My husband works as a delivery person, and usually puts in 10-20 hours of mandatory overtime every week. He is an hourly wage-earner. Now the company has decided to change the way the delivery guys are paid -- they will be paid by each delivery (varying amounts depending upon the difficulty of the delivery) for part of the day, then they are to go back to the shop and clock out. Then they clock back in immediately, and will spend the rest of the day on an hourly rate until they clock out again. (So they will be clocking in and out twice each day.)

As goofy as this sounds, I'm assuming this new arrangement is for the purpose of saving the company money, and am wondering if the per-stop payments take the delivery guys out of eligibility for overtime pay (since that isn't hourly pay) and will leave them with only regular hourly pay for the remaining hours, most of which are probably now overtime hours.

I found the following on a thread on this forum: "You can be required to work as many hours as your employer dictates. The employer's only legal requirement is that you be paid time and a-half for all hours you work over 40 if you are a non-exempt (hourly paid) employee.", and wondered whether this was the "catch" the company is using. Would you agree with my suspicions?

If this is what the company is doing, is it legal? Is there any recourse for the drivers/deliverymen?

Thank you in advance for your analysis.

As long as the total pay for the workweek divided by the number of hours worked is at least minimum wage, this is legal. Let's look at an example:

50 hours worked, 20 deliveries during the week at $15/delivery, 30 hours waiting time at a sub-minimum wage (assuming $4.00/hr):

Deliveries = $300
Hourly wage = $120.00
Total straight-time pay $420.00
"regular rate of pay" $420/50 hours = $8.40 per hour
10 hours overtime at 1/2 time (straight-time pay already included) = $42.00
Total pay = $420.00 + $42.00 = $442.00

If the "regular rate of pay" was less $5.15 per hour, then this example would be in violation. Otherwise, it is legal. This is the proper calculation formula that must be used.

How discouraging.

The situation in the country now, with the loss of so many worker (and social) protections, makes me very sad for our country, especially for young people. They face a much harder and longer work life, for many reasons, than did my (boomer) generation. I am worried for them. We are taking giant leaps backwards. Just how large can a banana republic be?

My husband is nearing retirement, so this move by the company is probably only going to hurt us for the next year or so, but the other guys my husband works with are fairly young, with young children to support. How are they to manage?

Given legalized mandatory overtime of virtually any length, the concept of a 40-hour work week (for which so many suffered and even died) appears to me to be rather meaningless. This is a tragedy and a travesty. I think the history of the labor movement in America ought to be required reading in school.

Well, professional people normally do very well. A college degree is nearly a necessity these days. It's the nature of the beast.

I am happy for those professionals who "normally do very well." But my concern is for the majority of people who do not have college degrees, who are not "professionals," who do not do particularly well, and who, according to many measures, are doing worse with each passing decade.

I am not a social Darwinist ("Spencerist"). I love my country and I wish the best for all my fellow Americans. My family is safer when all families are secure.

I truly believe that if America continues on its current path, we will see the end of the American Era within our or our children's lifetimes. It's hard to imagine -- we've been on top for so long, we truly don't believe anything can touch us. It would be a tragedy of unimaginable proportion, a squandering of one of the greatest gifts of history.

If we are willing to commit our lower and middle economic classes to ever-increasing stress and deprivation (from everything from health care to education to a clean environment), it is obvious that the "professional" class would suffer as well; for one thing, its ranks must necessarily shrink (after all, professionals need clients, don't they?). Another danger for those bits of the professional class which would remain is simply demographic. A large and secure middle class is a great buffer for the rich against the desperately poor and hopeless. A fat and happy middle class has a keen interest in maintaining the status quo. Keep chipping away at the middle class, and suddenly, you're in Mexico! ("Welcome to the Caribbean, love!") The only thing which keeps Mexico from civil war is the outlet of the poorest of the poor to Mexico's neighbor to the north (us); ca. 28% of Mexico's GNP comes from migrant workers working in America! (There's a reason Fox is so involved with American domestic policy.) Without that influx of capital, and with no outlet for the frustrations of Mexico's enormous poverty-stricken lower classes, the potential for insurgency is enormous.

No one is safe then. Not even professionals. Not even people with college degrees.

And you're giving us this treatise here because? :rolleyes: :confused:

It matters what happens to the "little people" and their little wages. Strange is the labor lawyer who has to ask.

I apologize for my rant. I am just so worried about the children.

I never said I was a lawyer. There are a lot of very experienced professionals in HR here that are not attorneys who know a lot more about employment law than many attorneys. For example, I have over 26 years of experience in HR and payroll.