Although this may come off sounding like a lazy employee trying to get around doing a full day's work, that truly isn't the case. Here's the situation: For the past 10.5 months, I've worked in a N. California branch office of a S. California based company as a salaried employee with an authorized (by my hiring manager) workday schedule of 9-5. My performance has consistently received accolaides from my manager, co-workers and even from managers in the S. Cal office. However, all of a sudden, the HR manager in the S. Cal office is insisting on either docking 30 minutes from my pay for each day that I work from 9-5, or that I come in half an hour earlier or stay half an hour later every day for the same pay. HR seems to think this is perfectly acceptable, while I view it as a substantially adverse alteration to the deal I made when I accepted this job. It's my understanding that a salaried employee is paid to complete the set of tasks that their job description entails and not merely for their time, by the hour. Otherwise, what would be the point of differentiating between hourly and salaried employees?

Now HR is implementing a computer-based time clock and telling all of the employees in both offices that if we don't start clocking in and out every day, we'll be fired. Aside from being a real morale killer, this doesn't seem at all fair. Are there any labor laws on the books or previously set precedents on situations like this? Everyone in my office is extremely unhappy and resentful that we're being treated like we've done something wrong when we've been following the rules that the company set - and now what used to be viewed by the company as perfectly acceptable is a terminable offense.

I view it as a substantially adverse alteration to the deal I made when I accepted this job.

If you have a contract, that would be one thing. I suspect you do not, so there is little you can do about the change.

It's my understanding that a salaried employee is paid to complete the set of tasks that their job description entails and not merely for their time, by the hour.

A common and incorrect conception.



Are there any labor laws on the books or previously set precedents on situations like this?

Nope. I understand that exempt employees don't like punching clocks. That somehow lowers them to the level of the non-exempt employees. I never understood why the non-exempts are lesser beings in the eyes of those who are exempt.

There are no laws that will support you not punching a clock. If the employer says do it, then just do it.

Can they dock an exempt employee a half hour a day?

Can they dock an exempt employee a half hour a day?

"Exempt", no, unless using intermittent FMLA. "Salaried" nonexempt, yes. All the OP said was that she was salaried; she didn't say what exactly she did.

OP, "salaried" and "exempt" are not interchangeable terms.

Actually, the OP mentions that the position is non-exempt in the post's title. The 30 minute "docking" is the company enforcing a lunch break. The OP may not like it, but it is more likely being done to document the legally mandated breaks than it is to oppress the employees.

Man, how did I miss that? :o

ANY employee, exempt, non-exempt, or salaried non-exempt, is required to work as many hours in a day as the employer requires. Period, end of story.

There are any number of valid reasons to have employees clock in and out. Not all or even most of them have to do with "trust" or "punishment".