hourly told to work o.t. for free or get laid off

[Kimvegaschick]

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

My dept. was told that if we don’t work overtime hours for free to get the job done then we will go to the top of the list to get laid off. There already have been layoffs and there could be more. I know some hourly employees have worked hours for free. We don't know if we should do anything because we don't know if the risk is greater than the reward. Winning a judgment of a paycheck or two but getting fired doesn't seem like a smart choice.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[JETX]

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

My dept. was told that if we don’t work overtime hours for free to get the job done then we will go to the top of the list to get laid off. There already have been layoffs and there could be more. I know some hourly employees have worked hours for free. We don't know if we should do anything because we don't know if the risk is greater than the reward. Winning a judgment of a paycheck or two but getting fired doesn't seem like a smart choice.

Your employer cannot require you to work without pay.
You can file a claim with your local labor agency.
State of Nevada -

 

[pattytx]

Legally, it is a "wrongful termination" to fire an employee for reporting an alleged violation of law to the applicable regulatory agency. Now, can employers come up with another unrelated reason? Sure. However, the closer the firing to the filing of the claim, the more a judge would see through that; for unemployment purposes, so would the unemployment commission.

 

[swrdmbo]

Well...you got the legal advice...now you have to ask yourself again...is it worth it? How badly do you need this job? How easy will it be to get another one?

It's not right what they are doing , how much overtime are you talking about?

 

[pattytx]

The federal DOL can go back on an unpaid wage complaint for 2 years, 3 years if the violation is deemed willful. A cursory scan of the state Labor Commissioner's site didn't tell me how far back they will take a claim, but I haven't seen a state yet that will take one for further back than federal will.

 

[commentator]

And I have never seen a wage and hour investigation where they came to the company and said, "Joe Blow says that you told him you were going to require people to work without pay......" They are not going to tell the employer which of his employees might have called in. If you do not tell them, and do not tell your co workers, (who will tell the company it wasn't them, of course!) there is no way they will know who did it.

If they are big enough jerks to fire you for this, you certainly need to be seeking other employment anyhow, as these people are in trouble. You would probably be able to receive unemployment benefits if fired without good misconduct cause. As for suing them for retaliatory firing...in the first place, how will they know you were the one who called in on them? It'd be a long convoluted trail, and if the company is really having problems, why would they want the hassle?

Any of you might have done it, actually, who knows anything about labor laws, because working without pay is strictly illegal. Threatening a group with lay offs if they don't work free is, to put it kindly, quite unprofessional of them. If the company is in such bad shape they need to do a lay off, or a partial reduction of hours, they need to bite the bullett and do it. When things improve, they can call people back to work.

If the business as a whole is so underfunded that they need to try to force people to work overtime without pay, and are so "shady" they will try this, the business is in trouble, and they need to rethink their operational structure. And you folks working there need to be thinking of being laid off and of looking for other jobs.

 

[CraigFL]

I'd like some clarification on this... What if the employees are exempt and the company is requiring them to work??

 

[pattytx]

The only difference, CraigFL, is whether the employee has to be paid extra for working the extra hours.

 

[CraigFL]

The only difference, CraigFL, is whether the employee has to be paid extra for working the extra hours.

Right. So why is everyone assuming the OP is non-exempt? A lot of companies don't differentiate hourly pay as non-exempt. Maybe this employee is actually considered exempt by the company. It's usually true that employees don't understand the difference...

 

[pattytx]

Well, I guess we "ass"umed that if the employee was exempt they would have KNOWN that they weren't entitled to overtime pay.

 

[commentator]

We did sort of assume that there was an hourly wage involved. I disagree that if an employee is classified as professional enough to be considered non-exempt, he or she does not generally understand the difference. If a person is salaried, there usually is no question they work until the job is done with no ajustment to wage. They will have worked this way many times before. This situation seems like it's a little different from that, just the way I read it. There are some outstandingly uninformed employers out there in these troubled times, I suppose there are some very poorly informed exempt employees out there too.

 

[pattytx]

There are some outstandingly uninformed employers out there in these troubled times, I suppose there are some very poorly informed exempt employees out there too.

I could type

Salaried and Hourly are merely pay methods; the issue is whether you are exempt or nonexempt

in my sleep.