On Labor Laws

In many of the jobs I've had the question has arisen: "what's the difference between salary exempt and salary non-exempt?"

It's quite easy.  Salary non-exempt is for someone who earns a salary but if they work over 40 hours in a week they must be paid overtime.  The following rules apply:
1.  They must never be asked to stay at their desk or area of work during "off hours" such as lunch time.  By asking them to remain at a certain location the employer is thereby asking them to work or be ready to work, and must then pay them for that time.  This goes for those employers who think having lunchtime or after work meetings, seminars, classes, etc. but without pay, just pizza is actually a legitimate request.  The employer should ask this question: would the employee be at that location, class, meeting, etc. if they weren't actually at work?  If not, then why do you think you shouldn't be paying them to be there?  The same goes for things like making the employee be "on call", stay near a phone or answer emails during their off time.
2.  The employer absolutely cannot ask the employee to work more than 40 hours in a week, not pay them overtime, but give them "comp" time the following week.  Whatever time is worked in one week must be paid appropriately.  There is no such thing as comp time unless it occurs within the work week.
3.  The employer CAN ask the employee to keep track of their time via time sheets, etc.  They can also ask the employee to work between certain hours.  They do not have to pay for breaks.

Salary exempt is for someone who earns a salary but cannot earn any overtime.  Very strict rules apply for this status since it can so easily be abused:
1.  The employer cannot keep track of the employee's time worked except in the case where the employer must bill time to clients (such as lawyers or architects).  Keeping time sheets, making the employee punch a time clock, etc. treats the employee like a non-exempt employee and therefore nullifies the exempt status.
2.  The employer can set regular work hours, but the employee can be expected to work during "off hours".  Therefore the regular work hours cannot be strictly enforced since the employee is considered to be "always on the job".  This is especially true if the employee is on-call, takes work home with them, is expected to answer email, etc. all outside of the regular work hours.
3.  The employer cannot demand that an employee work exactly 45, 50, 55, etc. hour work weeks.  Again, the employee is pretty much always at work so the hours are meaningless.  Instead the employee should be expected to get their tasks completed within a certain time not fill up a set amount of hours with tasks.
4.  Not just anyone can be put into exempt status.  Only those employees that are in management, supervisory, or professional positions can be exempt from overtime.  During the George W. Bush administration this list was added to:  now those employees who are considered "skilled" can also be exempt from earning overtime.
5.  An employer cannot switch employees from exempt to non-exempt without changing the job description. Some scandalous employers try to switch employees to exempt during busy projects so they won't have to pay overtime, but then switch them back again after the project is completed.  This is highly illegal.
6.  An employer cannot have an employee working as exempt while another employee doing essentially the same job is non-exempt.  This is why job descriptions are important.

What does it mean to be an "employment at will" company or state?  It simply means the employer doesn't need to prove grounds for firing an employee under most circumstances.  They can simply say "it just didn't work out".  However, this doesn't mean they can discriminate against the employee or fire them unjustly.  Legal cases can still be brought against the employer regardless of the "at will" statement.

Now, if an employee (or a representative Union) has signed a contract which contradicts any of the above rules, the employee is out of luck.  Contracts supersede most employment laws.

For more information one can refer to the book "Ohio Employment Practices Law" by Bradd N. Siegel and John M. Stephen.

Please note, I am not a lawyer and this blog does not intend to give legal advice.  If you feel you have been wrongfully terminated, treated unjustly by an employee or employer, you must seek professional legal aid.

On the warrant out for my arrest!

Yes, there was a warrant out for my arrest.  Allow me to 'splain:

In June of 2010 I was driving down W.44th when I came upon the "intersection" for a high school that was being newly constructed.  There was a stop sign and I came to a very near stop and then continued on.  On the West coast this is called a "California stop".  The operator of blue and red flashing lights called it a traffic violation.

My court date was set for July 7th.  Since I was working from home back then I had plenty of time to go down to the courthouse, so on the 28th of June I ran down there and paid my fine.  I could have waited all day in court on my stated trial date in hopes of reducing the fine, but I've never had good luck with that.  The one and only other time I got a ticket (for turning left just before 6pm at a stop that clearly read "no left turn between 7am and 6pm), I was forced by the judge to apologize, loudly and in a long repeated refrain, to the entire court.  I decided to avoid court in Cleveland.  Well, the fine was paid and forgotten.

Flash forward to just a couple weeks ago.  In the mail I received a letter from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles saying I was now blocked from getting my license renewed or any vehicle registered in the state due to the warrant that had been issued for my arrest.

You must know I was immediately panicked.  I consider myself a "goody-two-shoes".  I don't do drugs, I very rarely drink alcohol, and so on.  I believe in abiding by the law, with the exception of only a few tickets (I've gotten five in my life and one was from one of those cameras).

I got on the inter-webs and tracked down the case number listed on the paperwork.  Sure enough my case popped up claiming I had not showed up for my court date, and never paid the fines.  With two years of fees stacked up on the original fine I was now looking at quite a large sum, not to mention the fees from the BMV for reinstatement.  I was on pins and needles.

Luckily I had only regularly used one solitary credit card back in 2010.  A quick call to the card company and I was being sent (via agonizing snail mail) a copy of June 2010's statement showing the paid fine.

A few days later I was driving to work in the morning when I was suddenly pulled over.  Apparently, according to the police officer, I was doing 35 in a 25 zone.  Since the zone was a "Hospital Zone" it wouldn't count as a speeding ticket.  In fact, it would now count as "reckless driving" and I would be thrown in jail and my car towed.  I decided not to inform the officer that there was a warrant out for my arrest.  I crossed my fingers he was not going to run my license and I put on my best "doe eyed" ignoramus act.  He handed me back my license and I was free to go with a verbal warning.  Close call.

So tonight I finally had my paperwork in hand.  I went down to the courthouse and displayed my credit card statement proudly.  The nice woman looked up my case number and discovered that the case had somehow been logged twice.  One showed the fine paid, the other showed a warrant for my arrest.

She assured me it would be taken care of, gave me a signed and sealed paper proving the file was incorrect and sent me on my way.

Thus ends a tale of one of America's most wanted men: Bud Perry, alias Bud "the Rascal" Perry.