If a 35% spike in the minimum wage, a $590-per-week increase in the salary amount required for exempt "white collar" workers, an immediate 41% rise in the cash wage required for tipped employees, and a new paid-time-off requirement are prescriptions for an economic upturn, then help might be on the way.  All are provided for in the voluminous "Rebuild America Act", S. 2252, recently introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

The Minimum Wage

Under S. 2252, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage would rise in three steps from the current level of $7.25 per hour to $9.80 per hour about two years after passage.  After that, the rate would be adjusted annually in tandem with the Consumer Price Index.

Experts typically disagree about the negative effects of minimum-wage increases, but many (if not most) acknowledge that at least some jobs and job opportunities are lost to a minimum-wage hike.  Consider this:  The rationales for a minimum wage might suggest that the floor should be, say, $20 per hour, but the hiring cutbacks and layoffs this would provoke are an important reason that few would favor it.

And recent experience counsels even more caution.  We first wrote in 2010 about the larger lessons to be learned from the damaging impact of minimum-wage hikes affecting American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands.  Since then, the General Accounting Office has noted the many adverse consequences, and those whose experience with these matters is more than academic continue to seek at least a postponement in further jumps.

Salary Amount For White-Collar Workers

Most workers who otherwise qualify for exemption as executive, administrative, or professional employees (colloquially, the FLSA's "white collar" exemptions) must be paid on a salary basis at a rate of at least $455 per week.  S. 2252 would move this floor to $655, then to $855, and later to $1,045, and would thereafter tie it to the Consumer Price Index.

The U.S. Labor Department developed the salary test decades ago as one way to distinguish those who should be considered exempt from those who should not be.  It was never intended to be a minimum wage for exempt people.  Muddying the test's purpose as S. 2252 proposes would, among other things, risk introducing the same dangers (or worse) presented by raising the hourly minimum wage.

Cash Wage For Tipped Employees

Today, a tipped employee for whom an employer takes the FLSA "tip credit" must be paid a cash wage of at least $2.13 per hour (the tips themselves must make up the difference to $7.25).  S. 2252 would immediately raise this cash minimum to $3.00 per hour and would continue the increases until the level reached 70% of the FLSA minimum wage.

A more-focused bill to similar effect was introduced in the House of Representatives last year.  As we said then, these impulses are driven by flawed or unstated premises, or both.  In any case, good intentions are not guaranteed to produce desirable results.

A Paid-Time-Off Requirement

S. 2252 would also compel most employers of at least 15 employees to accrue an hour of paid "sick time" for every 30 hours an employee works, up to at least 56 hours each calendar year.  Exempt white-collar workers would be presumed to work 40 hours each workweek for these purposes, except for those who worked a "shorter normal workweek".  A host of detailed rights, requirements, permitted uses, limitations, procedures, prohibitions, and other complications would attach to this new paid-leave mandate.

None of this will be enacted in an election year?  Recall that the subject of indexing the FLSA minimum wage has already surfaced in the Republican primary process.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

The answer to our July 11 Quick Quiz is, "One And One-Half Days' Worth".

To qualify for the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's executive, administrative, or professional exemption, employees usually must be paid on a "salary basis".  This means that the employee must regularly receive each pay period a predetermined amount (of not less than $455 per week) constituting all or part of his or her compensation.

With limited exceptions, this fixed amount cannot be subject to reduction based upon either the amount of time the employee works or how well he or she performs the work.  The circumstances under which this salary can be reduced for part-days missed are even more restricted.

One exception to this so-called "no-docking rule" is that deductions may be made from the salary for absences of one or more full days caused sickness, disability, or work-related accidents, if the deduction is made under a bona fide plan, policy, or practice that provides compensation for such absences.  As a practical matter, this usually means that, so long as an exempt employee has a paid-time-off allotment to cover the absence, he or she is paid the normal salary, and the absence is charged against the PTO balance.

The sick-day exception also permits proportional deductions to be made from the salary itself for whole-workday absences of this kind during the period:

♦   Before the employee qualifies for PTO, and

♦   After the employee exhausts the PTO allowance.

However, the sick-day exception does not authorize salary deductions for part-days missed.^*

But this part-day restriction does not prevent charging these absences against PTO allotments.  As the U.S. Labor Department has said, "Where an employer has a benefits plan (e.g., vacation time, sick leave), it is permissible to substitute or reduce the accrued leave in the plan for the time an employee is absent from work, whether the absence is a partial day or a full day, without affecting the salary basis of payment, if the employee nevertheless receives in payment his or her guaranteed salary."  Opinion Letter of Acting Wage-Hour Administrator FLSA2005-7 (January 7, 2005).  Consequently, Alice's employer is permitted to subtract the three half-days she missed, that is, the full one and one-half days' worth, from her PTO balance.

If Alice had no PTO balance remaining, then her employer could not dock her salary for any of the sick-time missed.  This is true because she would not have been absent for a whole day on any of the three days she was out sick.

Of course, employers should also review these matters under any applicable wage laws of a state or other jurisdiction.  For example, a state might take a more-restrictive position under the "salary basis" rules applying to exemptions from its own overtime requirements.

__________

^*  A different exception for an employee's absences covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act might permit part-day salary deductions under the proper circumstances.

 ◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Alice performs work meeting the duties requirements for the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's administrative exemption.  She usually works 50 hours in five days each workweek.  She is paid a weekly salary of $950.  Alice is eligible for five paid days off each year, and she has three days left.

In one particular workweek, Alice has the flu and is sick for half-days on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday.  She works only 31½ hours in that workweek.  How much of Alice's sick time may her employer apply against her paid-time-off allotment under the U.S. Labor Department's FLSA "salary basis" principles?

