Employers often have pay plans detailing the events that trigger an employee's entitlement to commission payments. A recent Seventh Circuit decision serves as a reminder that employers should closely consider the particular position when doing so.
A recent court decision reaffirms that properly-handled recoupments of minimum-wage supplements advanced against future commission earnings are lawful under the FLSA.
The inapt use of phrases like "pay for" might create unanticipated compensation disputes.
The U.S. Department of Labor should disavow and withdraw statements made in 2011 that were intended to undercut the use of fluctuating-workweek pay plans under the FLSA.
Employers should keep in mind that an applicable state law might affect whether a "fluctuating workweek" arrangement is permitted for workers in that jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding incomplete or over-simplified U.S. Department of Labor "guidance", employers should recognize that the FLSA overtime regular rate will almost always vary as the overtime hours worked in a workweek vary.
South Carolina employers' preparations for changes in the FLSA's "white collar" exemption regulations must take into account the state's law requiring advance notice of modifications in an employee's pay plan.
We have said for a while now that a "fluctuating workweek" pay plan might suit some employers' needs as to workers whom they will no longer treat as overtime-exempt in light of the U.S. Labor Department's coming federal Fair Labor Standards Act exemption changes.
What if there is already a way to "credit" various non-salary compensation against an increased salary minimum?
Can employers comply with the FLSA by paying non-exempt employees weekly salaries that "build-in" overtime compensation for up to a particular number of overtime hours?