Mixing
Why does the US FLSA have a separate classification for “Computer Employees� [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I've been reading a Fair Labor Standards Act fact sheet. I don't understand why "Computer Employees" are classified differently from Professional employees. What is the justification for that difference?
united-states
asked Aug 18 at 2:58
Ethan Reesor
993
migration rejected from law.stackexchange.com Aug 28 at 2:46
This question came from our site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. Votes, comments, and answers are locked due to the question being closed here, but it may be eligible for editing and reopening on the site where it originated.
closed as off-topic by Monica Cellio♦ Aug 28 at 2:46
- This question does not appear to be about the workplace within the scope defined in the help center.
comments disabled on deleted / locked posts / reviews |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I've been reading a Fair Labor Standards Act fact sheet. I don't understand why "Computer Employees" are classified differently from Professional employees. What is the justification for that difference?
united-states
asked Aug 18 at 2:58
Ethan Reesor
993
migration rejected from law.stackexchange.com Aug 28 at 2:46
This question came from our site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. Votes, comments, and answers are locked due to the question being closed here, but it may be eligible for editing and reopening on the site where it originated.
closed as off-topic by Monica Cellio♦ Aug 28 at 2:46
- This question does not appear to be about the workplace within the scope defined in the help center.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question about political motivation for a law, not the law itself.
– Nij
Aug 18 at 21:13
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on politics.stackexchange.com
– ohwilleke
Aug 26 at 20:42
@ohwilleke This question clearly belongs to law.stackexchange.com and should be moved back there. The question is about legislative intent (which is a matter of law, not a question about workplace), and the answer is obtained from reading both statutory language and case law.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:00
1
@JoeStrazzere "I'm not sure that a "justification for a categorization within a law" has anything to do with the Workplace?" It has nothing to do with Workplace. Even if a legislative intent stemmed from politics (as most laws do), the fact that an answer is ascertained from statutory law and case law shows that law.stackexchange.com is the appropriate site for this question.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:05
@JoeStrazzere Can it be restored back to law.stackexchange.com ? Users are much likelier to search in Law SE than here (or elsewhere) for answers to any questions about laws.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:32
comments disabled on deleted / locked posts / reviews |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
I've been reading a Fair Labor Standards Act fact sheet. I don't understand why "Computer Employees" are classified differently from Professional employees. What is the justification for that difference?
united-states
asked Aug 18 at 2:58
Ethan Reesor
993
I've been reading a Fair Labor Standards Act fact sheet. I don't understand why "Computer Employees" are classified differently from Professional employees. What is the justification for that difference?
united-states
asked Aug 18 at 2:58
Ethan Reesor
993
asked Aug 18 at 2:58
Ethan Reesor
993
asked Aug 18 at 2:58
Ethan Reesor
993
asked Aug 18 at 2:58
Ethan Reesor
993
993
migration rejected from law.stackexchange.com Aug 28 at 2:46
This question came from our site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. Votes, comments, and answers are locked due to the question being closed here, but it may be eligible for editing and reopening on the site where it originated.
closed as off-topic by Monica Cellio♦ Aug 28 at 2:46
- This question does not appear to be about the workplace within the scope defined in the help center.
migration rejected from law.stackexchange.com Aug 28 at 2:46
This question came from our site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. Votes, comments, and answers are locked due to the question being closed here, but it may be eligible for editing and reopening on the site where it originated.
closed as off-topic by Monica Cellio♦ Aug 28 at 2:46
- This question does not appear to be about the workplace within the scope defined in the help center.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question about political motivation for a law, not the law itself.
