Employers Are About to Take Back Control

[rjs330]

If the employee is classified as salaried exempt, it's perfectly legal.

That's different, salary employees know good and well that they are salaried and often will be working more than 40 hours. Man I have been in the working field for over 40 years and have known so many salaried employees. And you know what, I have yet run into one who has no clue what they were signing up for. They knew good and well they were going to be working more than 40 hours a week often. But they did it cause their monthly check was higher.

And there were those that eventually left and took a cut in pay because they decided they wanted to stick with the 40 hours.

But they weren't hosed over. They knew and they did it anyway.

Most salaried employees don't work more than 45-50 hours a week. It's not theft. It's what they signed up for.

Salaried employees typically make more money and have better benefits and flexibility than hourly workers. They also can count on a steady check that doesn't fluctuate.

No one is "taking advantage" of salaried employees.

 

[rjs330]

Abuse of exempt "management" designations is rampant.

I don't think so. The majority of exempt people work 45-50 hours a week and are well paid for it.

 

[rambot]

Man. That's so weird. Look how little money working people get when the rich start getting more and more. It's so weird....I wonder where the the money going to workers is going? Is it just disappearing?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

View attachment 330724

Man. That's so weird. Look how little money working people get when the rich start getting more and more. It's so weird....I wonder where the the money going to workers is going? Is it just disappearing?

While the graph does make a strong point about the leverage that unionization can provide, I think people need to be aware of some of the other leverage dynamics that were at play during that time of the sharp uptick (and in the taper off time starting in the 70's), otherwise they maybe setting themselves up for some disappointment.

There's no doubt that certain industries and people working for certain companies could see some benefits of a collective bargaining entity, I'm not denying that, but if people think that unionization going back 25% will have the same impact that it did in the late 40's and 50's, I think, like I said, they may be setting themselves up to be disappointed.

1) That was during a time when some gates were being opened (particularly for minorities and women) to enter the jobs that used to be exclusively held for white men, thereby allowing more people/families to enter middle class jobs.

2) A lot of the facilities used for wartime production were able to be converted into "civilian consumer production"

3) A lot of people were geared up and "ready to spend" after years of rationing, and people had saved up their money. (Office of Price Administration (OPA) had encouraged the public to save up their money (ideally by buying war bonds)).

4) Our infrastructure and production capabilities weren't damaged at all during ww2, as to where that wasn't true of most of Europe, they had to rebuild, so we were able to have a nice head start and some leverage in what we could charge for exports, and there wasn't as much competition from imported goods (and as noted in #3, people here were "ready to spend" and didn't mind paying a little more for things)

However, once Western Europe got back on their feet, and Japan recovered and entered some key markets (most notably, the vehicle industry), it was kind of "back to reality" for us. (and China becoming a "cheap goods manufacturing powerhouse" certainly threw a wrench in the gears as well)


I would suggest that the unique backdrop of that time period (and unique advantages that came along with it) don't exist for us today.

So while unionization would help in a few ways, I don't think it'd produce a "golden era of the middle class" like it did post-ww2.
(not to mention, the looming threat of automation wasn't as dire then as it is now)

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't think so. The majority of exempt people work 45-50 hours a week and are well paid for it.

What he means is that employers frequently misclassify non-exempt employees as exempt. Because employees are often not aware of the details of the regulations, and have been given incorrect information over their lifetimes (either deliberately or unintentionally), they may not even know that they're being exploited.

True or False? Test Your Exempt or Non-Exempt IQ. - Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody

True or False? Test Your Exempt or Non-Exempt IQ. One of the most confusing areas in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) law is regarding the classification of employees as exempt or non-exempt. Misclassifications are the most common FLSA mistakes made by employers. Answer these True or False...

www.gdhm.com

Fact Sheet #17A: Exemption for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

www.dol.gov

 

[iluvatar5150]

What he means is that employers frequently misclassify non-exempt employees as exempt. Because employees are often not aware of the details of the regulations, and have been given incorrect information over their lifetimes (either deliberately or unintentionally), they may not even know that they're being exploited.

