This court is scary

Prod

I think this, from your post answers your query about how thois was even a question
"The lawsuit was part of the Administration's campaign to bring more workers under wage-and-hour laws, the better to unionize and provide trial-bar jackpots"

if they can try to unionize family members caring fo invalid loved ones they will try to unionize anyone.
 
Besides having to talk to some a-hole doctors, drug reps have it pretty sweet. No weekends,paid week off between Christmas and New Year's, free car with reasonable personal mileage rates, pay that easily gets to the 6 figure mark with any job skill and work ethic and you get to bring Pizza and Sandwiches to medical offices.

Work out of your home with a flexible schedule (i.e. you can run by and pick up the kids after school, etc.).

Yeah, it's a real oppressed group, that's why there are only hundreds of applications for each spot. Of course, when the Government sets my salary/pay, I guess I will have overtime and the option to unionize.
 
If Obama gets a second term, perhaps we'll see his administration file suit to grant students compensation for studying more than 40 hours/week (i.e. during final exam week). This will have the perverse effect of compensating lazy students (who wait until the very end of the semester to start studying) more for last-minute cramming.
 
You guys may like the result of this case, but after reading on it, the dissent got it right. I'm not saying these guys who push drugs for the pharmaceutical companies deserve overtime, but if we're going to follow the statute and regs to the letter, the law was on their side.
 
Mr D
Now that is something to know. Those Reps are all salaried people
i did not know salaried people got overtime. I wish i had known that sooner
 
That's not a liberal definition by any means. I'm an account executive and was a zone manager before that, so for the last decade I've been in a position basically analogous to a pharma rep. I can tell you that whether it is a "pure" sales job, it is absolutely viewed as a sales position by employers and employees alike. You do get commission - but because it is not a pure sales position and because in some instances sales may be beyond your control, you still draw a base salary. But the idea that anyone in that position would say "I need to put in more time, so the company needs to pay me overtime" is ridiculous, because the only reason you're going to put in extra time in that position is because it's generating more revenue for the company and more money for your pocket,

It's interesting, however, that in both positions, I have been paid a salary plus bonus and some commission, but we still submitted hourly timecards for each pay period. I always thought that was odd - figured there was some tax reason for it.
 
I don't know, it seems like a lot of people on this board are pretty quick to label just about anything that isn't their party's party line "outrageous" and " absurd" or in this case "nuts." I read a little of the opionion here The Link and it seems like a damn close question.

The majority states the issue as follows:
"This case requires us to decide whether the term “outside salesman,” as defined by Department of Labor (DOL or Department) regulations, encompasses pharmaceutical sales representatives whose primary duty is to obtain nonbinding commitments from physicians to prescribe their employer’s prescription drugs in appropriate cases."

From the dissent: "the Act says that the word “‘Sale’ or ‘sell’ includes any sale, exchange, contract to sell, consignment for sale, shipment for sale, or other disposition.” 29 U. S. C. §203(k)." Unless we give the words of the statute and regulations some special meaning, a detailer’s primary duty is not that of “making sales” or the equivalent. A detailer might convince a doctor to prescribe a drug for a particular kind of patient. If the doctor encounters such a patient, he might prescribe the drug. The doctor’s client, the patient,might take the prescription to a pharmacist and ask thepharmacist to fill the prescription. If so, the pharmacist might sell the manufacturer’s drug to the patient, or might substitute a generic version. But it is the pharmacist, not the detailer, who will have sold the drug.""To put the same fairly obvious point in the language of the regulations and of §3(k) of the FLSA, see 29 U. S. C.§203(k), the detailer does not “sell” anything to the doctor.At most he obtains from the doctor a “nonbinding commitment” to advise his patient to take the drug (or perhaps a generic equivalent) as well as to write any necessary prescription. I put to the side the fact that neitherthe Court nor the record explains exactly what a “nonbinding commitment” is. Like a “definite maybe,” an “impossible solution,” or a “theoretical experience,” a “nonbinding commitment” seems to claim more than it can deliver."

