Strantor,

Congrats on the job.

 

BAM. Controls Engineer.

Excellent title. Congratulations and best of luck.

 

I would've taken the money.

 

The legal terms for salaried and hourly employees are exempt and non-exempt, and, as far as I know, have nothing to do with title.

IIRC, the criteria is how much of your work flow is performed under supervision vs. independently.

Anyone here in HR who can clarify or correct?

 

I would've taken the money.

The money wasn't an option that was presented to me, it was an option that I presented to them; an option that I was pretty sure wasn't really an option for them. They would have to explain to the parent company why they are paying a tech > 2x the typical hourly rate. That left only one option, giving me the title that I wanted. If I thought they could actually pull off the hourly deal, I probably would have pressed that deal over the title deal.

 

Exempt and non-exempt refer to labor laws. Non-exempt employees don't get overtime pay, for example. At least that's the way I understand it.

 

Exempt and non-exempt refer to labor laws. Non-exempt employees don't get overtime pay, for example. At least that's the way I understand it.

Largely correct but the other way around -- "exempt employees" are exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Though there are a couple of different contexts in which the terms are used. Also, it's not that exempt employees don't get overtime pay, just that overtime pay is not required for them by the FLSA. Many employers still pay overtime rates to exempt employees.

http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html

I always find it interesting some of the fine print that is in so much of the law. For instance, people that work in a movie theatre are specifically excluded from coverage by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Always makes me wonder what politician got their palms greased to make that happen. For years, every time I did my taxes I would shake my head at the IRS instructions for the 1040. Here you have something that applies to about 100 million taxpayers and it had specific instructions for Maine lobster fishermen in it. Huh? Why not something specific for Kansas rabbit farmers? Again, who's palm got greased?

 

Exempt and non-exempt refer to labor laws. Non-exempt employees don't get overtime pay, for example. At least that's the way I understand it.

I think you got it backwards.

 

I think you got it backwards.

You are correct. The double negative always confuses me.

 

Based on the state you are in, if you are classified as "exempt", there are a set of working conditions that must go with it. Such as:
- You set your own hours.
- Your pay is not based on you putting in 40 hours a week.
- You have to have X number of people reporting to you.
- Etc. etc.

This is to keep employers from labeling an employee exempt just to keep from paying them overtime.

You also can be exempt and be paid for more than 40 hours in a week. You just can not be paid time and a half, or double time.

 

Based on the state you are in, if you are classified as "exempt", there are a set of working conditions that must go with it. Such as:
- You set your own hours.
- Your pay is not based on you putting in 40 hours a week.
- You have to have X number of people reporting to you.
- Etc. etc.

This is to keep employers from labeling an employee exempt just to keep from paying them overtime.

You also can be exempt and be paid for more than 40 hours in a week. You just can not be paid time and a half, or double time.

While states can certainly increase the requirements, most stick pretty close to the federal requirements according to the FLSA. The three things that normally must be met are (1) You are paid some minimum amount, which is currently $455/week; (2)You are guaranteed some minimum pay in any week in which you work at all (that minimum does NOT have to be a "full week's pay"); and (3) you need to do work that is generally considered "professional". If an employee satisfies all three, then they can usually be classified as exempt. But there are some pretty broad swaths were employees are exempt even if they don't meet all three. People making over $100k/yr are almost always considered exempt. People performing duties that are commonly performed by people with advanced degrees or a rough equivalent are generally classifiable as exempt.

As for the claim that an exempt employee can't be paid time and a half or double time, upon what basis do you make that claim? This is like claiming that an employer that is not required to provide health insurance can't provide it. If you are exempt from the rules then you are exempt from the rules. If your employer and you agree that you will be paid triple time for hours worked on the third Sunday unless there is a full moon, then that is fine.

 

I always find it interesting some of the fine print that is in so much of the law. For instance, people that work in a movie theatre are specifically excluded from coverage by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Always makes me wonder what politician got their palms greased to make that happen.

It may have been graft or it may have been something else.

In the UK a great many businesses could not operate on a Sunday, due to historic religous influence preventing working on that day.
For instance it used to be illegal for a theatre to show a live play on a Sunday, so they were closed on that day.
But the laws were framed so tightly that when cinema came in it was found they did not apply and a film of that same play could be shown.

 

Just now seeing this..Congrats on the job!!
FWIW.. A local CNC router co here labels anyone that goes out in the field to service their machines "Field Service Engineers"...

 

One thing to consider is "equivalent experience." Even the engineering jobs at the federal government use that phrase for those non-degreed engineers.

