What exactly does "exempt" mean?

April 8, 2008 7:28 PM

So, I am an exempt, salaried employee. The agreement I signed before taking my job was that I would work 40 hours per week. But, of course, my employer is now scheduling me for 42-45 hours per week. As an exempt employee, am I just expected to work these extra hours?

I have been exempt at other jobs, but those employers never scheduled me for more than 40 hours, and if I was there for more than 40 hours, they would, say, let me take a few hours off to make up for it. Was I just lucky back then? Does "exempt" actually mean, "you will work as many hours as we want you to work?" I looked at the fair labor standards act web page, and it seems to just say that exempt employees are exempt from overtime laws. So is that it? Am I screwed?

posted by foxinthesnow to work & money (29 comments total)

It can depend on your job; there are certain parts of the law in place to keep employers from just making people salaried to pay them less.

But as a rule:

Yes, you are just screwed.
posted by Tomorrowful at 7:32 PM on April 8, 2008

Wait, I should clarify.

Did you sign a binding contract, also signed by your employer, stating that you'd work 40 hours per week, and no more? Because if so, yeah, that matters. But most likely, it says something like "40 hours a week, unless we need more from you."
posted by Tomorrowful at 7:37 PM on April 8, 2008

I may depend on your state, but in California I think you would be screwed.
posted by crinklebat at 7:37 PM on April 8, 2008

Have you not raised the disparity of the hours work with your employer? "I'm sorry, but my agreement when I started was that I work 40 hours a week, but you are scheduling more. Is this a precursor to contract re-negotiation?"

I'm not sure that, just because you don't get paid for overtime, that you HAVE to work the hours. It's not just about overtime, but also that you (both) agreed a set length working week - maybe inspect your initial agreement with them.
posted by Brockles at 7:39 PM on April 8, 2008

My attorney fiancee says that generally, exempt employees are expected to work overtime without receiving overtime pay.

@Tomorrowful: Most employees are at-will, so they wouldn't have signed binding contracts.

So yes, you're probably boned.
posted by J-Train at 7:46 PM on April 8, 2008

Seems to me it would depend a lot on what's in your contract, and perhaps on the laws of the state you're in, although I'm not aware of any states that would really help you much.

The other thing to consider is whether you're still an at-will employee, and whether your employer can just can you if you decide you don't like the extra hours at your current pay grade. Maybe your contract would prohibit them from firing you, but if you're still considered at-will, the general concept as I've always understood it is that you're there to perform a particular function (executive, administrative, professional), not to work a set number of hours a week. If you don't like the schedule, you're free to leave, and they're free to fire you.

Without knowing the details of your contract I'm not sure that there's any way to say.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:53 PM on April 8, 2008

@J-train: Oh, I'm well aware of that. But the documents I've signed in the past when I've started working have never actually specified a number of hours, so it's at least possible - though unlikely - that he has an out.
posted by Tomorrowful at 7:57 PM on April 8, 2008

I'm pretty sure "exempt" is usually shorthand for "exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act."
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 8:00 PM on April 8, 2008

Well, I am an at-will employee, yes. And I am a librarian, so i think that puts me in the professional classification. I was hired to run the library for 40 hours per week, but they are now scheduling me extra hours to do clerical work--but not keep the library open more than 40 hours. And it is pissing me off! They are doing it to avoid hiring an administrative assistant. Basically, it seems to me, that they have realized that they can get me to perform the functions of what should be an additional part-time employee without actually having to pay a part time employee, and without paying me any more than they do. It just doesn't seem fair.
posted by foxinthesnow at 8:00 PM on April 8, 2008

It's definitely state-dependent. In California, there is a difference between salaried exempt and saleried non-exempt. To even be legally exempt, your position must fall into one of the following categories: administrative, executive, professional, or outside sales. This is a pretty good overview.
posted by chez shoes at 8:04 PM on April 8, 2008

What MPDSEA said, basically. Although it also includes being exempt from being entitled to paid meal breaks.

Exempt does not mean "you will work as many hours as we want you to work". It means that if you do work over 40 hours, you don't get paid overtime. If you signed something stating that you're not to be required to work more than 40 hours, being FLSA exempt does not override that. Look into the exact wording. It may be that the wording is actually meant to make sure you work at least 40 hours a week, rather than no more than 40 hours a week. It's not uncommon.
posted by gauchodaspampas at 8:21 PM on April 8, 2008

Uh, I "work 40 hours a week." So does almost everyone I know. In practice, this means 40-100 hours a week, depending on the job, the person, and the industry. These are in the so-called professional classes, but I think it would extend to almost everyone working full-time these days, particularly in private industry.

Also, and I hate to say it, you probably wouldn't be doing yourself any favors by bringing it up with your boss, unless you are conspicuously having to work more than everyone else.
posted by lackutrol at 8:29 PM on April 8, 2008 [1 favorite]

Were I in your shoes - and since you didn't specify what sort of job you have - I would double check that my position was actually considered exempt under FLSA law.

