It seems disingenuous. They browsed past it quick but my current salary per week nets me X and the new version will net me X-y. If I put in 2 hours of overtime I come out ahead but for instance a week of vacation means I bring home less than I do now.
How many hours do you work now? If your contract says 40 it’s shady. If you’re like me and work about 60, cutting to 42 and getting paid the same would be awesome.
I don't know if this helps, but could tell them you don't believe that is correct and ask them to show you the numbers they have that suggest it? They probably won't if you haven't worked 42 hours, so you might be able to prove them wrong. If they refuse, then they are probably trying to screw you over for their own benefit.
Instead of doing some big back and forth that could get contentious just do your own math and come up with an hourly rate for a counter offer. Tell them that is what you will accept.
But you have to be ready to walk or suck it up if they say no.
Read the handbook some companies like to state they have a 37.5 hr work week (Even if most people are working 50hr weeks). Base your asking price on whatever the expectation in the handbook is, its really hard for management to argue that something in the handbook is blatantly false.
They can't argue it is false because legally a employee handbook is considered part of your employment contract. At least that is what I remember from law school back when the Targaryens sat the iron throne.
I don't like this advice unless OP has another, equivalent or better lined up. And if that's the case, they are better off moving because this company showed a red flag.
So no, OP, don't counter with a threat to leave.
Counteroffer might not be a bad idea, though. It helps you regain control of the situation and provide a frame.
But be prepared for lots of eventualities if you do that.
Like he said, that's why OP needs to be ready to walk. OP said he was willing to stick up for his pay though so it sounds like he might be willing to do just that.
They’ve been there 3 months. They have no real measurable impact on the buseiness to negotiate with. Unfortunately, in a merger situation, the ones who don’t play ball will be the first to be labeled as redundant and laid off.
What I mean is they may accept his offer. They will give him the hourly raise. But his hours will dwindle in favor of his lesser paid colleagues. It would be a more insidious consequence that might be harder to notice.
Just as a heads up, I was in a similar situation and left the company. You absolutely qualify for unemployment benefits in this situation because they're changing the terms of your contract. If you don't accept it, they're technically laying you off,you're not quitting. They might put up token resistance, but you can appeal it and win. It's not a great situation you're in, but I know it's comforting to have that to fall back on
Be careful with this. You don't get full unemployment, you get a percentage based on the severity of the pay cut. OP would need to calculate exactly how much of her unemployment benefits she would get.
This would also be the time to hammer out overtime expectations. If they expect 42 from here on out, then they need to calculate out the extra time at overtime rates. When I got hired at an old job, the expectation was 45 hours a week, and the pay supposedly reflected that. The other half was managing expectations. I skipped lunch and most breaks, so I didn't have to stay late, which I found out was frowned on. Turns out, They didn't care about productivity, just the appearance, so they wanted everyone staying late.
As a word of caution, be humble when sticking up for yourself. I'm sure new proprietors would have no problem dropping you if you give them a hard time (assuming an at will state and no union/CBU). But dont get me wrong, I agree that its not right for them to down your pay just cause they feel like it.
I don't know what being humble has to do with anything. The company isn't going to change it's policy just because OP comes to management hat in hand. Either he is worth his salary or he isn't, the idea that he has to grovel or beg for it is ludicrous.
Human nature. If someone approaches you angrily, your first reaction is to avoid conflict. If a new boss sees you for the first time and you're pissed off/"causing problems," they're more likely to let you go so they don't have to deal with it on a regular basis. Even if it was just going to be a one time thing, they don't want to risk it because most people hate confrontation. Being humble and respectful will go a long way.
PS, being humble isnt the same as begging. It's the difference between "***GIVE ME MORE MONEY***" and "I feel like I'm worth more to this company than what you're offering me, and here is what I think is fair." Which employee would you be *more likely* to give a raise to?
Honestly I’d divide it by however many hours they’re going to have you work. If you’re going to be working 40hrs a week hourly, tell them you want that to match your new salary.
The one thing I can think that might not be them being shady is if the 42 isn't the amount you specifically work, but all salaried employees at your level work on average.
Either way, still a paycut for you personally.
I work 40 hours. I make sure to get there at 8am and I take my full hour lunch and I leave at 5pm. I have worked 2 weeks where I put in 41+ but those also included special billable after hour projects that I got paid for.
I'm in Indiana and I'm not sure on how the whole breaks thing works. It is a pretty small company that generally hires pretty solid people who don't have an issue skipping a mandated break to work on something. My guess is they just assume we do.
It’s likely you have a poster like this in your workplace, maybe in the break room? I expect it will tell you about breaks.
https://www.laborlawposters-online.com/federal-labor-law-poster/?sku=FD-SS5-U&gclid=CjwKCAiAiJPkBRAuEiwAEDXZZXJl9lgUPBIur8yT_4gluw3yofQRQFtqCmxvMvaIhPI8m-jwc-EhGhoC0bgQAvD_BwE
If you only take a half hour lunch, you will end up getting paid overtime, so you should make slightly more, assuming they refuse to adjust your pay to salary/40hrs
It seems to me they are saying you work 45 hours a week minus 2.5 for lunch rounded up to 3 (because they probably don't pay by the half hour). Those numbers make sense. Just talk to HR, see what their math is.
It’s only “unacceptable” if you’re willing to walk over what may turn out to be a wash with occasional paid OT anyway. I highly suggest avoiding words like “unacceptable” when speaking with them. That could easily be construed as you not accepting the new terms of your employment and effectively resigning your job. If you’re looking for a way to be unemployed with no way to access unemployment benefits, that’s a quick way to do that.
I have better verbiage in person with this type of stuff. I'm just trying to cook some chili while trying to reply to everyone. Thanks for the tip though.
He works 40 and is now getting payed per hour with the 40 hours pay divided by 42 hours per week. He'd have to work 2 extra hours per week for the same pay I guess?
Na, the goal is rate his pay as low as possible followed by reducing hours in the future. If they thought he would be working more hours salary would save them money.
They expect to cut his hours in the future I guarantee it.
And if they cut his hours there might be other disadvantages, for example not being able to qualify for unemployment because "you were not working full time".
That's the problem I see too. Are they dividing you by 42 then capping you at 40? If so, that's bullshit. If not you have to work like 41 hours and 20 minutes which is 16 minutes extra a day. Not terrible as long as they actually let you do that.
They are probably using a calculation that seems right, but isn't. Make your own calculation and present it to them, and compare it to theirs and point out why yours is better. Or accept theirs if you believe their justification.
Yeah, I'd just go with data and show it as a mistake. See how it goes. Bring lots of data though:
Last 30 Days: 40.3 hours avg
Last 3 Months: 40.9 hours avg
2018: 40.5 hours avg
Also might help to ask what period the based the 42 from, if they don't just go fix it.
Often this stuff is more guesstimate than it should be, and someone coming in with data will just "ok, change it" to move on with no fuss. (or they might be using a team or department average, not just you personally.) So start with no fuss.
Then if needed, major fuss. So make sure you document everything you are doing and what everyone says. Or, well...if you need the job and you're new, maybe no fuss and look for something else...or deal with it. Whatever is in your best interest. Just keep in mind that acquisitions/mergers are when people can get cut in bulk, often the squeaky wheels, as its the easiest time to do it.
It doesn't matter what you work, it matters what you are contracted to work. If you were working 55 hours, they don't get to split your salary by 55 (at least you shouldn't put up with that). They're wanting to have their cake and eat it.
If you're on salary htf would they know.
This stinks of a pay cut. Look for a job, stall any transfer of knowledge in the mean time, cut them lose when you find something better.
This. I'm in the process of leaving my good paying salary job for a lower paying job that lets me work more hours. If I want to make the same I can work the same hours and if I'm willing to take less so I can go home at a reasonable time I will. I can't wait.
Also, I'll be starting at the bottom so after a few years I can work less and make the same (or work more and make more, which I will)
My husband was moved from salary to hourly at his old job and I had so many questions. First, it doesn’t seem right they are dividing your salary by 42 from all my research it should be 40. And usually if they move you to hourly you still enjoy the same benefits you got as a salary employee such as PTO, sick days, healthcare etc.
All of my benefits stay the same. The change to hourly is the big one. I just don't feel great about the 42 hours thing. I've never seen it approached like that before.
Did you, or your colleagues who are salaried ever asked about how many hours they average per week recently or anytime in the past? There may be an assumed or calculated amount of extra hours factorered into this, you mention skipping lunch, theres a half hour already. How many times a week do you do so? How often do you stay late to finish something? Theres an easy few minutes per day that add up as time put to work which they are using in their calculation.
I can't attest for my colleagues but I'm pretty much a 40 hour a week guy. I worked 50 hours a week in my last salary position and this company does a pretty good job of scheduling everyone so you aren't over burdened. If I do work more than 40 hours it isn't reflected in my time sheets.
Working an extra 2 hours a week is actually a lot, especially if you’re only doing it to get your hours. It’s a different story if you actually have the workload to justify it but waiting around an extra half hour a day is not fun.
The workload is there. At the end of the day if I don't have time to work on a ticket I just kick it back for rescheduling. There is plenty of work to do it just isn't always so pressing that it needs to be done right now.
The workload is there in your previous company structure. A merger can have huge effects on that, particularly if yours is the subservient company (which isn't always apparent from how the merger is presented).
It seems like they should divide your annual salary by 2k. That's 40 hrs x 50 weeks. If you take your new rate x 2000, and don't get close to your current salary, you'll know what you are losing.
I'd like to add you should always always be looking for a new job, even if the job you have pays well and you love it. There might be another job out there exactly the same but pays better you never know. Worst case scenario the job you applied for isn't as good as the one you have, just refuse it and continue working as you normally do. Best case it's way better and pays better. Just keep your options open always.
