Shadowfax
About
- Username
- Shadowfax
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- Roles
- Guest, Member
Comments
-
If I'm understanding correctly, other than your records being inaccurate, I don't see a violation of the FLSA. Why on earth would the Finance guy not want to accurately portray PTO? Your ee worked 40; was paid 40; worked no OT; but pto bank not redu…
-
Well, under the new rules, a full day off for reasons of the ee not the er relieve er from paying. Have the ee request the time off in writing for personal reasons.
-
I don't see any problem. Is there something specific about which you were worried?
-
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-12-05 AT 06:33AM (CST)[/font][br][br]We had some of this discussion a few weeks ago (Shary MN Meal Breaks). To reiterate, I see the FLSA as requiring at least 20 minutes of 'rest' break to be unpaid,…
-
Not only can you track exempt time - I have always felt it was imperative. The only cavaeat is that it connot impact on the salary. But not having a record of time spent by your employees, including exempts is an invitation to disaster. Come the day…
-
See post #9, it is hard to imagine e/ers who are not subject...but there may be a few - or at least a few ees in a few empers operations who are not covered. Of course, paying as 'salary' may be no problem if there is never any o/t involved - but yo…
-
I really don't understand the comment as being only about non profits, since the FLSA doesn't apply to anyone - profit or not - unless the commerce tset is met. Before the 1961 amendment, all coverage was 'individual' as oppossed to 'enterprise'. So…
-
I had never seen that microsoft web site, but after a quick glance, I think I would be reluctant to rely completely on it!
-
Actually it's Michigan, but close enough - and I always intended to be a pig farmer, I don't know where I went wrong. And remember: I open as Will Rogers in the Will Rogers Follies just two weeks from tonight! Ropin', an singin and dancin and good o…
-
Whoa! First you say we have new ees 'report for work' ... then the temp agency 'payrolls them for us'...'this way they are never our ees'...'and it's legal'.. I say, in a pig's eye (no offence Pork) Either they is or they ain't. You guys are deludin…
-
Wow! Another chance to learn new tricks. But it can't be as simple as just saying that because the ee earned less than $600 he wasn't an ee but was contract labor? Can it? Do we just ignore the IRS contractor test simply because the payment was 'in…
-
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 04-07-05 AT 10:08AM (CST)[/font][br][br]One of the attys who write for the Smith pubs suggested a few weeks ago that care needed to be taken to assure a break was at least 15 minutes so it would not have…
-
Thank you Lisa! How appropriate that one from Caleefourniaea would so succinctly put the equation. I don't know what reference Pork is making to 32b04b, but as I said in #21 or whereever those posts go when they're out in the ether, 778.411 seems to…
-
Damn! I thought I posted some interesting questions regarding the interplay, or lack thereof between .114 and .402 the the sections that follow. Looks to me like .411 actually permits what you are doing, although I do not understand it. Nor do I un…
-
I sure do like a mystery! We are agreed that 778.xxx is part of interpretive regs. But as I read the above, and looked further, I come away less sure of anything - and even more confused. 778.402 (and sections which follow), interpreting section 7(…
-
My dearest Pork - It was I who quoted 778.114 and opined I read it as apparently Don did. Now that you have clarified your position, I remain confused, and skeptical. In your quote of .114, you left out the parens..the fixed salary is compensation (…
-
To what reference is the 867.5309? Forgive me if I am just being stoopid, please!
-
That is exactly what I meant: 'fluctuating' and 'half-time' are real buggers to adminsiter properly. I read Pork as you do Don, and I see 778.114 as requiring o/t over 40, but perhaps at a half time rate. The problem is that the 'regular rate' chan…
-
Of course Don and Crawford are right, but I seriously question the validity of the emp/ers position with Crawford, and suggest it only works when the ee 'buys in' to the approach as Crawford did. To be done properly, and as Don suggests, there must …
-
I'm gonna throw in a little word of caution here:forget the job descriptions, they won't help you much in determining whether your department heads are exempt or not - analyze what they actually do. If they don't really supervise, manage, use discre…
-
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-29-05 AT 06:15AM (CST)[/font][br][br]You are looking for 29 CFR 207(e)(3)(a) and 778.211 for discretinary bonus; and 207(e)(1) and 778.212 for non discretionary bonuses. You will also find deductions…
-
I'll wade in here although I confess no real experience withthe issue. But, I think the retail commission exemption for o/t requires the ee becompensated primarily by commission AND the regular rate of pay be at least one and a half the minimum, bas…
-
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-29-05 AT 07:55AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Just to be a nit picker: if you have been told that you need not pay an exempt for any full day they did no work - you have not been told the whole truth. Your sta…
-
Well, the new rule is that an employee need not be paid if absent 'for at least a full day' unless they have accrued pto etc - which says to me that in the case of an employee who has not accrued pto (your situation), the full day absence would not …
-
Dammit! I hate it when facts get in the way of a perfectly good solution.
-
Don is undoubtedly right about being safe - but why not factor in the 'duties' that the ee might be called upon relating to his old position against his duties in the new position, and if he still meets the standard for exempt, then seems to me you …
-
Pork, now you have totaly confused me. Crawfords cite was where I was looking when I decided there had been NO change in this regard. I took your first post to suggest you believed there was a change. Are you saying you see something in the 602 (b) …
-
I appreciate you and Pork chiming in here. I had the same 'feelings' as Pork when the issue first came up, then when I went looking, couldn't find any support for the position. I went back over some of the summaries I got addressing the changes and …
-
Write the check James! Of course, hi-flyin, sky-divin Margaret is correct - as is the policy. Just a note to the original poster: the 4 hour min Margaret speaks of is NOT a statutory requirement, but a policy decision - you could just as well pay th…
-
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-11-05 AT 07:33AM (CST)[/font][br][br]Thanks for all the support fellas! I havn't taken the time to look at the sample, but I would be concerned if it says what you say (not with you - but with the pol…