The dissent makes some pretty good points...harely "nuts."
For people who generally rail against "activists judges," complaining that they substitute their belief of what the law should be for what the plain words of the law are, you are awfully quick to embrace this bit of judicial stretch bythe majority. The majority's view is certainly rational, but seems to be an example of a conservative activist "interpreting" a law to achieve a desired result,rather than applying the plain language of the regulations.
I don't have a problem with anyone believing that the majority has the better argument, but ProdigalHorn's conclusion that the four dissenters are "nuts" is just plain nuts. Prodigal, your ideological underwear are showing.
 
The fact that they argue that a pharmacist is more of a sales person than a pharmaceutical rep tells me that they do not, in fact, make some valid points.

I'm telling you as someone in a similar job and as someone who has known people in that particular job: if you asked them if they are in sales, they will say "yes."

It is not activist by any stretch to say that this ruling is sound. The four dissenters are attempting to claim that someone who came onto a job knowing its requirements, knowing it is a sales position (whether you think it is or not), and knowing that it is not a 9-to-5 gig, can now out of the blue claim overtime because they worked more than 40 hours per week.

Considering that reps make their own schedule, it is absolutely ridiculous and completely arbitrary and anti-business to give me as a rep the right to claim overtime.

In addition, as I'm sure you read, the sales role in this particular job is limited by law. They sell to the extent that the law and the medical industry allows them to sell.
 
This really has less to do with the definition of salesman and more to do with the classification difference of exempt vs non-exempt employees. Exempt employees are just that exempt from FLSA coverage and thus not protected or guaranteed anything especially overtime. The FLSA protects non-exempt employees almost exclusively.

Outside salesmen are exempt. Even if you redefine the job title, arguing that a pharm salesman is not actually a salesman the position would still be exempt.

FLSA coverage
Employees whose jobs are governed by the FLSA are either "exempt" or "nonexempt." Nonexempt employees are entitled to overtime pay. Exempt employees are not.

Some jobs are classified as exempt by definition. For example, "outside sales" employees are exempt ("inside sales" employeesare nonexempt). For most employees, however, whether they are exempt or nonexempt depends on (a) how much they are paid, (b) how they are paid, and (c) what kind of work they do.

With few exceptions, to be exempt an employee must (a) be paid at least $23,600 per year ($455 per week), and (b) be paid on a salary basis, and also (c) perform exempt job duties.

Salary Test
Employees who are paid less than $23,600 per year ($455 per week) are nonexempt. (Employees who earn more than $100,000 per year are almost certainly exempt.)

Rights of exempt employees
An exempt employee has virtually "no rights at all" under the FLSA overtime rules. About all an exempt employee is entitled to under the FLSA is to receive the full amount of the base salary in any work period during which s/he performs any work (less any permissible deductions). Nothing in the FLSA prohibits an employer from requiring exempt employees to "punch a clock," or work a particular schedule, or "make up" time lost due to absences. Nor does the FLSA limit the amount of work time anemployer may require or expect from any employee, on any schedule. ("Mandatory overtime" is not restricted by the FLSA.)



You would be hard pressed to define a pharmaceutical salesman's position as non-exempt. The court got this one right.
 
Deez, not to derail this thread. . . screw it, that's what we do everyday.

As a lawyer I thought you would find this case interesting.
what age is legal?
This guy had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and took pictures. He was not charged with statutory rape since 17 is the age of consent in Illinois, but 17 IS still defined as a child so he was arrested for child pornography. The dude is doing 8 years for taking pictures of his legal girlfriend.

He's 35 so there is certainly an "Eww" factor at play emotionally. I can see how the law is clear on both specific accounts, although it seems like the law is also inconsistent and causing a serious gray area.
 
Very weird case. I see where the defendant is coming from. It's weird to criminalize the photographing of a legal sex act. I don't think it's unconstitutional though.

The state has a legitimate interest in preventing the dissemination of child pornography, even if it's your legal girlfriend. It's about more than just exploitation. It's also reasonable for the state to say that even if you're old enough to have the judgment to legally have sex, you're not old enough to have the judgment to agree to have naked pictures of yourself taken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top