True or False? Test Your Exempt or Non-Exempt IQ. - Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody

True or False? Test Your Exempt or Non-Exempt IQ. One of the most confusing areas in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) law is regarding the classification of employees as exempt or non-exempt. Misclassifications are the most common FLSA mistakes made by employers. Answer these True or False...

www.gdhm.com

Fact Sheet #17A: Exemption for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

www.dol.gov

Misclassification is one part of this, but it's not the only one, nor was it even necessarily the one on which I was focusing.

That's different, salary employees know good and well that they are salaried and often will be working more than 40 hours. Man I have been in the working field for over 40 years and have known so many salaried employees. And you know what, I have yet run into one who has no clue what they were signing up for. They knew good and well they were going to be working more than 40 hours a week often. But they did it cause their monthly check was higher.

And there were those that eventually left and took a cut in pay because they decided they wanted to stick with the 40 hours.

But they weren't hosed over. They knew and they did it anyway.

Most salaried employees don't work more than 45-50 hours a week. It's not theft. It's what they signed up for.

Salaried employees typically make more money and have better benefits and flexibility than hourly workers. They also can count on a steady check that doesn't fluctuate.

No one is "taking advantage" of salaried employees.

I'm really curious to know what field you work in and what size and sort of team you manage, because this hasn't been my experience at all.

First of all, I don't recall anybody saying anything about theft, so we can put that strawman to bed.

Second, while it's true that the folks I've known in big law, medicine, or finance who've worked long hours and who've been very highly compensated (i.e. well into 6- figures) have known what they're in for, they still haven't really see the hours as good. Everybody else - i.e. all the folks in the middle of the pay distributions - still sees 40 hours/wk as a target and sees consistently going over that as being indicative of management failure or abuse.

 

[rambot]

While the graph does make a strong point about the leverage that unionization can provide, I think people need to be aware of some of the other leverage dynamics that were at play during that time of the sharp uptick (and in the taper off time starting in the 70's), otherwise they maybe setting themselves up for some disappointment.

There's no doubt that certain industries and people working for certain companies could see some benefits of a collective bargaining entity, I'm not denying that, but if people think that unionization going back 25% will have the same impact that it did in the late 40's and 50's, I think, like I said, they may be setting themselves up to be disappointed.

1) That was during a time when some gates were being opened (particularly for minorities and women) to enter the jobs that used to be exclusively held for white men, thereby allowing more people/families to enter middle class jobs.

2) A lot of the facilities used for wartime production were able to be converted into "civilian consumer production"

3) A lot of people were geared up and "ready to spend" after years of rationing, and people had saved up their money. (Office of Price Administration (OPA) had encouraged the public to save up their money (ideally by buying war bonds)).

4) Our infrastructure and production capabilities weren't damaged at all during ww2, as to where that wasn't true of most of Europe, they had to rebuild, so we were able to have a nice head start and some leverage in what we could charge for exports, and there wasn't as much competition from imported goods (and as noted in #3, people here were "ready to spend" and didn't mind paying a little more for things)

However, once Western Europe got back on their feet, and Japan recovered and entered some key markets (most notably, the vehicle industry), it was kind of "back to reality" for us. (and China becoming a "cheap goods manufacturing powerhouse" certainly threw a wrench in the gears as well)


I would suggest that the unique backdrop of that time period (and unique advantages that came along with it) don't exist for us today.

So while unionization would help in a few ways, I don't think it'd produce a "golden era of the middle class" like it did post-ww2.
(not to mention, the looming threat of automation wasn't as dire then as it is now)

I'm sorry but I'm not sure how that affects the distribution of wealth. I'm not an economist but what you describe here seems to creation of wealth

 

[iluvatar5150]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure how that affects the distribution of wealth. I'm not an economist but what you describe here seems to creation of wealth

When manufacturing was based in the US, workers had the leverage to get a larger percentage of the income for themselves. When that work started getting offshored to cheaper foreign labor, US workers lost their leverage, so a larger percentage of the US income went to the managerial and capital classes still based in the US.

