• @Cryophilia
      link
      English
      84 months ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

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

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

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

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          24 months ago

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

          • @Cryophilia
            link
            English
            24 months ago

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

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

    • kamen
      link
      English
      74 months ago

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

    • @BradleyUffner
      link
      English
      5
      edit-2
      4 months ago

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

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

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