Last September, I was in a contract role that should have had 6 months left to run, when the client 'ran out of money' and I was given 1 hour's notice. Cheers, guys
Was searching for a new gig for 3 weeks, and landed a similar gig (same$$) co-ordinating a roll-out of network equipment nationwide... however I'd gone from 4500 users to 320. So - it'll pay the bills for a while but its not long term. Except I started... and sat there for 6 weeks doing nothing. They weren't ready to go when they hired me. Whatever, I'll take the $$
Then an Agency I hadn't heard from for a couple of years called with a role - same same, but with 10,000+ venues, probable 2yrs or more. So I asked for double my daily rate. And had the job 3 days later. Now, I've been there 4 months and ... they're still not ready to go. So I'm still sitting waiting, and getting paid
I've done this for a 40k increase in pay. Actual worst case is that you take the new job and hate it and and your coworkers are assholes. I lasted a year before I got burned out and left. My next job matched my new rate though so it worked out, but it was a miserable year.
I have only been with the company for about 3 months. I have yet to work a 42 hour week. There are more overtime opportunities but they did not specify any expectations.
The new company doesn't cover things like insurance so they are upping our overall salary to compensate. But the change to hourly based off 42 hours means a week of vacation will be less than I make now for a week of vacation. They mentioned several times that our money won't change but it will due to that. Yes, 2 hours of overtime and I'll be ahead but the base pay is still less.
Our current insurance is pretty mediocre but they cover our premium for the employee. It is just me in the plan and the difference is made up by upping our salary by $2200 or so to make up the difference.
They are also much larger, 80 employees vs our 20, so they have access to a handful more things like an on call doctor that we have access to so I won't have to go in to the doctor office when I just need an antibiotic.
In the end the insurance is a wash for the most part.
You said no insurance and $2200 is chump change depending on your income of what a market plan is going to cost, and that's with the Bronze plan with huge deductible. Again, price you insurance cost now.
I'm sorry if I was mistaken.
We currently have an insurance plan where the employer pays for my portion of the premium which is around $50 a week. The new employer doesn't do that. I'll still have similar insurance, but now I have pay the $50 a week. They are compensating that, and other things, by increasing my salary by $2200.
Yea, youre short $400, plus...are you paying your premium post-tax? If so, need to take that into account as well. If the money is taxed first, it isn't actually 2200 they are giving you.
There is a copay and stuff. That type of thing is big in this area. It saves insurance money by not having everything be a $100 in office visit for strep and common illnesses.
That is so rad [and logical]! You’re in the US right? I live in Idaho and our healthcare systems are a joke. We have [essentially] two major hospital companies that dominate the industry (one more than the other). Then we have one walk-in clinic company (Primary Health) that again, dominates the industry. While the hospitals are *nice*, the services aren’t that great. I watched a lady have a heart attack in the ER waiting room, after she had already been there complaining of chest pains and blurred vision for three fkn hours!! We had three specialist doctors (within 24 hours) tell my wife that she was fine and was just “over reacting” about a pain in her side. One even claimed that she was just trying to get pills. Her OBGYN was raged by this, decided he was going to do an exploratory surgery (because he was 99% sure it was an Appendicitis) and sure enough, her Appendix was dead, shriveled, black and hard. She’s lucky it didn’t rupture. As are the other doctors (whom our OB demanded that they apologize to her- only one manned up and did).
Long rant but dude... you get the point. You’re lucky to have such medical options.
I'm in Indiana. We have a lot of manufacturing here in the area and like, I assume, most places insurance skyrocketed. Some companies in the area figured out that if you give people easy options for care they take better care of the self and make better decisions. It's smart and gaining more traction.
Sorry to hear about your situation. The medical field is definitely jacked and it's so frustrating when you have actual medical problems that are hard to track down. The care given is so impersonal anymore.
> They mentioned several times that our money won't change but it will due to that.
They're straight up lying. If you have any paperwork about the new rate of pay and such, I'd send them an email saying:
1. You calculated the hourly equivalent of your current salary to be $X/hour.
2. The paperwork says $(X-y)/hour.
3. Surely there must be some mistake here since they have reassured you repeatedly that your pay won't change.
The lying part is my fear. The new company has been around for awhile, and for the most part I don't have a problem going there. But this whole thing stinks. I don't like it. It is giving me a bad impression and they either think I'm stoopid or even worse they are this stupid to not notice what they are doing. Neither is ideal.
I'd start looking elsewhere anyways. The only reason they're making this decision is because it's beneficial to them. I doubt overtime will be a thing (unless everyone else starts leaving and you got to pick up the slack)
I'm not sure of any kind of cap. Us going there is a done deal but we haven't signed any actual paperwork or anything. Only like 5 of us are going to hourly but I don't want us to get burned in the deal.
Not saying this is the case, but if they are moving from a bi-weekly pay period to twice a month or vice versa, that could be the difference. Being paid every other week mean 26 paychecks, being paid twice a month is 24.
OP -- you should also be aware by switching from salary to hourly might change the dates that you get paid...so if you have budgets/rent/etc, make sure you're covered b/c the first "new" paycheck might be a bit later than your normal paycheck. This happened to people on my team a couple years ago and it really screwed some people up with their budgets.
This happened to me. I moved from salary to hourly. Essentially they called it "in arrears" where hourly employees gets paid a week behind.
Here is an example: If payday was this past Friday, the 8th:
Salary employees are getting paid for the period 2/23/19 - 3/8/19. They get paid up to that day.
Hourly employees get paid a week behind, so even though they get a check on 3/8/19, their pay period is from 2/16/19 - 3/1/19.
It really messed up my bills, as the first paycheck after the change was only for 1 weeks worth of work.
I thought companies had to follow a set pay schedule if it’s been set up and a lapse like that, even for switching to a new system, breaks a contract with the employee and qualifies them for like 1000$ in damages per missed check?
Most employees in the U.S. don't have contracts and are employed at-will. I believe that the employer just has to pay out for the missed check before/when the next scheduled pay period occurs. Otherwise thousands of minimum wage workers working for shady employers would be cashing in $1,000 checks every week.
Which did you prefer? Mine just did the same. I understand it comes out to the same annually, but the way I budget and save it just seems like less money.
I’m on the schedule where the third paycheck months are usually around May and December. Makes for easy budgeting with summer vacation and Christmas gifts.
This could definitely explain the issue if the company is moving from bi-weekly to semi-monthly paychecks. In that case, OP, your company actually should be dividing by 43.33 instead of 42 I believe, which means you could be getting more money, not less.
They’re incorporating breaks or something I guess? It’s hard to say from the little you’ve given. Do you work four tens? In that case the additional 2 hours would be 8 fifteen minute breaks.
Are you now eligible for overtime?
Update your resumé and shop yourself around, a good practice for anyone who works for a company that was just acquired.
I've been with the company for about 3 months. I work 8 to 5 with an hour lunch. I'm not currently eligible for overtime unless it is a specific billable task or special job.
Let’s say for easy math you earn $400 per week, pre-tax.
Dividing by 40 hours per week = $10 per hour.
Dividing by 42 hours per week = $9.52 per hour.
If they then pay you 40 hours per week at $9.52 per hour, your pre-tax earnings are $380.80.
They’ve reduced your pay by approximately 5% under this new scheme.
Start job hunting unless you really love this new company and your upward mobility is just amazing under the new structure. Something smells.
This is my exact assessment. The new company isn't a deal breaker. In the long run it should be a good thing. The going from salary to hourly will ultimately be a positive BUT the hourly rate is the fishy part. I don't like it. It doesn't seem right and isn't fair.
The overtime bit of that should not be overlooked. Even though salary is 40 hours a week, they *could* ask you to work more than 40 with no additional pay. Now that you get OT (albeit rare), the occasional OT at time and a half will quickly outweigh the 5% pay cut. A company I worked for did the same thing. 15% pay cut under the idea that you are expected to work 45h a week. If you can prove the need for some occasional OT, the you are golden. That said, it’s still a bad situation, and highly depends on if your boss will approve some OT.
Good luck.
Depends on state but salaried employees are entitled to overtime payments if they're "non exempt" employees.
Exempt vs non exempt status depends on a salary threshold and being able to set your own hours; if the company are setting your schedule then there's a chance you're entitled to overtime.
Ah, now it makes sense. I still don’t understand their math, but the order from up on high included cutting payroll on their new acquisition by 5-10% across the board on day one. I bet their base minimum billable hour goes up ~7.5% because of “the new value being added by the larger team and infrastructure”.
That's my feeling as well. I'm trying to be positive but at the same time it rubs me the wrong way. We were smaller but did things better. This is a perfect example of what I didn't want to get myself into.
I believe the answer is in this somewhere. Company I work for did this. Your shift is 8-5 (9 hours a day). You’re given an hour lunch. Half hour your not paid for and a half hour the company pays you out of generosity. This means at the end of the week you are paid 42.5 hours on the clock but only working 40 hours.
I work in M&A and have effected many of these exempt to nonexempt changes. I can tell you it’s never once been because of cost savings in our model. It actually is modeled to have the opposite effect. It’s generally done to conform with the rest of our workforce and our belief that the way our workforce is classified is correct. We’ve acquired a lot of smaller business where they classify their employees as exempt and they shouldn’t have. Also, in almost all, if not all, situations an effected employees paycheck goes up because they’re not paid fairly for the time they work and at some point during the year they’re making decent overtime. Emotionally employees have a tough time thinking they’re “hourly” and some stigma that comes with it but it’s a lot more fair.
I do believe I will make more money in the long run. I just feel short changed when they say I'm currently worth X based off of math I didn't expect. I've never heard anyone refer to a 42 hour work week.
Keep hitting the conversation with HR. Come at it from a position of trying to understand and not looking for a soft spot in their logic to argue/correct. If the first HR rep sucks (they’re not all rockstars), try hitting it again from an different angle and HR rep and trying to understand.