Please use the poll buttons to the right to register your answer.

Our recent Quick Quiz Answer on recovering losses from non-exempt employees has caused some to ask whether the same analysis applies to employees who are treated as exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's executive, administrative, or professional exemption (including the "computer employee" and "highly compensated employee" versions).  To answer this question, let's repeat the facts with a few changes:

Store Manager Alex is paid on a salary basis at the rate of $800 per week.  He meets all of the duties requirements for the FLSA's "executive" exemption.  On Monday, he approves accepting a $150 check in payment for merchandise.  He was so busy that he forgot to ensure that the cashier had the necessary customer information, and now the check has been returned because the account is closed.  Alex's employer is unable to contact the customer.

A written company policy that is given to all Managers when they are hired requires Alex to pay for the loss that workweek through payroll deduction, in cash, or by personal check.  As the policy requires, the District Manager has Alex sign a memo saying that he agrees to make the payment.  Alex adds a notation that he prefers to pay in cash.  He works exactly 45 hours that workweek.  Under the FLSA, how much can the employer recover from Alex that workweek?

The "Salary Basis" Principle

To qualify for the FLSA's executive, administrative, or professional exemption, most employees must be paid on a "salary basis".  This means that the employee must regularly receive each pay period a predetermined amount (of not less than $455 per week) constituting all or part of his or her compensation.  With limited exceptions, this fixed amount cannot be subject to reduction because of variations in the quantity or quality of the work performed.  Officials at the U.S. Wage and Hour Division have said that deducting a cash loss from an exempt employee's salary destroys the "salary basis" of pay required for exempt status.  See, e.g., Opinion Letter of Deputy Wage-Hour Administrator Dated April 1, 1999 (cash missing from a locked bank bag)(link below).  The rationale is that such a deduction is based upon the "quality" of the employee's work.  Cf. Opinion Letter of Wage-Hour Acting Administrator FLSA2006-7 (March 10, 2006)("salary basis" impaired by policy of deducting from salary for cost of lost or damaged tools or equipment).

So The Answer Is . . .

The employer may not directly or indirectly recover any of the loss from Alex's salary in that workweek or in any future workweek, at least not if the employer wants to preserve Alex's exempt status under the FLSA.  As with non-exempt employees, this is true even though the employer published a policy in advance, and even though Alex signed something saying that he would make the payment.  Furthermore, it makes no difference whether Alex pays in cash, or by check, through payroll deduction, or in some other manner.  It might be possible to recover the loss from commissions or bonuses Alex is due separately from his salary, provided that this (1) is done in a way that carefully avoids impairing the salary, (2) is permitted under all other applicable laws, and (3) is consistent with the terms of the commission or bonus plan.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Opinion of Deputy Administrator 04 01 99.pdf (22.46 kb)

The answer to our January 31 Quick Quiz is "No":  Furniture World's policy does not destroy the "salary basis" required for Robin's exempt status under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  This will be true even if management disciplines or discharges Robin for refusing to make-up the time she missed.
 
When the so-called "white collar" exemption regulations were revised in 2004, the U.S. Labor Department re-affirmed that employers do not undercut the "salary basis" by requiring exempt employees to record their worktime or to work a specified schedule.  See 69 Fed.Reg. 22122, 22178 (April 23, 2004).  This continued an interpretation that existed under the prior version of the rules.  See, e.g., Guerrero v. J.W. Hutton, Inc., 458 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2006)(employers not prohibited from requiring exempt employees to work a specific number of hours per week and to track their time to ensure they have worked those hours); Opinion Letter of Wage and Hour Administrator No. FLSA2003-5 (July 9, 2003)(tracking, recording, accounting for exempt employees' actual hours worked does not violate the "salary basis").
 
Since that time, Opinion Letter of Deputy Wage and Hour Administrator No. FLSA 2006-6 (March 10, 2006) has addressed circumstances even closer to those in our hypothetical.  An employer wanted to require some exempt employees to work at least 45 hours a week and others to work not less than 50 hours a week.  Management reserved the right to require exempt employees to make-up time missed due to personal absences of less than one day.  An employee who failed to meet these two requirements might be disciplined or discharged.
 
According to the Labor Department, the number of hours worked by an exempt employee "is a matter to be determined between the employer and the employee."  Moreover, it said, an employer "may require an exempt employee to make up work time lost due to personal absences of less than a day without loss of the exemption .  .  .."  The Deputy Administrator stated that the employer was "free to implement the two rules without loss of the exemption."
 
Despite this flexibility, keep in mind that these exemption rules do limit the situations in which one may dock an exempt employee's salary for failing to meet an hours-worked requirement.  Robin's weekly salary could not have been reduced to offset the 3½-hour shortfall.
 
Also, states and other jurisdictions might take a different position on these kinds of policies under their own laws.  Employers should be sure that any such rules they want to adopt are permitted under all applicable requirements.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Robin is in charge of the 50-employee Shipping Department at Furniture World.  She is treated as an exempt "executive" employee under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, including that she is paid a salary of $950 per week.  Furniture World adopts a policy that all supervisory employees:

•   Are required to keep accurate records of their worktime,

•   Must work at least 50 hours a week, and

•   Must make the time up in a later week if they work less than 50 hours in a week.

The supervisors are subject to discipline or discharge if they fail to work at least 50 hours in a week and do not make up the time.

A month after the policy is implemented, Robin has a car problem one morning on the way in and ends up working only 46½ hours for the week.  Angrily telling her boss that she has a right to a personal life, Robin refuses to work extra time in a later week to make up the 3½ hours.

Does Furniture World's policy destroy the FLSA "salary basis" of pay required as part of Robin's exempt status?

Please use the poll buttons to the right to register your answer.