Want to allow worker's to make more - can they agree to regular rate? California

[EDH]

I am an employer in a small company. I would like to allow, but not require, my team to work more hours but the requirement to pay 1.5x the rate for OT kills the idea - we just can't afford it. So the rule designed to "protect" employees is hurting them. Question is....can an agreement be made between the employee and employer to let them voluntarily work more than 40 hours and get paid at regular rate? Then it is a choice they can make to help themselves and the company.
? Thanks!

[Betty3]

Overtime Pay May Not Be Waived: The overtime requirement may not be waived by agreement between the employer and employees. This is law.

[angel_28]

Simple answer is NO!
And believe me, penalties for not paying proper OT will hurt you even more.

[ElleMD]

No can do. If they are working OT, they must be paid OT.

[Betty3]

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs23.pdf

[Beth3]

can an agreement be made between the employee and employer to let them voluntarily work more than 40 hours and get paid at regular rate? Noooooooooooo! You have no lawful means whatsoever to enter into an agreement with employees that would result in avoiding paying time and a-half. Doesn't matter one whit whether the employees are completely agreeable to doing so.

As a business owner, you have a number of choices: (1) Bite the bullet and pay the OT, (2) figure out how to get the work done within 8 hours/day and 40 hours/week, or (3) contact a staffing agency and bring some temps in to do the additional work.

[cbg]

It is against the law for an employee to work more than 40 hours in a week (or, in your state, 8 hours in a day) without being paid overtime. The employee and the employer cannot agree to break the law.

[sniper1227]

Have you thought about placing your employee(s) on salary?

[Morgana]

Have you thought about placing your employee(s) on salary?

Salary is a method of paying people. It can not be used to avoid paying OT to employees who must be legally paid overtime.
If they are non-exempt and paid on a weekly basis, they must still be paid overtime at a rate equal to their hourly wage.

This is not good information for the poster. Sorry.

[sniper1227]

Actually - depending on if the employer and employee can agree to a salary compensation that help both parties then why shouldn’t it be considered Morgana? Of course they must still be paid at least min wage for hours worked. (Including OT)

A good example is a company I used to work for in NC, $5000/month salary for 50 hours a week. Sure there were times I had to put in more hours; however it provided me with peace of mind but never dropped me below the min wage/OT rules)

I was in no way insinuating the OP should use salary to avoid OT, just throwing an idea out. Some people prefer salary to have a “guaranteed” income, others prefer hourly in hopes of making more for more time in.

Let’s assume the OP offers them $14/hr currently at 40 hours a weel which would equal to $560 a week ($665 at 45 hours with OT). Now let’s also assume the OP would offer a salary of $700 a week ($245 over the fed min) and requires a 45 hour work week, this would amount to $15.55/hr. This give flexibility to the employee to know what will hit his bottom line, extra money to the employees, and the flexibility to the employee’s workload.

If I’m missing something let me know, maybe I should make a case with my previous employer!

[drruthless]

Das ist in der Doktor!

Salary is a method of paying people. It can not be used to avoid paying OT to employees who must be legally paid overtime.
If they are non-exempt and paid on a weekly basis, they must still be paid overtime at a rate equal to their hourly wage.

This is not good information for the poster. Sorry.

I think sniper1227 has been smoking the midnight oil again and pulled an all nighter,
his postings have a pattern of irrelevance to the OPs questions,
or,
to any of the solutions given,
...especially his own....

..__________________
~ Diligence is a very great help,
even to a mediocre intelligence. ~ Seneca

[drruthless]

Das ist in der Doktor!

Actually - depending on if the employer and employee can agree to a salary compensation that help both parties then why shouldn’t it be considered Morgana? Of course they must still be paid at least min wage for hours worked. (Including OT)

A good example is a company I used to work for in NC, $5000/month salary for 50 hours a week. Sure there were times I had to put in more hours; however it provided me with peace of mind but never dropped me below the min wage/OT rules)

I was in no way insinuating the OP should use salary to avoid OT, just throwing an idea out. Some people prefer salary to have a “guaranteed” income, others prefer hourly in hopes of making more for more time in.

Let’s assume the OP offers them $14/hr currently at 40 hours a weel which would equal to $560 a week ($665 at 45 hours with OT). Now let’s also assume the OP would offer a salary of $700 a week ($245 over the fed min) and requires a 45 hour work week, this would amount to $15.55/hr. This give flexibility to the employee to know what will hit his bottom line, extra money to the employees, and the flexibility to the employee’s workload.

If I’m missing something let me know, maybe I should make a case with my previous employer!

Yes,
you are missing something,
..it's called a STATE LAW and I'm sorry to have to disappoint you,
and I'm going out on a limb here but,
I don't think California law would carry much weight in North Carolina..
Sorry.

As far as making a case with your previous employer?
I think the only thing you would stand to gain,
is a reminder as to why you are no longer employed there.
..______________________
~ We really have to stop meeting like this,
...the other members are starting to talk