Exempt employee forced reduction in hours

[cb_in_ca]

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

I am a computer systems analyst in California working for a local city government. I am an exempt employee and have been since I started my job. I have been "On-Call" since the day I started, 6 years ago, and I regularly work 50-60 hours a week and I have been very happy doing so from that first day.

Recently negotiations between the city and my union broke off and our union members were given a 4% pay increase based upon what was negotiated. This comes after our union conceeded to forgo pay increases last year due to economic conditions.

As a result of the 4% increase, the city has sent a letter to some, but not all, union members stating that since economic conditions will not allow the city to be able to afford such a raise that my position will be immediately and permanently reduced to a 0.9 Full Time Employee (FTE) and my work hours will therefore be reduced from 40 to 36 hours per week and that I will officially work 8AM-5PM Monday - Friday with alternating Fridays off but that I am still an exempt employee and therefore I am expected to, in reality, remain On-Call as needed as well as I am expected to continue to work as many hours as are necessary to complete my job IE 50-60 hours a week even though officially my hours are being reduced by 10% to offset my 4% pay rasie resulting in a net pay reduction of 6%.

So my questions are:
1) Since my hours are being reduced to compensate for my raise, am I still really an exempt employee?
2) If I am no longer exempt, can I request back pay for overtime?
3) If I am still exempt, can I refuse to work outside of the hours stated in the letter (8AM-5PM Mon-Fri with alt Fri off) without reprecussion?

Thanks

CB

 

[justalayman]

You work fewer hours and get as much pay as before, right?

just not seeing a problem here.

exempt means you do not get overtime and you can be required to work as many hours as your employer demands, including on call, off shift, stand by, anything. and yes, you can be fired for refusing to work off schedule hours. In fact, that (the hors worked/available not the lack of OT pay) applies to not only exempt but non-exempt employees as well.

as long as you fit the requirements allowed to determine if you can be considered exempt, you can be considered exempt.

elaws - Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor
U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Wages - Overtime Pay



if you have any restrictions on what your employer can do, it would be due to your union contract so I would suggest conferring with a union rep to discuss what the contract allows.

 

[cb_in_ca]

You work fewer hours and get as much pay as before, right?

just not seeing a problem here.

That is not correct. Quoting the letter that we got: "With this change in your schedule, your salary will be reduced proportionally and your leave accruals will be similarly reduced. Your PERS (Public Employee Retirement System) service credit will be unaffected, and you health contribution will be equal to that received by a full-time employee."

Therefore, I will be expected to work the same number of hours (50-60), as well as be on-call but my pay is being reduced by 6% (4% raise minus 10% cut in hours from 40 to 36).

 

[justalayman]

That is not correct. Quoting the letter that we got: "With this change in your schedule, your salary will be reduced proportionally and your leave accruals will be similarly reduced. Your PERS (Public Employee Retirement System) service credit will be unaffected, and you health contribution will be equal to that received by a full-time employee."

Therefore, I will be expected to work the same number of hours (50-60), as well as be on-call but my pay is being reduced by 6% (4% raise minus 10% cut in hours from 40 to 36).

what's not correct? my view is my view and if I do not see it as a problem, it is not a problem, to me. Now, if you want to provide a correction to the legality of it, then do so.



if they altered your actual pay, that would be controlled by your union agreement, not law.

 

[cbg]

If your pay is still a guaranteed $455 or more every week, and if your job duties still qualify under one of the exemptions allowed by the FLSA, then you are still exempt. The number of hours you are required to work has little to no affect on your exempt status.

 

[pattytx]

If your pay is still a guaranteed $455 or more every week, and if your job duties still qualify under one of the exemptions allowed by the FLSA, then you are still exempt. The number of hours you are required to work has little to no affect on your exempt status.

Oops, you just corrected someone else; $640/wk in California.

LYMI.

 

[cb_in_ca]

what's not correct? my view is my view and if I do not see it as a problem, it is not a problem, to me. Now, if you want to provide a correction to the legality of it, then do so.



if they altered your actual pay, that would be controlled by your union agreement, not law.

Let's say I currently make a salary of $100,000/yr. My new union contract gives me a 4% raise so now I make a salary of $104,000/yr. To offset this, my employer has decided to reduce my position to a 0.9 Full Time Employee (a 10% cut in my status) and therefore my new salary is now $93,600/yr.

In addition I have beed told that my hours are changed from 8AM-6PM M-F with alt Fridays off to 8AM-5PM M-F with alt Fridays off. That is where he 10% cut comes. I know that the hours I work are pretty much irrelevant as an exempt employee so even though I have been 8-6 in the past and am now 8-5 I know that I will still be expected to work however long it takes for me to get my job done.

How does any of that equate to working fewer hours for the same amount of money? I will be working the same amount of hours for considerably less money.

 

[justalayman]

is that what you are really arguing about? Some flippant comment I made that has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the situation?


fine, you make less than you did before.


and, from everything you posted, there is nothing illegal about any of it and as long as it is cool with your union, it would appear you now still have a job yet you have less income.

ok?

 

[cb_in_ca]

is that what you are really arguing about? Some flippant comment I made that has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the situation?

I was not arguing with you, or anyone else, about anything. I appreciate your flippant comment though. Your flippant comments clearly demonstrate to me just what an a-hole you are and I always appreciate it when someone makes that determination so easy for me, rather than leading me on to think that they are a well meaning individual and then springing their a-holeness on me just out of the blue and without warning.

fine, you make less than you did before.

Indeed I do and I am glad you finally realize that.

and, from everything you posted, there is nothing illegal about any of it and as long as it is cool with your union, it would appear you now still have a job yet you have less income.

ok?

OK? No, not necessarily. That is why I am here, and a few other places questioning it. Thankfully I will still be able to feed, cloth and house my family. I understand that with current economic conditions that there are many out there that cannot and I am happy that I am not faced with their circumstances.

 

[cbg]

Oops, you just corrected someone else; $640/wk in California.

LYMI.

So I did. I found this particular poster so annoying I completely missed the state. Mea culpa.

 

[justalayman]

OK? No, not necessarily. That is why I am here, and a few other places questioning it. Thankfully I will still be able to feed, cloth and house my family. I understand that with current economic conditions that there are many out there that cannot and I am happy that I am not faced with their circumstances.

you may think me an a-hole but at least I do not whine about somebody giving me free CORRECT information where the comment had absolutely nothing to do with the legal question especially when the answer was so simple and so easily answered that your average dolt would have been able to answer it without asking anybody else. I guess that makes my decision concerning your intelligence quite easy since you in fact did find the need to seek information from others.


so, there is your situation whiner. live with it. don't like it? quit.

like those options? too bad if you don't because those are your options.

 

[pattytx]

So you have a union contract? What does the CBA say about this?

(cbg-understandable)