Boss treating exempt employee like hourly employee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except that most employees can't see past the end of their nose so they, in fact, have no idea whether or not their leaving early has an impact on the rest of the business.

[Anonymous]

Voting new job. Plus - read/listen to 'Overwhelmed; work, love, play when no one has the time". If you're in an information knowledge type of job, your boss doesn't deserve you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except that most employees can't see past the end of their nose so they, in fact, have no idea whether or not their leaving early has an impact on the rest of the business.

I actually think it's employers that can't see that they should be focusing on the results people are achieving rather than the hours they are clocking. If all you do is focus on the hours, you end up with a bunch of underperforming clock watchers. If you focus on "are you getting the work done and doing it well?" you realize that the hours don't matter anywhere near as much as US employers think they do.

I work on a global team so everyone is working different hours but we focus on people achieving results not a set number of hours a day so it works just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Quoted poster. I see. I guess I just missed that OP finishes working from home in the evening. I think I agree with the consensus then, but it doesn’t strike me as totally self-evident, given that the higher-ups thought it important to set core business hours for the employees, and it’s not like employees get input into decisions like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not just point out to whoever is in charge of classification that it is wrong and let them fix it or show you why it is right? Why run to litigation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Quoted poster. I see. I guess I just missed that OP finishes working from home in the evening. I think I agree with the consensus then, but it doesn’t strike me as totally self-evident, given that the higher-ups thought it important to set core business hours for the employees, and it’s not like employees get input into decisions like that.

In my experience core hours aren't a full day of work. My office has core hours of 9:30-3. Everyone is expected to be in the office during that time, but you can begin work at 9:30 or end at 3, and work 8 hours around those core hours. If you're setting core hours as the full 8 hour work day those aren't core hours they're just the hours of the job.

[Anonymous]

If the supervisor has strict hours, and determines you have to be there at a specific time, work 8 hours, and leave at a specific time...there is no value for you in doing any work outside those hours. Do the hours, nothing more, and look for a new more flexible job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not just point out to whoever is in charge of classification that it is wrong and let them fix it or show you why it is right? Why run to litigation?

There was some funny business years ago, and when the employee pointed it out, the boss berated him. It is a very small organization that likes to think that federal and local labor law doesn’t apply to them.

[Anonymous]

Funny i look st a salary as you pay me x to get my job done in a one year period.

If I work late or Sunday and take off a few hours during the week it all is a wash in the end. As long as I do my job.

That’s the way salary should work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except that most employees can't see past the end of their nose so they, in fact, have no idea whether or not their leaving early has an impact on the rest of the business.

I actually think it's employers that can't see that they should be focusing on the results people are achieving rather than the hours they are clocking. If all you do is focus on the hours, you end up with a bunch of underperforming clock watchers. If you focus on "are you getting the work done and doing it well?" you realize that the hours don't matter anywhere near as much as US employers think they do.

I work on a global team so everyone is working different hours but we focus on people achieving results not a set number of hours a day so it works just fine.

I appreciate this perspective

[Anonymous]

I'm a federal employee and my previous boss made our core hours 9:30-6pm no exceptions. You had to use annual leave if you needed to be gone or leave earlier. My coworkers and I tried going to HR and were told it was perfectly legal. I wouldn't have taken the job had I known. It worked for no ones schedule, especially those with children.

[Anonymous]

We take PTO in 4 hour increments, but the way we handle it is that PTO is only triggered if you are missing at least four hours. Under four hours, you flex your time and get your work done.

So if I have a doctor’s appointment in the morning and show up at 11 and work until 5, I don’t take PTO. If I show up after lunch and work until 5, I take a half day (four hours on my PTO log).

In reality, most of us get the earliest appointments and get to work by 9:30, but it’s nice to have that wiggle room for an urgent appointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny i look st a salary as you pay me x to get my job done in a one year period.

If I work late or Sunday and take off a few hours during the week it all is a wash in the end. As long as I do my job.

That’s the way salary should work.

That would certainly do much to explain why most employees receive only one paycheck per year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a woman, but this behavior by the boss pushes the female partner in the relationship to be responsible for more of the childcare when they would otherwise have a 50/50 split. Because of this, the female partner is being passed over in her job, as well.

Wait- what? Why would the boss' behavior disadvantage a woman but not a man?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a woman, but this behavior by the boss pushes the female partner in the relationship to be responsible for more of the childcare when they would otherwise have a 50/50 split. Because of this, the female partner is being passed over in her job, as well.

Wait- what? Why would the boss' behavior disadvantage a woman but not a man?

OP here. To be honest, the boss is this big a dick to all the employees, so I guess there is no discrimination? ¯\_(?)_/¯

The employee just happens to be the only person in the history of the organization to have a young child while employed there.