What do you think the odds are that the 32 hour work week bill will get passed?

[DLgal]

Salaried employees are the most overworked employees in our society, so what's the point in making this change if it doesn't benefit the people who are really suffering from overwork and burnout?

Because this bill is not about overworking salaried people who are getting benefits. It's about making things fair for hourly employees who are being overworked without benefits.

Salaried employees being overworked is an issue a worker needs to take up with an employer directly. When you take a salaried position it is your responsibility to agree to the pay and the work hours. If hours exceed what you agreed upon when joining the company, and it becomes too much, you find another job. This is how everyone in my personal circle has ever handled this kind of situation of being overworked. If your boss/company isn't willing to either give you a raise or stop expecting such long hours, you walk.

 

[SirDuff]

Because this bill is not about overworking salaried people who are getting benefits. It's about making things fair for hourly employees who are being overworked without benefits.

Salaried employees being overworked is an issue a worker needs to take up with an employer directly. When you take a salaried position it is your responsibility to agree to the pay and the work hours. If hours exceed what you agreed upon when joining the company, and it becomes too much, you find another job. This is how everyone in my personal circle has ever handled this kind of situation of being overworked. If your boss/company isn't willing to either give you a raise or stop expecting such long hours, you walk.

Why isn’t it the responsibility of hourly workers to do the same?

 

[DLgal]

Why isn’t it the responsibility of hourly workers to do the same?

Well, in a way it is, but this bill is mostly about BENEFITS, not pay, per se.

Salaried employees have to remember that part of their compensation is the insurance benefits, paid vacation time, etc. Hourly workers, particularly those working less than 40 hours, generally don't get any of that.

 

[sam_gordon]

Well, in a way it is, but this bill is mostly about BENEFITS, not pay, per se.

Salaried employees have to remember that part of their compensation is the insurance benefits, paid vacation time, etc. Hourly workers, particularly those working less than 40 hours, generally don't get any of that.

So shouldn't they factor that into their decision? What you posted earlier applies to ALL workers. When you take any job, it's your responsibility to agree to the pay and the work hours. If you don't like a situation, you walk.

 

[SirDuff]

Well, in a way it is, but this bill is mostly about BENEFITS, not pay, per se.

Salaried employees have to remember that part of their compensation is the insurance benefits, paid vacation time, etc. Hourly workers, particularly those working less than 40 hours, generally don't get any of that.

Then, if they want them, following your logic, they should ask for it or quit and take another job.

 

[kdonnel]

Well, in a way it is, but this bill is mostly about BENEFITS, not pay, per se.

I think tying benefits to compensation was a horrible idea! If only we had a time machine and could go back and keep it from occurring.

Just pay me the cash and let me be the actual consumer of what benefits I want to purchase.

 

[DLgal]

So shouldn't they factor that into their decision? What you posted earlier applies to ALL workers. When you take any job, it's your responsibility to agree to the pay and the work hours. If you don't like a situation, you walk.

There have always been federal laws regulating hourly employment. Those laws generally never apply to salaried employees. This is simply an adjustment to the terms of the federal laws governing HOURLY workers. Bringing up "overworked salaried employees" is a completely different discussion that has no direct connection to this particular bill.

 

[DLgal]

I think tying benefits to compensation was a horrible idea! If only we had a time machine and could go back and keep it from occurring.

Just pay me the cash and let me be the actual consumer of what benefits I want to purchase.

I can agree with that.

 

[tvguy]

Well, in a way it is, but this bill is mostly about BENEFITS, not pay, per se.

Salaried employees have to remember that part of their compensation is the insurance benefits, paid vacation time, etc. Hourly workers, particularly those working less than 40 hours, generally don't get any of that.

Yes on insurance, but at least in California salaried employees don't get paid vacation time. That is an important distinction in California, because paid vacation time has to be taken or paid out. You can never lose vacation time. When I left my salaried job, the "vacation" time I had on the books vaporized. When I left my hourly job two months ago, I got a check for the vacation time I had on the books. Salaried folks get paid a flat rate per year, no overtime, and no vacation pay, but are allowed to take time away from work. Same with time off for Jury Duty. Most companies I worked for allowed two weeks off with pay for jury duty for hourly folks. They didn't advertise it, but there was no cap on how long salaried folks could be away for Jury Duty because they weren't being paid by the hour, but for filling a position. I was on Jury Duty 6 1/2 weeks and other than having to turn in the $5 a day the Court paid me, it had no impact on my paycheck.