If your position is not actually provided an exemption, then your company is going to be liable should you ever sue for back wages, and my understanding is that those sorts of lawsuits are fairly expensive, since the company also has to pay a fine for violating the law.

If it's unclear from the FLSA site, and your company has an HR department, I'd talk to the compensation team - they may be able to set you straight, and it's in their best interest to avoid a back wages lawsuit.
posted by Remy at 8:47 PM on April 8, 2008

I'm an exempt, professional employee, and I have worked anywhere from 35-90 hours per week since I have been in that employment category. I understand your frustration at being asked to do clerical work that they should be hiring a part-time employee to do, but if you are just working an extra 2-5 hours per week, honestly, that's not uncommon.

Check your paperwork. If you have a contract signed by you and your employer that says you will work only 40 hours per week, then you may have some ground to stand on. But if you don't, you'll probably just have to suck it up. Most employers don't just let you take a few hours off to make up for extra time you have worked, unless it's something really out of the ordinary like working on a holiday or something. (For example, I have worked over a weekend several times and my current manager let me take half-days in the subsequent couple of weeks to make up for it, but that is rare in my experience.)

If it gets out of hand and they start asking you to work any more than 45 hours per week, tell them you need a part-time assistant.
posted by bedhead at 9:36 PM on April 8, 2008

Consider also if it's REALLY necessary to work those extra hours. Sure, many jobs demand those extra hours as a way of eeking out some extra time, but how badly are you needed there? Are you fairly compensated for those hours? Sometimes it's really a matter of saying that you're sorry, but you took the job with the understanding of being in the office for x-number of hours, and you have other family/personal/community obligations that can't be changed. Of course you'll have to gauge your work environment to decide if that would be detrimental to your career there, and if its worth it to fight what may amount to 30-60 minutes extra a day.

Also consider is this an expectation going forward? Or is there a project that needs to be completed and so everyone is expected to pitch in? And when you say scheduled, do they put, say, a start and finish time on paper that has extra hours? Or are they just expecting you to be in at a certain time and leave at a certain time that ads up to 45hours? Is there time for a lunch in there that you're not figuring (if you're like me and you prefer to work through lunch, it might seem like more hours than they actually expect.)

Regarding the law, yeah, you are pretty much screwed in terms of what protection is offered. I think its a big loophole in our current electronic culture, where so many people can be classified as a professional in lieu of an overtime pay. Working extra hours to help get a project done or finish an important task is one thing. Working extra hours because an employer wants to cheap out on hiring someone else is another. If this is a new position, I'd strongly recommend re-evaluating if this is the place you want to be. From experience, if its a new job and they're already telling you something different than what they said when you were hired, chances are it will only get worse.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:00 PM on April 8, 2008

Are you really that upset about 1 extra hour a day without overtime after agreeing to be exempt? Think about it... if you were never to work more than 40 hours, why would you be classified as exempt?

You should be thankful it's not worse.
posted by toomuchpete at 10:54 PM on April 8, 2008

I don't know how this might help in your current situation, but it's worth educating people in general (and those in supervisory positions in particular) that working more than 40 hours/week is actually counterproductive:

industrial efficiency pioneer Ernst Abbe published in Gessamelte Abhandlungen his conclusions that a reduction in daily work hours from nine to eight resulted in an increase in total daily output . . .

When Henry Ford famously adopted a 40-hour workweek in 1926, he was bitterly criticized by members of the National Association of Manufacturers. But his experiments, which he'd been conducting for at least 12 years, showed him clearly that cutting the workday from ten hours to eight hours — and the workweek from six days to five days — increased total worker output and reduced production cost. . . .

I have found many studies, conducted by businesses, universities, industry associations and the military, that support the basic notion that, for most people, eight hours a day, five days per week, is the best sustainable long-term balance point between output and exhaustion. Throughout the 30s, 40s, and 50s, these studies were apparently conducted by the hundreds; and by the 1960s, the benefits of the 40-hour week were accepted almost beyond question in corporate America. In 1962, the Chamber of Commerce even published a pamphlet extolling the productivity gains of reduced hours.

posted by flug at 11:29 PM on April 8, 2008 [2 favorites]

Sometimes when a salaried employee is asked to work over 40 hours you earn an extra half hour paid time off for every hour over 40 worked in a week. If this is seen as a temporary thing see if you can swing that.
posted by JackarypQQ at 11:39 PM on April 8, 2008

In my company, generally the exempt employees work the hours it requires to do the work, but receive performance bonuses that the non-exempt don't get. This is generally taken to be part of the compensation for overtime.

