Excempt status changed to NONexempt

[Dorkis]

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

Work at one of the well known Telecommunications company. They are changing people in our job clasification from except to nonexcempt.
There are approximatly 2,000 people impacted. We have always been excempt and the average salary is 80K. My question is are they able
to just change it while the job didn't change. We all feel like we were demoted, we all work in a 24/7 workcenter environment. Now we are forced to take
an hour lunch and log every single minute. They claim this a government mandate but we heard otherwise that the VP decided to do it.
Just wondering what any one else thinks about this. Thanks

 

[Stephen1]

Most workers are classified as either exempt or non-exempt depending on their salary and the type of work they do. What they are exempt from or not exempt from is the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). FLSA requires employers to pay overtime pay to everyone except those who are exempt from the Act. So it usually is to the company's benefit to have exempt employees (and not pay overtime). It is usually to the employee's benefit to be classified as non-exempt. But the company doesn't get to just waive their wand and declare employees as exempt, there are tests to be applied to determine whether the company has appropriately classified employees as exempt. As I understand it there is no requirement that prohibits a company from classifying employees as non-exempt (that is employees who are entitled to overtime pay). There is only a prohibition on classifying as exempt, employees who are really non-exempt.

Now, to your situation, if you are classified as non-exempt then you will be eligible for overtime pay. As a previously exempt employee you did not have any right (from the Federal law view point) to overtime pay. Perhaps your company figured out that your position did not meet the criteria for exempt. I view getting overtime pay as a positive change. If you and your co-workers have an issue with this change, perhaps you could explain what the problem is that you see.

 

[FlyingRon]

To explain further what Stephen implied: Employers are free to treat employees who would qualify as exempt as non-exempt.
Call center employees (not in a technical or supervisory position) sound very much like they can not be exempt.

Logging time and lunch periods have nothing whatsoever to do with being exempt or not. I worked as a non-exempt employee and never had to log anything.
I worked for 25 years as an exempt employee and believe you I had to log my time in excruciating detail (billable hours, you know).

As far as lunch, non-exempt employees must be paid for all the time they work. It's up to the employer if you can eat on the clock (though if you work while taking your lunch, you must be paid).

 

[cbg]

It is always legal to make someone non-exempt, whether the job has changed or not. The reverse is not true.

 

[eerelations]

If you are a non-management call centre employee, then you've probably been non-exempt all along, and until your employer started treating you as non-exempt, your employer was in violation of the FLSA.

 

[cbg]

Not necessarily. There is a change to the FLSA salary floor coming up in December which will make a number of people automatically non-exempt who have been legally exempt until now.

 

[justalayman]

Not necessarily. There is a change to the FLSA salary floor coming up in December which will make a number of people automatically non-exempt who have been legally exempt until now.

I see the new income floor is $47,476 annually ($913 weekly). Did anything else change?

 

[eerelations]

Not necessarily. There is a change to the FLSA salary floor coming up in December which will make a number of people automatically non-exempt who have been legally exempt until now.

OP said they're all making around $80K which seemed a bit higher than the new salary floor.

 

[cbg]

Okay, mea culpa, I missed that.

However, I still disagree that this necessarily means that they've been non-exempt all along. It might be, sure, but it's not a given. I don't know a whole lot of non-exempt employees who make 80K. Could they? Sure. Is it is guarantee? No, not IMO.

 

[LdiJ]

Okay, mea culpa, I missed that.

However, I still disagree that this necessarily means that they've been non-exempt all along. It might be, sure, but it's not a given. I don't know a whole lot of non-exempt employees who make 80K. Could they? Sure. Is it is guarantee? No, not IMO.

There are factory workers who make 80k or more, which usually includes their overtime. I have a bunch of them from one factory as clients. They are clearly non-exempt.

 

[eerelations]

I wasn't saying that OP is a call centre employee for sure, I just said if she is (and at non-management level), then she's probably been non-exempt all along. Many non-exempt call centre employees can earn $80K (and more) with commissions (outbound) and bonuses (inbound) added on to their base pay.

 

[eerelations]

There are factory workers who make 80k or more, which usually includes their overtime. I have a bunch of them from one factory as clients. They are clearly non-exempt.

However, OP states she was being treated as exempt while at the same time earning $80K per year. If she was being treated as exempt, then she likely wasn't getting OT pay.

Also, OT says she works at a telecomms company. That combined with her calling her work environment a "workcenter" (oft used as a synonym for call centre) tells me there's a good chance she's working in a call centre. Not definite, but a pretty good likelihood.

 

[justalayman]

Okay, mea culpa, I missed that.

However, I still disagree that this necessarily means that they've been non-exempt all along. It might be, sure, but it's not a given. I don't know a whole lot of non-exempt employees who make 80K. Could they? Sure. Is it is guarantee? No, not IMO.

I know a lot of non-exempt employees that make >$80k. Train engineers and conductors often exceed $80k. Many construction workers exceed $80k, especially in big cities where their base pay @ a typical years work (~2000 hours) exceeds $80k.

I don't know a lot of employee that are on a salary that make $80k that would legally be able to be considered non-exempt.

Op did state they are salary (of $80k) which tends to put them in a most often exempt class, in my experiences.

Unless op clarifies their actual work duties we may never know. Regardless, as you stated the employer can treat them as non-exempt if they choose and as always, punching a time clock and documenting how one's work hours are used has nothing to do with exempt or non-exempt status. Anybody can be required to punch the clock and (almost) anybody can be allowed to not punch a clock (there are some occupations that mandate documenting time per law).

 

[cbg]

Maybe it's just that although my employer has fabulous benefits, they don't pay that great.

However, the question is, can the employer legally make the OP non-exempt even if the job has not changed. The answer, as we all agree, is yes, the employer can legally make the OP non-exempt even if the job has not changed.

He can, if he so chooses, talk to the DOL and/or an employment attorney and see whether or not he should have been non-exempt all along and if he is entitled to any back overtime. However, it doesn't sound to me as if the OP wants to be non-exempt, even if that means he gets overtime. He wants the "status" of being exempt and doesn't want to have to clock in and out and account for his time.

I've got news for him, though. Even an exempt employee can be required to clock in and out and account for his time. There is nothing in the FLSA that says exempt employee's can't be required to punch a time clock - it's only that they can't be paid on the basis of that time clock. The only thing being exempt means is that they don't get overtime and they get paid the same amount (some exceptions allowed) regardless of how many hours they work. It does not mean they get to come and go as they please and can't be required to account for where they are and what they're doing. A couple of employers ago we fired an exempt director for not being where he was suppose do be and "working from home" without permission too often. That same employer required ALL employees, regardless of employment status, to swipe in and out - that was a safety measure implemented after 9/11; we could see instantly, in case of emergency, who was in the building. The fact that he maybe hasn't had to in the past does not mean that his employer couldn't require it, and he can require it now.

 

[Dorkis]

Thanks Everyone for your responses

Thanks everyone for your responses and answering my question. Believe me I have no problem becoming nonexempt and getting paid for the overtime. Just wanted to
know your opinion. Been in this job 17 years and was always exempt, just was worried they were up to something. Thanks Again this forum is great!