I have recently begun a new job as a salaried employee that is required to clock in my hours (defined as a non-exempt employee). As I remember it, a salary employee gets the same pay based on a 40 hour work week. There are two pay periods per month. Each pay period doesn't always equal out to be the same time though. For instance, when I get paid in the middle of the month, that is for 11 workdays - when I get paid at the beginning of the following month, it's for 10 workdays. But my pay is the same. So no matter if it's 80 hours or 88 hours I get paid the same. That (as I see it) is salary.

Well one week I need to cut out about 1.5 hours early on friday. To offset this, I had taken 3 half hour lunchs (because I'm required to clock in and out for lunches) throughout the week. This gave me 1.5 extra hours of work that I was not intending on receiving overtime for. Rather, I was hoping it would buy me some time at the end of the week. I was then told that time does not roll over from day to day and that I would be docked 1.5 hours pay for leaving early on friday. So theoretically, if I worked 12 hours one day, and four hours the next - I would receive 4 hours of overtime and forced to take 4 hours out of my personal time/vacation/sick time.

So they are going to pay me 1.5 hours OT and take 1.5 hours out of my personal time (personal time cannot be replaced).


:confused:

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Can someone please explain this?

That's not exactly correct. Generally speaking (with limited exceptions) an exempt employee must be paid on a salaried basis; a nonexempt employee may be paid on a salaried basis. "Salaried" is merely a pay method. There is no legal requirement for a nonexempt employee to be paid for time not worked, whether "salaried" or "hourly". Overtime is required if you are nonexempt and work in excess of 40 hours in the workweek, regardless of the pay method.

However, Texas does not require daily overtime. So, the fact that you are getting overtime pay for 4 hours when you work 12 hours in a work day is more than the law requires.

that's exactly my point. If I want to leave 2 hours early on Friday by working an extra 2 hours during the workweek, I should be allowed to do that...right?
Instead, I'm forced to use vacation/personal time for time missed on that friday. When I replenish that Friday schedule with an extra 2 hours - then add the two extra hours that I worked during the week, I end up getting two hours of overtime that is unneccesary.

I'm not complaining about receiving the overtime. It's a matter of forcing me to deplete my vacation hours when it's completely uneccesary. If I need to attend to personal business during the week that requires me to leave an hour or two early during the week, I should be able to make that time up in the 40 hour work week, right? That's what the salary is, isn't it? A 40 hour work week? (for a non-exempt employee)

I know that they are not required to pay me for time not physically worked. That I understand. But why is it, when the daily overtime rule does not apply in Texas, can they restrict me to acruing 8 hours to every day. I have one of those jobs that doesn't require me to be present to accept calls, customer services or the like. I have one of those jobs that has duties that need to get done on a daily basis, irregardless of time. They pay me a salary based on a 40 hour work week. If I need to shift the schedule around a bit, should I be allowed to do that (within reason).

:(

Since no laws require the employer to do what is happening to you, it is happening as a matter of company choice.

I wouldn't do it like that -- I would be absolutely delighted to have an employee take a few hours off on one day in exchange for a few extra in another, assuming all the work gets done. The savings in overtime is well worth the juggling.

I agree. It was just frustrating to know that anytime that is taken out of a regular workday. I was just curious about the non-exempt work laws in Texas.
Could someone submit a link to where I could read more about it?

Thanks!

And what do you think vacation is for, if not for making your paycheck whole when you take time off?

I think his point was that his pay will be more than "whole" with the overtime paid -- he does not necessarily need the money at this point, but really wants to hold on to the PTO for some future date.

I can see that.

An alternative would be to take and literally bank the difference in net pay between a week with OT plus PTO and a normal work week. This will provide the cash cushion for some unpaid time off (if such time off is approved by the company).

EXACTLY. I think the issue here is not trying to get paid for time not actually worked. It's trying to get paid for the 40 hours. Theoretically, if I wanted to do all of the 40 hour work week crammed into three days, and I got all of the work that needed to be done - I should have the right to take the rest of the week off. I ACTUALLY worked 40 hours - irregardless of it being spread over every single day of the work week. I'm being paid for 40 hours and I will work 40 hours.

I'm not trying to get paid for time I didn't work. I'm trying to achieve my 40 hours in a flexible manner (within reason). Granted this is not something that I am trying to accomplish every week and working a 40 hr. week in 3 days is a bit extreme - but it's just the principle.

Thanks for all your help!!! :D

I was just curious about the non-exempt work laws in Texas.
Could someone submit a link to where I could read more about it?

Thanks!
There are no Texas laws relating to non-exempt employment, because the Texas Labor Code does not define exempt or non-exempt in regard to a federal law. Texas defers to the FLSA provisions.

From an employer-side, some just don't allow for any flexing of hours like what you are describing. Sometimes to their own detriment (and having to pay you more OT than needed).

But flexible time is harder to manage. I have one non-exempt employee that will come into the office much earlier than her supervisor on days where she wants to leave early (for whatever reason) ...without prior approval. No one knows for sure when she got here, except that she sends out an email (which actually could be sent from home if she were sneaky enough and thought she wouldn't possibly get caught). Someone has to track that time and whether it was approved, etc.

We have another employee who, while he did work a lot of overtime, decided to start setting his own hours. He didn't realize that his attendance was needed for others who were there during regular hours -- to help on their projects, provide feedback etc. Unless you work in a vacuum, part of being in the office is to support other employees.

We do allow our employees to "flex", but at times it gets way out of hand and you get to a point where you don't know who is working what schedule so it is hard to plan meetings etc. Currently our policy is that you can "flex" but must do so on a regular schedule (i.e. work 8:00-4:30 with a 30 minute lunch or 9-3 with a 30 minute lunch, etc) and you are paid based on that schedule (except for overtime).

So there are reasonable valid perspectives on why flextime is not good from the employers standpoint. I do agree that from an employee's standpoint, it could buy goodwill and better morale.

rr

And all of this to say that it is the employer's right to set the schedule for employees, not the employee's. If they don't want to let you "flex" your hours, they aren't required to allow you to do so.

understood. We obviously cannot have a world of employees setting their own schedules to do the work when they want to. Those people are called freelancers and/or independent contractors.

The point of this is that while a majority of the corporate world operates on an 8 to 5 M-F schedule, there are times when things in your personal life have to be tended to and 1 hour in the middle of the day doesn't cut it.
While vacation time covers your vacation, personal time etc. and sick days are implemented when you are sick - employees deserve an alternative to get these trivial things done. Picking your kid up early from school/daycare, leaving early to pick up your car at the shop, getting your driver's license renewed, meeting with your child's teacher, having to pick up a friend who's plane arrives at 5:15p - there are so many things in the world that simply do not pause until you get off of work at 5pm everday. I'm quite sure that if we added up all time needed to execute these simple things throughout every week of the year, we would surely use up almost half of our yearly vacation time. Vacation time should be used for just that - "vacation". It's not like we are asking to be paid for the time gone. The bottom line is that an employee has a job to do - and if they do it - shifting an hour or two throughout the week should be meaningless.