 

[comana]

The idea that working only 40 hours (salaried, US workers) means you’re slacking and not giving your best needs to die. Companies experimenting with shorter hour requirements and/or more flexibility are showing positive results with better employee mental and physical health as well as higher productivity.

 

[rambot]

When manufacturing was based in the US, workers had the leverage to get a larger percentage of the income for themselves. When that work started getting offshored to cheaper foreign labor, US workers lost their leverage, so a larger percentage of the US income went to the managerial and capital classes still based in the US.

That makes a bit more sense but.... is there a chart thta shows that correlation? I wouldn't have thought that the offshored labour would have really been a bit thing between the 60- and 80s (though I CERTAINLY know it picked up then).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure how that affects the distribution of wealth. I'm not an economist but what you describe here seems to creation of wealth

While the distribution and creation are separate facets, in some instances, they are linked and have some overlapping drivers.

For instance, when the US dominated certain forms manufacturing (as a result of all of the would-be competitors still reeling and rebuilding after WW2), the American workers (who were demanding a higher wage via collective bargaining) were essential to the process and "the only game in town", so if the big guys at the top wanted to create that wealth, they had no choice but to "play ball" with unions and divvy up the proceeds a little more with the workers. (and could recoup some of that by charging a little more for the products - both in domestic sales and exports - than people would normally be willing to pay because there weren't many other options.

As soon as other countries started recovering and making some more of their own things domestically (meaning they didn't need as many of our exports) and Asian markets started manufacturing things way cheaper (meaning more of our own folks as well as people in other countries started buying theirs as well instead of ours), the US workers no longer had the same leverage they once had, and the "head honchos" had a pathway to create new wealth without having to negotiate and concede as much (IE: share as much) as they once had to out of necessity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That makes a bit more sense but.... is there a chart thta shows that correlation? I wouldn't have thought that the offshored labour would have really been a bit thing between the 60- and 80s (though I CERTAINLY know it picked up then).

The offshore labor aspect was only starting to ramp up (which is probably why you see the slow taper off of union membership during that period in the graph you provided).

However foreign goods/services competing with our domestic ones definitely shot up during that time period...and both equate to a loss of leverage on the part of the workers here.

(from the BLS and Census Bureau)
** in millions of dollars

From 1960 to 1989 (even when adjusting for inflation), imports (both goods and services) exploded.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That makes a bit more sense but.... is there a chart thta shows that correlation? I wouldn't have thought that the offshored labour would have really been a bit thing between the 60- and 80s (though I CERTAINLY know it picked up then).

It was a long-term shift with some of it coming from offshoring and some from foreign competition rebuilt after the war. Here in Baltimore, the Bethlehem Steel plant (the largest in the world at the time) had its employment peak in the 1950's.

If anything, the graph shows that it was the decade immediately following WW2 that was the aberration, not the decades before or since where most of the money went to the top.

 

[rjs330]

Abuse of exempt "management" designations is rampant.

I don't think so. The majority of exempt people work 45-50 hours a week and are well paid for it. They

What he means is that employers frequently misclassify non-exempt employees as exempt. Because employees are often not aware of the details of the regulations, and have been given incorrect information over their lifetimes (either deliberately or unintentionally), they may not even know that they're being exploited.

True or False? Test Your Exempt or Non-Exempt IQ. - Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody

True or False? Test Your Exempt or Non-Exempt IQ. One of the most confusing areas in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) law is regarding the classification of employees as exempt or non-exempt. Misclassifications are the most common FLSA mistakes made by employers. Answer these True or False...

www.gdhm.com

Fact Sheet #17A: Exemption for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

www.dol.gov

I need to see some citations on the claim that employers frequently mis-classify exempt employees to exploit them.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I need to see some citations on the claim that employers frequently mis-classify exempt employees to exploit them.