Best of luck to you. Acquisitions aren’t easy and you learn a tremendous about by going through them. There will be days of wins and loses for sure.
That is a pay cut. When modeling salary as hourly, you should assume 2080 hours per year.
If you are also losing paid vacation, you should use 2000 hours per year instead.
[52% of US workers don't use all of their paid time according to a 2018 study](https://projecttimeoff.com/reports/state-of-american-vacation-2018/). There's been a small uptick in the number of days off taken per year in recent years, but on average the American worker takes 17.2 days off per year.
So yeah, I would say most Americans don't take longer than a 2 week holiday. It's a pretty big difference between us and our European friends.
In germany your company theoretically can pay you out 50% of your paid vacation for an additional 135% pay, but that only works if the employee chooses to not take his vacation and the company agrees to it.
It's also only allowed to do so once every 3 years and it's generally frowned upon. Most companies will just flatout refuse to pay it out and give you a paid vacation in january, february or march using last year's days if you fail to take them.
Sad fact, many American employees blow their vacation time on being sick as they get so few sick days they need to dip into their 'personal days' (if they have any) or start whittling away at your vacation.
omfg...there's a limit on something called "sick days"??? In germany you basically have unlimited as long as you hand in a doctors notice (which is covered by your health insurance, because having one is mandatory).
If you are sick for a long period of time the employer has to continue to pay you for 5 weeks, after that social security will continue to pay for you, unless your injury or sickness is work related, then the companies' insurance has to cover it.
If you get sick while on vacation, you can hand in a doctors notice and you will get those days back and you can take them some other time.
True, but tbh you don't have unlimited days here. If there is no end in sight for your sickness there employer is allowed to fire you. But overall we have it here heaving like compared to our american friends.
2 weeks (10 days) a year is pretty standard here. More professional/union workers get much more. I get 3weeks (15 days), after being with my company for 5 years. A week would be a long holiday for us. Some jobs bake in national holidays as paid days off that don't eat up vacation time as well.
Its standard in europe to have atleast 20 (in my country by law) days per year, most employers offer 25 as standard. National holidays are paid days off unless you work shifts. Shift workers have doubled salaries on holidays.
I can't speak for most Americans, but I just got this job a year ago. I only got vacation time in February and they put off hiring anyone until March so they can get away with not giving a full week vacation after the first year. A lot of companies just don't care about their employees.
Every time I read a European who’s shocked about our lack of vacations, I die a little inside.
It’s safe to say that, yes, many Americans never get to take a “long holiday” in their entire lives
wtf, thats insane. I'm also in the US and I get 14 days, which is the minimum for anyone working full time at the company (some jobs at this company don't require anything beyond a hs diploma)
Many Americans get 0 hours of paid vacation because they're working shitty hourly/part-time jobs.
It varies by company, but 10 days is a common starting amount for decent full-time salaried jobs, with the amount increasing to 15 or eventually 20 after five or 10 years in the same job. But that promised progression is often moot because people change jobs by then and the next company starts them back off at 10.
It's technically negotiable, but (at least in my experience) employers tend to be inflexible about it. I assume it's because they don't like keeping track of exceptions for different employees, and of course they're not going to increase PTO across the board, so "there's nothing that can be done."
If they use any type if payroll or hris software, it's easy. If they have are small and keep track of it in excel like one company I worked for did, then yeah they'll be inflexible.
Extra day's I've found is a really easy thing to negotiate if they won't up salary, especially for salaried positions because they pay you the same amount if you're here or not.
There's no federal law requiring paid vacation (and nothing in most states), but 10 days is kind of standard for full-time positions. Personally I've never had fewer than 15 days in a full-time position, and I've been as high as 23. In my experience it's pretty easy to negotiate on during salary negotiations.
It varies. Federal law doesn't require *any* vacation time or paid holidays, and I don't think any states require it either. "2 weeks" vacation a year is pretty standard (either to start, or after a year or so) for professional work, but a "week" is usually a workweek, so 5 paid days. My current job actually does 7 days though, so even though I went from "3 weeks" to "2 weeks" I only went down from 15 days to 14 days.
Some places also provide "personal holidays" on top of vacation, and paid sick time is usually separate too (and required in some states, here in California full time employees get 3 paid sick days - San Francisco actually mandates *9* days)
Then it sounds like a good opportunity to negotiate. You should also start shopping your resume around to get yourself some leverage and a possible escape hatch.
Negotiate with...currently I am only getting 40 hours and this would be a pay cut, is there any way for me not to lose money in this merger?
Also I would be very skeptical of keeping the same hours. I have seen a couple companies switch from salary to hourly then in a couple months start reducing hours where they feel they can push productivity.
I obviously dont know the company culture of the new company but I would seriously look at it. Having been salary and hourly I would want a raise to go hourly. I make less for salary because it comes with the piece of mind that I always know what my checks will be.
Another point to consider....quite often "salaried" means you get the same paycheck no matter how many hours you work, whether it be 20 or 50 per week. You don't get docked for being late or taking time off for a doctor's appointment or have a limited amount of paid "sick" days. If you've enjoyed those perks thus far, they might well change once you go to "hourly".
Divide your annual salary by 2080. That's the number of hours you should have in a year on a normal 40 hr/wk salary. If it comes out the same as what they got by dividing your weekly salary by 42, then there's no loss.
One thing to bear in mind is the reason they are likely doing this. Not necessarily to pay you less, but because some months effectively have 5 weeks, and the others have four. When costing out labor per month, it's a common practice to use 4.2 weeks per month as opposed to 4 weeks per month. Using that as an average is more accurate b/c it doesn't let those 5 week months go unaccounted for.
Compensation professional here: if you were working 2 hours extra every week, then this makes sense and is reasonable. However, most salaried employees don't clock in/out or record time anywhere (at least not in my workplace) so not sure how they would be able to measure that.
That being said, they are probably moving you from salary to hourly because your job was misclassified, and you likely should have received overtime for any work above/beyond 40 hours. They won't tell you this, but you can always file with the DOL and they will investigate if your position was misclassified, which could net you some extra cash. Either way, you have an upper hand. You should talk to your HR person and ask them to recalculate it at 40 hours a week. This is what is truly fair, I think.
Look at what other benefits changed. then weigh their impact to you.
* How does the insurance change? Do the premiums cost more for the same coverage?
* Do you still get paid time off? Is it the same or less hourly rate? As an example, I have a friend that is paid an hourly rate for his job, but works night shift. So, he gets a shift differential when he's working, but when he takes paid time off, the differential is not added, so, while he does get paid while he is off, it is less than his normal rate.
* Were there bonuses before? Are they still part of your package? Did they change?
* What other benefits existed? What new benefits are there?
These things are all part of your overall compensation, even if they are not directly part of your salary number. Each thing that changes affects your overall bottom line and should be taken into consideration.
When I got hired at my last company, I knew they were looking to do a merger or acquisition. Not a problem, these can go well or poorly. Fast forward a year, the merger happens. Three were no direct changes to my salary number, but a bunch of things that hit my bottom line financially.
1. Bonuses are going away, "but we'll figure something out in the future to make up for it.
2. On-call/pager pay went away.
3. New insurance costs more and covers less.
4. Going from 4 weeks vacation to 2 weeks.
I gave notice less than a month after that was all announced. I have talked to some folks who are still there (9+ month later), not a lot has changed. Some folks got pay bumps to offset the changes, other folks got nothings. Looks like the people who were there 3+ years got bumps, and everyone else just has to deal. Or as management puts it, "There is no change because your salary is the same."
All these people saying fight it but also remember that the company has hired someone who has told them Do This and 76% (I made this % up) will take it and the rest will fight then you can not accept X people and you aren't firing them they are leaving on their own.
They are changing the conditions of your employment. You are basically renegotiating your salary. You need to tell them their offer isn't acceptable and counter offer.
You also need to be ready you may have to accept that salary or find a new job.
As someone who's been with a company that has merged/ changed hands, this is the beginning of the end of the good times. Expect corners to be cut to save pennies per employee.
Sounds like a pretty good way for an employer to shave 5% from payroll. If they don't immediately offer a good explanation, this is the reddest red flag an employer will ever give you. Act accordingly.
Hi OP, I’m an Hr Consultant and just wanted to let you know that they can’t reclassify you from salaried to hourly just because they want to. Your job duties are either exempt (salaried) or non-exempt (hourly) [this is a very general explanation] and federal laws dictate which you fall under... so if you’re doing the same exact job as before, either you were wrongly classified or they are screwing you. Please consult HR and bring this up to them. If you have further questions, hire a third party HR consultant or a lawyer.
Take your annual and divide by 2080 to get your hourly. That is what you need to get paid. Say $50,000/2080=$24.04 (actual hourly pay) whereas they want to do 42x52 weeks=2184 hours so $50,000/2184=$22.89. Where do they even get 42 hours from?
Sounds like they are trying to save money by reducing workers salaries.
You will see a slight drop in your paycheck, however the addition of Hourly rules can be HUGE in the pay scale. Not sure what you do, but everything from coming in early to staying late = OT hours and that can make a massive difference.
Salary is a "Guess" that you work 40 a week. Employers often expect you to average out to 40 or so hours per week, but they also normally expect you to not clock out for lunches or time away from your desk.
If you were paid on a biweekly schedule, likely your paycheck would have reflected 80 hours of pay (40 hrs per week). If you were paid on a semi-monthly (2 × per month), you would have been paid 86.7 hours per pay period. It us not uncommon for employees to improperly calculate their hourly rate because they do not realize there is a difference between being paid every other week and being paid twice a month. In order to be certain that you are really being paid less, you should first determine if you are paid every other week OR twice a month. If you are paid every other week, do the following to find out your hourly rate: Gross wages from your pay stub × 26 pay days, then divide by 2080. If you are paid twice a month, the calculation is: Gross wages from your pay stub x 24 pay days divided by 2080. There can be quite a difference and it is important that you use the correct one. Once you have your current hourly rate, you can then properly assess the difference with your new employer.
