Dear Lavanya,
Greetings!
The FLSA applies to "any individual employed by an employer" but not to independent contractors or volunteers because they are not considered "employees" under the FLSA. Still, an employer cannot simply exempt workers from the FLSA by calling them independent contractors, and many employers have illegally misclassified their workers as independent contractors.
Rgds,
John N
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
59Greetings!
The FLSA applies to "any individual employed by an employer" but not to independent contractors or volunteers because they are not considered "employees" under the FLSA. Still, an employer cannot simply exempt workers from the FLSA by calling them independent contractors, and many employers have illegally misclassified their workers as independent contractors.
Rgds,
John N
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi John, Thanks for enlightening me on it. :) My Question is what is job hopping? And what strategies companies use to deal with it? :?: Regards, Lavanya
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi, Guys,
I was not able to access the CiteHR website. It always gives a technical error. I had also planned to share some comments on FLSA. Anyways, no problems. Good job, Lavanya, for your answer and follow-up question.
Great work, John and Lavanya.
Hi, others - Seema, Sandeep, what happened? Nowadays, you guys are not participating much. Come on, yaar, please do participate.
Preet
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I was not able to access the CiteHR website. It always gives a technical error. I had also planned to share some comments on FLSA. Anyways, no problems. Good job, Lavanya, for your answer and follow-up question.
Great work, John and Lavanya.
Hi, others - Seema, Sandeep, what happened? Nowadays, you guys are not participating much. Come on, yaar, please do participate.
Preet
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I have just seen the question and answer of John. I am supplementing the answer with a couple of facts. First, FLSA is not an Indian law; it is US law.
"The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, June 25, 1938, 29 U.S.C. ch.8) is United States federal law that applies to employees engaged in interstate commerce or employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage. The FLSA established a national minimum wage, guaranteed time and a half for overtime in certain jobs, and prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor," a term defined in the statute."
Second, jury service is applicable in the US, not in India. It is not linked to industry but to the nation.
"Jury service is a public duty. Unless someone is disqualified, has the right to be excused, or has a valid reason for discretionary excusal, then they must serve.
"All jurors are selected at random by computer from the electoral register. Everyone on the electoral register from the ages of 18 to 70 may be selected even if they are not eligible to serve on a jury. Some people never get called; others get called more than once."
Third, the following are the legislative acts in India regarding compensation, wages, retirement benefits, and other financial benefits for industrial workers:
- Minimum Wages Act, 1948
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
- Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
- Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
- Employer's Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Regarding components of the compensation system, it depends on many parameters. John's answer is too theoretical. He has described the basis of deciding compensation, not the components of compensation. Components might be considered based on two major factors:
1. Statutory Payments (such as PF, Gratuity, bonus, etc.)
2. Internal Policy (Basic Salary, Special Allowances, LTA, etc.)
Compensation strategy in all organizations is usually decided considering the following:
- One for Management Cadre employees and another for Unionized cadre or workmen.
- Flexi or static compensation
- Internal Batch Parity or market Trend
- It should be designed to get maximum relief from income tax.
Regards,
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have just seen the question and answer of John. I am supplementing the answer with a couple of facts. First, FLSA is not an Indian law; it is US law.
"The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, June 25, 1938, 29 U.S.C. ch.8) is United States federal law that applies to employees engaged in interstate commerce or employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, unless the employer can claim an exemption from coverage. The FLSA established a national minimum wage, guaranteed time and a half for overtime in certain jobs, and prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor," a term defined in the statute."
Second, jury service is applicable in the US, not in India. It is not linked to industry but to the nation.
"Jury service is a public duty. Unless someone is disqualified, has the right to be excused, or has a valid reason for discretionary excusal, then they must serve.
"All jurors are selected at random by computer from the electoral register. Everyone on the electoral register from the ages of 18 to 70 may be selected even if they are not eligible to serve on a jury. Some people never get called; others get called more than once."
Third, the following are the legislative acts in India regarding compensation, wages, retirement benefits, and other financial benefits for industrial workers:
- Minimum Wages Act, 1948
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
- Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
- Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
- Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
- Employer's Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Regarding components of the compensation system, it depends on many parameters. John's answer is too theoretical. He has described the basis of deciding compensation, not the components of compensation. Components might be considered based on two major factors:
1. Statutory Payments (such as PF, Gratuity, bonus, etc.)
2. Internal Policy (Basic Salary, Special Allowances, LTA, etc.)
Compensation strategy in all organizations is usually decided considering the following:
- One for Management Cadre employees and another for Unionized cadre or workmen.
- Flexi or static compensation
- Internal Batch Parity or market Trend
- It should be designed to get maximum relief from income tax.
