Compensation Force

Practical news, information, tips and musings about employee performance and compensation

Know Ye the Regs When Awarding Bonuses or Lump Sums to Nonexempts

Cash incentive, bonus and lump sum merit awards are becoming increasingly prevalent for all employees, including those determined to be nonexempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Many employers do not realize that there are regulations governing how these awards impact the compensation of nonexempt employees.

Bonuses paid to nonexempt employees are included in the determination of their regular wage rate, which impacts any overtime payments, unless the bonus falls into one of several exceptions.  To help us with the detailed ins and outs of these regulations and to shed light on the exceptions, Michael Moore of the Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog has a very helpful and informative post on the topic up today.

I learned a few things from Michael on this topic.  I was not aware of the first exception he mentions - the percent of total earnings bonus - and I take this as a piece of good news.  Many of us in the HR and rewards fields are most aware of the discretionary exception, but applying it means that you essentially abdicate tying the bonus to performance in any way, not an attractive choice for many employers.  I believe that this has prevented a number of organizations from offering a bonus or cash incentive plan to their nonexempt staff.  The percent total earnings exception, while laden with its own complications, provides a solid alternative worth considering.

Michael and I connected over his comment to my recent and related post on lump sum merit increases for "over max" employees - and decided that both of our readers would greatly benefit from more information on the regs surrounding nonexempt bonus/lump sum awards.  And for those who aren't already familiar with it, Michael's blog is a great source for keeping abreast of the legal angles of compensation and other HR topics - an excellent one to add to your reading list.

For Fewer Compliance Headaches, Avoid FLSA Status as a Reward Criteria

There are plenty of challenges involved in getting (and keeping) positions appropriately classifed as to their FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) status, so there is no reason that I can think of to make life even more difficult for ourselves by doing things like:

  • Making exempt status a criteria for incentive plan eligibility.
  • Providing a higher level of benefits (e.g., more vacation or PTO days) to exempt employees.
  • Creating an artificial salary ceiling for nonexempt employees (e.g., reserving certain salary grades - such as Grades 10 and up, for exempt positions only).

Many of us already face pressure from employees and their managers who see the awarding of the "exempt" designation (despite our best educational efforts) as a status thing, an acknowledgement of professionalism, or - ironically - a way to get more money.  But we make the problem worse by creating - or exacerbating - this demand through turning exempt status into a hurdle that must be crossed in order to participate in the company bonus plan, get better benefits, or earn a competitive salary.

My message:  Delink!  Make FLSA status solely about compliance with overtime laws.  If you have reward programs where you simply must limit eligibility, you'd better find a different, genuinely business-related criteria to use instead.

Comparable Worth and the Push for Pay Equity Regs: Compensation Force Interview with Dr. Ellen Benjamin

The notion of comparable worth seems to be back on the agenda in a big way, particularly in the wake of the recently released AAUW study “Behind the Pay Gap” which generated attention with its finding that female workers earn less than their male counterparts, even just one year out of college and within the same major/disciplinary field. There is a call for strengthened national legislation to address gender discrimination, with proponents citing Minnesota’s State Employee Pay Equity Act as a model for correcting marketplace discrimination. And here in Minnesota, a group of legislators and the Pay Equity Coalition are working on expanding the requirements of the Pay Equity Act to all private companies that do business within the state.

Dr. Ellen Benjamin, President and Founder of Benjamin Consulting Group, Inc., is a compensation expert with over 20 years of private and public sector consulting experience that includes helping Minnesota government employers develop and implement pay programs that comply with Minnesota’s Pay Equity law. She has agreed to share her experience and knowledge in this interview, to help us better understand the workings and potential impact of pay regulations like those in place in our state.

Q: Can you give us a brief overview of Minnesota’s Pay Equity law, in your own words?

A:  The Minnesota Pay Equity law requires public sector employers (e.g., cities, counties, agencies) to conduct a pay equity study every few years and to make the indicated adjustments to pay for female-dominated jobs. The study involves using a job evaluation tool with State-specified factors to compare jobs on dimensions such as complexity of issues encountered, depth/breadth of knowledge needed, nature of interpersonal contacts, and physical working conditions. Employers can create their own job evaluation tool, utilize a tool developed by an outside consultant, or use State job matches. An analysis is then done using a State-developed regression tool to examine how female-dominated jobs are paid against male-dominated jobs of comparable job evaluation-determined content. Any female-dominated jobs that fall below a given level against this regression analysis must be adjusted.

Q: Based on your experience, how well do these required steps address and/or prevent pay discrimination?

A:  From a State compliance perspective, completing these periodic studies can show which female dominated positions fall outside the overall pay practice of an employer. I do not think, however, that compliance with the State Pay Equity law is sufficient foundation for an employer to assume that there are no pay discrimination issues. Discrimination goes beyond gender. The State’s requirements do not consider employee elements such as age, race, or linkage to performance. You could be in compliance with the State’s requirements and still have other forms of pay discrimination. For example, in Minnesota, some employers have found male-dominated jobs that fall notably below the overall male regression analysis. They are not, however, required to make any adjustments for those positions. I do not professionally consider that to be an equitable response.

