A Twist on Forced Vacation for Exempt EEs

[moburkes]

That is what I take exception to.

Tell me where you see that to be illegal. I take exception to many things, that doesn't make them illegal.

 

[pattytx]

Even though I worked 10.0 hours on company business that day,

I take exception to that, too, Ginny. But not because it's illegal, it's not. It's because I think it's a petty policy.

Again, the only thing the DOL cares about is that the exempt employee get his full salary amount on any day in which he does any work (except for intermittent FMLA). And the OP IS getting his full salary for the day; it's just that part of it is coming from his "vacation" bucket.

 

[pattytx]

OP - exactly what kind of work do you do on a consulting basis? This is where it gets VERY sticky.

I guess we all assumed that the OP was comfortable with the fact that his job duties qualified him as exempt.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

moburkes, he WORKED 10 hours. Then had to use 1 hour vacation pay because he couldn't BILL 8 hours.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Right, it would only be illegal if he ran out of vacation time and they started deducting money from his checks.

That raises an interesting point - what happens when there's a daily shortage that needs to be filled, but no more vacation time to draw from. Has the employer suggested (verbally, in writing) what they would do in this case?

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

DWD 272.12(1)(a)1.
1. Employees subject to the statutes must be paid for all time spent in "physical or mental exertion (whether burdensome or not) controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer's business." The workweek ordinarily includes "all time during which an employee is necessarily required to be on the employer's premises, on duty or at a prescribed work place."

This is exactly what I am taking exception to - employer had to take into consideration the 3 hours spent in a required meeting for the EMPLOYER.

 

[moburkes]

That raises an interesting point - what happens when there's a daily shortage that needs to be filled, but no more vacation time to draw from. Has the employer suggested (verbally, in writing) what they would do in this case?

They are still required to pay the full salary.

 

[pattytx]

This is exactly what I am taking exception to - employer had to take into consideration the 3 hours spent in a required meeting for the EMPLOYER.

For an exempt employee. No. They. Don't. Show me the FLSA regulation that says so.

 

[You Are Guilty]

They are still required to pay the full salary.

No argument - the question was more geared towards finding out whether the employer was giving advance notice, as it were, of their intent to violate the law by docking salary at the expiration of vacation time. That sort of thing (especially in writing), make for good leverage when "discussing" the situation with the employer

In any event, I think finding a new job is still the simplest solution.

 

[cbg]

In all 50 states, an employer MAY apply vacation time in partial day increments to an exempt employee without endangering the exemption.

I completely agree that this is a petty, foolish policy. But as long as the employee receives their full salary, neither Federal nor state DOL is going to declare the exemption void because of partial day vacation time applications.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

Under the FLSA, positions may be classified as either "non-exempt" or "exempt." Non-exempt positions are not exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Exempt positions are exempt from the overtime provisions, although covered by other provisions of the FLSA. A position's classification is determined based on its specific job duties and salary in accordance with FLSA exemption criteria.

Employees in positions classified as exempt are paid monthly, are not required by law to receive overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek, and receive a predetermined amount of compensation each month on a "salary basis." The predetermined amount cannot be reduced because of variations in the quality or quantity of the employee's work. Subject to exceptions listed below, an exempt employee must receive the full salary for any workweek in which the employee performs any work, regardless of the number of days or hours worked. However, an employee does not need to be paid for any full workweek in which he/she performs no work, unless the cause is an operating requirement of the business. If the employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions may not be made for time when work is not available.

By forcing an employee to make up the difference in hours in a DAY, they are forcing a deduction.

 

[moburkes]

Read the sentences prior to what you bolded. They are talking about salary deductions. No salary deductions were made.

 

[partiallypeeved]

OP - exactly what kind of work do you do on a consulting basis? This is where it gets VERY sticky.

Sorry for disappearing... I was busy generating billable hours.

I do mercenary accounting / finance / audit work.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

OP - as you can tell, we've had lively discussion on this thread. Where I disagree with some of the other posters is in the interpretation of FLSA in regards to exempt position.

My take is that if you are "exempt", they do NOT have to pay you overtime. I can agree with the other poster with that. in FLSA, they MUST pay you for working, not just for being 'billable'. Read thru the posts and then seek an employment attorney.

 

[partiallypeeved]

moburkes, he WORKED 10 hours. Then had to use 1 hour vacation pay because he couldn't BILL 8 hours.

And that's what burns my biscuits.

Even if this is legal and doesn't disqualify my exempt status, I can't imagine that such an approach is very common. Or is it? For instance, at law firms, associates are under pressure to generate x-number of billable hours, but I'd imagine the metric is yearly or quarterly - not daily.