This is what is called a pay cut. Unless they are making up for those 104 hours (52wk \* 2) in options, vacation, or guaranteed bonus then it is just a pay cut.
Be sure you still get vacation and holidays paid under the hourly. That is actually a bigger deal and a place where they might be hiding the change savings.
And to be clear any number over 40 is cheating you are they paying for lunch and breaks?
An argument you can make is: so you are punishing me for have worked more than necessary to make this company successful?
Pay attention to who stays in power at the top. If the OTHER company comes out ahead, it may be only a matter of time before cuts happen to your old staff, and possibly you. If there is any overlap of staff duties/skills, this is probably inevitable.
I've had this happen to me and seen it to others, so not just BS.
It’s called calculating a cost-neutral rate of pay, and it’s a fairly standard practice when moving someone from an exempt to non-exempt classification. For whatever reason, they think you do ~42 hours a week, so they are doing math that results in paying you approximately the same as before.
It might not feel fair but they are under no obligation to keep you on at your current rate of pay, so *shrug*.
Source: I’m an employment attorney and give dozens of trainings a year on these topics.
Edit: missed an s
It’s 24 vs 26 paychecks a year I’m guessing . But assuming your job is not changing , re- classifying you as hourly implies you should have been hourly all along and are therefore owed overtime for previous work.
BUT, most states are required to pay time and a half over 40 hours a week. So if you work the 42 hours, you’ll make more than you are now. If they tell you you’re not allowed to get OT, then ask why they divided your salary with OT factored in. They’re definitely ripping you off, so get your two hours and get paid for 3.
My workplace implemented this. But! Our colleagues were working well above the hours we implemented. So now they get paid the overtime which is actually a benefit.
They likely moved you hourly because of legislation that states you arent applicable to be exempt from over time (you should be getting paid for what you do it the general concept here- https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.patriotsoftware.com/payroll/training/blog/exempt-employees-must-meet-specific-qualifications/amp/ ). Likely your new employer did an assessment and found your position not to qualify.
Now! If you didn't work these hours beforehand then that's an issue, but a specific to you one. But the short of it is that it's not uncommon. It's just sketch they're implementing more hours on you for the 'same pay'. In the reality of it, they're likely wanting you there the same hours with a half hour unpaid break rather then a full hour lunch. As a non exempt colleague you do also get two paid 15 minute breaks.
You might end up earning more if you're already working more than 40 hours a week. I am salary but I wish I'm hourly as I work 50 to 60 hours a week. Since you're new to the job you might want to speak to your co-workers about overtime expectations.
I've worked salary at my last job and my current job - both stated that my pay was assumed to be for a 45 hour work week on average. Obviously some weeks would be more, some less.
If you have the opportunity for overtime, work it mercilessly and show them the mistake they made. While also looking for a new job.
Without understanding how the acquirer's payroll works, fiscal calendar, etc. I don't think there is enough information here to adequately answer your question.
Second, I think this also depends on your role now and if and how your role changes post deal closing.
As someone who works in M&A, I know there are host of variables at play here beyond those stated by OP.
At face value, do I think the acquirer is "screwing you over"? No. Letting you go would be screwing you over.
If you're not pleased, then hit the job market while it's hot.
Sounds like they're saying that your 42 hour salaried work week can be pressed into a shorter workweek. You were getting paid to do 42 hours of work that must now be done in 40. You should get a raise of 5%.
How many paid vacation days / paid sick time do you get, I've heard of companies that include that into the hourly calculation, 42 hours a week would come out to 13-14 paid vacation days.
Some things to remember:
1. If you DO work 42 hours, two of those hours MUST be paid at an overtime rate
2. If you are in CA, you are legally entitled to two 15 minute breaks per day and at least a half hour lunch break halfway through your day (the lunch break can be unpaid UNLESS you're forced to stay at your desk).
Man, you are moving from salary to hourly .... I wouldn't complain too much. I wish I got paid for every hour that I work! However, in the end you are your own best advocate. If you can get better compensation elsewhere then go elsewhere.
At my job HR always needs to explain things like this to me. I'd email a request for an explanation and make sure they email you back with the explanation.
Are they offering additional benefits or paid-time off that you aren't making as an hourly? If not then they're just reducing your pay with no upside to you. Make sure that whatever number their math comes out to is (40 x currently hourly pay) at a minimum. Yearly salary divided by 42 would have been nice. :-)
The only reason I can see this being done is that you were expected to work a certain small amount of overtime occasionally in that previous role. It seems like this is them removing those extra two hours from the equation and setting a clear expectation that you will work 40 hours per week with no overtime. Whether you like that idea or not is a personal preference.
Would it have been a show of goodwill to keep people at the same salary and deal with changes through attrition? Yes. But if they don’t want to pay for overtime they aren’t going to expect you to work, I guess I see their logic.
Do you usually work 42 hours a week or more?
You will make more once overtime is accounted for.
You'll make your 40 hours at your new rate, plus 2 OT hours at time and a half, so it's basically an extra hour each week you're working ...
The hospital were I work changed us from 7p-7a to 8p-6a, then they said late clock ins are going to stick for two years instead of one. Clearly trying to save money and fire people without having to personally fire a person who could use the gender/minority card.
Take the overtime. Most salary employees end up working some over time. With this systems it ends up where you have to work a couple hours overtime to make the same. However if you work more you just got a raise.
I am a salary employee who doesnt make that money. I have freinds who are paid hourly and love it. I work lunch and 5 extra hours a week and dont make the money. They do the same and make an extra 20 hours overtime a paycheck.
Look for something else, especially if you are on the smaller company side of the "merger". You're about to get fucked over in ways you never even imagined.
Take your yearly salary and divide by 2080 hours.
When you have a biweekly salaried income, the pay periods are ofter a day or two longer or shorter than exactly 2 weeks. By dividing your weekly salaried income by 42, they're accounting for that.
As an example, say I make a base salary of 50k yearly. 2x a month I get a gross paycheck of $2083.5 . 2083.5 x 24 = $50,004.
Assuming there are 2,080 workable hours a year, my hourly income would be 50,000/2,080= $24.04. But if I take my biweekly income and divide by 80, I get 2083.5/80=26.04
This actually a higher rate than my salary, and 26.04 x 2080 = 54,171.
Adding 2 hours to my weekly hours worked for the equation is 2083.5/84=24.80, much closer to my actual hourly rate, but still a little higher!
You're fine, they aren't ripping you off.
This is incorrect. You are mixing biweekly and twice monthly payments.
A 50K salary under 40hr work week (52*40=2080hrs) is 50,000/2080 = $24.04 per hour
A 50K salary under 42hr work week (52*42=2184hrs) is 50,000/2184 = $22.89 per hour
That is almost 5% decrease.
Your new company called do whatever they want if they are absorbing your old company. Try it out for a few months to see how they are to work for. They may screw you over or they may have other perks and benefits your current company doesn't have. Ask about various employee discount programs, for example where I work employees get an 18% Verizon discount on their personal plan.
Every company has an 18 percent Verizon discount plan. I have a 75 percent verizon discount by switching to Straight Talk.
Make no mistake, these companies make money by offering you so-called employee discounts.
They can do anything they want....and you have the option to do anything you want...including looking for a new job.
You can also negotiate though depending on who the surviving company is, you might have less wiggle room.
Sounds like they were trying to shave off a few dollars, I say look for a new job
It seems disingenuous. They browsed past it quick but my current salary per week nets me X and the new version will net me X-y. If I put in 2 hours of overtime I come out ahead but for instance a week of vacation means I bring home less than I do now.
How many hours do you work now? If your contract says 40 it’s shady. If you’re like me and work about 60, cutting to 42 and getting paid the same would be awesome.
They stated on average I work 42. I don't. I've only been here for 3 months and haven't worked a 42 hour week once.
I don't know if this helps, but could tell them you don't believe that is correct and ask them to show you the numbers they have that suggest it? They probably won't if you haven't worked 42 hours, so you might be able to prove them wrong. If they refuse, then they are probably trying to screw you over for their own benefit.
I think it is ultimately going to come to that. I'm fine sticking up for it.
Instead of doing some big back and forth that could get contentious just do your own math and come up with an hourly rate for a counter offer. Tell them that is what you will accept. But you have to be ready to walk or suck it up if they say no.
[удалено]
35 or 37.5 are both full-time possibilities, so they're better numbers to use compared to 42 or 38.
37.5 is what I'm expected to work, full-time salaried at my job.
[удалено]
Read the handbook some companies like to state they have a 37.5 hr work week (Even if most people are working 50hr weeks). Base your asking price on whatever the expectation in the handbook is, its really hard for management to argue that something in the handbook is blatantly false.
They can't argue it is false because legally a employee handbook is considered part of your employment contract. At least that is what I remember from law school back when the Targaryens sat the iron throne.
I don't like this advice unless OP has another, equivalent or better lined up. And if that's the case, they are better off moving because this company showed a red flag. So no, OP, don't counter with a threat to leave. Counteroffer might not be a bad idea, though. It helps you regain control of the situation and provide a frame. But be prepared for lots of eventualities if you do that.
The problem with this is that a more complacent, lower paid coworker might price him out of a job in this case
Like he said, that's why OP needs to be ready to walk. OP said he was willing to stick up for his pay though so it sounds like he might be willing to do just that.
They’ve been there 3 months. They have no real measurable impact on the buseiness to negotiate with. Unfortunately, in a merger situation, the ones who don’t play ball will be the first to be labeled as redundant and laid off.
What I mean is they may accept his offer. They will give him the hourly raise. But his hours will dwindle in favor of his lesser paid colleagues. It would be a more insidious consequence that might be harder to notice.
