3 ms·
Your comment is so simplistic and inaccurate. It's not lowballing and undercutting employees to pay $41.6k to lower level people for 40 hours of work. Especiall
by exclusiv 10y ago
Your comment is so simplistic and inaccurate. It's not lowballing and undercutting employees to pay $41.6k to lower level people for 40 hours of work. Especially when you layer on good benefits like we do that aren't accounted for in the salary requirement. We do 3% of salary automatic contribution to 401k each year, allow employees to work from home, good healthcare and vacation/discretionary, etc.
Other states don't have these rules and competition in many industries is across states or globally.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 10y ago> It's not lowballing and undercutting employees to pay $41.6k to lower level people for 40 hours of work. And nothing in the actual law prevents you from paying $41.6k or less (the whole way down to the minimum wage) for 40 hours of work. What you can't do is pay $41.6k or less and then not pay overtime. (And the threshold is much higher if you rely on the computer-related work exemption, and you have to pay overtime regardless of base pay if the work doesn't qualify for some exemption -- unlike the Feds which do at $100k [rising to $134k], California doesn't have an unqualified "high-pay" exemption.)
- st3v3r 10y ago"It's not lowballing and undercutting employees to pay $41.6k to lower level people for 40 hours of work" Depending on the job, it can be. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about doing that, and not paying overtime.