news.yahoo.com— Workers for Bank of America Corp, one of the nation's largest employers, have sued the company for allegedly failing to pay overtime and other wages.
Jun 6, 2010View in Crawl 4
In the working world, it's every man for himself. A company has ZERO issues with cutting you if it'll help the bottom line in any way.For instance, my company has been cutting managers and district managers loose who've been around long enough to make "too much" money. Funny how the board of directors and CEO never makes too much money, but the peons do.
"WTF is this supposed to mean? That's it legal not to pay someone for work they did unless there's "regulation" by the government?"Um, yes. By definition . . . . either there is a law (regulation by the government) making something illegal or else it is legal. So, yes, it is legal not to pay someone for work they did unless there's regulation by the government.
These Bank of America employees appear to have a fairly open and shut case. However this issue is far deeper than most people realize. A much larger issue which tends to get ignored and abused is the classification of exempt (or salaried) vs nonexempt (or hourly) workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).Here's how the hustle works...if a company classifies an employee as exempt, then it can work the employee over 40 hours and "legally" avoid paying for overtime compensation. Once the classification change is made, companies frequently understaff most departments causing individual workloads to skyrocket (and subsequently forcing employees to work more than 40 hours). From a purely "financial perspective" this seems like a brilliant move to companies because individual productivity appears to go up while costs go down (because the employee's "hourly" value goes down for each hour of unpaid work received). The burden placed upon individual employees isn't considered by companies because it doesn't affect their bottom line. Other ways that companies game the system is by "mashing" jobs together. Frequently, the employee is told that their job description includes the phrase, "and other responsibilities as deemed necessary by employer" allowing the employer the option of randomly adding job responsibilities at their discretion. What employees aren't told by employers is that additional responsibilities increase their job's value AND their compensation eligibility. Naturally, during economic downturns, employers exploit employee fears and engage in these predatory labor practices far more than usual. The solution to this problem is simple...contact your legislative representatives and demand labor law reforms, specifically addressing the loopholes contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. While we're at it we should demand changes to address the labor market problems created by "contract" employment.
mrwooJun 7, 2010
The underpaid like me are not happy, we are silent out of fear for loosing our incomes!
gamerxr72Jun 7, 2010
You're a troll or a blatant idiot, either of which will get you buried on digg. We don't care about conformity, we just hate stupidity.
ajajadudeJun 7, 2010
In the working world, it's every man for himself. A company has ZERO issues with cutting you if it'll help the bottom line in any way.For instance, my company has been cutting managers and district managers loose who've been around long enough to make "too much" money. Funny how the board of directors and CEO never makes too much money, but the peons do.
bookantJun 7, 2010
"WTF is this supposed to mean? That's it legal not to pay someone for work they did unless there's "regulation" by the government?"Um, yes. By definition . . . . either there is a law (regulation by the government) making something illegal or else it is legal. So, yes, it is legal not to pay someone for work they did unless there's regulation by the government.
eraptorJun 7, 2010
These Bank of America employees appear to have a fairly open and shut case. However this issue is far deeper than most people realize. A much larger issue which tends to get ignored and abused is the classification of exempt (or salaried) vs nonexempt (or hourly) workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).Here's how the hustle works...if a company classifies an employee as exempt, then it can work the employee over 40 hours and "legally" avoid paying for overtime compensation. Once the classification change is made, companies frequently understaff most departments causing individual workloads to skyrocket (and subsequently forcing employees to work more than 40 hours). From a purely "financial perspective" this seems like a brilliant move to companies because individual productivity appears to go up while costs go down (because the employee's "hourly" value goes down for each hour of unpaid work received). The burden placed upon individual employees isn't considered by companies because it doesn't affect their bottom line. Other ways that companies game the system is by "mashing" jobs together. Frequently, the employee is told that their job description includes the phrase, "and other responsibilities as deemed necessary by employer" allowing the employer the option of randomly adding job responsibilities at their discretion. What employees aren't told by employers is that additional responsibilities increase their job's value AND their compensation eligibility. Naturally, during economic downturns, employers exploit employee fears and engage in these predatory labor practices far more than usual. The solution to this problem is simple...contact your legislative representatives and demand labor law reforms, specifically addressing the loopholes contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. While we're at it we should demand changes to address the labor market problems created by "contract" employment.
eraptorJun 7, 2010
No citation required. Most compensation experts can easily prove it.Take it from one.