overtime compensation

[jimj]

Originally Posted by observer53

"Right to work" has nothing to do with this situation. The phrase shouldn't even come up in the conversation; a lot of people here bring that up in contexts like this, for no reason. To the OP -- I suspect that if you filed a complaint with the federal DOL, there are provisions against the employer retaliating against you--that won't necessarily stop them from doing anything, but they will pay for it in the end. Do your homework on what your rights are, and then decide how to proceed.



Yes, it is.

Yes there are sanctions that can be imposed but you're still an "at will" employee unless you're under a contract which it sounds like this is not the case. As an "at will" employee it really isn't really that hard for an employer to find a way to get you gone without suffering sanctions.
From my research and prior experience it would be a good bet that termination would be a condition of settlement as well as a non-disclosure agreement.
I'm no attorney, just someone who's been there/done that and as such learned alot.

[amatrine]

There is a large national corporation my husband works for. No union . They do this now starting last year. He though can take his time off. It still sucks though. They always seem to lower the hours the week of a holiday too, so there really is NO holiday .

[observer53]

Originally Posted by jimj

Yes there are sanctions that can be imposed but you're still an "at will" employee unless you're under a contract which it sounds like this is not the case. As an "at will" employee it really isn't really that hard for an employer to find a way to get you gone without suffering sanctions.
From my research and prior experience it would be a good bet that termination would be a condition of settlement as well as a non-disclosure agreement.
I'm no attorney, just someone who's been there/done that and as such learned alot.

Well, a violation of federal labor law can be very expensive for an employer, as can retaliating against an employee for filing a complaint with the federal labor authorities. Aside from the penalties for that, terminating an employee for doing that is, in fact, an exception to "employment at will" as it's against public policy (and law) to fire someone for that. They may try to say it's for some other reason, but if it can be shown that it's a pretext for the real reason, the employer is back on the hook.

"Employment at will" and "right to work state" are two entirely different concepts. Many people confuse the two.