6/12    As of ruling by the CA gov't, not paying salaried (exempt) workers
        during a company shutdown is not allowed.  For all of you discussing
        forced vacations, I found the link describing the situation.  It's an
        open letter issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcment for
        the state of California:
        http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSE/SalaryTestUnderNewOrders.pdf
        Quote from letter:
        "..if an employer has exempt salaried employees, those employees must
        generally be paid in any situation where the employee is ready, willing
        and able to work and the employer does not provide work.  Failure to
        pay the salary of the exempt employee will result in loss of the
        exemption.  The employer may not, faced with this obligation to
        continue the salary, resort to the employee's vested vacation pay (an
        obligation which the employer already has if the employee is to remain
        exempt from overtime pay)."
        -phale
        \_ Here's an LA Times article on the matter:
           http://www.latimes.com/business/20010609/t000047972.html
        \_ what if it's put to the employees like this:  "Take your vacation
           then or we'll lay you off. --PeterM
           \_ what if it's put to the employer like this: "Don't make me take
              a vacation or I'll sue you"?
              \_ What if the employer in return simply say "Ok I won't.  I'll
                 just lay you off then."
                 \_ you can still sue. just like "give me a bj or you're fired"
                    \_ Really?  Isn't it that for firing the employer needs
                       to show that the employee has done something wrong,
                       whereas for layoffs an employer doesn't need to show
                       any fault on the employee's part?
                       \_ no...for example if they lay off old people just
                          because they're old, those people can sue, and stuff.
                          \_ I see.
                 \_ Ironically, if they immediately lay you off, they still owe
                    you the amount of money for your vacation days, paid in
                    full.
                    \_ This isn't ironic, they already allow for these
                       payouts since they are always counted under Liabilities.
                       Thats the whole reason to force vacations, to
                       decrease this liability.
                    \_ Yeah, but if they don't lay you off immediately, they'll
                       still owe you the same amount of money for your
                       vacation and they'll have to keep paying you salary.
                       Plus you'll accrue even more vacation.
        \_ the way it was explained to me, it was very much in my
           personal interest not to lose my exempt status.
           I think it had to do with not being able to keep stock options.
           Anyone more familiar with this?
           \_ That's BS.  Perhaps it's company policy to give stock options
              only to exempt employees.  But if a bunch of exempt people turned
              non-exempt and still worked their typical 60-hour work weeks, the
              company is absolutely fucked.  Can you say "double your salary"?
           \_ Besides, it isn't YOUR choice to become exempt or non-exempt.  If
              the company has a work shutdown, and they don't want to pay your
              salary, the HAVE to make you non-exempt.  It's THEIR choice.
           \_ These discuss a bit about why its unlikely you'd get
              options as an non-exempt employee.
              http://www.bizforward.com/archives/2000-06/viewfromthehill
              http://www.morganlewis.com/wp11299.htm
                \_ Yes, but if an employee already has options, then this does
                   not really matter.  So make a long story short, if a company
                   actually makes an exempt employee non-exempt, they are
                   really fucking themselves.