I work for a government agency. I’m required to give my state agency 35 hours per week, 7 hours a day. I’m salary, so if I work overtime I don’t get extra money. I do get 1 hour of vacation for every hour extra I work. The catch to get that OT is you have to have worked 35 hours that week. If you take PTO or call in sick during the week you did ot, you won’t accrue that bonus pto
past period I had 14 hours of PTO scheduled. Earlier in the week I did 4 hours of OT over 2 different days to make sure all duties were taken care of because I’m doing the job of 3 people right now. I checked with the payroll people, and they said it was ok to remove/save 4 hours of PTO since I worked 4 OT on different days. Basically, I save 4 PTO hours in exchange for not getting credit time for the OT I did.
Cue my boss. He refused to sign off on my time sheet. According to him, every work day must have 7 hours accounted for, doesn’t matter that you have OT time on other days. This was a direct contradiction to what payroll said was ok. FUCK YOU PAUL. I will never work a single minute of OT for you ever again. Shit doesn’t get done? I’m all out of fucks. Fire me when I am the only one running shit. End rant.
A contract doesn’t override federal law. The contract is invalid.
Some contracts, like my union contract, specifically affirm they are breaking the law and where; like “section 51.2 of the labour code is superceded by the following terms when the employee is left-handed: etc…”
Union IT. Time-and-a-half begins the moment I have approved work past 4h51 in the day, or 7.81 hours. Double-time for weekend work or stat holidays, for which I already make pay, so it could be triple.
It very rarely happens.
But, even on a good day, at 4:51 pm, it’s usually “tools down” and we bullshit on slack until we all wander off. Because it’s home offices all around, ever since COVID day 1.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/overtime
If they make greater than a certain amount, overtime is optional
No, but it can give you benefits that aren’t required by federal law, which was Gullible’s point.
Well, as they responded to a comment saying that most would have the benefits under federal law, saying it depends on the contract implies that those benefits are dependent on contracts and not federal law, not that you can go above and beyond federal law with a contract (which should be obvious to most).
Their comment, while not outwardly contradictory, was not outwardly complementary either. So really, their point was just very poorly made if that indeed was what they were trying to convey.