Exempt Employees - Need Advice

I'm the amateur HR Dir. for our 120-staff non-profit. (I.e., no formal HR training, just 35 yrs. exper. in mgmt. & admin.)

We have about 20 staff we have classified exempt. I'm considering sending each a memo formally stating our classification of them, giving what I consider the basis for each's classification, and asking them to sign a form that either they disagree & want to meet to discuss it, or that they agree with their classification.

My question: would I be foolish to put this in writing to them? Our labor law firm - which I rarely agree with philosophically - seems to think that the less there is in writing, the better: there's that much less for someone to sue you over, and it gives management more freedom to screw the employees whenever it wants (my somewhat bitter interpretation).

Comments

  • 16 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Your lawyers are right about this one - it is a bad idea. In faact, there is no good reason for you to do what you suggest. E/ees can't waive their rights under the FLSA, so thier agreement means nothing. In addition, if you decide to change things, you may have put yourself in a position where you need their permission or agreement. The last thing you want to do is create a contract between the co and the ee. Review your decision re the exempt/non issue, communicate your decision, and be done wioth it. Be careful you don't confuse 'screw the ee/s' with 'prudently represent mgmt's best interests'.
  • I dunno, I bet to differ slightly. We are currently updating all of our job descriptions and we will obtain all employees signatures on their own job description as verification that they understand the job requirements. And, stated on the job description is not only title and grade, but also whether position is exempt or non-exempt.

    Is this what you're referencing? Or something in greater detail?
  • Yeah, that's pretty much what I had in mind ... but see below.
  • I agree with Shadow. I am all for getting input from ee on some topics, but this is not one of them.
  • >We have about 20 staff we have classified
    >exempt. >
    >
    If something is not broken, don't fix it. If these EEs are currently exempt and they still qualify under the new criteria, why do you have to do anything? What is, is, and will continue to be.


  • I guess I just have the wrong mentality for someone in HR. My desire is to treat everyone fairly and equitably, not get the most from them for the least we have to give them.

    I was considering asking for their agreement/input/opinion (whatever) just as a courtesy to people I like and enjoy working with, and who do an excellent job for our agency.

    Stupid me, huh?
  • If you mean sharing their job descriptions, go for it.

    If you mean to share the FLSA classification decision process, don't. They won't begin to understand!


  • A general rule of thumb in Human Resources (or probably anywhere else) is: Never ask a question unless you know what you will do with the answer. This applies to all sorts of interview scenarios. But, it applies in this case as well. Suppose you ask people if they agree or disagree with their classification (as if it matters) and they all tell you that they do not agree. What do you intend to do with that jewel of collective disagreement?

    Having employees acknowledge by signature a copy of their job description is one thing. Having them agree with your application of the law is quite another.
  • "if they agree or disagree with their classification (as if it matters)"

    Well, it does matter -- to me, anyway. I don't assume I'm the fount of all wisdom.

    If someone we now have classified as exempt thinks that's an unfair way for him to be paid, I'd like to know that and consider whether we can afford to pay him hourly. There are all kinds of ins and outs to the matter. It could be the agency would be much better off paying them hourly.

    I'm not so cocksure of our current practice that I wouldn't be willing to consider things from their point of view, if it happens to be different from current practice.
  • I am in agreement with most of your process, but not asking about exempt/non-exempt status.

    We are updating our job descriptions and our process calls for managers to get input from employees in the positions because they are most familiar with what they do on a daily basis. Managers then have the ability & responsibility to agree or disagree with their proposed changes, and then send HR the final updated version.

    Once we compile everything into the final format, we have a signature line for the manager and will also obtain signatures of employees for their description, to attest that they have reviewed and understand the job duties/requirements. Any conflicts are resolved by the manager in discussion with the employee.

    So, I think up to this point, I agree with what you are proposing. However, as we review jobs, I am not asking employees for their recommendation on whether the position should be exempt or non-exempt. Instead, I am making the determination by following the exemption tests.

    However, (yes I am using that word a lot!) if you want to make a position non-exempt that actually qualifies for exempt status, that's ok and certainly permissable according to the regulations. If that's a decision you are able to make and have considered the budget implications (e.g. paying for o.t. and all hours worked), then you can do so. Or if it's a decision the top mgr in the organization wants to make, you can certainly do so. Where you get into trouble is making someone exempt because they "want" to be, even though the job duties don't qualify under any of the exemption tests.

