Is it illegal to be on salary unless you have at least two direct reports?

Is that a state law (if so, which state?) or federal?

 

I don't think your last sentence is true. May be illegal not to pay them, but I think if you can require OT.

 

I should clarify my previous comment, as I left out an important detail -- employers can contract employees under salary; that is, have them sign a contract for a specific salary over a specific period of time, an exception that you rightly noted. Be certain that when you joined your company you didn't actually sign a cleverly worded contract, rather than an employment agreement.

I was not aware those other newspaper industry exceptions had been officially established. When I left newspaper management a few years ago, those were still being debated -- the main point of contention being who could be considered an expert or mission-critical employee (salary) and who could be considered a line-level, easily replaceable worker (hourly). For what it's worth, I'm in magazine management now, and we contract EVERYBODY.

Not doubting you, but just curious -- what's your source for those exceptions? The only one I could find with a cursory glance at the Department of Labor guidelines was the exception for employees working for 3,000-circulation newspapers.

 

At my paper all of the "primary beat writers" are considered senior reporters and are on salary.

I'd love to say it's a respect thing, but it's obviously done so we can't get any overtime...

 

The real kicker is that under our current Bidness-Friendly Gubbmint, the enforcement of any of these laws is absolutely the last priority of anyone, and in many cases, actively discouraged.

In other words, You Get To Work Forever, for however much or however little Ole Massah sees fit to pay you, and You Will Like It, Or Else You Can Go Get Another Job.

 

I made it clear when I took the job that I will work long hours as long as they are paid.

They hired me, and I didn't sign any damn papers, so I get OT when I work it. Needless to say, they make me go home at 40. I don't feel bad because my salaried editor sure doesn't work over 40.

I just really don't get the people who take pride in being screwed over to work 60-70 hours per week for such pathetic pay. It's no badge of honor. Hopefully, my generation changes that, because I'm not the only one at the paper who put his foot down about unpaid work.

 

I get paid for everything I work, too. They have never once screwed me on that (can't say the same for my last paper ... )

 

it's on here somwhere ...http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/

 

Is it a badge of honor to be sent home like a child at the end of a school day because "your day is done?"

I hope I'm retired when this new generation takes over.

 

i don't get it

 

Nothing wrong with working long hours if you're fairly compensated. I'm not going to work over 40 when I barely make $26K a year. Of course, the majority of us are not fairly compensated for work performed.

Hopefully that way of thinking dies out. Who wants to work for a miserable cuss who pissed his life away for an industry that treats him like shit? Who wants to be a miserable cuss who berates his employees just because you're tired and overworked and have no life outside the office? Anyone?

There is more to life than just work, and that goes for any business.

*now waiting for the typical "get out of the business" replies

 

About as shiny a badge as working 55 hours and getting paid for 40. What's your point? :