Recently Michigan became the latest state to become a "right to work" state. This means that a worker doesn't have to belong to a union or pay union dues regardless of the job they are doing.
About six decades ago, the Republican platform backed unions because they represented the "Made in America" ideal. As of late Republican sentiment has shifted dramatically away from unions, who in turn have been major supporters of Democrats.
I have heard, from friends on both sides of the political aisle, the mantra "unions drive up the cost of doing business because union wages are so high". The next question has to be: how low should the wages be? Companies that do business in China or the Philippines or third world countries are getting labor at ridiculously low prices. Should they be able to pay Americans 10 cents/hour too?
Without unions, can we trust the corporations to look after their employees with competitive wages and benefits? Many people believe that "fair market trade" effectively works, believing a company has to offer good wages and provide benefits in order to entice workers to come work for them and this competition will drive the industry. Unfortunately we know this is untrue. Jobs are not so plentiful, nor have they ever been, that all Americans can choose to go to another company if theirs doesn't pay enough or provide the best benefits. In most areas the competition isn't much better, and if no company in an area provides anything better, then the status-quo rules out and no one gets any benefits.
I'm not going to tout the past accomplishments of unions such as the five day work-week or the abolition of child labor. Most of the unions of today rarely resemble these same organizations of yesteryear. We've all heard the jokes about union workers standing around while only one actually does any real work or how a union employee can practically commit murder and still not get fired. Certainly problems can occur when fairness and equity take a back seat to tenure and unreasonable contracts.
I liked the way Ohio phrased its "anti-union" bill a couple years ago. It used the term "merit based raises" to replace tenure when it came to teachers and civil employees. Of course all you have to do is watch an episode of Mad Men to see examples where a circumspect supervisor raises up his buddies while pushing down others, all in the auspices of "merit". Friends will merit promotions, men over women, whites over ethnicity. This is precisely what tenure was supposed to be a remedy for. Sure, there is a Federal law that prohibits some forms of discrimination, but the list is actually quite short and it's difficult to prove.
Some states have enacted merit-based wages on standardized testing. That's a completely different can of worms I don't even want to waste time going over.
Now in Michigan (once the law takes affect and clears its legal challenges), a police officer can join the police force without joining the union or paying union dues. Does that officer get paid the same union wages? Same pay for equal work? Even though it was the union that negotiated the contract which set the pay scale? Why should the officer get the same benefits if he or she isn't going to pay into the union?
Full disclosure: I have never belonged to a union. I worked for United Grocers that had a distribution center where union workers were employed, but I've always been a designer and we have never unionized. I've worked for companies that appreciated my talents and paid me competitively, but I've also worked for companies that mistreated me because they could. Luckily my skills have allowed me to seek employment elsewhere when a company has gotten all uppity, but then the recent recession hit and it all went to hell.
At one point I was paid $25.00 per logo I designed with endless unpaid revisions. This worked out to be about 60 cents/hour. It didn't matter how long I worked on the logo or how many changes the client made, I still just got the $25.00. Strike that, as a matter of fact I only got paid for three of the logos, the fourth is still owed.
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Friday, January 18, 2013
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)