Q: In my experience, it isn’t unusual – when developing and implementing pay programs – to run into situations where internal equity or considerations must be reconciled with external market pay practices. How are these situations addressed under Pay Equity law?

A:  The focus of the State Pay Equity law is on internal equity. One can broadly assume that the pay levels currently in place reflect the external marketplace to varying degrees. However, the entire pay equity movement argued that the external market is biased against female dominated jobs and therefore the focus has shifted to internal pay relationships.

Q:  What would you see as the potential implications – positive and negative – of extending regulation like Minnesota’s Pay Equity Act out into the private sector?

A:  Based on my experience in helping public and private sector organizations utilize job evaluation tools and market pay data to find a reasonable balance between the two, I am reticent to support a private sector mandate such the Minnesota approach in its current form. The manner in which the Minnesota Pay Equity Act is defined will not be sensible for the private sector. There are simply too many differences in the compensation needs and practices among private sector employers to make it a “one size fits all.” On the positive side, however, it will require private sector employers to pay more attention to internal pay relationships based on defined job elements.  My greatest concern is that it will serve as a set of handcuffs for the private sector—handcuffs that may be expensive, administratively burdensome, and not an advantage to anyone in the final analysis except compensation consultants. The challenge for any employer is to find a balance of market and job content that is both cost-effective and yet allows them to attract, motivate, and retain the quality talent they need to succeed.

Benjamin Consulting Group, Inc. is based in Minneapolis and serves private and public sector clients regionally and nationally. Dr. Benjamin is a Licensed Consulting Psychologist with a specialization in linking employee behaviors and rewards. She can be contacted at ebenjamin@usfamily.net or at (952) 928-0871.

Related Posts:

Disturbing News from the Pay Gap FrontComparable Worth Making a Comeback.

New FLSA Overtime Calculator Tool Released by Dept. of Labor

The U.S. Department of Labor has created a new Internet based tool to help employees and employers better understand and calculate overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The new FLSA Overtime Calculator Advisor was developed to promote a better understanding of overtime pay requirements by calculating overtime for a sample pay period, based on information the user provides.  Designed as a learning tool for both workers and employers, the Calculator Advisor includes an introduction to and overview of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as a glossary of terms used.

Antitrust Regulations & Salary Surveys

Few HR professional realize that the conduct of formal and informal compensation surveys (meaning as simple an act as calling a competitor to find out what they pay their cost accountants -- or the more sophisticated questionnaire-based data collection efforts) is regulated by the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.  For this reason, and to keep us all clear of unnecessary litigation, I thought it might be worth a post.

The Sherman Antitrust Act, named for its author, Senator John Sherman of Ohio, was original passed to limit monopolies and other restraints on commerce.  It is the Act's provisions on pricing and competition which impact those seeking information on compensation practices via salary surveys.  The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which have primary responsibility for enforcing our nation's anti-trust laws, have determined that organizations conducting their own salary surveys could be seen as practicing illegal price-fixing.

To guide HR and compensation professionals seeking to determine competitive pay levels while avoiding antitrust violations, the DOJ and the FTC have jointly published a series of Anti-Trust Safety Zone Statements, which have been interpreted (through not extensively tested in court) to provide a "safe harbor" for organizations involved in this exchange of information.

The DOJ/FTC Antitrust Safety Zone Statements are as follows (note that these were initially developed with health care organizations and activities as their focus):

Antitrust Safety Zone: Exchanges of Price and Cost Information Among Providers That Will Not Be Challenges, Absent Extraordinary Circumstances, By The Agencies

The Agencies will not challenge, absent extraordinary circumstances, provider participation in written surveys of (a) prices for health care services, or (b) wages, salaries, or benefits of health care personnel, if the following conditions are satisfied:

  1. The survey is managed by a third-party (e.g., a purchaser, government agency, health care consultant, academic institution, or trade association);
  2. The information provided by survey participants is based on data more than 3 months old; and
  3. There are at least five providers reporting data upon which each disseminated statistic is based, no individual provider's data represents more than 25% on a weighted basis of that statistic, and any information disseminated is sufficiently aggregated such that it would not allow recipients to identify the prices charged or compensation paid by any particular provider.

For more information:

The DOJ & FTC jointly published "Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care"

For WorldatWork members, see the One Stop Topic page for Market Pricing/Salary Surveys

My Photo

About The Author

  • More Info Here
    Compensation consultant Ann Bares is the Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group. Ann has more than 20 years of experience consulting with organizations in the areas of compensation and performance management.

Compensation Force Spot Survey

Search This Site

Widgetbox

  • Get this widget from Widgetbox