Mandatory overtime for pharmacists

[PikminOC]

Can big companies mandate OT with no extra pay for salaried pharmacists?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[right500]

Absolutely! That is the company's advantage to make people salaried. By Federal law, a typical hourly full-time pharmacist would not have any OT protections anyway (pay cap was raised but not anywhere near 100k). Check your state's labor laws though and with your union if applicable (though I doubt you have one if you are asking this question).

 

[PikminOC]

Illinois Labor Laws 2024 | Wage And Hour Laws In Illinois

Illinois Labor Laws 2024 requirements covering topics such as minimum wage, discrimination, vacation leave, sick leave, holidays, meals and breaks, and more.

www.employmentlawhandbook.com

There are exceptions.

 

[catalyzt]

,

 

[confettiflyer]

Depends on state law


Sent from my iPhone using SDN

 

[LivingMyBestLife]

Can big companies mandate OT with no extra pay for salaried pharmacists?

Eventually they have to pay OT or at least straight pay for the extra hours. I think if you work enough hours that your wage could dip under 7.25 an hour on aveareg they would be forced to make up the difference. Not sure if the math works out to make this a realistic possibility.

 

[zelman]

Eventually they have to pay OT or at least straight pay for the extra hours. I think if you work enough hours that your wage could dip under 7.25 an hour on aveareg they would be forced to make up the difference. Not sure if the math works out to make this a realistic possibility.

Working 24/7 for a week at minimum wage would be $1218. You have to making less than that per week to have this possibly apply. So if you’re salaried at $63,336 per year, it will not apply.

 

[PikminOC]

Eventually they have to pay OT or at least straight pay for the extra hours. I think if you work enough hours that your wage could dip under 7.25 an hour on aveareg they would be forced to make up the difference. Not sure if the math works out to make this a realistic possibility.

Would they do that extra ot pay for salaried pharmacist?

 

[PikminOC]

Depends on state law


Sent from my iPhone using SDN

I posted the Illinois laws. Referring to Illinois

 

[lord999]

Eventually they have to pay OT or at least straight pay for the extra hours. I think if you work enough hours that your wage could dip under 7.25 an hour on aveareg they would be forced to make up the difference. Not sure if the math works out to make this a realistic possibility.

No, they don't at the federal side, that's a state only matter.

In IL though, mandatory overtime can be imposed if you actually read the regulations and it does not require additional compensation. However, the rules also state that this has to be agreed to in the master employee contract (as in, that is part of the terms of hire and is uniformly applied to all employees in the same class). So, linemen (electricians), police, firemen, physicians, and toll workers have that in their employment contracts as a class due to a justification of public exigency (and pay is optional on a case basis), but in practice, IL is too labor friendly to allow that for most workers and most employers outside of Springfield would not be that draconian after 1937.

 

[lord999]

One other consideration, on the books for Cook County and ISTHA, there is no compensation for exempt workers for OT due to Springfield's imposition. However, union presence in both places have a labor agreement that union workers are to be compensated for overtime. So, nonunion workers in both places are screwed, but in practice, everyone is a union member or asserts those Weingarten rights as soon as management attempts it.

 

[PikminOC]

So as a nonunion big chain pharmacist, the rights were probably signed away in an initial contract

 

[lord999]

So as a nonunion big chain pharmacist, the rights were probably signed away in an initial contract

Not Walgreens. "The only thing that's going through those $*(#ing doors is light and air!" when they went on strike over 20 years ago.

 

[Dred Pirate]

Can big companies mandate OT with no extra pay for salaried pharmacists?

yes

 

[Dred Pirate]

Not Walgreens. "The only thing that's going through those $*(#ing doors is light and air!" when they went on strike over 20 years ago.

didn't the bust the union in chicago around 2004 (I was living in Springfield at that time - and their were no unions around there)

 

[lord999]

didn't the bust the union in chicago around 2004 (I was living in Springfield at that time - and their were no unions around there)

That came a little later. It was our generation who screwed that up, but Walgreens still has not rescinded that from the books, they would get attention from some Democratic supporters with vowels for their last names. Walgreens being THE Republican company in Chicago learned the hard way that's a line they won't cross as those Democratic supporters "helped" Cork out with finding his kid something to do with his life...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-12/15/086r-121599-idx.html

 

[Sleepingdoc]

Eventually they have to pay OT or at least straight pay for the extra hours. I think if you work enough hours that your wage could dip under 7.25 an hour on aveareg they would be forced to make up the difference. Not sure if the math works out to make this a realistic possibility.

You are wrong my friend... If they are sallaried, they do not get OT because they are salaried.. You are expected to work as much to get the work done... And there are always gonna be *****s that work more for less pay.
That's why for companies, its always cheaper to keep a salaried or contracted employee....

 

[LivingMyBestLife]

Working 24/7 for a week at minimum wage would be $1218. You have to making less than that per week to have this possibly apply. So if you’re salaried at $63,336 per year, it will not apply.

Yes. This!

 

[LivingMyBestLife]

You are wrong my friend... If they are sallaried, they do not get OT because they are salaried.. You are expected to work as much to get the work done... And there are always gonna be *****s that work more for less pay.
That's why for companies, its always cheaper to keep a salaried or contracted employee....

Interesting!