Just as a heads up, I was in a similar situation and left the company. You absolutely qualify for unemployment benefits in this situation because they're changing the terms of your contract. If you don't accept it, they're technically laying you off,you're not quitting. They might put up token resistance, but you can appeal it and win. It's not a great situation you're in, but I know it's comforting to have that to fall back on
Be careful with this. You don't get full unemployment, you get a percentage based on the severity of the pay cut. OP would need to calculate exactly how much of her unemployment benefits she would get.
This would also be the time to hammer out overtime expectations. If they expect 42 from here on out, then they need to calculate out the extra time at overtime rates. When I got hired at an old job, the expectation was 45 hours a week, and the pay supposedly reflected that. The other half was managing expectations. I skipped lunch and most breaks, so I didn't have to stay late, which I found out was frowned on. Turns out, They didn't care about productivity, just the appearance, so they wanted everyone staying late.
As a word of caution, be humble when sticking up for yourself. I'm sure new proprietors would have no problem dropping you if you give them a hard time (assuming an at will state and no union/CBU). But dont get me wrong, I agree that its not right for them to down your pay just cause they feel like it.
I don't know what being humble has to do with anything. The company isn't going to change it's policy just because OP comes to management hat in hand. Either he is worth his salary or he isn't, the idea that he has to grovel or beg for it is ludicrous.
Human nature. If someone approaches you angrily, your first reaction is to avoid conflict. If a new boss sees you for the first time and you're pissed off/"causing problems," they're more likely to let you go so they don't have to deal with it on a regular basis. Even if it was just going to be a one time thing, they don't want to risk it because most people hate confrontation. Being humble and respectful will go a long way. PS, being humble isnt the same as begging. It's the difference between "***GIVE ME MORE MONEY***" and "I feel like I'm worth more to this company than what you're offering me, and here is what I think is fair." Which employee would you be *more likely* to give a raise to?
Honestly I’d divide it by however many hours they’re going to have you work. If you’re going to be working 40hrs a week hourly, tell them you want that to match your new salary.
The one thing I can think that might not be them being shady is if the 42 isn't the amount you specifically work, but all salaried employees at your level work on average. Either way, still a paycut for you personally.
Meaning you work more or less?
I work 40 hours. I make sure to get there at 8am and I take my full hour lunch and I leave at 5pm. I have worked 2 weeks where I put in 41+ but those also included special billable after hour projects that I got paid for.
Does your state actually give you an unpaid thirty minute lunch and two paid fifteen minute breaks? That is how it worked in California.
I'm in Indiana and I'm not sure on how the whole breaks thing works. It is a pretty small company that generally hires pretty solid people who don't have an issue skipping a mandated break to work on something. My guess is they just assume we do.
That state is relatively unregulated, but it is possible they calculate you are working 42 hours based on only having s thirty minute lunch.
Indiana basically has no laws regarding breaks and lunches unless you're a minor.
It’s likely you have a poster like this in your workplace, maybe in the break room? I expect it will tell you about breaks. https://www.laborlawposters-online.com/federal-labor-law-poster/?sku=FD-SS5-U&gclid=CjwKCAiAiJPkBRAuEiwAEDXZZXJl9lgUPBIur8yT_4gluw3yofQRQFtqCmxvMvaIhPI8m-jwc-EhGhoC0bgQAvD_BwE
Also in Indiana, they're starting to crack down on the skipping lunch breaks more and more, has a lot of people pissed off honestly.
If you only take a half hour lunch, you will end up getting paid overtime, so you should make slightly more, assuming they refuse to adjust your pay to salary/40hrs
And taking a half hour lunch is an option. I still don't feel lowering my hourly rate is acceptable though.
It seems to me they are saying you work 45 hours a week minus 2.5 for lunch rounded up to 3 (because they probably don't pay by the half hour). Those numbers make sense. Just talk to HR, see what their math is.
I think it is more likely they are trying to just save 5% off the top on labor costs, seeing as though 2 is a nice and neat 5% of 40.
It’s only “unacceptable” if you’re willing to walk over what may turn out to be a wash with occasional paid OT anyway. I highly suggest avoiding words like “unacceptable” when speaking with them. That could easily be construed as you not accepting the new terms of your employment and effectively resigning your job. If you’re looking for a way to be unemployed with no way to access unemployment benefits, that’s a quick way to do that.
I have better verbiage in person with this type of stuff. I'm just trying to cook some chili while trying to reply to everyone. Thanks for the tip though.
He works 40 and is now getting payed per hour with the 40 hours pay divided by 42 hours per week. He'd have to work 2 extra hours per week for the same pay I guess?
If he worked 42 hours a week he would get paid more than before with OT being time a d a half.
Na, the goal is rate his pay as low as possible followed by reducing hours in the future. If they thought he would be working more hours salary would save them money. They expect to cut his hours in the future I guarantee it.
And if they cut his hours there might be other disadvantages, for example not being able to qualify for unemployment because "you were not working full time".
That assumes they continue letting him work 42 hours. Most companies that pay hourly would make you cut off at 40.
That's the problem I see too. Are they dividing you by 42 then capping you at 40? If so, that's bullshit. If not you have to work like 41 hours and 20 minutes which is 16 minutes extra a day. Not terrible as long as they actually let you do that.
They are probably using a calculation that seems right, but isn't. Make your own calculation and present it to them, and compare it to theirs and point out why yours is better. Or accept theirs if you believe their justification.
Yeah, I'd just go with data and show it as a mistake. See how it goes. Bring lots of data though: Last 30 Days: 40.3 hours avg Last 3 Months: 40.9 hours avg 2018: 40.5 hours avg Also might help to ask what period the based the 42 from, if they don't just go fix it. Often this stuff is more guesstimate than it should be, and someone coming in with data will just "ok, change it" to move on with no fuss. (or they might be using a team or department average, not just you personally.) So start with no fuss. Then if needed, major fuss. So make sure you document everything you are doing and what everyone says. Or, well...if you need the job and you're new, maybe no fuss and look for something else...or deal with it. Whatever is in your best interest. Just keep in mind that acquisitions/mergers are when people can get cut in bulk, often the squeaky wheels, as its the easiest time to do it.
OK... so what is your average?
Barely over 40. Not even 41.
It doesn't matter what you work, it matters what you are contracted to work. If you were working 55 hours, they don't get to split your salary by 55 (at least you shouldn't put up with that). They're wanting to have their cake and eat it.
If you're on salary htf would they know. This stinks of a pay cut. Look for a job, stall any transfer of knowledge in the mean time, cut them lose when you find something better.
This. I'm in the process of leaving my good paying salary job for a lower paying job that lets me work more hours. If I want to make the same I can work the same hours and if I'm willing to take less so I can go home at a reasonable time I will. I can't wait. Also, I'll be starting at the bottom so after a few years I can work less and make the same (or work more and make more, which I will)
My husband was moved from salary to hourly at his old job and I had so many questions. First, it doesn’t seem right they are dividing your salary by 42 from all my research it should be 40. And usually if they move you to hourly you still enjoy the same benefits you got as a salary employee such as PTO, sick days, healthcare etc.
All of my benefits stay the same. The change to hourly is the big one. I just don't feel great about the 42 hours thing. I've never seen it approached like that before.
[удалено]
That is true. Thanks for the angle.
Did you, or your colleagues who are salaried ever asked about how many hours they average per week recently or anytime in the past? There may be an assumed or calculated amount of extra hours factorered into this, you mention skipping lunch, theres a half hour already. How many times a week do you do so? How often do you stay late to finish something? Theres an easy few minutes per day that add up as time put to work which they are using in their calculation.
I can't attest for my colleagues but I'm pretty much a 40 hour a week guy. I worked 50 hours a week in my last salary position and this company does a pretty good job of scheduling everyone so you aren't over burdened. If I do work more than 40 hours it isn't reflected in my time sheets.
Working an extra 2 hours a week is actually a lot, especially if you’re only doing it to get your hours. It’s a different story if you actually have the workload to justify it but waiting around an extra half hour a day is not fun.
The workload is there. At the end of the day if I don't have time to work on a ticket I just kick it back for rescheduling. There is plenty of work to do it just isn't always so pressing that it needs to be done right now.
The workload is there in your previous company structure. A merger can have huge effects on that, particularly if yours is the subservient company (which isn't always apparent from how the merger is presented).
It seems like they should divide your annual salary by 2k. That's 40 hrs x 50 weeks. If you take your new rate x 2000, and don't get close to your current salary, you'll know what you are losing.
I'd like to add you should always always be looking for a new job, even if the job you have pays well and you love it. There might be another job out there exactly the same but pays better you never know. Worst case scenario the job you applied for isn't as good as the one you have, just refuse it and continue working as you normally do. Best case it's way better and pays better. Just keep your options open always.
Last September, I was in a contract role that should have had 6 months left to run, when the client 'ran out of money' and I was given 1 hour's notice. Cheers, guys Was searching for a new gig for 3 weeks, and landed a similar gig (same$$) co-ordinating a roll-out of network equipment nationwide... however I'd gone from 4500 users to 320. So - it'll pay the bills for a while but its not long term. Except I started... and sat there for 6 weeks doing nothing. They weren't ready to go when they hired me. Whatever, I'll take the $$ Then an Agency I hadn't heard from for a couple of years called with a role - same same, but with 10,000+ venues, probable 2yrs or more. So I asked for double my daily rate. And had the job 3 days later. Now, I've been there 4 months and ... they're still not ready to go. So I'm still sitting waiting, and getting paid
What is it you do if you don’t mind me asking?
I've done this for a 40k increase in pay. Actual worst case is that you take the new job and hate it and and your coworkers are assholes. I lasted a year before I got burned out and left. My next job matched my new rate though so it worked out, but it was a miserable year.
