3 ms·

Not every job is based around clocking in and clocking out, though, and there are a lot of complications for things like traveling, lunch meetings, and business

Not every job is based around clocking in and clocking out, though, and there are a lot of complications for things like traveling, lunch meetings, and business trips. There are also strict laws about overtime pay and the max time that a person is allowed to work before being required a break. There's also the issue of employees recording their own times worked (it's a compliance nightmare that can lead to lots of payment adjustments, fines, and/or lawsuits).

maerF0x0 12y ago
Of course not all jobs are based around clocking in and clocking out production line style. However, that knowledge informs when the hours are performed, not the quantity of hours. If your job duties are flexible and can be performed at anytime, why not pay "overtime" when someone has to work 60 hrs a week to cover their duties (or not get "let go" due to appearances) ? Dont get me wrong, I know ahead of time that I will be required to work more than 40 hrs a week and thus price it into my salary, making the overall points a little moot in practice. But, there is something odd, a smell of sorts, about saying "You get your salary for 40 hrs a week, and the other 20 are not paid" ... Say I would only work for $30 an hour, and I know the employer is going to require 60 hrs a week of work, then I'd only settle for a salary that is 3000*30 = $90k a year. If the employer has a standard that says "I will pay you for overtime" then I can accept a salary of 60k a year and know that I will make $30k in overtime pay. The real hard part comes when the work is presumed the later and is the former in reality. One takes a wage on the presumption of 40 hrs a week and ends up working 60.. decreasing their compensation for time by 33% .