Debate: Salary vs Hourly Wages: Which is better? (attorney, home)

[TheGoodUsernamesWereTaken]

This is always a fun topic in my opinion, so let's here thoughts on this. Which is better and why? If you're a SBO and have never earned either, I guess let us know which route you would go with your employees, and why?

[CrowGirl]

I voted as an employee a salary is better, but it isn't without qualification. I spend A LOT of hours at work as an attorney. But I hated having to account for every moment of my time. I prefer the idea of being evalutated for my general producton and hated having to account for very minute of my time. At the sametime, however, I feel I am taken advantgae of since I know I put in more (insome cases way more) than 40 hours per week.

[expatCA]

I pay a salary and that is for the base hours. If they work overtime the get overtime pay.

[TheGoodUsernamesWereTaken]

Originally Posted by expatCA

I pay a salary and that is for the base hours. If they work overtime the get overtime pay.

Best of both worlds then. I had a position that did this as well at one point but moved on from that firm. If I remember correctly, there are some stipulations, I think there is a limit to the base salary in CA, I could be wrong though.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by TheGoodUsernamesWereTaken

Best of both worlds then. I had a position that did this as well at one point but moved on from that firm. If I remember correctly, there are some stipulations, I think there is a limit to the base salary in CA, I could be wrong though.

My base salary is above any lower limit they have. It is definitely a living wage for the employees. Then there are year end bonuses.

[TheGoodUsernamesWereTaken]

Originally Posted by CrowGirl

I voted as an employee a salary is better, but it isn't without qualification. I spend A LOT of hours at work as an attorney. But I hated having to account for every moment of my time. I prefer the idea of being evalutated for my general producton and hated having to account for very minute of my time. At the sametime, however, I feel I am taken advantgae of since I know I put in more (insome cases way more) than 40 hours per week.

Thanks for sharing.

I agree about the notion that as salary earners we can get taken advantage of if we must go above 4-50 hours a week consistently.

[emm74]

I didn't notice this was in the California forum until after I voted. Not sure if it's really state-specific but in any case, I greatly prefer being salaried. I get paid for the work I produce, not the hours I work, and I have a lot of flexibility to come and go as needed, as long as the work is getting done. Mutual respect on both sides works wonders.

[TheGoodUsernamesWereTaken]

Originally Posted by emm74

I didn't notice this was in the California forum until after I voted. Not sure if it's really state-specific but in any case, I greatly prefer being salaried. I get paid for the work I produce, not the hours I work, and I have a lot of flexibility to come and go as needed, as long as the work is getting done. Mutual respect on both sides works wonders.

Yea, the second after I published the thread I wondered if it belonged in the employment section, or whatever it's called, lol. I did have my fellow CALI-fornians in mind but really it's for everyone, so I don't mind if the mods move it.


You make some great points!

[MtnSurfer]

None of the above or more precisely it completely depends on each opportunity. For example, company A offers you a salary of $100K just for round numbers while company B offers you $65/hour. Which would be better? Well, the $65/hour sounds better on the surface until you factor in all the benefits included or not. Typically salaried position offers better benefit packages including 401K matching, stock options, bonuses, paid vacation, holiday and sick leave, better health plans with lower out of pocket monthly costs and sometimes overtime pay for certain surge efforts. Hourly jobs typically pay more with fewer benefits and that can equate to less when considering total overall compensation. In addition, hourly workers are typically considered short timer/less permanent workers versus staffers. So when there are cutbacks and layoffs they are the first to go.

The other side of that coin is the company that pays $100k and also expects employees to work 60-80 hours a week including weekends on a regular basis. Hello Silicon Valley and Bay Area companies! In that case, you may be earning quite a bit less when factoring in total hours worked for actual dollars earned. At 80 hours a week that's ~ $24/hour versus $65/hour. Maybe in that case its worth taking the hit on benefits and other perks including higher risk to simply take home more cash and then pay those things yourself. You just know going in that the gig is most likely for a limited time and when you take time off you don't get paid.

These are only two of the many different cases I've seen. There are more variations that must be accounted for assuming everything else is equal in terms of the actual work itself. And the later is not usually the case either. One may be more interesting or provide better opportunities for career growth, sometimes both. Its never just about the money. What if the works sucks? Then who cares about the money if you hate going to work every day? But since your survey only focuses on $$ assume all else is equal even though in reality it never is.

Derek

[TheGoodUsernamesWereTaken]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

None of the above or more precisely it completely depends on each opportunity. For example, company A offers you a salary of $100K just for round numbers while company B offers you $65/hour. Which would be better? Well, the $65/hour sounds better on the surface until you factor in all the benefits included or not. Typically salaried position offers better benefit packages including 401K matching, stock options, bonuses, better health plans with lower out of pocket monthly costs and sometimes overtime pay for certain surge efforts. Hourly jobs typically pay more with fewer benefits and that can equate to less when considering total overall compensation. In addition, hourly workers are typically considered short timer/less permanent workers versus staffers. So when there are cutbacks and layoffs they are the first to go.

The other side of that coin is the company that pays $100k and also expects employees to work 60-80 hours a week including weekends on a regular basis. Hello Silicon Valley and Bay Area companies! In that case, you may be earning quite a bit less when factoring in total hours worked for actual dollars earned. At 80 hours a week that's ~ $24/hour versus $65/hour. Maybe in that case its worth taking the hit on benefits and other perks including higher risk to simply take home more cash and then pay those things yourself. You just know going in that the gig is most likely for a limited time.

These are only two of the many different cases I've seen. There are more variations that must be accounted for assuming everything else is equal in terms of the actual work itself. And the later is not usually the case either. One may be more interesting or a provide better opportunities for career growth, sometimes both. Its never just about the money. What if the works sucks? Then who cares about the money if you hate going to work every day? But since your survey only focuses on $$ assume all else is equal even though in reality it never is.

Derek

Great points.



This is more or less what I wanted to hear, cases for both, and you're right, the devil is in the details.

Hopefully we get some input from people with work situations like the two you gave above so they can chime in.