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.
Maybe it would be better instead of defining it by salary but instead by supervisory roles. If you supervise any other human being, you can be exempt. Or instead of maybe just one human being, expanding it to supervise five or more human beings and/or owning the business (so it still include business owners of small places or big corporations who may not supervise but don't have a boss, either like say the board). That way people with "administrative" duties who are just rank and file and don't supervise don't get swept under the rug here and can still get OT.
Maybe it would be better instead of defining it by salary but instead by supervisory roles. If you supervise any other human being, you can be exempt. Or instead of maybe just one human being, expanding it to supervise five or more human beings and/or owning the business (so it still include business owners of small places or big corporations who may not supervise but don't have a boss, either like say the board). That way people with "administrative" duties who are just rank and file and don't supervise don't get swept under the rug here and can still get OT.
Bush 2 tried that but luckily it didn't fly. Bush 2 tried to make anyone who might be training an apprentice exempt. His administration also tried to change the 40 hour week into an 80 hour biweekly period where the boss could shift 10 or even 20 hours of overtime to week 2 and send you home after 30 or 20 hours in week 2 to avoid paying time and a half.
You've designated me as a professional meaning that if I make more than $23,661 I'm not eligible for overtime pay.
That's not what that means.
Are you defined as a learned professional?
Do you make over $455/week? That's just the first test!
Are your duties defined as requiring advanced knowledge, defined as intellectual in character and requires consistent judgment and discretion?
Are you in the field of science or learning?
Is this knowledge only obtainable by a prolonged course of intellectual instruction?
You have to answer yes to ALL those questions to be exempt as a learned professional. $23660/yr is just the entry point of discussion.
Or are you defined as a creative professional?
Do you make over $455/week?
Are your primary duties the performance of work requiring invention, imagination, originality, or talent in a recognized field of artistic endeavor?
There's less questions there, but the second one is much harder...
I'm an exempt creative professional.
Quote:
The hyperinflation of the nineteen eighties has made the $23,660 floor a sad joke. Right now the joke is on you.
That's not what that means.
hyperinflation is defined as either 50% inflation monthly OR 100% over 3 years.
In November 1923, Germany had a month-to-month inflation of 29525%. That's hyperinflation.
In 1921-1922, the year to year inflation in the USSR was 213%. That's hyperinflation.
In November 2008, month-to-month inflation in Zimbabwe was 79600000000%. 79.6 billion percent. That's hyperinflation.
In November of 08, the value of the currency would be halved every 24 hours. The costs of commodities would double in Zimbabwe dollar terms every single day.
The average annual inflation in the US in the 1980s was only 5.8%. The 70s and teens were higher. The 40s were similar to the 80s.
That's not what that means.
Are you defined as a learned professional?
Do you make over $455/week? That's just the first test!
Are your duties defined as requiring advanced knowledge, defined as intellectual in character and requires consistent judgment and discretion?
Are you in the field of science or learning?
Is this knowledge only obtainable by a prolonged course of intellectual instruction?
You have to answer yes to ALL those questions to be exempt as a learned professional. $23660/yr is just the entry point of discussion.
Or are you defined as a creative professional?
Do you make over $455/week?
Are your primary duties the performance of work requiring invention, imagination, originality, or talent in a recognized field of artistic endeavor?
There's less questions there, but the second one is much harder...
I'm an exempt creative professional.
That's not what that means.
hyperinflation is defined as either 50% inflation monthly OR 100% over 3 years.
In November 1923, Germany had a month-to-month inflation of 29525%. That's hyperinflation.
In 1921-1922, the year to year inflation in the USSR was 213%. That's hyperinflation.
In November 2008, month-to-month inflation in Zimbabwe was 79600000000%. 79.6 billion percent. That's hyperinflation.
In November of 08, the value of the currency would be halved every 24 hours. The costs of commodities would double in Zimbabwe dollar terms every single day.
The average annual inflation in the US in the 1980s was only 5.8%. The 70s and teens were higher. The 40s were similar to the 80s.
You have a point regarding hyperinflation. I used the term in error. I guess it felt that way back in the eighties because interest rates were significantly higher.
As far as $455 a week is concerned, that's a pretty pathetic amount to live on. Can you really defend asking an individual for free overtime at $456 a week. That amount is $11.375 an hour based on a 40 hour week. I don't care how much independent judgement or creativity is involved. Any boss who pays anything near $23660 and designates their subordinate salaried is robbing them pure and simple.