AFAIK, it can be somewhat industry specific. You'll see it in fast food and other low-end retail where a cashier or other line worker will get bumped up to some sort of low level supervisory role, made salaried, with a wage that's just barely over the legal minimum, but with expectations for opening and/or closing the store, covering missed shifts, and ultimately loads of unpaid overtime.

 

[Pommer]

I don't think so. The majority of exempt people work 45-50 hours a week and are well paid for it. They


I need to see some citations on the claim that employers frequently mis-classify exempt employees to exploit them.

We could just get rid of the exemption?

 

[rjs330]

Misclassification is one part of this, but it's not the only one, nor was it even necessarily the one on which I was focusing.


I'm really curious to know what field you work in and what size and sort of team you manage, because this hasn't been my experience at all.

First of all, I don't recall anybody saying anything about theft, so we can put that strawman to bed.

Second, while it's true that the folks I've known in big law, medicine, or finance who've worked long hours and who've been very highly compensated (i.e. well into 6- figures) have known what they're in for, they still haven't really see the hours as good. Everybody else - i.e. all the folks in the middle of the pay distributions - still sees 40 hours/wk as a target and sees consistently going over that as being indicative of management failure or abuse.

I've worked a number of jobs. I currently am a midline supervisor. All my superiors are salaried. I've had quite a few friends and family who have been salaried employees.

And they all knew that they were going to work more hours than 40 at times. Sometimes during the year more than others. It's what they signed up for. No one got taken advantage of or exploited.

I'm not surprised some don't like the hours. I mean for crying out loud there are movements to create a 32 hour work week.

Everyone wants more free time. We'll see what happens in the future. It seems times are changing and people are valuing more free time and would rather have that than the money. Just so long as they realize that fewer hours means less money and they shouldn't be whining about the pay. Don't expect to work 32 hours and get paid as if it were 40. But I digress.

Here's the thing if you signed up for the salary and receive the benefits and perks of it, don't whine about the extra hours. Either that or go get an hourly job.

 

[rjs330]

There have been some promising studies showing a reduced schedule like down to 35 hours a week has worked. The work load was not lessened, so employees had to buckle down and really focus to get stuff done. Things like coffee breaks were eliminated as well as not allowing any personal business to be done during work hours. But with an extra 5 hours a week or 1 hour a day, employees would have more time to get stuff done after work.

There are studies that show that right now employees are stealing employer time by goofing off, surfing the net or whatever. Some of this is attributed to the 8 hour work day. So work fewer hours, work harder during those hours and good off less with a little more free time. Seems like a decent trade off.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I need to see some citations on the claim that employers frequently mis-classify exempt employees to exploit them.

It's something that's hard to quantify exactly, but employers commit billions of dollars worth of wage theft (of which this is just one form) in the US every year.

Wage theft outpaces all other theft in America

Although many people are aware that wage theft occurs, most do not know just how common it is. In fact, many people mistakenly assume that wage theft is something that rarely happens. And many people naively believe that most instances of wage theft are just mistakes or the result of...

www.edelson-law.com

More than $3 billion in stolen wages recovered for workers between 2017 and 2020

Each year millions of workers across the country are victims of wage theft—meaning they are paid less than the full wages to which they are legally entitled. Between 2017 and 2020, more than $3 billion in stolen wages was recovered on behalf of workers by the U.S. Department of Labor, state...

www.epi.org

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Don't expect to work 32 hours and get paid as if it were 40. But I digress.

That's going to depend on the industry. If you work for an hourly wage where your presence is a component of the work (and therefore a reduction in worker hours per week would require the employer to hire more people), then sure. But for roles where you're simply expected to be "working" and complete your tasks on time (i.e. most office roles), then it doesn't really matter if you work 40 hours or 32 hours as long as the work gets done.

Interestingly, the largest trial of a 32-hour work week included a guarantee that pay would remain static. And it was a massive success:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/02/21/four-day-work-week-results-uk/