A field service engineer can have as little as zero to seven years experience. Naturally to hire a zero experienced engineer, they want a "degreed" engineer.

Under that terminology, our OP certainly holds the "equivalent experience" qualification for "engineer".

Here is the experience requirements from an advertisement for an Electronics Engineer job:

SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS

A qualified candidate's online application and resume must demonstrate at least one year of specialized experience equivalent to the next lower grade level in the Federal service. Specialized experience for this position is defined as:

Experience in which the applicant performed basic electronic engineering tasks designed to provide familiarity with pertinent engineering manuals and procedures. Or you may substitute 1 year of graduate-level education or superior academic achievement for specialized experience.

Your application and resume should demonstrate that you possess the following knowledge, skills, abilities and competencies (KSA/Cs). Do not provide a separate narrative written statement. Rather, you must describe in your application how your past work experience demonstrates that you possess the KSA/Cs identified below. Cite specific examples of employment or experience contained in your resume and describe how this experience has prepared you to successfully perform the duties of this position. DO NOT write "see resume" in your application!

1. Technical
2. Reasoning
3. Compliance
4. Oral communication

"Experience" refers to paid and unpaid experience. Examples of qualifying unpaid experience may include: volunteer work done through National Service programs (such as Peace Corps and AmeriCorps); as well as work for other community-based philanthropic and social organizations. Volunteer work helps build critical competencies, knowledge, and skills; and can provide valuable training and experience that translates directly to paid employment. You will receive credit for all qualifying experience, including volunteer experience.

So those "graduates" who are applying for a job, the examples of paid and non-paid experiences could be the discriminating factor when applying. I can tell you that someone on a student visa who interned at a company that required a "confidential" security clearance told me that the clearance was the discriminating factor for him landing a job after graduation. You never know what some employers consider the deal breaker.

So, Stantor, by experience, is an engineer. He graduated from TSOHK.

 

A field service engineer can have as little as zero to seven years experience. Naturally to hire a zero experienced engineer, they want a "degreed" engineer.

Ironically, field service is where I came from, and I missed the boat by a few years; so I'm told, up until a few years ago the FS techs used to be called FS Engineers, but then the laws changed and they weren't allowed to be called engineers any more. I don't know what the law used to say, but the law in the stated of TX as it is today says that one cannot perform engineering as a service nor call themselves an engineer while in a capacity of offering any service to the public, unless they are a LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER (which in order to obtain the license requires a degree). So in TX, you can have multiple engineering degrees, even a PhD, and still not be legally allowed to call yourself an engineer. One of the loopholes though (where I fit in) is if you are an internal employee of a company who does not offer engineering as a service to the public; if you design products for that company (or if you sweep the halls and empty the trash I guess) they can give you the title (or whatever title they want I guess, maybe hallsweeper MD) and as long as you don't publicly or privately state, imply, construe, etc. that your skills are for hire, you are within the confines of the law. You can use the title on business cards, email signatures, etc., so long as you don't tack P.E. on the end.

I only recently discovered this, and in doing so, realized that I have been an outlaw for several years now. I never used the title "Engineer" but I most definitely solicited and performed engineering as a service, without a license. My previous employer (a field service company) apparently stripped the guys of the title to avoid questions, but the fact that they (or, we) weren't legally allowed to do 90% of the things in our job description must have fallen through the cracks.

. I can tell you that someone on a student visa who interned at a company that required a "confidential" security clearance told me that the clearance was the discriminating factor for him landing a job after graduation. You never know what some employers consider the deal breaker.

A security clearance can cost big bucks; it's definitely worth a bold font bullet on a resume. I don't know about a "confidential" but I know the top secret clearance I had in the Navy cost them untold thousands of dollars. I was told once the dollar amount that the navy pays to get someone a TS clearance and it was mind was mind boggling; I won't repeat that trivia here because don't feel that interested in verifying it first, but it was more than a lot of people pay for a house. It is valuable enough to spawned a small industry; check out clearancejobs.com

So, Stantor, by experience, is an engineer. He graduated from TSOHK.

Thank you, Joe.

 

I'm sure the foreign national's confidential cost some money. I agree Top Secret involves a lot more from what I remember. Hell, I would never be able to recreate the address list because I transferred something like 8 times in 12 years. I'm sure if anyone was interested, there's enough info out there on the web to give them an idea of the process.

Interesting website. It's been 18 years since I held an active clearance. It's good to see there are more opportunities for transitioning veterans.