    I don't know if any of this is helpful! Good luck!
  • That's exactly what I had in mind! You certainly expressed it better and more completely than I. Thanks for giving me hope I'm not completely nuts. x:-)
  • Rightwing Nutcase, WV

    08-20-04, 04:23 PM (CST)
    3 total posts

    7. "RE: Exempt Employees - Need Advice"
    I guess I just have the wrong mentality for someone in HR. My desire is to treat everyone fairly and equitably, not get the most from them for the least we have to give them.

    Don replies: Oh, and by the way, if you're suggesting that typical HR mentality is to NOT treat employees fairly and equitably and to get something from them without giving them much in return, you need to go down the hall and use your 35 year talent in another department.
  • First, I've worked in every area we have, except the farm and vehicle repair, so there's no other dept. for me to go down the hall to. Maybe that's why I find it easy to look at things from the employees' point of view.

    Second, we are a human services agency for abused and neglected kids with serious emotional and behavior problems. We are expected to be empathetic, sympathetic, therapeutic, kind, and understanding with the wards in our care. Odd, I know, but our general mentality here is to treat everyone we deal with (vendors, regulators, consumers, employees, etc.) the same way we treat the kids.

    Third, your statement "(as if it matters)" to me is an indication of an us vs. them mentality, which I hope we can avoid anywhere I am working.

    In any case, if they (the admin.) can put up with me and I with them another 4 years, I'll be out of here and with my grandchildren. Then they can hire all the formally trained cutthroats they want.

    And thanks for caring.
  • I concur with most of the previous responses about "asking employees" what they think.

    But, another comment you make may need a reply as well...that regarding your labor attorney.

    Assuming that the attorney your organization has identified to help with employment issues is a reputable and knowledgeable employment/labor lawyer, I would be careful about second guessing his/her recommendations and suggestions. On the other hand, maybe he/she has given cause for you to feel that way. Just remember, when selecting legal help, not all lawyers are knowledgable or exerienced on "all" issues. You want to work with the best "employment/labor" attorney you can find.

    Just a thought...
  • I don't know that there is much more to discuss here, but the problem, as I see it is (per your post #7)wanting some sort of agreement with the ee. Their agreement means nothing to you, there is no advantage to the co having the ee agree that his position is exempt or otherwise, BUT your agreement in that regard, even if wrong, will come back to haunt you. You may be unable to change your classification w/o the ee agreeing. This is a one way street. I certainly have no problem with having the ee acknowldge he understands the job description and duties, and he understands how he will be paid, but the ee's agreement, in the event you have wrongly classified, will change nothing - he can still sue the co. for lost wages, liquidated damages (the lost wage doubled) and attorney fees. Better to spend your time making the correct analysis for the co than be worried whether you will be perceived as trying to screw the ee.
  • "We are expected to be empathetic, sympathetic, therapeutic, kind, and understanding with the wards in our care. Odd, I know, but our general mentality here is to treat everyone we deal with (vendors, regulators, consumers, employees, etc.) the same way we treat the kids.

    Third, your statement "(as if it matters)" to me is an indication of an us vs. them mentality, which I hope we can avoid anywhere I am working."

    =-=-=-=-=-=-

    Hold on there old timer! You seem to have a bone (Perhaps of contention) about HR for some reason. If it's your belief that you have to work in a psychiatric facility for children to treat employees with respect, you've gotten too much sun in your 35 years. (By the way, I'm going on 36). And the remark "as if it matters" was intended to convey to you that it matters not one whit whether an employee actually agrees, in the final analysis, with your application of the law regarding how they are classified. Educate them if you would like to. However, wanting their approval and agreement is not really a relevant concept in HR practice unless you are seeking their agreement regarding the company picnic arrangements. It's odd that you might decide to change your mind on how you would classify an employee based on whether the employee wanted the classification or would rather have another. This has nothing to do with empathy, sympathy, therapy and understanding. It simply reflects a wishy-washy approach to HR administration, in my humble opinion. What might you do when your employees voice displeasure with the amount of their next salary increase? Or the index arrangement of their employee handbook? Hope your next four years passes right along at a fast clip. x:-)
Sign In or Register to comment.