Salary to hourly

[confusedmanager]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Missouri

can an employer change your pay from a salaried manager to hourly? Reason for the change was due to lack of business, yet I'm the only one with a pay cut and hour reduction...

 

[cbg]

It is always legal to make an employee non-exempt. The reverse is not true.

That being said, if you had to guess, why do you believe that your employer chose you to reduce to hourly?

(No prompting from the peanut gallery, please)

 

[confusedmanager]

I'm the only "salary" manager, its a locally owned business where they employ friends, they have a friend that works there that makes $10 an hour for 80 hours a week, whether she is there or not, my hours got drastically reduced as well, I now make less than the average hourly employee, with less hours, yet they say they don't want me to quit, just business isn't good ( we have been open 60 days)

 

[cbg]

That's what I was afraid you'd say.

Sorry, that's legal. As I said, an employer can make any employee non-exempt; Microsoft could make Bill Gates non-exempt if they wanted to. (By the way, what matters is exempt and non-exempt; salaried is only a pay method and has no legal status of its own. Not all salaried employees are exempt; not all exempt employees are salaried.)

The ONLY reason that might change the above answer in your case would be if they were changing you back to hourly non-exempt (which it would have to be; those instances where an exempt employee can be paid on an hourly basis do not apply in this case) either BECAUSE of your membership in a category protected by law, or BECAUSE you applied for, or used, a benefit that is likewise protected. Since neither is the case, they are not in violation of any laws as long as you are still paid no less than minimum wage (the higher of state or Federal) and overtime if you work over 40 hours a week.

You can and should apply for unemployment. And if I were you, I'd dust off the resume and start looking around; that does not sound like a company that's going to be around long.

 

[commentator]

In this situation, IF you have already worked the new way, as an hourly, even for one minute, then I'd probably stay at this job until I found another, not quit and apply for unemployment based on your work there. If you haven't yet worked any at all since you were told you were going to be changed to hourly, then you stand a much better chance of being approved for unemployment benefits if you quit for this reason.

By working at the new pay status, you have accepted it. Once you've accepted that you're going to work for this much money, have actually worked for them at this rate and way of paying you, then you won't be likely to quit because they've given you a cut in pay and be approved for unemployment.

 

[cbg]

I wasn't thinking about quitting and filing - I was thinking of partial benefits on the basis of the hours and rate cut. I didn't think the same restriction of not working at the new job applied for that. Was I wrong?

 

[commentator]

Nope, you's right. If it was a substantial pay cut, figured strictly on a Sunday through Saturday week, and the weekly benefit amount the OP would qualify for was more than they actually grossed during this time period, they could work it, and apply for and receive some money in partial unemployment benefits. It sounds like the business is struggling to get on its feet, and this might be just the ticket. Partial unemployment benefits right now in the beginning stages of the business might be appropriate, but they'd play heck with the company's unemployment tax rate, and they'd probably fire you (in which case you'd definitely be likely to qualify for unemployment) or try to keep you making just above the amount where you couldn't draw a partial unemployment rate. But it'd be worth checking out.

 

[confusedmanager]

Aren't I under three protected classes, being female, over 30 and single parent? And I'm the ONLY employee that took a pay cut. I was bringing home 737.57 every two weeks, now I'll be lucky to bring home $400. And since I'm the only employee that has no prior relationship with the owners (non-friend) wouldn't that fall under favoritism, since I'm the only one that took a pay cut?

 

[cbg]

Well, to start, it's over 40, not 30. And being a single parent is not a protected class. So you're left with female, and that is not enough in and of itself. (Favoritism is not illegal.)

But every single person in the world is a member of at least 3 protected classes. We all have a race, we all have a national origin, and we all have a gender. It takes more than being a member of a protected class, since everyone is. There has to be some EVIDENCE - verifiable evidence - that the adverse action was taken BECAUSE of your membership in a protected class.

Without some evidence that you were moved into an hourly category BECAUSE you are female, you're dead in the water. What evidence do you have that if you were male, you'd still be a salaried manager?

 

[ecmst12]

"Not a friend of the owner" is not a protected class. And just because you are female does not mean your pay was cut BECAUSE you were female. If other female employees did not have their pay cut, then you have no case for discrimination. If EVERY female employee had their pay cut, you MIGHT have a case.

 

[confusedmanager]

I wasn't sure of the protected classes.... I do plan on filing for supplemental unemployment, my first day of hourly technically would be Tuesday, pay period ends on Monday, even though the new schedule reflects an hourly schedule, so we will see how this plays out on Wednesday (payday)