According to ADP, the DoL, and the FLSA you’re wrong.
Can you require exempt employees to work certain hours? 1
Employers are free to create work schedules for exempt employees however they see fit as long as they comply with any state and local regulations that govern meals and breaks.
Does an exempt employee have to work 40 hours a week? 1
No, however, many businesses have company policies mandating a 40-hour workweek for exempt employees. Employers may take disciplinary action, including termination, against anyone who doesn’t fulfill that requirement, but they usually can’t deduct pay. Doing so might result in the employee no longer qualifying for the exemption.
Further you keep making comments about “fill the key responsibilities of your job description” like most workers have extremely specific job duties. This is not the case for salaried-exempt workers: 2
- primary duty must be managing the enterprise…department…or subdivision of the enterprise; OR
- primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance; OR
- primary duty must be the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge, defined as work which is predominantly intellectual in character and which includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment; AND The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning; AND The advanced knowledge must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.
It’s high time people pushed back on this bullshit. Most people in office jobs can do their jobs effectively in well under 40 hours.
This is a terrible hill to die on. By that logic, most office jobs can be outsourced to India for a third of the cost if all you do is check off a list. If Employers have to deal with people double-dipping, they’ll pay a fraction of your salary for it.
A good manager understands that the true resource is employee morale, trust, and loyalty
It’s a two way street. Employees hiding the fact that they are working a second job during the time they are suppose to be working for you is a breach of trust as well.
study after study after study shows nothing but positives both for employers and employees in more efficient and balanced work time structures than the current mass delusion standard.
Wait a minute, now you’re trying to double-dip arguments! You can’t sit there are argue that the 40 hour work week is bad and inefficient and then claim that a person should be able to work two jobs simultaneously like it wouldn’t be even more inefficient or worse for work / life balance. It’s absurd that you’d even say that. Your comments more and more are incoherent ramblings of someone who hasn’t thought anything through and just wants to complain about work.
1847953620@lemmy.world 10 months ago
*You mean according to the law, I’m right, since it isn’t law that you’re required to work 40 hours, by definition of salaried exempt
*Yes, filling in key responsibilities is not a perfect science of what that means, which is is why the FLSA and it’s enforcing agency the DoL go out of their way to develop logical “tests” on what kind of work should qualify for salaried exempt, a small percentage of which you list (for some odd reason)
What’s wrong with checking off a list? Anything is checking off a list. That’s not a counter-argument. You’re just stating what you wish happens, but just stating assertions doesn’t make them true. Employers will get whatever the market will bear in terms of labor negotiations. If that means having to put up with “double-dipping”, witches, and bears oh my, idc.
Employees that meet the definition of salaried work and thus have freedom over their time earned from efficiency shouldn’t have a problem handling their duties. If they choose to work more for additional pay from someone else at the risk of burnout and expense of their leisure time, so be it. It’s not a marriage to an ultra-jealous controlling douchebag, even if you want it to be and redefine anything but complete submission as a “breach of trust”.
You are just being deliberately obtuse with hypotheticals. People should be allowed to work two jobs, if they are efficient and wish to sacrifice some of what should be their own time, provided they can actually handle it. Yes, the wins in efficiency by not forcing people to pretend to be productive for 40 hours are there. Anyone with a tenth of a brain that’s actually worked in a corporate environment will attest to that intuitively. That doesn’t mean in actuality, everyone will be able to work two jobs. Not everyone will have the same available energy left over, nor will choose to spend it that way. If someone wants to exert themselves further, let them. It’ll be up to them to manage the possibility of burnout, decide how temporary the situation will be, et cetera. Making another 100% (ballpark) of your salary is not a bad incentive in the short term at least, though companies won’t be handing out 100% salary bonuses for efficiency nor performance anytime soon. We all know how little a dollar goes these days, and how wages haven’t kept up with inflation for generations. This is one of the results of that.
*“Incoherent ramblings” you sound like a bad small-time manager that blames younger generations for his ineptitude as one. Seethe and keep getting left behind, all that grandstanding is only gonna get you brownie points with your fellow boomers, but it won’t actually help you navigate a changing labor market.