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 are at the very top level of management and just have to sit in your office and bark orders without lifting a finger and never put in more than 40 hours a week, salary pay is a rip off IMO.
Most salary positions pay you for 40 hours a week with the expectation of you working 60+ (Middle management, etc.) They use the guise of "you'll make more on salary" but it's really just a way for them to skirt overtime laws and get the most out of their employees that they can while paying the least amount possible.
Plenty of places with both hourly and salary workers are shoving the hourly people out the door the minute they hit 40 hours yet the salary people have to stay. That's because they've engineered it to where you're actually making LESS than the hourly people because no OT.
So unless you're at the very top with a cushy, basically "no show" job, avoid salary AT ALL COSTS!!!
You all are hilarious. Go ahead and believe the fear mongering about being salaried.
You've done nothing to disprove the "fear mongering" put forth here.
You have endless faith in the belief that employers care about the employees, which couldn’t be further from the truth. They want to get the most possible out of you, while paying you the least amount possible, PERIOD! If that means paying you a salary and working you 70+ hours a week with no overtime, that’s what they’ll do. They are not “against” the employees, but don’t act like for a second they have the employees best interests at heart, they are looking out for themselves.
My main problem with your posts is you have double standards, one for employers and one for employees.
In your eyes, employers can do no wrong, nothing is ever their fault, and you wish to treat them as if they are “above the law”, not subject to it. You’ll defend them until your last breath because you want them to have carte blanche to do as whatever they want, legal or otherwise.
And employees are always the ones to blame and have no right to speak up, either shut up and deal with it or leave, right? Can’t keep enough employees? Surely it’s not the fault of something the EMPLOYER is doing, must be all the lazy, entitled employees, right?
Basically, the people at the top are always right and the people under them are always wrong. Does that about sum it up?
If you are referring to me, I said I have the flexibility of hours and scheduling. Yes, I put in an honest days work according to the requirements of my management. I do have a life and my honest day may occasionally be 7 hrs instead of 8 hrs. I don't worry about being docked or having to make up that time.
I wonder if part of this discussion is blue vs white collar workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macroy
And therein lies the issue with this. Many people tend to associate time with work. The two don't always have a direct correlation. When you're salaried, it should no longer be about how much time you spent doing the work. But rather if you were productive (of course, there will always be exceptions). It doesn't matter if it took you 6 hours or 12 hours - what matters is that your role/responsibility was fulfilled adequately (or more). By the same token, just because someone was at work for 12 hours doesn't necessarily mean they actually "worked" more than the person that was there for six.
Unfortunately, even managers and above sometimes put the emphasis on "face time". Which is why some people feel they are 'handcuffed' when in a salary position. I would always rather be salaried. Because I know I can manage my own time and prefer to have that flexibility. This is why flexible scheduling is prioritized above salary when I look for a job.
Yeah, some folks don't seem to be aware that certain jobs like engineers, software developers, network admins, and other jobs where you're paid to solve technical problems, as opposed to customer service, making food, or widgets where showing up on time and specific availability count more. Another thing is that many of those engineers, developers, etc. STILL think about those problems while they're commuting to/from work, while in the shower, or while grabbing a bite. Yet, you can bet the company won't compensate them for those times.
.
It is a shame that some such places still put large emphasis on asses in chairs a productivity. Companies that are flexible enough have gotten ahead. One example is someone who choose a new job gets to come in at 10am to avoid traffic, and alternates between leaving before and after evening rush hour. He doesn't quite put in 40 hours a week, but he gets his job done. His wife and kids are ecstatic that he now has an extra 15 hours a week to himself and with them (the time he saved avoiding that commute), and the company comes out ahead since he agreed to a $20K pay cut (compared to the last job he worked).
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
You have to put yourself into a position of leverage where you can make demands and leave when you feel like it. Evil greedy people only respond to power. If you don’t have some kind of leverage then your pretty much screwed.
You have to be thinking of ways to push the company into a corner and massively capitalize on it.
Heh... a Quora response says his company has made a living doing that to OTHER companies. The other companies need someone to fix a mess because either an idiot employee messed it up beyond what they can salvage, or management fires competent people without being able to replace them. The answerer's company has bled those other companies dry. In cases of firing/laying off competent employees, it would've been far cheaper to keep them on, even if it mean giving them their demanded raises.
