Let's say you have a job opportunity in front of you. You can be paid hourly or salary (or be paid in celery). Which would you choose, and why?
Unless I'm missing something, seems you'd want hourly. That way you don't get the 'give and take' lie you hear about salary; if you are working, you're getting paid. I Guess the downside is they can send you home if work gets slow, then you're just eating celery.
What am I missing?
Can a mod move this to off topic please? What an idiot!
Salaried employees typically automatically get healthcare benefits. Otherwise you're at the mercy of hours per week to determine whether you get healthcare or not
Depends on the job, the specific company, and a bunch of other things. Some places will expect salaried people to work well over 40 hours/week, others more or less stick to a regular work week.
supposedly, come december, salaried employees will be eligible for OT. I'd still rather hourly if I was going back to the work force, but salary with an OT clause could be nice.
In my experience the "bird dogging" that comes with being hourly is a bigger pain than the amount that comes with salary. "I cant help but notice you went to the bathroom twice during your shift!"
I like being salary because there has been more flexibility. Of course this is totally employer dependent but it usually works out well for me. For example, going to the dentist doesn't cost me money on salary, but it did on hourly.
revrico wrote: supposedly, come december, salaried employees will be eligible for OT. I'd still rather hourly if I was going back to the work force, but salary with an OT clause could be nice.
There is still a limit. You have to make less than $47,476. Make 47,477 and ... 
It depends on the gig. But most of the "give and take" schpiel from an employer offering salary ends up being a whole lot of "take" and very little "give".
Yep. Depends on the gig. I am technically a salaried employee but we are paid for the amount of billable hours on our time sheet. It's straight-time, so not "really" OT, but they call it OT on our pay stub.
Depends on the work. One thing about salary - go to a doc visit in the middle of the day - hourly you're either not getting paid or using sick time. Salary - you worked that day and get paid for the whole day. Company decides to cut hours - you're not affected. If it's the kind of work where there's lots of overtime, you're probably better off hourly unless they're making adjustments.
I'm salaried, but work for a great company. There are certainly times I've had to work extra hours, evenings, or weekends, to finish an urgent task, but there's also been plenty of times I've taken off 2 or 3 hours without using any accrued time. However, the bigger benefit to me is the ability to take 1/2-hour or less occasionally to take care of personal issues without any worry about work.
I was concerned when I started that "someone" would have a nice spreadsheet where they tracked everyone's actual work time, but that's not been true at all.
Speak with people working at this place and then decide. Never forget: everybody cuts his/her own deal.
Salary doesn't guarantee anything. When the economy took a E36 M3 last decade, all but the youngest salaried employees where I work -who didn't get laid off - took a twenty percent pay cut. Thankfully, things improved and the cut was lifted.
This is too company dependent. Hourly or Salary and the benefits vs downsides range widely from just a consistent pay check and no overtime to a plethora of benefits.
Sorry dude, just depends on where you work.
I get paid hourly. Small company and I work from home. My hours are billable to clients and the few times over the past almost three years when things were slow and I didn't have billable work to do, the company paid me for 40 hours a week out of overhead. Once period was about three weeks. I guess in effect that makes me sorta like salaried, but when I work over 40 hours I get paid for my extra time.
Salaried defines a different relationship. You are not a commodity trading hours for dollars, you are part of a company's leadership team, management, creative, or intellectual.
I never want to work hourly, because my value is not based on how many hours are in a day. My value is based on what I bring to the company.
I work more than 40 hours, but if I do the math I am still better off.
Legally, these are not interchangeable, though many companies abuse it. It's not an option- Some jobs are defined as salary by the Fed gov, some are hourly. If ever challenged, those companies lose.
I run my department as if I own the company. My company gives me prefential treatment because of it.
BTW, it cuts both ways. As a member of leadership, I also have different responsibilities. A few years back we had an OSHA investigation related to an incident. I learned that whatever an employee said to the investigator was confidential, but anything a member of management said was viewed as representing the company, and was shared with the owner. That was uncomfortable.
