Re: Exempt vs. Non-Exempt

Subject: Re: Exempt vs. Non-Exempt
From: Shirley_Kondek -at- BalboaInsurance -dot- Com
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:15:51 -0700


I think this reply from Walt is worth hearing. Thank you, Walt. I hadn't
seen the issue yet. I'll definitely check it out.


>Interesting timing -- the latest issue of STC's Intercom has an article
dealing with this.

>Several folks have said they favor a non-exempt status because it would
entitle them to overtime pay. True, but as >I learned from the Intercom
article, non-exempt employees can bill only those hours they actually
worked.

>So a non-exempt employee who has to take a couple hours off for a
doctor's appointment can't be paid for those >hours. For exempt employees,
there's no legal requirement that they put in a full 40 hours to receive
full >compensation.

>There's also the question of productivity and efficiency. Let's say I
figure out a way to perform a documentation >task 30% faster. As a
salaried employee, I'd congratulate myself for my cleverness and relish
the chance to figure >out how to spend that additional time on other
activities.

>As an hourly employee, I might be harder pressed to regard that time
reduction as a good thing: it could cost me >money. Of course, I'd try not
to look at it that way, but we're only human.

------

Also wanted to respond to a few comments.

Yes, I would like to be paid for every moment I put in, but that's
something you get with contracting (I prefer the semi-dependable
fulltime/permanent life). And, yes, when I was a consultant for one of
the Big 5, I got paid for every hour I put in. But the down side of that
is no work = no pay. If you don't put in your 40 hours, you don't get
paid for 40 hours. If you have to take the afternoon off for a medical
appt, it's either sick time (and they are not very generous here) or no
pay. If you're exempt, you can leave and no one questions it. And you
can make it up or not.

For those of us with laptops, working at home is an option. As long as
you check & respond to your emails and put in a minimum of 15 minutes,
that's fine. But if a TW is hourly (non-exempt), that freedom would not
be an option. Non-exempts do not work from home here.

For every plus there seems to be a minus.

Shirley Kondek


----- Forwarded by Shirley Kondek/IT/BalboaInsurance on 04/04/2005 12:54
PM -----






^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo:
http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.



Previous by Author: Exempt vs. Non-Exempt
Next by Author: RE: exempt vs. non-exempt
Previous by Thread: Exempt vs. non-exempt?
Next by Thread: RE: exempt vs. non-exempt


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads