windingmeup
Junior Member
What is the name of your state? California
Hello, I wrote last month about exempt versus non-exempt classification and overtime pay. I appreciate all the information posted. Feel free to read those posts for the details of my situation. This post is an update from those posts so I have left out a lot of detail about my situation. In any case here is the latest scoop.
My company has us classified as exempt but I felt our duties should not have allowed us to be classified as exempt and thus we should have been paid overtime. Our company requires extensive overtime from us (about 300 hours per year). If we did not meet this OT requirement we could be classified as a low performer, which would put us up front for layoffs (which have been occurring on a regular basis in the last year.
Something big happened this week and I don't know why, how, or who initiated this change (it was not me). Even though I knew what they were doing was illegal I did not say anything but I was planning to file a complaint when I left the company. Here is what happened this week: Our manager paged us all and said we were having a mandatory meeting the following day. We thought it was more layoffs, but it turned out to be something quite different. He announced that we were all being reclassified to be more consistent with what our job duties actually entail. Basically, we were being lowered ((demoted)) in classification from exempt to non-exempt. We were also told that many of us would have to take pay cuts because our current salary is outside the range allowed for our new classification. One plus is that we are now eligible for overtime. However, they now are telling us that they don't want us to work overtime (because they will have to pay it now). Keep in mind that our job duties have not changed in the last 3-4 years so it seems to me that if we are getting paid OT for this kind of work now and in the future, we should have been paid for it in the past.
The company said they are going to initiate some sort of back payment of overtime. It may be 6 month or even a year. My question is as follows. Shouldn't they be paying us for two years worth of back overtime? I thought that is what the Department of Labor requires in these cases. I am trying to figure out how to best position us for maximum back payment of OT. I am afraid if I bring up DOL regulations to management they will mark me for a future layoff. I think we have a solid case for asking for two years. I wish someone else would bring it up though. I thought about sending anonymous posts to management reminding them of what DOL requires. I also though about anonymously e-mailing everyone involved with this demotion letting them know what their rights are and also to point them to the DOL web where the specifics are spelled out on how companies are required to back pay.
Any suggestions from any of you? How would you handle this if you were in my shoes?
Hello, I wrote last month about exempt versus non-exempt classification and overtime pay. I appreciate all the information posted. Feel free to read those posts for the details of my situation. This post is an update from those posts so I have left out a lot of detail about my situation. In any case here is the latest scoop.
My company has us classified as exempt but I felt our duties should not have allowed us to be classified as exempt and thus we should have been paid overtime. Our company requires extensive overtime from us (about 300 hours per year). If we did not meet this OT requirement we could be classified as a low performer, which would put us up front for layoffs (which have been occurring on a regular basis in the last year.
Something big happened this week and I don't know why, how, or who initiated this change (it was not me). Even though I knew what they were doing was illegal I did not say anything but I was planning to file a complaint when I left the company. Here is what happened this week: Our manager paged us all and said we were having a mandatory meeting the following day. We thought it was more layoffs, but it turned out to be something quite different. He announced that we were all being reclassified to be more consistent with what our job duties actually entail. Basically, we were being lowered ((demoted)) in classification from exempt to non-exempt. We were also told that many of us would have to take pay cuts because our current salary is outside the range allowed for our new classification. One plus is that we are now eligible for overtime. However, they now are telling us that they don't want us to work overtime (because they will have to pay it now). Keep in mind that our job duties have not changed in the last 3-4 years so it seems to me that if we are getting paid OT for this kind of work now and in the future, we should have been paid for it in the past.
The company said they are going to initiate some sort of back payment of overtime. It may be 6 month or even a year. My question is as follows. Shouldn't they be paying us for two years worth of back overtime? I thought that is what the Department of Labor requires in these cases. I am trying to figure out how to best position us for maximum back payment of OT. I am afraid if I bring up DOL regulations to management they will mark me for a future layoff. I think we have a solid case for asking for two years. I wish someone else would bring it up though. I thought about sending anonymous posts to management reminding them of what DOL requires. I also though about anonymously e-mailing everyone involved with this demotion letting them know what their rights are and also to point them to the DOL web where the specifics are spelled out on how companies are required to back pay.
Any suggestions from any of you? How would you handle this if you were in my shoes?