In some cases it may depend if you are on a time clock. The first engineering firm I worked at used a time clock for hourly employees. For the first couple of years I was there, the policy was they didn't pay OT (time and a half) for any time that was under a full hour past 8. The labor dept had a problem with that and they were audited. A bunch of us got unexpected "bonus checks" for back pay.
In reply to Ian F:
The time clock may help document some things, but it doesn't mean a thing in determining whether someone is hourly or salaried. If my company asked me to punch a time clock, I'd still be salaried, and still not be eligible for overtime.
That is clearly defined in the FLSA.
I'm salaried exempt.
what does that mean? Overtime at 1.0x. And if there is no work and I need to be on overhead. I'll be Furloughed...
I'd go salaried. People often think it's way more 'take' than 'give', but there's a lot of little stuff that adds up over time that you just don't think about when you're salaried, you just take it.
Of course, it's very dependent on the company, but I would suggest that at all but the most draconian companies it probably really works out in your favor in the end to go salary. Also, as someone mentioned, when you're salary they don't ride you the same way as an hourly employee.
BA5 wrote: I'd go salaried. People often think it's way more 'take' than 'give', but there's a lot of little stuff that adds up over time that you just don't think about when you're salaried, you just take it. Of course, it's very dependent on the company, but I would suggest that at all but the most draconian companies it probably really works out in your favor in the end to go salary. Also, as someone mentioned, when you're salary they don't ride you the same way as an hourly employee.
Here in Silicon Valley, most companies would count as draconian by that measure. Being salaried means will most likely be working 60 hours per week to keep up and on-call 7 days per week including vacations and holidays. If you cost the same whether you are working 80 hours a week or 50, you will have more than 50 hours of work dumped on you. When it costs more have you around longer, your are managed differently. For me the most effective way to have control of my time is to work hourly.
Guys, it's not a choice. Employers don't get to choose which one to call you.
The FLSA give protections to workers that guarantee overtime payments.
Some workers are excluded from the FLSA (like farm workers, railroad workers, truckers, and movie theatre workers).
Others are exempt. Those are the "salaried" folks.
But in order for someone to be called "exempt", they MUST meet other criteria. These include "executive," "professional," and "administrative."
Here's a summary:
Being a Supervisor does not necessarily make you a Manager (Executive Exemption). And having the title "Manager" doesn't make you a Manager unless management is your primary duty.
One of the things that determines a "Manager" is having influence on the hiring and firing procedure.
If you make less than $23,600 per year (soon to be $47,476), you are due overtime. If you make more than $100,000 per year, you are most likely not.
There are a lot of companies that are completely outside the law on this. And the only reason it remains that way is because there are a lot of employees who are afraid to report them.
As others have said it depends on the specifics.
What is the job? Are there slow times and busy times or is it consistent?
Are the same benefits available to salary and hourly? (Health, dental, 401k, PTO)
Is either one bonus eligible?
Are they truly the same positions?
In reply to Type Q:
Silcon Valley doesn't get to choose either.
Programmers, Software Engineers, Systems Analysts are most likely Professional Exemptions. Data Entry is definitely not exempt (and are due overtime).
I worked for a guy for a few years that paid me salary and didn't pay me overtime like he should. I tracked every hour I worked, and the responsibilities I had.
After 3 years, I had accumulated about 1500 hours of overtime.
Eventually, he told me he would no longer be needing my services. I said, "I understand. Just pay me my accrued overtime, and I'll be on my way". He looked at me like I had 2 heads. I explained I had a detailed breakdown of all my responsibilities and hours, and that he had treated me like an exempt employee, though I did not meet the guidelines according to the FLSA. I told him he could write me the check, or I would take it up with the Department of Labor. He told me to berkeley off and get out of his office.
I waited a couple of days...
2 days later, his attorney called me with a pretty big check.
It helps to have a knowledge of the real laws, instead of internet rubbish. I have probably read the FLSA 50 times. I knew EXACTLY where I stood.
BTW, if I had taken my case to the Department of Labor, he would have been paying 3 years worth of back overtime for his entire staff (about 50 people).
You'll need to log in to post.