Regards,
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi John,
The same thing which Sameer mentioned, I thought to share with you guys. Due to a problem with the site, I was not able to post it. Actually, as Sameer and Lavanya mentioned, the FLSA is a US law and not applicable in India. If you are talking about a similar law in India, I think the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is the most appropriate act, which addresses unfair labor practices.
Anyways, Sameer, thanks for your contribution. It is good that you have shared very useful information.
Preet
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The same thing which Sameer mentioned, I thought to share with you guys. Due to a problem with the site, I was not able to post it. Actually, as Sameer and Lavanya mentioned, the FLSA is a US law and not applicable in India. If you are talking about a similar law in India, I think the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is the most appropriate act, which addresses unfair labor practices.
Anyways, Sameer, thanks for your contribution. It is good that you have shared very useful information.
Preet
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sameer: Greetings! Good appendage from urside. I too aware FLSA is applicable for US. The question is for knowldge sharing, thats y i asked the question. Rgds, John N
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
Peer has given the answer. I am just sending an article on it.
It's yet another day at the office. As I logged on to the marketing and advertising sites for the latest updates, as usual, I found the headlines dominated by "who's moving from one company to another after a short stint," and I wondered, why are so many people leaving one job for another? Is it past now to work with just one company for a sufficiently long period?
Whenever I ask this question to people who leave a company, the answers I get are: "Oh, I am getting a 200% hike in salary"; "Well, I am jumping three levels in my designation"; "Well, they are going to send me abroad in six months".
Then, I look around at all the people who are considered successful today and who have reached the top - be it a media agency, an advertising agency, or a company. I find that most of these people are the ones who have stuck to the company, grounded their heels, and worked their way to the top.
And, as I look around for people who changed their jobs constantly, I find they have stagnated at some level, in obscurity!
In this absolutely ruthless, dynamic, and competitive environment, there are still no shortcuts to success or to making money. The only thing that continues to pay, as earlier, is loyalty and hard work. Yes, it pays! Sometimes, immediately, sometimes after a lot of time. But, it does pay.
Does this mean that one should stick to an organization and wait for that golden moment? Of course not. After a long stint, there always comes a time for moving in most organizations, but it is important to move for the right reasons, rather than superficial ones, like money, designation, or an overseas trip. Remember, no company recruits for charity.
More often than not, when you are offered an unseemly hike in salary or designation that is disproportionate to what that company offers its current employees, there is always unseen bait attached.
The result? You will, in the long-term, have reached exactly the same levels or maybe lower levels than what you would have in your current company.
A lot of people leave an organization because they are "unhappy". What is this so-called unhappiness? I have been working for donkey's years, and there has never been a day when I am not unhappy about something in my work environment - boss, rude colleague, fussy clients, etc.
Unhappiness in a workplace, to a large extent, is transient. If you look hard enough, there is always something to be unhappy about. But, more importantly, do I come to work to be "happy" in the truest sense? If I think hard, the answer is "No". Happiness is something you find with family, friends, maybe a close circle of colleagues who have become friends.
What you come to work for is to earn, build a reputation, satisfy your ambitions, be appreciated for your work ethics, face challenges, and get the job done.
So, the next time you are tempted to move, ask yourself why you are moving and what you are moving into?
Some questions are:
Am I ready and capable of handling the new responsibility? If yes, what could be the possible reasons my current company has not offered me the same responsibility?
Who are the people who currently handle this responsibility in the current and new company? Am I as good as the best among them?
As the new job offer has a different profile, why have I not given the current company the option to offer me this profile?
Why is the new company offering me the job? Do they want me for my skills, or is there an ulterior motive?
An honest answer to these will eventually decide where you go in your career - to the top of the pile in the long term (at the cost of short-term blips) or to become another average employee who gets lost with time in the wilderness?
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Peer has given the answer. I am just sending an article on it.
It's yet another day at the office. As I logged on to the marketing and advertising sites for the latest updates, as usual, I found the headlines dominated by "who's moving from one company to another after a short stint," and I wondered, why are so many people leaving one job for another? Is it past now to work with just one company for a sufficiently long period?
Whenever I ask this question to people who leave a company, the answers I get are: "Oh, I am getting a 200% hike in salary"; "Well, I am jumping three levels in my designation"; "Well, they are going to send me abroad in six months".
Then, I look around at all the people who are considered successful today and who have reached the top - be it a media agency, an advertising agency, or a company. I find that most of these people are the ones who have stuck to the company, grounded their heels, and worked their way to the top.
And, as I look around for people who changed their jobs constantly, I find they have stagnated at some level, in obscurity!
