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.
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.
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.
No, just being exempt doesn't, by default, make a person's contributions and abilities greater. Do you really think that?
From the moment I started working twenty three years ago, I've always had copious overtime available to me and never had to get any preapproval. I work at big international law firms, which have pretty deep pockets. Being hourly or exempt means diddly to most people outside of this board in my world. You're either a lawyer or non-lawyer staff. No one really gives a poof about "exempt" or "non-exempt" since everyone is expected to work 40 hours. I can't even imagine being hired at X salary and not have the ability to make even more if I wanted to. Why would I want to get a straight salary when I could get either the same or close to it plus overtime? During a weeklong trial five years ago, I cleared a couple grand in overtime, enough to make my Christmas merry that year.
The head honchos have been wanting to make paralegals, legal secretaries and similar staff exempt for years, lol, because of the overtime. It would be cheaper for them
Wait. So everyone complains about work/life balance. Yet, all these people are talking about working overtime. So, which is more important?
I don't do overtime. I get the money I want in my salary. Plus bonus. No need to work extra hours.
And I get paid good money with my salary too. And a year end bonus. I don't work much overtime these days and haven't for some time. I don't want to give the government more money by working too much aka diminishing returns. So my life is very balanced - I take care of myself and I spend time with my family. but if I ever want extra, overtime is always there for me. Im in civil litigation it's always busy. Sorry but it's nice to have options.
No, just being exempt doesn't, by default, make a person's contributions and abilities greater. Do you really think that?
From the moment I started working twenty three years ago, I've always had copious overtime available to me and never had to get any preapproval. I work at big international law firms, which have pretty deep pockets. Being hourly or exempt means diddly to most people outside of this board in my world. You're either a lawyer or non-lawyer staff. No one really gives a poof about "exempt" or "non-exempt" since everyone is expected to work 40 hours. I can't even imagine being hired at X salary and not have the ability to make even more if I wanted to. Why would I want to get a straight salary when I could get either the same or close to it plus overtime? During a weeklong trial five years ago, I cleared a couple grand in overtime, enough to make my Christmas merry that year.
The head honchos have been wanting to make paralegals, legal secretaries and similar staff exempt for years, lol, because of the overtime. It would be cheaper for them
I suspect things are different in the legal profession, where a worker's time is often directly billable to clients, than it would be in most other industries, where products or services are at fixed cost, and salaries have been pre-budgeted.
I've been in the workforce for over forty years, and I've held both Non-Exempt and Exempt positions at employers ranging from an F500 corporation to a small independent business, to public entity. I'm just relaying my personal experience and observations regarding salaried vs. hourly employer policies and treatment of employees. Based on those personal experiences, I favor being in an Exempt classification, rather than Non-Exempt. But that's just me.
And I get paid good money with my salary too. And a year end bonus. I don't work much overtime these days and haven't for some time. I don't want to give the government more money by working too much aka diminishing returns. So my life is very balanced - I take care of myself and I spend time with my family. but if I ever want extra, overtime is always there for me. Im in civil litigation it's always busy. Sorry but it's nice to have options.
I have found that people in these situations have SOME element of luck, I sense a spouse that makes PHENOMINAL money thats being left out of this story or some other non trivial source of income from somewhere or some kind of inheritance in the past that paid off the big ticket items (car, house, student loans).
Once someone is in a position where all they have is food, gas and utilities then the entire equation changes.
Wait. So everyone complains about work/life balance. Yet, all these people are talking about working overtime. So, which is more important?
I don't do overtime. I get the money I want in my salary. Plus bonus. No need to work extra hours.
I miss the flexibility even though I made 22% more last year becoming hourly... simply because I was paid for all time worked which included double time.
It's been a year and while it continues to be an adjustment, a person either adjusts or moves on.
Doubt I will ever get used to standing in front of a time clock waiting for the clock to turn...
Second, it would be nice if HR and Management would find a way to be on the same page... Instructions from HR have been 100% contrary to how my position functions and more than a few times it has caused problems.
Biggest is call... I am the single person on call for certain things... the HR handbook is very explicit... unless paid to be on call... an hourly employee has NO obligation to respond to after hour calls...
Should an hourly respond... the hourly employee is guaranteed X amount of hours pay... at the prevailing rate which could be double time... the issue is the Kronos Time Clock is not set up to make this calculation so it much be manually entered/adjusted.
Also NO restrictions of drinking or availability/response for hourly once shift is over...
I have found that people in these situations have SOME element of luck, I sense a spouse that makes PHENOMINAL money thats being left out of this story or some other non trivial source of income from somewhere or some kind of inheritance in the past that paid off the big ticket items (car, house, student loans).
Once someone is in a position where all they have is food, gas and utilities then the entire equation changes.
My husband makes more than me but I wouldn't classify as phenomenal. We have two kids and a mortgage. That balances things out
In the end choosing to be Salaried/Hourly is probably dependent on the employer. Some Employer's (rare nowadays) value their employees more than others and won't exploit them. If you're company sucks and is a mismanaged hell-hole, its best to just clock in and clock out and leave the garbage at work. . A quality employer? Salaried with career advancement opportunities is the ticket. They are becoming few and far between though. Most s***y employers have no problem working their salaried people 70-80 hours a week with no thought at all. Especially those in the middle management positions.
I would seriously look at the landscape of your company before taking on a salaried position. You could just end up working for FREE or peanuts at the very most after you factor in all the hours
the whole "i can come and go as I want" thing isn't really such a big perk. most people expect people either in the office or completely responsive for 8 hours whether they are exempt or non-exempt. many clients expect the workday to start at 8:30 and continue on until 5:30. if people have the pto or the ability to "make up time" (for me that would be during the lunch hour and that's only if I really care about making up time), then leaving early, coming in late is not a big issue at all. I'd rather be saddled with the "hourly" baggage than not have access to a goldmine which is overtime.
You really can't come and go as you please as a salaried employee. You still have to ask your boss if it's okay to leave early, come in late, work from home, etc.
Even the CEO's who I've reported to don't do that. Sure, they may have a dentist or doctor appointment and say, "Oh, I'm leaving at 3 p.m today." For the most part, they are there all day and into the evening. Plus, they bring their laptops home or check email on their phones and are working on the weekends.
In my type of position, it can be hourly or salaried. Either way, I don't get a lot of OT in my role and that's fine and dandy with me since no matter how they label me (exempt vs. non-exempt), I make about the same no matter what.
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.