Don't think that my mistake with the definition of hyperinflation discredits my complaint about the overtime threshold. The failure of our Congress not to make adjustments to the overtime floor is neglect on the part of Congress and a betrayal of the welfare of the middle class. The obligation to promote the general welfare is in the preamble to the Constitution.
As far as $455 a week is concerned, that's a pretty pathetic amount to live on.
That's pretty subjective. A lot of people would be thrilled to get that. Some would consider $455 per day a pretty pathetic amount to live on.
Quote:
Can you really defend asking an individual for free overtime at $456 a week.
"Asking"? Why not? If the value to the business of getting a given job done in a week supports a $455 weekly salary, and it takes fifty hours to get that job done, why not? You're claiming that the employee should get an additional $170 just because. If the business value is not $620, then you aren't "fairly paying an employee", you're just killing one job.
Conversely, if the value of the time involved in a given job exceeds the pay, you already have a remedy... quit. Just stop doing it. Or have a conversation with your boss about how it makes sense to increase compensation.
I don't care how much independent judgement or creativity is involved.
Well you should, cause that is the law.
Your example would be better if you used an actual example. The only way you could make someone exempt without any reason is if they make $100,000 annually.
Someone who makes between 23660 and 99999 NEEDS to meet specific criteria.
If someone makes between 23669 and 99999 isn't an executive, administrator, learned professional, creative professional, IT, or outside sales, they should contact the DOL as their employer is breaking 29 CFR 541. 13(a)(1)
Your example would be better if you used an actual example. The only way you could make someone exempt without any reason is if they make $100,000 annually.
Someone who makes between 23660 and 99999 NEEDS to meet specific criteria.
If someone makes between 23669 and 99999 isn't an executive, administrator, learned professional, creative professional, IT, or outside sales, they should contact the DOL as their employer is breaking 29 CFR 541. 13(a)(1)
This is the important information. You need to contact your state Department of Labor and get them involved.
This is why I enjoy being hourly. I can choose to work OT or not.
On what planet? Lots of companies require OT of their hourly employees. I can understand this, so long as it's paid, but there is no excuse for paying someone so poorly and then getting out of OT by calling them "management." Also, a thing I loathed about one company I worked for was their habit of requiring everyone in the department to come in for four hours on a designated Saturday when they felt that more work needed to be pushed out. Many of us would have preferred to put in the OT on a regular work day, either before or after our normal hours, and that would have served the same purpose. None of the other departments in the company felt the need to do this, why did that one?
Overall, I think we do a crap job of protecting the rights of workers in this country.
Last edited by Catgirl64; 06-03-2018 at 01:08 PM..
You have a point regarding hyperinflation. I used the term in error. I guess it felt that way back in the eighties because interest rates were significantly higher.
As far as $455 a week is concerned, that's a pretty pathetic amount to live on. Can you really defend asking an individual for free overtime at $456 a week. That amount is $11.375 an hour based on a 40 hour week. I don't care how much independent judgement or creativity is involved. Any boss who pays anything near $23660 and designates their subordinate salaried is robbing them pure and simple.
Don't think that my mistake with the definition of hyperinflation discredits my complaint about the overtime threshold. The failure of our Congress not to make adjustments to the overtime floor is neglect on the part of Congress and a betrayal of the welfare of the middle class. The obligation to promote the general welfare is in the preamble to the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr
That's pretty subjective. A lot of people would be thrilled to get that. Some would consider $455 per day a pretty pathetic amount to live on.
"Asking"? Why not? If the value to the business of getting a given job done in a week supports a $455 weekly salary, and it takes fifty hours to get that job done, why not? You're claiming that the employee should get an additional $170 just because. If the business value is not $620, then you aren't "fairly paying an employee", you're just killing one job.
When the Fair Labor Standards Act was written in 1938, $455 was considered an executive salary. Congress and the President agreed that the standard set for the exemption from OT be limited to company executives, company lawyers and other high level professionals. It is not subjective to conclude that there should have been some adjustment for inflation factored into the executive pay level and the overtime standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnojr
Conversely, if the value of the time involved in a given job exceeds the pay, you already have a remedy... quit. Just stop doing it. Or have a conversation with your boss about how it makes sense to increase compensation.
Just quit? You speak without thought. Friedman's free market theory doesn't apply in all cases. If there wasn't a Keynesian infusion of cash in the 2008 real estate crash we would still be in recession. Similar Keynesian intervention needs to be applied to minimum pay standards and overtime standards. If we apply your free market standards to the job market we would still be picking peaches for 2.5 cents a bushel.
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.
