In the US, that's the big difference between exempt and non-exempt. I'm glad I have a lower, less prestigious job because it's classified as non-exempt. That me

In the US, that's the big difference between exempt and non-exempt. I'm glad I have a lower, less prestigious job because it's classified as non-exempt. That means if I'm on call, I'm paid for it. Which means the company really has to think "is it worth having this guy sit around in case something breaks?". It also means company policy prohibits me from having a company cell with email access, because I shouldn't be working off the clock. This lets me work on many side projects because at 5:00p, I'm done. If they need me to do more, they pay me more. I won't say the system is perfect, but when the company incurs a cost for being legally obligated to pay more for more work, I think the employment social contract becomes more fair. Aside from top level executives (CEO, etc.), I'm not exactly sure I can find a reason that people should be classified as exempt. Lawyers and doctors are the often cited examples of exempt employees. Sorry, if an attorney spends a few more hours one week on trial prep, his firm is billing for it, so pay him/her more. Similarly, if a surgeon's operation goes sideways and ends up taking two hours more, pay him/her more. If the idea that any labor past 40 hours in a week was "free labor" for a company was discarded (or better yet, actually cost the company more than the first 40 hours, i.e., "overtime"), we could reduce the number of people who are working more than 40 hours per week and start hiring more unemployed people. On a micro-scale, does it make sense to have 4 people consistently working 50 hours each with 1 unemployed person, or does it make more sense to have 5 people consistently working 40 hours per week? While you're at it, maybe 35 (or 30?) is the new 40? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Gradual_decrease_in_working_hours https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Gradual_decrease_...