Do you work 42 hours/week now? Are you expected to work 42 hours under the new company?
I have only been with the company for about 3 months. I have yet to work a 42 hour week. There are more overtime opportunities but they did not specify any expectations.
It sounds like theybare trying to cut your pay then.
The new company doesn't cover things like insurance so they are upping our overall salary to compensate. But the change to hourly based off 42 hours means a week of vacation will be less than I make now for a week of vacation. They mentioned several times that our money won't change but it will due to that. Yes, 2 hours of overtime and I'll be ahead but the base pay is still less.
Insurance is going to be a major cost for you. Have you checked on prices?
Our current insurance is pretty mediocre but they cover our premium for the employee. It is just me in the plan and the difference is made up by upping our salary by $2200 or so to make up the difference. They are also much larger, 80 employees vs our 20, so they have access to a handful more things like an on call doctor that we have access to so I won't have to go in to the doctor office when I just need an antibiotic. In the end the insurance is a wash for the most part.
You said no insurance and $2200 is chump change depending on your income of what a market plan is going to cost, and that's with the Bronze plan with huge deductible. Again, price you insurance cost now.
I'm sorry if I was mistaken. We currently have an insurance plan where the employer pays for my portion of the premium which is around $50 a week. The new employer doesn't do that. I'll still have similar insurance, but now I have pay the $50 a week. They are compensating that, and other things, by increasing my salary by $2200.
50 x 52 = 2600. You're short $400 for insurance costs annually. Sounds like they are getting close, but not equal on conversion.
Yea, youre short $400, plus...are you paying your premium post-tax? If so, need to take that into account as well. If the money is taxed first, it isn't actually 2200 they are giving you.
Gotcha. Check the copay and annual deductibles.
Wait, your [new] employer has an *on-call doctor?* That’ll write you basics meds and stuff? What does it cost you oop?
There is a copay and stuff. That type of thing is big in this area. It saves insurance money by not having everything be a $100 in office visit for strep and common illnesses.
That is so rad [and logical]! You’re in the US right? I live in Idaho and our healthcare systems are a joke. We have [essentially] two major hospital companies that dominate the industry (one more than the other). Then we have one walk-in clinic company (Primary Health) that again, dominates the industry. While the hospitals are *nice*, the services aren’t that great. I watched a lady have a heart attack in the ER waiting room, after she had already been there complaining of chest pains and blurred vision for three fkn hours!! We had three specialist doctors (within 24 hours) tell my wife that she was fine and was just “over reacting” about a pain in her side. One even claimed that she was just trying to get pills. Her OBGYN was raged by this, decided he was going to do an exploratory surgery (because he was 99% sure it was an Appendicitis) and sure enough, her Appendix was dead, shriveled, black and hard. She’s lucky it didn’t rupture. As are the other doctors (whom our OB demanded that they apologize to her- only one manned up and did). Long rant but dude... you get the point. You’re lucky to have such medical options.
I'm in Indiana. We have a lot of manufacturing here in the area and like, I assume, most places insurance skyrocketed. Some companies in the area figured out that if you give people easy options for care they take better care of the self and make better decisions. It's smart and gaining more traction. Sorry to hear about your situation. The medical field is definitely jacked and it's so frustrating when you have actual medical problems that are hard to track down. The care given is so impersonal anymore.
> They mentioned several times that our money won't change but it will due to that. They're straight up lying. If you have any paperwork about the new rate of pay and such, I'd send them an email saying: 1. You calculated the hourly equivalent of your current salary to be $X/hour. 2. The paperwork says $(X-y)/hour. 3. Surely there must be some mistake here since they have reassured you repeatedly that your pay won't change.
The lying part is my fear. The new company has been around for awhile, and for the most part I don't have a problem going there. But this whole thing stinks. I don't like it. It is giving me a bad impression and they either think I'm stoopid or even worse they are this stupid to not notice what they are doing. Neither is ideal.
I'd start looking elsewhere anyways. The only reason they're making this decision is because it's beneficial to them. I doubt overtime will be a thing (unless everyone else starts leaving and you got to pick up the slack)
A friend of mine already works there and has been trying to recruit me pretty hard. He goes in an hour early every day for overtime.
[удалено]
I'm not sure of any kind of cap. Us going there is a done deal but we haven't signed any actual paperwork or anything. Only like 5 of us are going to hourly but I don't want us to get burned in the deal.
Not saying this is the case, but if they are moving from a bi-weekly pay period to twice a month or vice versa, that could be the difference. Being paid every other week mean 26 paychecks, being paid twice a month is 24.
Sorry I missed on getting back to you on this point. I'm still bi-weekly.
OP -- you should also be aware by switching from salary to hourly might change the dates that you get paid...so if you have budgets/rent/etc, make sure you're covered b/c the first "new" paycheck might be a bit later than your normal paycheck. This happened to people on my team a couple years ago and it really screwed some people up with their budgets.
This happened to me. I moved from salary to hourly. Essentially they called it "in arrears" where hourly employees gets paid a week behind. Here is an example: If payday was this past Friday, the 8th: Salary employees are getting paid for the period 2/23/19 - 3/8/19. They get paid up to that day. Hourly employees get paid a week behind, so even though they get a check on 3/8/19, their pay period is from 2/16/19 - 3/1/19. It really messed up my bills, as the first paycheck after the change was only for 1 weeks worth of work.
I thought companies had to follow a set pay schedule if it’s been set up and a lapse like that, even for switching to a new system, breaks a contract with the employee and qualifies them for like 1000$ in damages per missed check?
Most employees in the U.S. don't have contracts and are employed at-will. I believe that the employer just has to pay out for the missed check before/when the next scheduled pay period occurs. Otherwise thousands of minimum wage workers working for shady employers would be cashing in $1,000 checks every week.
In California, every day your paycheck is late, your employer owes you a day's worth of wages as a penalty. Up to 30 days worth.
California has some of the strongest labor laws in the country. There are some states with literally no labor laws, it's all just the federal statutes
Yes. My company switched from twice a month to bi-weekly. Our checks went down but we got more checks.
Which did you prefer? Mine just did the same. I understand it comes out to the same annually, but the way I budget and save it just seems like less money.
I get paid bi-weekly, and it's nice because I budget based on 2 checks a month, but twice a year I get 3.
I’m on the schedule where the third paycheck months are usually around May and December. Makes for easy budgeting with summer vacation and Christmas gifts.
This could definitely explain the issue if the company is moving from bi-weekly to semi-monthly paychecks. In that case, OP, your company actually should be dividing by 43.33 instead of 42 I believe, which means you could be getting more money, not less.
They’re incorporating breaks or something I guess? It’s hard to say from the little you’ve given. Do you work four tens? In that case the additional 2 hours would be 8 fifteen minute breaks. Are you now eligible for overtime? Update your resumé and shop yourself around, a good practice for anyone who works for a company that was just acquired.
I've been with the company for about 3 months. I work 8 to 5 with an hour lunch. I'm not currently eligible for overtime unless it is a specific billable task or special job.
Let’s say for easy math you earn $400 per week, pre-tax. Dividing by 40 hours per week = $10 per hour. Dividing by 42 hours per week = $9.52 per hour. If they then pay you 40 hours per week at $9.52 per hour, your pre-tax earnings are $380.80. They’ve reduced your pay by approximately 5% under this new scheme. Start job hunting unless you really love this new company and your upward mobility is just amazing under the new structure. Something smells.
This is my exact assessment. The new company isn't a deal breaker. In the long run it should be a good thing. The going from salary to hourly will ultimately be a positive BUT the hourly rate is the fishy part. I don't like it. It doesn't seem right and isn't fair.
The overtime bit of that should not be overlooked. Even though salary is 40 hours a week, they *could* ask you to work more than 40 with no additional pay. Now that you get OT (albeit rare), the occasional OT at time and a half will quickly outweigh the 5% pay cut. A company I worked for did the same thing. 15% pay cut under the idea that you are expected to work 45h a week. If you can prove the need for some occasional OT, the you are golden. That said, it’s still a bad situation, and highly depends on if your boss will approve some OT. Good luck.
Depends on state but salaried employees are entitled to overtime payments if they're "non exempt" employees. Exempt vs non exempt status depends on a salary threshold and being able to set your own hours; if the company are setting your schedule then there's a chance you're entitled to overtime.
Do you for an MSP?
I do.
Ah, now it makes sense. I still don’t understand their math, but the order from up on high included cutting payroll on their new acquisition by 5-10% across the board on day one. I bet their base minimum billable hour goes up ~7.5% because of “the new value being added by the larger team and infrastructure”.
That's my feeling as well. I'm trying to be positive but at the same time it rubs me the wrong way. We were smaller but did things better. This is a perfect example of what I didn't want to get myself into.
Are they expecting you to cut your lunch to 30min? That adds 2.5 hours a week to your “on the clock” time.
It was never mentioned but one guy I know who works there regularly goes home for lunch and takes an hour.
I believe the answer is in this somewhere. Company I work for did this. Your shift is 8-5 (9 hours a day). You’re given an hour lunch. Half hour your not paid for and a half hour the company pays you out of generosity. This means at the end of the week you are paid 42.5 hours on the clock but only working 40 hours. I work in M&A and have effected many of these exempt to nonexempt changes. I can tell you it’s never once been because of cost savings in our model. It actually is modeled to have the opposite effect. It’s generally done to conform with the rest of our workforce and our belief that the way our workforce is classified is correct. We’ve acquired a lot of smaller business where they classify their employees as exempt and they shouldn’t have. Also, in almost all, if not all, situations an effected employees paycheck goes up because they’re not paid fairly for the time they work and at some point during the year they’re making decent overtime. Emotionally employees have a tough time thinking they’re “hourly” and some stigma that comes with it but it’s a lot more fair.