In this absolutely ruthless, dynamic, and competitive environment, there are still no shortcuts to success or to making money. The only thing that continues to pay, as earlier, is loyalty and hard work. Yes, it pays! Sometimes, immediately, sometimes after a lot of time. But, it does pay.
Does this mean that one should stick to an organization and wait for that golden moment? Of course not. After a long stint, there always comes a time for moving in most organizations, but it is important to move for the right reasons, rather than superficial ones, like money, designation, or an overseas trip. Remember, no company recruits for charity.
More often than not, when you are offered an unseemly hike in salary or designation that is disproportionate to what that company offers its current employees, there is always unseen bait attached.
The result? You will, in the long-term, have reached exactly the same levels or maybe lower levels than what you would have in your current company.
A lot of people leave an organization because they are "unhappy". What is this so-called unhappiness? I have been working for donkey's years, and there has never been a day when I am not unhappy about something in my work environment - boss, rude colleague, fussy clients, etc.
Unhappiness in a workplace, to a large extent, is transient. If you look hard enough, there is always something to be unhappy about. But, more importantly, do I come to work to be "happy" in the truest sense? If I think hard, the answer is "No". Happiness is something you find with family, friends, maybe a close circle of colleagues who have become friends.
What you come to work for is to earn, build a reputation, satisfy your ambitions, be appreciated for your work ethics, face challenges, and get the job done.
So, the next time you are tempted to move, ask yourself why you are moving and what you are moving into?
Some questions are:
Am I ready and capable of handling the new responsibility? If yes, what could be the possible reasons my current company has not offered me the same responsibility?
Who are the people who currently handle this responsibility in the current and new company? Am I as good as the best among them?
As the new job offer has a different profile, why have I not given the current company the option to offer me this profile?
Why is the new company offering me the job? Do they want me for my skills, or is there an ulterior motive?
An honest answer to these will eventually decide where you go in your career - to the top of the pile in the long term (at the cost of short-term blips) or to become another average employee who gets lost with time in the wilderness?
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Sameer,
I got some info on the topic. Quality circles are a work group of 8 to 10 employees and supervisors who have a shared area of responsibility. They meet regularly, typically once a week, on company time and on company premises to discuss their quality problems, investigate causes of the problems, recommend solutions, and take corrective actions. They take over the responsibility for solving quality problems and they generate and evaluate their own feedback, but management retains control over the final decisions regarding the implementation of recommended solutions.
The quality circles also include teaching the participants about group communication skills, various quality strategies, and measurement and problem analysis techniques. The important drawback is the very little time they spend discussing issues. They only spend approximately 1 hour a day or so.
Regards,
Lavanya
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I got some info on the topic. Quality circles are a work group of 8 to 10 employees and supervisors who have a shared area of responsibility. They meet regularly, typically once a week, on company time and on company premises to discuss their quality problems, investigate causes of the problems, recommend solutions, and take corrective actions. They take over the responsibility for solving quality problems and they generate and evaluate their own feedback, but management retains control over the final decisions regarding the implementation of recommended solutions.
The quality circles also include teaching the participants about group communication skills, various quality strategies, and measurement and problem analysis techniques. The important drawback is the very little time they spend discussing issues. They only spend approximately 1 hour a day or so.
Regards,
Lavanya
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Sameer, It is great to know your active participation. Good question. Lavanya, I think you are too actively participating in answering the question. Good Keep it up. Preet
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Lavanya,
Good try. However, it requires a little more clarity on prevailing misconceptions related to QC.
- The job may not be shared; it should be a similar type of job (the assumption is that a similar type of job will have similar problems).
- The workers' participation remains voluntary.
- Workers meet to discuss the problems they face in doing their jobs, not to discuss quality-related issues of the product.
- They do not give their feedback; they provide solutions to the problems, not only as suggestions but also for implementation as a pilot project with tangible and intangible benefits.
- Management should not have control over the implementation of the pilot project; instead, it should be responsible (this is the area related to management control) to standardize and institutionalize across the company based on tangible/intangible benefits.
- The ideal time is 1 hour per week.
Thank you.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Good try. However, it requires a little more clarity on prevailing misconceptions related to QC.
- The job may not be shared; it should be a similar type of job (the assumption is that a similar type of job will have similar problems).
- The workers' participation remains voluntary.
- Workers meet to discuss the problems they face in doing their jobs, not to discuss quality-related issues of the product.
- They do not give their feedback; they provide solutions to the problems, not only as suggestions but also for implementation as a pilot project with tangible and intangible benefits.
- Management should not have control over the implementation of the pilot project; instead, it should be responsible (this is the area related to management control) to standardize and institutionalize across the company based on tangible/intangible benefits.
- The ideal time is 1 hour per week.
Thank you.
From India, Calcutta
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.