Ethical dilema ....
 

The law states that any hours worked over 8 hours per day are to be paid at time and a half, unless the employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (union) or if the company holds a secret ballot vote and 2/3rds of the employees affected agree top give up their right to that overtime.

Many years ago, I was hired by Shell oil company.
The position was salaried-non exempt as it was a technical position. That meant salary plus overtime.

The working schedule was 4x10 (10 hrs per day 4 days per week).
I was non represented, no union. I assumed they had done the vote thing, but they had not.

So technically and legally, I was entitled to time and a half overtime pay for ever hour over 8 which works out to be 1 hour of pay for every day I worked in that position over a few years.
BTW I no long work for Shell.

One phone call and I can get that back pay, around $40 grand near as I can figure.

I've been thinking about this for a few weeks.
There is no doubt that I am legally entitled to that money, but ethically it just seems wrong.

So question time:
1) should I forget it and not bite the hand that fed me, I knew going it what the pay and schedule was and I should just be grateful for the job.

or

2) I should make the phone call and get the money, it's mine and I earned it and I can rationalize the guilt away later.

Show me the MONEY

Just playing devil's advocate here...
Since you'd be getting the OT pay, the company could say you weren't a full time employee since you'd only been working 32 hrs at regular pay, so you need to reimburse them for the extra benefits you received as a part time employee, which may or may not be equal to the @$40K.
How would you feel if they did that?

You know the specifics of your situation so this could be completely off base, but my thought is, since you were salaried, the hourly regulations do not apply to you. You were hired at a salary which was calculated on 10 hour days, 4 days per week--a 40 hour week. Your overtime would kick in if you exceeded either the daily hours or the total weekly hours. Apparently, you've checked this out and this is wrong since you can "make the call" and receive the back payments, but I'm thinking the 8 hours then overtime would not apply to an employee in your situation.

If there was an issue working the 4-10 schedule without receiving the 2/hrs per day OT, the time to have brought that up was when you were performing the work.

You obviously did not have any issues while doing the work, and were going on the understanding that you were working 40 hrs per week, which instead of a 5-8 schedule was a 4-10 schedule. You also enjoyed the benefit of working the 4-10 schedule (an extra day off per week).

The reason you are conflicted is that you know it is ethically wrong. Even if were awarded the money, would you feel good about how it was obtained?

What do you think the chances are that somebody in the HR department ever figured out that you were entitled to the money, and chose not to notify you?

Agreed.
That pretty much sums it up.
Interestingly enough, Shell brought this to light in a roundabout way. They discovered the issue and have started the process of getting everyone effected to vote. My name was still on the list even though it shouldn't have been.

I believe I'll just let it go, unless they approach me and offer some sort of settlement (which I doubt).

Salary exempt is the category that is not hourly based.
Salary NON-exempt is based on hourly work, wages, and overtime.

Take the money and run, who, who, who.
You earned it and it was part of the deal when you were hired.

We have a similar "grey" issue at work.

Per the HR guidelines, if you do any work on a PTO day, like check e-mail etc, you can officially consider that as a day worked and not take PTO. I have gone on vacations and done enough work, say 8 hours over the course of a week and just made it a 4 day vacation, but I would never consider 30 minutes of work as a way of saving a PTO day.

If you don't want it I'll take it.

Take a look at the continued slump in oil prices then decide if you really want poor little Shell Oil Company to suffer further at your hands ...

That is not the issue at all, but ........

Take a look at who owns Shell Oil company.
The vast majority of shares are owned by mutual funds. That means that regular old people like you and me who have a 401K are who owns most of Shell.

Some people see a large corporation as some sort of giant evil monster. That's what they teach their kids in Moscow.

I see it for what it really is:
94,000 people working together to supply good products to their customers, working hard to make sure the company remains viable and healthy so they can remain employed and prosper and make their mortgage payments.
I see millions of small time investors putting a little money aside in hopes of making a small but reasonable profit and having enough money some day to retire and live reasonably comfortable without having to worry where the next meal will come from.

I see it as something beautiful that improves the lives of millions and millions and helps us ALL enjoy the incredibly high standard of living we are blessed with.

think about it: go back 100 years and pick out any king or queen alive at that time. Take a look at their standard of living and compare it to ours.

We are so much better off than even the wealthiest were back then, and all we can do is take it for granted.

I chose not to make these kinds of decision. I'd make the call and let them figure it out

I know this is easy for me to say, but there is something very gratifying about being able to look oneself in the eye & say: I came by this honestly & I didn't screw anybody.
I realize this doesn't really quite address either question but I'd like to think my preference for 'feeling good' would definitely take precedence.

Cheers
JB

If you think about it, you'll probably determine you have to go back more than a hundred years if you want your cliche` to be accurate - unless, that is, you think your microwave oven, smart phone and Omaha Steaks allow for a higher standard of living than that enjoyed by the relatively pedestrian (compared to some royalty) Andrew Carnegie or J.P. Morgan.

Since this is really play money for you - to the extent any money is - let's play with it.

Take the $40K. Use it to buy Shell stock. Sit on that stock for a time period equal to the duration of your employment. Keep us posted. Then sell, regardless of market timing.

Keep any profit for yourself.
Send the original $40K to either an environmental charity or a university department that specializes in harvesting petroleum natural resources - whatever you are comfortable with.

If the net after sale of the stock is a loss, keep whatever remains, safe in the knowledge that you tried to let the company do something charitable with your extra salary and they couldn't turn a profit - so 'eff 'em.

[note: this is clearly not a sound ethical argument - but I thought it would be more fun than the typically bravo sierra responses that any ethical question would garner.]

If I worked for a company that paid me less than the legal amount they were obligated to pay me, I would expect them to correct the error when it became apparent, barring any statute of limitations.

I don't see applying the applicable employment laws as unethical.

tough question but if you are entitled the money is yours not theirs.