Boss treating exempt employee like hourly employee

[Anonymous]

So which is it, OP, exempt or non-exempt? Different rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So which is it, OP, exempt or non-exempt? Different rules.

I think the employer says exempt, but I believe the employee is misclassified. Trying to find original offer letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So which is it, OP, exempt or non-exempt? Different rules.

there are not different rules for her question, which is whether the employer can require the employer to be at the work at certain times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So which is it, OP, exempt or non-exempt? Different rules.

I think the employer says exempt, but I believe the employee is misclassified. Trying to find original offer letter.

Doesn't matter if the original offer letter does state exempt, the classification could still be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So which is it, OP, exempt or non-exempt? Different rules.

I think the employer says exempt, but I believe the employee is misclassified. Trying to find original offer letter.

Doesn't matter if the original offer letter does state exempt, the classification could still be wrong.

I am aware, but then we would have to alert the DOL, which is a fight that no one has the appetite for at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I understand they can make the policies that they want regarding exempt staff (my company makes us take PTO in 4 hour increments and it's so annoying). The bigger issue is your boss sounds kind of like a d*ck and I would look for another job between the boss and the dismally small PTO you get.

You mean you need to take a half a day PTO at a time right? This is super standard....

Wow, not the PP, but I've not worked for a company that made you use your PTO in increments. Glad I seem to be not part of the norm on this one! How annoying it must be to burn 4 hours for a 1-hour doctor's appointment!

The place I work for now is small and the boss has no idea how flextime works. She gives everyone 8 hours that she calls flextime but treats it like PTO hours + extra hours needed to make it up. Several people have tried to explain the concept to her, but she just can't get it. It's quite annoying. I've never worked for a place that gives a set number of flex hours per calendar year until here. Other places, you say "I'm doing 2 flex hours and will make it up by working 1 hour earlier and staying 1 hour later."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Find another job asap. The boss sounds like a nightmare. Or he really just wants to push this person out. If she is a woman and treated differently from other employees without kids or who are male, she might want to see about a lawsuit.

Agree! It isn’t worth it. There are other employers that don’t do this.

[Anonymous]

I've worked for state government and had this type of situation, technically exempt but held to very specific hours like hourly non exempt staff. It's the mindset of the supervisors.

They also would not give any leeway for school pickups to my coworkers, even if they were exempt and could make up the hours.

It's time to get another job when this happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work for a massive multinational corp and several years ago, they went through a huge reclassification process moving people from exempt to non-exempt/hourly because they were found to be misclassifying people across the board. This is not at all uncommon, misclassifying people as exempt when they don't meet the standards for exempt is probably one of the most common violations out there for labor law. However, as you've stated OP, pushing the issue is a very risky move.

What I would do, if I were the employee, is look for a new job as hard as I can and in the meantime, be a clock watcher as much as the boss is. You want me to never leave a second before 6? Fine but I'm also never leaving a second after 6. Oh there's more work to be done in the evening? Suck my butt, I'm out.

My boss is like this and this is literally what I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I understand they can make the policies that they want regarding exempt staff (my company makes us take PTO in 4 hour increments and it's so annoying). The bigger issue is your boss sounds kind of like a d*ck and I would look for another job between the boss and the dismally small PTO you get.

You mean you need to take a half a day PTO at a time right? This is super standard....

NP. I didn’t realize this was standard. That makes me feel better —although it does mean that I’m away longer than I need to be for an hour medical appointment.

DP. I'm a teacher. This year we had an AP get irritated with a teacher in the building who was on a personal call with her physician during her planning time (so no children in the room). The AP wanted to talk with the teacher right then, used her key to barge into the locked classroom, would not leave and was not willing to wait 5 minutes for the teacher to conclude the call. The AP then wanted to dock the teacher's hours because the teacher didn't hang up the phone. The point is that there are all sorts of crazies in this world and you have to decide if you can live with the particular brand of crazy you've got for a boss. OP, go along to get along … right up until you find a new job and then you get on along to the new place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I understand they can make the policies that they want regarding exempt staff (my company makes us take PTO in 4 hour increments and it's so annoying). The bigger issue is your boss sounds kind of like a d*ck and I would look for another job between the boss and the dismally small PTO you get.

You mean you need to take a half a day PTO at a time right? This is super standard....

I’ve never experienced this. Seems weird and counterproductive to me. I only need to take an hour, but you are going to force me to take 4? How does that help anyone, including the employer?

Teachers have to do this because substitutes have to have at least 4 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for a massive multinational corp and several years ago, they went through a huge reclassification process moving people from exempt to non-exempt/hourly because they were found to be misclassifying people across the board. This is not at all uncommon, misclassifying people as exempt when they don't meet the standards for exempt is probably one of the most common violations out there for labor law. However, as you've stated OP, pushing the issue is a very risky move.

What I would do, if I were the employee, is look for a new job as hard as I can and in the meantime, be a clock watcher as much as the boss is. You want me to never leave a second before 6? Fine but I'm also never leaving a second after 6. Oh there's more work to be done in the evening? Suck my butt, I'm out.

My boss is like this and this is literally what I do.

Yep!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work for a massive multinational corp and several years ago, they went through a huge reclassification process moving people from exempt to non-exempt/hourly because they were found to be misclassifying people across the board. This is not at all uncommon, misclassifying people as exempt when they don't meet the standards for exempt is probably one of the most common violations out there for labor law. However, as you've stated OP, pushing the issue is a very risky move.

What I would do, if I were the employee, is look for a new job as hard as I can and in the meantime, be a clock watcher as much as the boss is. You want me to never leave a second before 6? Fine but I'm also never leaving a second after 6. Oh there's more work to be done in the evening? Suck my butt, I'm out.

My boss is like this and this is literally what I do.

Yep!

This is how EVERYONE should be. Do NOT treat your employer with more respect and regard they give you. This is a business arrangement, this ain't family. They give you sh*t if you take an extra five minutes at lunch one day for no other reason than they were clock watching on you? Then you never come back to your desk until your entire lunch period is over.

So many American workers are still operating as if this is the 50s where everyone thought you could work for the same employer forever and have a good relationship with them. Those days are dead and gone, you are nothing but a replaceable cog to them, you need to treat them the same way.

[Anonymous]

NP. Am i the only one that sort of feels like they can understand where the boss is coming from? If work ends at 6 but an employee leaves every day for a week at 4:30, that’s 7.5 hours of time, which is basically a workday. Apart from the burned half hour, whats the objection to using 8 hours of PTO?

Not trying to be inflammatory, just curious. Maybe I don’t get the whole exempt non-exempt thing or maybe I don’t have the same sort of job as you all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Am i the only one that sort of feels like they can understand where the boss is coming from? If work ends at 6 but an employee leaves every day for a week at 4:30, that’s 7.5 hours of time, which is basically a workday. Apart from the burned half hour, whats the objection to using 8 hours of PTO?

Not trying to be inflammatory, just curious. Maybe I don’t get the whole exempt non-exempt thing or maybe I don’t have the same sort of job as you all.

The issue is when the employer happily expects employees to work late to meet deadlines but won't extend that flexibility to the employee when the employee needs it. OP said the employee was working in the evening to complete their work and there was no business impact due to leaving early, this was just an employer being a pain.