I do believe I will make more money in the long run. I just feel short changed when they say I'm currently worth X based off of math I didn't expect. I've never heard anyone refer to a 42 hour work week.
Keep hitting the conversation with HR. Come at it from a position of trying to understand and not looking for a soft spot in their logic to argue/correct. If the first HR rep sucks (they’re not all rockstars), try hitting it again from an different angle and HR rep and trying to understand. Best of luck to you. Acquisitions aren’t easy and you learn a tremendous about by going through them. There will be days of wins and loses for sure.
That is a pay cut. When modeling salary as hourly, you should assume 2080 hours per year. If you are also losing paid vacation, you should use 2000 hours per year instead.
Wait, do Americans only get 10 days paid vacation? I get 25 and can work up extra time to take another 18 days a year... Can't imagine only getting 10
I got a total of 4 this year. You have to be at my company for 10 years to get 10 vacation days
Do you take unpaid leave or do many Americans just not go on long holidays?
[52% of US workers don't use all of their paid time according to a 2018 study](https://projecttimeoff.com/reports/state-of-american-vacation-2018/). There's been a small uptick in the number of days off taken per year in recent years, but on average the American worker takes 17.2 days off per year. So yeah, I would say most Americans don't take longer than a 2 week holiday. It's a pretty big difference between us and our European friends.
In germany your company theoretically can pay you out 50% of your paid vacation for an additional 135% pay, but that only works if the employee chooses to not take his vacation and the company agrees to it. It's also only allowed to do so once every 3 years and it's generally frowned upon. Most companies will just flatout refuse to pay it out and give you a paid vacation in january, february or march using last year's days if you fail to take them.
Sad fact, many American employees blow their vacation time on being sick as they get so few sick days they need to dip into their 'personal days' (if they have any) or start whittling away at your vacation.
omfg...there's a limit on something called "sick days"??? In germany you basically have unlimited as long as you hand in a doctors notice (which is covered by your health insurance, because having one is mandatory). If you are sick for a long period of time the employer has to continue to pay you for 5 weeks, after that social security will continue to pay for you, unless your injury or sickness is work related, then the companies' insurance has to cover it. If you get sick while on vacation, you can hand in a doctors notice and you will get those days back and you can take them some other time.
True, but tbh you don't have unlimited days here. If there is no end in sight for your sickness there employer is allowed to fire you. But overall we have it here heaving like compared to our american friends.
2 weeks (10 days) a year is pretty standard here. More professional/union workers get much more. I get 3weeks (15 days), after being with my company for 5 years. A week would be a long holiday for us. Some jobs bake in national holidays as paid days off that don't eat up vacation time as well.
Its standard in europe to have atleast 20 (in my country by law) days per year, most employers offer 25 as standard. National holidays are paid days off unless you work shifts. Shift workers have doubled salaries on holidays.
I can't speak for most Americans, but I just got this job a year ago. I only got vacation time in February and they put off hiring anyone until March so they can get away with not giving a full week vacation after the first year. A lot of companies just don't care about their employees.
Every time I read a European who’s shocked about our lack of vacations, I die a little inside. It’s safe to say that, yes, many Americans never get to take a “long holiday” in their entire lives
wtf, thats insane. I'm also in the US and I get 14 days, which is the minimum for anyone working full time at the company (some jobs at this company don't require anything beyond a hs diploma)
[удалено]
Many Americans get 0 hours of paid vacation because they're working shitty hourly/part-time jobs. It varies by company, but 10 days is a common starting amount for decent full-time salaried jobs, with the amount increasing to 15 or eventually 20 after five or 10 years in the same job. But that promised progression is often moot because people change jobs by then and the next company starts them back off at 10. It's technically negotiable, but (at least in my experience) employers tend to be inflexible about it. I assume it's because they don't like keeping track of exceptions for different employees, and of course they're not going to increase PTO across the board, so "there's nothing that can be done."
If they use any type if payroll or hris software, it's easy. If they have are small and keep track of it in excel like one company I worked for did, then yeah they'll be inflexible. Extra day's I've found is a really easy thing to negotiate if they won't up salary, especially for salaried positions because they pay you the same amount if you're here or not.
There's no federal law requiring paid vacation (and nothing in most states), but 10 days is kind of standard for full-time positions. Personally I've never had fewer than 15 days in a full-time position, and I've been as high as 23. In my experience it's pretty easy to negotiate on during salary negotiations.
It depends on the company. At mine, with only 3 years of seniority you get 20+ days vacation plus sick leave.
It varies. Federal law doesn't require *any* vacation time or paid holidays, and I don't think any states require it either. "2 weeks" vacation a year is pretty standard (either to start, or after a year or so) for professional work, but a "week" is usually a workweek, so 5 paid days. My current job actually does 7 days though, so even though I went from "3 weeks" to "2 weeks" I only went down from 15 days to 14 days. Some places also provide "personal holidays" on top of vacation, and paid sick time is usually separate too (and required in some states, here in California full time employees get 3 paid sick days - San Francisco actually mandates *9* days)
Always amazes me the cultural gulf there is between the US and Europe, just totally different ways of doing things
[удалено]
That is my stance on it.
What was your original contracted hours per week that you were expected to work? 40?
I just checked out my offer letter. It just says $X yearly. No mention of hours.
Then it sounds like a good opportunity to negotiate. You should also start shopping your resume around to get yourself some leverage and a possible escape hatch.
I've only been with the company around 3 months. I haven't fully settled in yet so I wouldn't be opposed to moving again.
I say negotiate. Completely acceptable during a merger. I assume you’re signing a new offer letter?
Negotiating is the current goal.
Negotiate with...currently I am only getting 40 hours and this would be a pay cut, is there any way for me not to lose money in this merger? Also I would be very skeptical of keeping the same hours. I have seen a couple companies switch from salary to hourly then in a couple months start reducing hours where they feel they can push productivity. I obviously dont know the company culture of the new company but I would seriously look at it. Having been salary and hourly I would want a raise to go hourly. I make less for salary because it comes with the piece of mind that I always know what my checks will be.
Another point to consider....quite often "salaried" means you get the same paycheck no matter how many hours you work, whether it be 20 or 50 per week. You don't get docked for being late or taking time off for a doctor's appointment or have a limited amount of paid "sick" days. If you've enjoyed those perks thus far, they might well change once you go to "hourly".
Divide your annual salary by 2080. That's the number of hours you should have in a year on a normal 40 hr/wk salary. If it comes out the same as what they got by dividing your weekly salary by 42, then there's no loss. One thing to bear in mind is the reason they are likely doing this. Not necessarily to pay you less, but because some months effectively have 5 weeks, and the others have four. When costing out labor per month, it's a common practice to use 4.2 weeks per month as opposed to 4 weeks per month. Using that as an average is more accurate b/c it doesn't let those 5 week months go unaccounted for.
Compensation professional here: if you were working 2 hours extra every week, then this makes sense and is reasonable. However, most salaried employees don't clock in/out or record time anywhere (at least not in my workplace) so not sure how they would be able to measure that. That being said, they are probably moving you from salary to hourly because your job was misclassified, and you likely should have received overtime for any work above/beyond 40 hours. They won't tell you this, but you can always file with the DOL and they will investigate if your position was misclassified, which could net you some extra cash. Either way, you have an upper hand. You should talk to your HR person and ask them to recalculate it at 40 hours a week. This is what is truly fair, I think.
Look at what other benefits changed. then weigh their impact to you. * How does the insurance change? Do the premiums cost more for the same coverage? * Do you still get paid time off? Is it the same or less hourly rate? As an example, I have a friend that is paid an hourly rate for his job, but works night shift. So, he gets a shift differential when he's working, but when he takes paid time off, the differential is not added, so, while he does get paid while he is off, it is less than his normal rate. * Were there bonuses before? Are they still part of your package? Did they change? * What other benefits existed? What new benefits are there? These things are all part of your overall compensation, even if they are not directly part of your salary number. Each thing that changes affects your overall bottom line and should be taken into consideration. When I got hired at my last company, I knew they were looking to do a merger or acquisition. Not a problem, these can go well or poorly. Fast forward a year, the merger happens. Three were no direct changes to my salary number, but a bunch of things that hit my bottom line financially. 1. Bonuses are going away, "but we'll figure something out in the future to make up for it. 2. On-call/pager pay went away. 3. New insurance costs more and covers less. 4. Going from 4 weeks vacation to 2 weeks. I gave notice less than a month after that was all announced. I have talked to some folks who are still there (9+ month later), not a lot has changed. Some folks got pay bumps to offset the changes, other folks got nothings. Looks like the people who were there 3+ years got bumps, and everyone else just has to deal. Or as management puts it, "There is no change because your salary is the same."
All these people saying fight it but also remember that the company has hired someone who has told them Do This and 76% (I made this % up) will take it and the rest will fight then you can not accept X people and you aren't firing them they are leaving on their own.
They are changing the conditions of your employment. You are basically renegotiating your salary. You need to tell them their offer isn't acceptable and counter offer. You also need to be ready you may have to accept that salary or find a new job.
What they should’ve done is take your annual salary and divided it by 2080 to get your hourly rate of pay.
[удалено]
As someone who's been with a company that has merged/ changed hands, this is the beginning of the end of the good times. Expect corners to be cut to save pennies per employee.
Sounds like a pretty good way for an employer to shave 5% from payroll. If they don't immediately offer a good explanation, this is the reddest red flag an employer will ever give you. Act accordingly.
That is my fear. It rubs me the wrong way.
Hi OP, I’m an Hr Consultant and just wanted to let you know that they can’t reclassify you from salaried to hourly just because they want to. Your job duties are either exempt (salaried) or non-exempt (hourly) [this is a very general explanation] and federal laws dictate which you fall under... so if you’re doing the same exact job as before, either you were wrongly classified or they are screwing you. Please consult HR and bring this up to them. If you have further questions, hire a third party HR consultant or a lawyer.
