Nothing is requiring employees to be in the office five days a week - eviltoast
    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      So glad I live in California. A faulty security gate once prevented me from leaving my job on time. Which pushed me past 12 hours on shift, which automatically meant I was earning twice my hourly wage while I waited. Plus it required a mandatory additional meal break, which I couldn’t take. Since I couldn’t take it, I was automatically given an additional full hour’s wage, as required by state law.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m glad I don’t work for a company that forces me to go through a security gate, and I’m glad we don’t track hours. I get paid salary, and I rarely work more than 8 hours in a given day, and my average hours worked per week is usually under 40.

        It’s nice you had some protections, but those protections really shouldn’t be necessary.

        • EarthShipTechIntern@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re lucky. Many people on salary end up working overtime with no pay increase.

          Once again, there are good managers & (far too frequently) bad (Elon loving cockwomble) managers

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Being salaried doesn’t remove you from those protections, at least in Europe. You get overtime, which is either 1.5x pay or you accumulate PTO.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            In the US most salaried positions are not eligible for overtime. Unfortunately, California has yet to close that loophole.

            The next job above me is salaried. If I were to get a promotion, I’d be making about 2/3 of my current income because I would lose all of the hourly protections I have. Despite a higher base pay.

    • kamen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Wow. Now I don’t want to go to the US even harder than before.

    • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If I’m reading that right, the decision was reversed by the 9th circuit.

      The District Court originally dismissed the case, ruling that the security checks were made after the regular work shift and therefore not “an integral and indispensable part” of the job. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, ruling that the checks were necessary to the principal work of the job.[2][3]

      • Teepo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        The US Supreme Court then reversed the Ninth Circuit ruling. You’re quoting the background that gives context to the case in the lixned article.