could work consistent 40+ hour weeks without any comp time--granting comp time is at the discretion of the employer.

I'm not editorializing, just clarifying the actual laws as (I understand) they are written.

Brad

 

[buzzp]

I agree, exempt positions (generally salary) do not require OT to be paid in the states. Just FYI, I get a choice of OT (straight time or comp time). I recently had an offer with a consulting firm and they have the same options.

 

[ietech]

My employer does not pay me OT for many excess hours, however, I do get a substantial quarterly bonus -- $ amt depends on meeting company objectives and quarterly profit.

One other benefit is when I need a couple of hours off for personal business all I need do is ask and the boss says OK see ya later. It still doesn't compensate for the number of hours I put in --- but at least it's something.

Does anyone else get these considerations --- maybe it's not quite as bad as it seems in our posts here.

 

[mendel]

To clarify my position – I refer to US employees only. A contract does not free an employer from the overriding requirement of 1.5x overtime pay- It’s the law. It is not overwritten by contracts. There are, of course, many classifications of “employee” that are exempt from overtime pay requirement. But even within exempt classes, there are exceptions that put one back into non-exempt class. And most importantly though, there are many gray areas that will only become black/white when a specific class (within a class) fights for their right in court. Relevant here are the terms engineer, technician, skilled professional, which invoke various exemptions and non-exemptions based on how much you make (even if you have a “salary” the law breaks your salary down to equivalent hourly rate), whether you perform services at a desk or on the road, exactly what you do, what you had to learn to do it, etc. These factors and more all determine your status. There is a specific exemption for the computer professional. The cut-off for this exemption is $27.63 an hour (in CA $39), which means that if you meet the title “computer professional,” and you earn less then 27.63 (CA $39) an hour, your employer must reward you 1.5x for any work done in excess of 40 hours a week

But a most important factor (which is touched on in this forums’ responses) is whether you want, or are willing, to do something to address the matter. What is more important to you – keeping your job, possibly threatening its stability (even if you are offered protection under a Whistle-Blower protective law), simply staying quiet, or fighting for your (accumulated) and due overtime pay?

If you are comfortable with the position of fighting for your money while being supported by law (and a lawyer that will represent you), it definitely pays to determine whether your specific job entitles you to 1.5x pay for every minute you perform(ed) a job-related task, over 40 hours per week. If you’d rather get whatever your employer gives you, regardless of whether you are legally entitled to more, examine this no further.

For the record, Rich’s link is a very informative and helpful one

 

[melone]

Playing devil's advocate here....

If we are to charge our employers for every minute that we work over 40 hours, then do they get to charge us for all of our wasted time, i.e. personal phone calls, time spent on the internet (sorry Eng-Tips.com), going to the bathroom, etc.? How about all of those personal converstaions around the watercooler?

 

[mendel]

Responding to the devil's advocate - The employer has his rights too. If the employee abuses his privileges, and/or neglects his work, and/or does NOt work during worktime, there is a protocol (warnings, documented to file, no raise, demotion, firing) which is most definitely used. So just as an employer has the right to fire for substantiated work-neglect, an employee has the right to being paid (isn't that why he is there?) for substantiated work time.