3 ms·

This is just… false? Yes, if they cared/could, they would lower the salary of underperformers. The definition of a salary is that you’re paid to fulfill a role,

• cassianoleal 3y ago
  Obviously I'm not privy to your contract of employment, but so far in over 20 years in the market, all of mine established work hours. If I worked less than that, I'd get paid less. Some contracts had provisions for overtime, in which case I could be paid more for more hours of work. That's selling my time. I'd still get paid the same for the same number of hours, regardless of my output. With good or great output, there was a small chance I'd get a promotion, or a pay rise in the next round of performance reviews (which in my experience are nothing of the sort). With bad output, there was a small chance I'd get fired. In either case, my pay was never tied to my output. I'd still get paid for the hours I worked, regardless of how well I performed. > you’re paid to fulfill a role See above. You're usually getting paid to fulfill a role for a certain amount of time. If "number of hours you've fulfilled your role" is how you measure your output, then I 100% agree this is a silly debate. That is not what I consider output though. A factory is paid per output. If they produce 100 cars, they get paid 100 * price of 1 car. If they produce 90 cars, they get paid 10% less, and so on.
  • bbor 3y ago
    Thanks for the polite reply :) I am very confident I am right about this very pedantic point, though obviously it matters little in the end for many roles, as you’ve noted. For example, this is a good link: https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/salary-vs-hourly-pay https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/pay-salary/salary-vs-ho... Your job may require you work 40h, but that’s more of a employment requirement, such as “you’re a boat captain and need to be on the bridge for X hours in normal workdays, but get paid a monthly salary regardless.” That doesn’t mean you’re paid for your time any more than a dress code clause means you’re being paid for your fashion :) But again all moot in our industry in most cases! Really gets important in cases such as fast food, where they’ll promote people to salaried “manager” positions paying $40K/y that have no set working hours, but their responsibilities require them to work well over 40h/week EDIT: perhaps a clearer example: if you had to crunch and work 50h this week, and couldn’t take 10h off next week, would you require extra pay for that? If no, you’re salaried!
    • Delk 3y ago
      > EDIT: perhaps a clearer example: if you had to crunch and work 50h this week, and couldn’t take 10h off next week, would you require extra pay for that? If no, you’re salaried! That's what a salaried position seems to mean in the US from what I can gather. Perhaps a lot of this entire conversation is had from more or less of an American point of view, so maybe your definition is relevant. I don't think that's a universal definition of salary, though. I get paid the same sum every month, and I have a fixed number of hours I'm expected to fill per week. If I work ten hours more than that one week, that counts as +10 hours in the records, and that allows me to do 10 hours less at some point. Maybe next week, maybe next month, but it's in the books. That's still different from an hourly wage where the pay is calculated directly per hour and varies with the exact number of hours worked and recorded. The pay also doesn't directly vary based on actual useful output. Whether I work one day's worth of hours effectively or half as effectively doesn't affect how much I'm paid. So, I'm really directly selling my time, not my output. (The amount of useful output may of course make bosses more or less happy and deadlines reached or not reached.) That, to me, seems to be approximately what some of the other comments in this thread mean when they're saying you're selling your time, not your output. Whether they're talking about the US or not. Of course if you have a set amount of real output you're expected to produce within a day or a week and it's entirely your problem if you don't manage to produce that in a set number of hours, you're in some sense paid for your output. Your quantifiable useful output probably doesn't directly map to bucks paid, though; most knowledge workers probably don't even have such an easily quantifiable unit of actual output that you could do that. I assume that even in the US, you'd still be expected to be present for a set number of hours even if you managed to produce the expected output in less. In that sense you'd also be selling your time, not output. So maybe it's a bit of a mix of both in reality.
      • nightpool 3y ago
        I don't think that's a universal definition of salary, though. I get paid the same sum every month, and I have a fixed number of hours I'm expected to fill per week. If I work ten hours more than that one week, that counts as +10 hours in the records, and that allows me to do 10 hours less at some point. Maybe next week, maybe next month, but it's in the books. Please cite the language in your employment contract that entitles you to this. This would make you a non-exempt worker in the US and in many other similar jurisdictions, meaning that you're being paid hourly instead of salaried. Most companies with similar policies instead have the following language: Comp time is granted to exempt positions. There is no legal requirement or obligation of [Company Name] to grant comp time to exempt employees. A supervisor may choose to grant comp time to exempt employees who are required to work in excess of 40 hours per week for special projects or during weekends or any normally scheduled time off. Note "special projects" and "may choose to". The company is offering this as a benefit, not a requirement of the contract
  • neon_electro 3y ago
    So, you work hourly?