 

[QueenIsabella]

Well, in a way it is, but this bill is mostly about BENEFITS, not pay, per se.

Salaried employees have to remember that part of their compensation is the insurance benefits, paid vacation time, etc. Hourly workers, particularly those working less than 40 hours, generally don't get any of that.

Not true. I have a son working at Fedex, and a daughter working at Starbucks. Both have (or have access to) paid leave, medical insurance, tuition reimbursement, and 401k plans. While my son's job is considered full-time--he works over 30 hours a week--he doesn't work 40 hour weeks. That's the nature of it--he gets up at the crack of...dawn, and works until he's sent home. My daughter works closer to 20 hours a week--we don't want her working more than that, she's a full-time student. While my son's job is somewhat physically demanding, it's not horrible--and he works with men and women who, for whatever reason, can't do the more labor-intensive jobs, so they aren't put on them. One woman is pregnant, for example (he doesn't inquire as to the medical concerns of everyone, but being pregnant can only be hidden for so long).

 

[DLgal]

Yes on insurance, but at least in California salaried employees don't get paid vacation time. That is an important distinction in California, because paid vacation time has to be taken or paid out. You can never lose vacation time. When I left my salaried job, the "vacation" time I had on the books vaporized. When I left my hourly job two months ago, I got a check for the vacation time I had on the books. Salaried folks get paid a flat rate per year, no overtime, and no vacation pay, but are allowed to take time away from work. Same with time off for Jury Duty. Most companies I worked for allowed two weeks off with pay for jury duty for hourly folks. They didn't advertise it, but there was no cap on how long salaried folks could be away for Jury Duty because they weren't being paid by the hour, but for filling a position. I was on Jury Duty 6 1/2 weeks and other than having to turn in the $5 a day the Court paid me, it had no impact on my paycheck.

Right, as a salaried employee with paid vacation, you get to NOT come to work and you get paid anyway. There would be no expectation to be "paid out" for vacation time you never took. That's on you if you didn't take them.

Hourly employees have to "earn and use up" vacation time, and if they don't have enough and want days off, they take them unpaid.

 

[DLgal]

Not true. I have a son working at Fedex, and a daughter working at Starbucks. Both have (or have access to) paid leave, medical insurance, tuition reimbursement, and 401k plans. While my son's job is considered full-time--he works over 30 hours a week--he doesn't work 40 hour weeks. That's the nature of it--he gets up at the crack of...dawn, and works until he's sent home. My daughter works closer to 20 hours a week--we don't want her working more than that, she's a full-time student. While my son's job is somewhat physically demanding, it's not horrible--and he works with men and women who, for whatever reason, can't do the more labor-intensive jobs, so they aren't put on them. One woman is pregnant, for example (he doesn't inquire as to the medical concerns of everyone, but being pregnant can only be hidden for so long).

Many hourly jobs at big companies definitely do offer benefits, but that don't HAVE to and that is what this bill is about, more or less. Its about recognizing a lower threshold where benefits/overtime must kick in. Not every company is as generous as Starbucks.

 

[JimMIA]

Well, in a way it is, but this bill is mostly about BENEFITS, not pay, per se.

Salaried employees have to remember that part of their compensation is the insurance benefits, paid vacation time, etc. Hourly workers, particularly those working less than 40 hours, generally don't get any of that.

I'm not aware of any law anywhere that mandates that employers have to provide any employee with benefits.

The employer is required to pay hourly employees minimum wage, withhold taxes and make an employer contribution to Social Security, but I don't know of any law that says they have to provide any employee with ANY paid time off, vacations, health insurance, retirement plans, etc. They provide those benefits for competitive reasons.

 

[Allison]

Right, as a salaried employee with paid vacation, you get to NOT come to work and you get paid anyway. There would be no expectation to be "paid out" for vacation time you never took. That's on you if you didn't take them.

Hourly employees have to "earn and use up" vacation time, and if they don't have enough and want days off, they take them unpaid.