Check your contract and see what it says. Decision is then up to you on whether to take it further.
posted by arcticseal at 2:24 AM on April 9, 2008

foxinthesnow writes "they are now scheduling me extra hours to do clerical work-"

I'm not a labor lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Clerical work does not, as I understand it, qualify as exempt. It's not "executive" or "profesional". You're not specifying exactly what it consists of, but it doesn't sound like an exempt administrative job duty, but (from some law frm, not the government)

The Regulatory definition provides that exempt administrative job duties are

(a) office or nonmanual work, which is
(b) directly related to management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers, and
(c) a primary component of which involves the exercise of independent judgment and discretion about
(d) matters of significance.

The administrative exemption is designed for relatively high-level employees whose main job is to "keep the business running." A useful rule of thumb is to distinguish administrative employees from "operational" or "production" employees. Employees who make what the business sells are not administrative employees. Administrative employees provide "support" to the operational or production employees. They are "staff" rather than "line" employees. Examples of administrative functions include labor relations and personnel (human resources employees), payroll and finance (including budgeting and benefits management), records maintenance, accounting and tax, marketing and advertising (as differentiated from direct sales), quality control, public relations (including shareholder or investment relations, and government relations), legal and regulatory compliance, and some computer-related jobs (such as network, internet and database administration).

To be exempt under the administrative exemption, the "staff" or "support" work must be office or nonmanual, and must be for matters of significance. Clerical employees perform office or nonmanual support work but are not administratively exempt.

posted by orthogonality at 2:27 AM on April 9, 2008

orthogonality, from the description given, I assumed that clerical work was a very small part of the job. If almost all of the job is a professional librarian role, I'm not sure if that helps.
posted by grouse at 4:38 AM on April 9, 2008

Exempt, in my library-world experience, means "you work until you get the job done." Of course, most exempt library job descriptions have that niggly "other duties as required" responsibility tacked on to the end, so the "job" can grow and shrink from week to week.

I assume that your extra clerical duties are to take notes/minutes at some scheduled event? Otherwise, why would you need to stay late to do some typing? Otherwise, type and copy during normal open hours.

Unfortunately, how things play out for you is largely dependent on your office culture. When I have to stay late (I'm exempt and run a library as well), I can leave early later in the week. This may not be the case for you as it seems that your extra duties are a cost-cutting measure.

Are there any library schools in your area? Consider getting an intern proto-librarian to do the clerical stuff. Lots of library students need actual library experience and can be cheap-as-in-free. Otherwise, talk to your boss and see if you can get some extra time off down the line in return for taking one for the team and working a few extra hours.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 6:03 AM on April 9, 2008

exempt jobs generally aren't "scheduled" are they? it's more like, we're open from 9 to 5 and that is when you will be here, unless you don't get your work done by 5, and then you will stay until it is done.

that's how it's been at my exempt jobs.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 7:19 AM on April 9, 2008

toomuchpete writes "Are you really that upset about 1 extra hour a day without overtime after agreeing to be exempt? Think about it... if you were never to work more than 40 hours, why would you be classified as exempt?

As a salaried employee an extra hour on an 8 hour day is equivalent to a 11% pay cut. I'd be royally pissed if no further compensation (bonuses, overtime pay, hours in lieu, swag, etc.) was forth coming.

Exemption is supposed to allow flexibility in scheduling (IE: work 80 hours this week to get this project done and then take the next 5 Fridays off). It shouldn't be used to allow employers to replace 6 employees with 5 7/52/365.
posted by Mitheral at 7:25 AM on April 9, 2008

It can depend on your profession. There are, or used to be federal laws specific to computer programmers which required them to earn time-and-a-half for hours over 40 if they earned less than some multiple of the minimum wage. Googling around it appears there have been a number of court cases in California (just google "computer programmer overtime"). I seem to recall some of these federal labor laws changing in recent years. In any case, I don't believe the OP indicated what kind of job this is.
posted by thomas144 at 11:45 AM on April 9, 2008

Exempt means work until the job is done. Non-exempt means getting paid for every minute you work. Don't consider them 'extra hours', you need to change your mindset about your new status.
posted by Twicketface at 10:14 AM on April 11, 2008

I find that an interesting point of view Twicketface. At what point do you think the extra hours become something that one doesn't just change their mindset about? 50 hrs a week? 100 hours a week? 128 hours a week?
posted by Mitheral at 12:15 PM on April 11, 2008

Depends on the industry, time of year, and individual role. When I worked for an accounting firm, 80 hours a week was not unheard of during Tax Season. Of course, it also meant working 30 hours a week in the summer time.
posted by Twicketface at 9:59 AM on April 14, 2008

"As a salaried employee an extra hour on an 8 hour day is equivalent to a 11% pay cut."

...except that you're not getting paid for an 8 hour day, you're getting paid to get the job done, and the simple fact of the matter is that exemption was really not designed for flex-time.
posted by toomuchpete at 3:48 PM on April 14, 2008