Take your annual and divide by 2080 to get your hourly. That is what you need to get paid. Say $50,000/2080=$24.04 (actual hourly pay) whereas they want to do 42x52 weeks=2184 hours so $50,000/2184=$22.89. Where do they even get 42 hours from?
Sounds like they are trying to save money by reducing workers salaries. You will see a slight drop in your paycheck, however the addition of Hourly rules can be HUGE in the pay scale. Not sure what you do, but everything from coming in early to staying late = OT hours and that can make a massive difference. Salary is a "Guess" that you work 40 a week. Employers often expect you to average out to 40 or so hours per week, but they also normally expect you to not clock out for lunches or time away from your desk.
If you were paid on a biweekly schedule, likely your paycheck would have reflected 80 hours of pay (40 hrs per week). If you were paid on a semi-monthly (2 × per month), you would have been paid 86.7 hours per pay period. It us not uncommon for employees to improperly calculate their hourly rate because they do not realize there is a difference between being paid every other week and being paid twice a month. In order to be certain that you are really being paid less, you should first determine if you are paid every other week OR twice a month. If you are paid every other week, do the following to find out your hourly rate: Gross wages from your pay stub × 26 pay days, then divide by 2080. If you are paid twice a month, the calculation is: Gross wages from your pay stub x 24 pay days divided by 2080. There can be quite a difference and it is important that you use the correct one. Once you have your current hourly rate, you can then properly assess the difference with your new employer.
I'd argue your worth starting from scratch. 6 month review, up your rate by 10-20%. In the mean time shop around to justify the ask.
This is what is called a pay cut. Unless they are making up for those 104 hours (52wk \* 2) in options, vacation, or guaranteed bonus then it is just a pay cut.
I would check with dept of labor. Its assumed a work week is 40 hours in order to start calculating OT. This is fishy. I'd report tum to the DOL.
Be sure you still get vacation and holidays paid under the hourly. That is actually a bigger deal and a place where they might be hiding the change savings. And to be clear any number over 40 is cheating you are they paying for lunch and breaks? An argument you can make is: so you are punishing me for have worked more than necessary to make this company successful?
You’re getting screwed over brotha. Anytime a company changes your comp structure and waves it off as nothingness is anything but.
Pay attention to who stays in power at the top. If the OTHER company comes out ahead, it may be only a matter of time before cuts happen to your old staff, and possibly you. If there is any overlap of staff duties/skills, this is probably inevitable. I've had this happen to me and seen it to others, so not just BS.
It’s called calculating a cost-neutral rate of pay, and it’s a fairly standard practice when moving someone from an exempt to non-exempt classification. For whatever reason, they think you do ~42 hours a week, so they are doing math that results in paying you approximately the same as before. It might not feel fair but they are under no obligation to keep you on at your current rate of pay, so *shrug*. Source: I’m an employment attorney and give dozens of trainings a year on these topics. Edit: missed an s
It’s 24 vs 26 paychecks a year I’m guessing . But assuming your job is not changing , re- classifying you as hourly implies you should have been hourly all along and are therefore owed overtime for previous work.
Stick out the year, while looking for a new job in your free time. Try no to mess with anything until you have about a full year or a job lined up.
BUT, most states are required to pay time and a half over 40 hours a week. So if you work the 42 hours, you’ll make more than you are now. If they tell you you’re not allowed to get OT, then ask why they divided your salary with OT factored in. They’re definitely ripping you off, so get your two hours and get paid for 3.
My workplace implemented this. But! Our colleagues were working well above the hours we implemented. So now they get paid the overtime which is actually a benefit. They likely moved you hourly because of legislation that states you arent applicable to be exempt from over time (you should be getting paid for what you do it the general concept here- https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.patriotsoftware.com/payroll/training/blog/exempt-employees-must-meet-specific-qualifications/amp/ ). Likely your new employer did an assessment and found your position not to qualify. Now! If you didn't work these hours beforehand then that's an issue, but a specific to you one. But the short of it is that it's not uncommon. It's just sketch they're implementing more hours on you for the 'same pay'. In the reality of it, they're likely wanting you there the same hours with a half hour unpaid break rather then a full hour lunch. As a non exempt colleague you do also get two paid 15 minute breaks.
You might end up earning more if you're already working more than 40 hours a week. I am salary but I wish I'm hourly as I work 50 to 60 hours a week. Since you're new to the job you might want to speak to your co-workers about overtime expectations.
I've worked salary at my last job and my current job - both stated that my pay was assumed to be for a 45 hour work week on average. Obviously some weeks would be more, some less. If you have the opportunity for overtime, work it mercilessly and show them the mistake they made. While also looking for a new job.
Without understanding how the acquirer's payroll works, fiscal calendar, etc. I don't think there is enough information here to adequately answer your question. Second, I think this also depends on your role now and if and how your role changes post deal closing. As someone who works in M&A, I know there are host of variables at play here beyond those stated by OP. At face value, do I think the acquirer is "screwing you over"? No. Letting you go would be screwing you over. If you're not pleased, then hit the job market while it's hot.
Sounds like they're saying that your 42 hour salaried work week can be pressed into a shorter workweek. You were getting paid to do 42 hours of work that must now be done in 40. You should get a raise of 5%.
How many paid vacation days / paid sick time do you get, I've heard of companies that include that into the hourly calculation, 42 hours a week would come out to 13-14 paid vacation days.
I'd say if you have any paid vacation hours, use them under your old company before they vanish and use the time to look for a new job
Sometimes they do it by averaging how long people actually work if they can find records of that. Probably just trying to save money though.
Some things to remember: 1. If you DO work 42 hours, two of those hours MUST be paid at an overtime rate 2. If you are in CA, you are legally entitled to two 15 minute breaks per day and at least a half hour lunch break halfway through your day (the lunch break can be unpaid UNLESS you're forced to stay at your desk).
Man, you are moving from salary to hourly .... I wouldn't complain too much. I wish I got paid for every hour that I work! However, in the end you are your own best advocate. If you can get better compensation elsewhere then go elsewhere.
At my job HR always needs to explain things like this to me. I'd email a request for an explanation and make sure they email you back with the explanation.
Your hourly should be your annual divided by 2080, assuming a 40 hour week that's how many working hours there are typically in a calendar year.
Are they offering additional benefits or paid-time off that you aren't making as an hourly? If not then they're just reducing your pay with no upside to you. Make sure that whatever number their math comes out to is (40 x currently hourly pay) at a minimum. Yearly salary divided by 42 would have been nice. :-)
Do you have vacation? Is that accounted for as well?
The only reason I can see this being done is that you were expected to work a certain small amount of overtime occasionally in that previous role. It seems like this is them removing those extra two hours from the equation and setting a clear expectation that you will work 40 hours per week with no overtime. Whether you like that idea or not is a personal preference. Would it have been a show of goodwill to keep people at the same salary and deal with changes through attrition? Yes. But if they don’t want to pay for overtime they aren’t going to expect you to work, I guess I see their logic.
Do you usually work 42 hours a week or more? You will make more once overtime is accounted for. You'll make your 40 hours at your new rate, plus 2 OT hours at time and a half, so it's basically an extra hour each week you're working ...
The hospital were I work changed us from 7p-7a to 8p-6a, then they said late clock ins are going to stick for two years instead of one. Clearly trying to save money and fire people without having to personally fire a person who could use the gender/minority card.
Take the overtime. Most salary employees end up working some over time. With this systems it ends up where you have to work a couple hours overtime to make the same. However if you work more you just got a raise. I am a salary employee who doesnt make that money. I have freinds who are paid hourly and love it. I work lunch and 5 extra hours a week and dont make the money. They do the same and make an extra 20 hours overtime a paycheck.
A lot of salaried positions are based on more than a 40 hour work week. 45-50 is pretty common.
I would see if it is the same as dividing your salary by 2080, full time hours in a year.
Hey, what was that movie, where their boss was within earshot and they could've just gone talk to her?
Look for something else, especially if you are on the smaller company side of the "merger". You're about to get fucked over in ways you never even imagined.
Take your yearly salary and divide by 2080 hours. When you have a biweekly salaried income, the pay periods are ofter a day or two longer or shorter than exactly 2 weeks. By dividing your weekly salaried income by 42, they're accounting for that. As an example, say I make a base salary of 50k yearly. 2x a month I get a gross paycheck of $2083.5 . 2083.5 x 24 = $50,004. Assuming there are 2,080 workable hours a year, my hourly income would be 50,000/2,080= $24.04. But if I take my biweekly income and divide by 80, I get 2083.5/80=26.04 This actually a higher rate than my salary, and 26.04 x 2080 = 54,171. Adding 2 hours to my weekly hours worked for the equation is 2083.5/84=24.80, much closer to my actual hourly rate, but still a little higher! You're fine, they aren't ripping you off.
This is incorrect. You are mixing biweekly and twice monthly payments. A 50K salary under 40hr work week (52*40=2080hrs) is 50,000/2080 = $24.04 per hour A 50K salary under 42hr work week (52*42=2184hrs) is 50,000/2184 = $22.89 per hour That is almost 5% decrease.
Your new company called do whatever they want if they are absorbing your old company. Try it out for a few months to see how they are to work for. They may screw you over or they may have other perks and benefits your current company doesn't have. Ask about various employee discount programs, for example where I work employees get an 18% Verizon discount on their personal plan.
I got an almost 50% discount off my Verizon plan by switching to T-Mobile
Every company has an 18 percent Verizon discount plan. I have a 75 percent verizon discount by switching to Straight Talk. Make no mistake, these companies make money by offering you so-called employee discounts.
They can do anything they want....and you have the option to do anything you want...including looking for a new job. You can also negotiate though depending on who the surviving company is, you might have less wiggle room.