That's all you've got? Ha ha. What I wrote is simple and true. You can't argue against that.
You seemed to have left your insights out of your post. What info or knowledge are you proposing?
This thread is about being salaried. No one is playing dirty tricks on people. If one doesn't like their current situation, then change it. We all have agency and power. Or is it better to see ourselves as victims of the big bad corporations?
No need to lash out- I agree on theory but Not everyone has the ability to just go to another job- things aren't as easy or cut and dried as you think.
Talking down to people and refusing to ever admit companies ever put profit over workers. I mean, as long as you want to get personal; Have you EVER sided with an employee vs company?
It's always the company is right" and you workers are just lazy and entitled" which just isn't always the case.
What valuable insight do you have besides assuming the employees are always at fault and to just get another job.
From what I've noticed you are the perfect employee working for the perfect employer( but then ALL employers are perfect right)?
Salary abuse is very real- it can't be that 90% of workers are just lazy because otherwise the American economy would fail" so is it possible that just maybe, it's not always the workers fault???? The productivity of the American worker is very good- proof that not all workers are lazy and entitled
As far as my insights- I have plenty besides being a corporate cheerleader- I'm no 1%er and no multimillionaire, but I did manage to cash out financially secure in my 40s and retire to Australia. How's having to still get up for work each day????
Since you enjoy throwing out platitudes:
Gotta work harder and smarter, there mate!
That's definitely true at some companies.
I was an exempt employee. When my division closed they found all the exempt employees a position at another division. Hourly employees were laid off.
Fact is, exempt employees run the companies and make the rules. And generally, we do not worry about the hours we work.
I reckon it depends on the hourly and exempt employee. I don't have to worry about divisions closing and such. If my office closed, the exempt employees just the hourly ones would be evaluated based on need. Do you think that somehow an exempt employee is any more needed than anyone else? Other offices couldn't use another office manager for example.
Your last sentence is totally untrue. I had to reread. My husband, an architect, doesn't "run the company" and neither does he make the rules. And I really don't worry about how many hours I work. For every supposed con of being hourly there's a huge pro of money.
I've put forth my own experience and those of my colleagues. We make good money and work a 40 hr work week.
What proof do you have that EVERY salaried job is 60 hrs a week with no financial incentives, no work/life balance, etc.?
I'll second this... salary (and a pretty healthy one too, if I may say so!), great job, great benefits, and I doubt any of us regularly work forty hours in a week. Sure, there are weeks where we do, or more. All told, I did what I needed to do today in about three.
Those who believe salary is slavery are either green-eyed monsters, or the ones foolish enough to allow an employer to tell them, "You're on salary, now get to it!" They could call their state Department of Labor. Or they could quit. "But I could never get a job like this again!" OK, oh well, enjoy then.
I'll second this... salary (and a pretty healthy one too, if I may say so!), great job, great benefits, and I doubt any of us regularly work forty hours in a week. Sure, there are weeks where we do, or more. All told, I did what I needed to do today in about three.
Those who believe salary is slavery are either green-eyed monsters, or the ones foolish enough to allow an employer to tell them, "You're on salary, now get to it!" They could call their state Department of Labor. Or they could quit. "But I could never get a job like this again!" OK, oh well, enjoy then.
Or just dont do it and wait for them to lay you off, you would be surprised how long you can do that. Why give up the income when you dont have to? In fact I would start working 37-38 hours if an employer said that and I was on salery.
Do you think that somehow an exempt employee is any more needed than anyone else?
The employer may value the Exempt employee more than the Non-Exempt hourly paid, because although the Exempt employee may be paid more, their abilities and contributions to the employer are greater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riaelise
For every supposed con of being hourly there's a huge pro of money.
If the employer doesn't offer overtime to the hourly-paid employee, then there's really no monetary advantage to being hourly, because the salary ranges for Non-Exempt positions top out much lower than they do for Exempt. Even when overtime is available, it may be limited and on an as-needed basis only, and often requires justification to and pre-approval from management. The only advantage to being hourly in that situation, is you can pretty much count on putting in your 40 hours per week, and then you're done.
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.
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.
