Engineer Caps Work At 40 Hours After Company Cuts Overtime Pay

OP, a consulting engineer, was paid hourly, including for overtime at client sites, until their company’s acquisition led to a salaried model capping pay at 40 hours/week, slashing their income significantly.

When their boss dismissed negotiations, OP limited work to 40 hours, extending a client site visit and inflating costs, forcing the company to pay for all hours worked. Was OP wrong for this approach?

This story explores labor rights, clever retaliation, and workplace fairness. Did OP go too far? Let’s dive into the details and see what the online community thinks.

This story illustrates unfair labor policy changes and workers’ rights to demand fairness. The company’s shift to salaried pay without negotiation was opaque and potentially unethical.

Labor lawyer Daniel Lublin notes, “Unilateral changes to employment terms without consent can erode trust and performance” (Toronto Star). OP’s 40-hour workweek strategy was a clever way to force reconsideration, especially by inflating costs.

However, early dialogue with management or a labor union might have avoided escalation. This case highlights the importance of communication and protecting labor rights.

Take a look at the comments from fellow users:

Reddit supports OP, praising the strategic retaliation and sharing similar stories of resisting unfair labor policies. Many emphasize that no one should work unpaid hours and criticize companies exploiting employees. Here’s a roundup of reactions.

Many back OP’s strategy.

Some share similar experiences.

A few highlight policy consequences.

This engineer’s refusal to work beyond 40 unpaid hours, inflating project costs by $50K, forced their company to reverse a pay-cutting policy, securing hourly wages for on-site work. Was it a clever checkmate, or a risky gambit?

With Reddit cheering and the VPs caving, this saga’s a lesson in leveraging policy flaws for fairness. How would you tackle unfair pay changes? Share your thoughts below!