Damned if you do; damned if you don’t: Why employees don’t want to become eligible for overtime pay
Apparently, many workers are unhappy if they are switched (based on the new overtime laws) to become eligible for overtime pay. So why are workers so unhappy about becoming non-exempts?
According to this article, workers who become non-exempts may perceive it to be a demotion, believe it will hurt their chances for a good promotion, or most importantly, perceive it to amount to a loss of status.
In a few cases, however, becoming non-exempt could lead to loss of vacation time or even to reduction of health benefits.
Time will tell if the new overtime provisions decrease the number of collective action lawsuits, however.
So many employers and employees have lacked even the most basic understanding of overtime law that ignorance is another possible reason for this reaction.
Some previously exempt employees may not have been asked to work overtime in the past. They may misunderstand “exempt” from overtime to mean exempt from being compelled by the employer to work overtime, and fear that nonexempt status will mean a new vulnerability to being worked longer hours.
This, of course, is untrue. The fundamental compromise of the Fair Labor Standards Act is that it does not statutorily limit the workweek for any employees, it just discourages overtime by requiring payment at a higher rate. Employers are free to mandate that any employee, exempt or nonexempt, work overtime, absent contractual limitations.
I’m one of those workers who would prefer to be exempt.
My reasons? First, many professional certifications (in my case the PHR) require a certain amount of exempt work experience. There is an assumption that non-exempt work experience is clerical or paraprofessional and therefore not relevant to a professional position. I vehemently differ, but in my case the bottom line is that my nearly ten years of experience, during which I have performed a fair number of exempt-level duties, counts for absolutely zero toward the PHR…and the PHR is becoming more and more of an industry standard.
Second, my employer has a policy limiting subject employees to 40 hours per week. (This is perfectly legal for any employer under FLSA.) So I don’t get overtime compensation anyway, but I also fall behind because sometimes my job just plain takes more than 40 hours a week. (It is cyclical so there are weeks it doesn’t take 40.) I really would prefer to just work an extra hour here and there to keep from falling behind — or not have to find busy work if I’m at a low cycle point. The reduction in stress levels would be worth it.
We won’t mention what happens when I have to travel. I actively avoid traveling because it creates such havoc.
Third, as a subject employee I have keep much closer records of my time than an exempt employee. This is really just one more maddening administrative duty. Because of the way our payroll is done, there is also a lot of work involved when an employee runs out of paid leave and has to be docked for hours not worked.
I think if the distinction that associates exempt with “professional” and subject with “laborer” were less thickly drawn, more employees would quit worrying about their status. The administrative requirements are a nit, but automation will solve many of those. As long as people like SHRM, though, assume that non-exempt work isn’t professional, non-exempt employees will feel devalued.
Catherine: your mistakes are forgiven. Now please forgive my inability to remove that last comment without removing them all.
Thanks again for your loyal readership and thoughtful comments.
I also frequently get confused about which is exempt and which is nonexempt, for some reason. It’s really quite simple: exempt means you don’t get overtime because you fall within an exemption.