You know it works the same way with many salaried employees? Most don't get to take off as much time as they want and still get paid. It happens at some companies but isn't the norm. Salaried employees still get a bank of vacation, still need to use it when they aren't working and can go unpaid if they don't have enough and want time away.

 

[sam_gordon]

Many hourly jobs at big companies definitely do offer benefits, but that don't HAVE to and that is what this bill is about, more or less. Its about recognizing a lower threshold where benefits/overtime must kick in. Not every company is as generous as Starbucks.

I'd say many hourly jobs DO offer benefits. It's true they don't have to, but it's also true businesses don't have to offer benefits to salaried employees also. If I understand this bill correctly (and I only know what I've read here, haven't done any of my own research), it would kick in OT after 32 hours/week (as opposed to the current 40). And 32 would be a federally mandated "full time" number of hours? What's the current requirement? My wife works 37 hours at her job and that's considered FT. I was told for my company (assuming it's company and not law) anything over 32 hours "on a regular basis" is FT.

 

[GreatLakes]

Right, as a salaried employee with paid vacation, you get to NOT come to work and you get paid anyway. There would be no expectation to be "paid out" for vacation time you never took. That's on you if you didn't take them.

Hourly employees have to "earn and use up" vacation time, and if they don't have enough and want days off, they take them unpaid.

Every company I ever worked for had the same vacation/PTO rules for everyone that was full time regardless of whether or not they are exempt. At my current job everyone with the same duration of employment earns PTO at the same rate per pay period. We only hire non-full time staff for temporary positions so everyone from the CEO the the lowest grade new hire has the same PTO rules, the only difference is with more years you get more PTO per pay period.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So shouldn't they factor that into their decision? What you posted earlier applies to ALL workers. When you take any job, it's your responsibility to agree to the pay and the work hours. If you don't like a situation, you walk.

Well in a way that's exactly what you're seeing now and what some people are crying foul about. People walking away from jobs that they feel see them either underpaid, lack benefits (or enough of them), lack work/life balance and good working environment. People have seen success with raising pay...but only to a point. We're in this mess for a variety of reasons and hourly employees are speaking out by walking away.

 

[Allison]

I have also not heard of a company basing benefits on whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt. It is based on hours worked for both.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

One of the biggest differences I've seen between hourly and salaried is how you use your benefits. Most especially when it comes to PTO/Vacation. There tends to be much more flexibility for salaried than hourly. My husband has 10+ weeks of vacation (actually he probably has more than that) stored up for a reason. But also if my husband worked 39.5 hours one week and 40.5 hours another week it all balanced out in the end. That tends to not be the same with hourly employees.

There was a stark difference in how I could use my PTO and how my husband could/can and at his office hourly workers are similar to how it was with me just less restrictive.

FWIW vacation/pto polices vary. When I was at the insurance company the policy for salaried or hourly was you can carry over up to 40 hours per year (in CA all time could be carried over by law). At my husband's company I'm not entirely certain if there is a difference on hourly vs salaried but how it works for him as a salaried employee is he can "bank" up to twice his yearly allotment (at this point my husband gets 6 weeks of vacation per year which means he can bank up to 12 weeks of vacation). Once you hit your max you no longer accrue vacation time until you get below your max wherease for me there was a set accrual throughout the year which added up to X many days per year.

My father-in-law works for a main hospital system in our area, while I don't know if there is a difference between hourly or salaried they can sell back a portion of their PTO for cash on their paycheck.

There's always pros and cons though. I mean when I was at the insurance company I could not legally take work home. Any work I was doing I was legally required to be paid for it. My husband on the other hand does at times have to answer an e-mail, work for a bit on some project, call so and so even though he's home, and on the rare but still has happened circumstance answered the phone while we are actively away on vacation though he can screen calls and e-mails and ignore non-emergent ones he may have to tend to things even while out on PTO.

 

[JimMIA]

Every company I ever worked for had the same vacation/PTO rules for everyone that was full time regardless of whether or not they are exempt. At my current job everyone with the same duration of employment earns PTO at the same rate per pay period. We only hire non-full time staff for temporary positions so everyone from the CEO the the lowest grade new hire has the same PTO rules, the only difference is with more years you get more PTO per pay period.

That may be your experience, but it certainly is not true everywhere. Many places have totally different rules for different employees, depending on the nature of their work, union contracts, and many, many other factors.