Maryland is one of the very few states that has a specific law requiring a specific period of notice before changes to an employee's wage structure.
That being said, jk is correct in his assessments of the overtime and severance issues.
Maryland is one of the very few states that has a specific law requiring a specific period of notice before changes to an employee's wage structure.
That being said, jk is correct in his assessments of the overtime and severance issues.
[QUOTE=cbg;787448]Maryland is one of the very few states that has a specific law requiring a specific period of notice before changes to an employee's wage structure. "
So does this mean they were required to give us a notice BEFORE changing our pay structure? Because we were never told.
- - - Updated - - -
So does this mean they ARE required to notify us before changing our pay structure?
Yes. In your state (this does not remain true in all states) if your pay is LOWERED, notice of a full pay period is required. Notice of a pay increase is not required. Obviously notice that your pay is remaining the same is not required.
https://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/w...ngeofpay.shtml
So if the new pay structure results in your pay being reduced, he was required to notify you a full pay period before it went into effect.
However, let's address one other question - overtime. THERE IS NEVER, IN ANY STATE, A REQUIREMENT THAT AN EMPLOYEE BE ALLOWED TO WORK OVERTIME. It is unclear what your statement about OT, above, means. If you are working overtime and not being paid for it, that is illegal. But if you are not being allowed to work overtime, that is legal. And if your pay is reduced solely because you are no longer being allowed to work overtime, and thus not receiving overtime pay, that is not a reduction for which the state requires you be given notice.
I don't understand. Salaried employees do not get overtime. That is why they are called salaried. Do the job for the salary. Hourly employees get overtime after working (usually) beyond 40 hours. So what am I missing?
You are missing the fact that it is not whether an employee is salaried or hourly that matters when it comes to overtime, but whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt. Not all exempt employees are salaried. Not all salaried employees are exempt.
You are also missing that it is ALWAYS legal to make an employee non-exempt, while the reverse is not true.
A pretty big chunk of labour law!
"Salaried" is a pay method about which labour law cares nothing about. The legal terms are "exempt" and "non-exempt" meaning exempt or not from OT pay requirements. Some salaried positions are exempt, some are non-exempt. Some hourly positions are exempt, some are non-exempt.
This site explains the different between exempt and non-exempt pretty well:
http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/bl...empt-employees
Thanks for the link. So OP was a salaried supervisor employee that was nonexempt because he does not fit into one of the exempt categories and so he was entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Now OP had his title changed, changed from salary to hourly employee, had his differential pay dropped and is not allowed overtime and remains nonexempt.
I assume that OP means that company policy will not allow him to work overtime but if he did work overtime, he would have to be paid for it since he is still nonexempt.
I think I understand it now. Thanks. I'd be updating my resume about now.