As the title says, should I be concerned? I get the impression this is just a bureaucratic change (company doesn’t want to deal with both salaried and hourly workers for timesheet reporting). But I’d like to make sure.

  •  odelik   ( @odelik@lemmy.today ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Salary non-exempt guarantees you’re paid at least the 40 hours a week + overtime.

    I’d push back and say that this is a terms of contract change and get your peers to do the same.

    Edit: I wouldn’t be surprised if they do this and start reducing hours for various reasons. And from there it’s reduction in benefits duce to not hitting certain hours. It’s a pattern that’s been seen in various industries before.

      •  odelik   ( @odelik@lemmy.today ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, what I mean is that salary guarantees you get @ least 40 hours of pay (assuming salaried full-time). If you show up for work and they send you home, as a salaried employee you still get paid. Or if you finish the alloted work for the week early, you still get paid for 40.

        After all of that is when non-exempt comes into play with OT pay according to federal & state regulations and any contract guarantees that go above those regulations.

  •  Atyno   ( @Atyno@dmv.social ) OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    I’m going to keep an eye out in the market with these replies. I think I’m still ok if it’s just the possibility of reduced hours because I’m not entirely sure if that’s likely the case. I didn’t mention it in OP, but we already had an “approved” amount of hours to work regardless based on contracts. We also have timesheets regardless due to auditing requirements.

    But it probably doesn’t hurt to be cautious.