– Nij
Aug 18 at 21:13
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on politics.stackexchange.com
– ohwilleke
Aug 26 at 20:42
@ohwilleke This question clearly belongs to law.stackexchange.com and should be moved back there. The question is about legislative intent (which is a matter of law, not a question about workplace), and the answer is obtained from reading both statutory language and case law.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:00
1
@JoeStrazzere "I'm not sure that a "justification for a categorization within a law" has anything to do with the Workplace?" It has nothing to do with Workplace. Even if a legislative intent stemmed from politics (as most laws do), the fact that an answer is ascertained from statutory law and case law shows that law.stackexchange.com is the appropriate site for this question.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:05
@JoeStrazzere Can it be restored back to law.stackexchange.com ? Users are much likelier to search in Law SE than here (or elsewhere) for answers to any questions about laws.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:32
comments disabled on deleted / locked posts / reviews |Â
show 4 more comments
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question about political motivation for a law, not the law itself.
– Nij
Aug 18 at 21:13
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on politics.stackexchange.com
– ohwilleke
Aug 26 at 20:42
@ohwilleke This question clearly belongs to law.stackexchange.com and should be moved back there. The question is about legislative intent (which is a matter of law, not a question about workplace), and the answer is obtained from reading both statutory language and case law.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:00
1
@JoeStrazzere "I'm not sure that a "justification for a categorization within a law" has anything to do with the Workplace?" It has nothing to do with Workplace. Even if a legislative intent stemmed from politics (as most laws do), the fact that an answer is ascertained from statutory law and case law shows that law.stackexchange.com is the appropriate site for this question.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:05
@JoeStrazzere Can it be restored back to law.stackexchange.com ? Users are much likelier to search in Law SE than here (or elsewhere) for answers to any questions about laws.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:32
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question about political motivation for a law, not the law itself.
– Nij
Aug 18 at 21:13
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question about political motivation for a law, not the law itself.
– Nij
Aug 18 at 21:13
1
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on politics.stackexchange.com
– ohwilleke
Aug 26 at 20:42
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on politics.stackexchange.com
– ohwilleke
Aug 26 at 20:42
@ohwilleke This question clearly belongs to law.stackexchange.com and should be moved back there. The question is about legislative intent (which is a matter of law, not a question about workplace), and the answer is obtained from reading both statutory language and case law.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:00
@ohwilleke This question clearly belongs to law.stackexchange.com and should be moved back there. The question is about legislative intent (which is a matter of law, not a question about workplace), and the answer is obtained from reading both statutory language and case law.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:00
1
1
@JoeStrazzere "I'm not sure that a "justification for a categorization within a law" has anything to do with the Workplace?" It has nothing to do with Workplace. Even if a legislative intent stemmed from politics (as most laws do), the fact that an answer is ascertained from statutory law and case law shows that law.stackexchange.com is the appropriate site for this question.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:05
@JoeStrazzere "I'm not sure that a "justification for a categorization within a law" has anything to do with the Workplace?" It has nothing to do with Workplace. Even if a legislative intent stemmed from politics (as most laws do), the fact that an answer is ascertained from statutory law and case law shows that law.stackexchange.com is the appropriate site for this question.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:05
@JoeStrazzere Can it be restored back to law.stackexchange.com ? Users are much likelier to search in Law SE than here (or elsewhere) for answers to any questions about laws.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:32
@JoeStrazzere Can it be restored back to law.stackexchange.com ? Users are much likelier to search in Law SE than here (or elsewhere) for answers to any questions about laws.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:32
comments disabled on deleted / locked posts / reviews |Â
show 4 more comments
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a question about political motivation for a law, not the law itself.
– Nij
Aug 18 at 21:13
1
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on politics.stackexchange.com
– ohwilleke
Aug 26 at 20:42
@ohwilleke This question clearly belongs to law.stackexchange.com and should be moved back there. The question is about legislative intent (which is a matter of law, not a question about workplace), and the answer is obtained from reading both statutory language and case law.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:00
1
@JoeStrazzere "I'm not sure that a "justification for a categorization within a law" has anything to do with the Workplace?" It has nothing to do with Workplace. Even if a legislative intent stemmed from politics (as most laws do), the fact that an answer is ascertained from statutory law and case law shows that law.stackexchange.com is the appropriate site for this question.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:05
@JoeStrazzere Can it be restored back to law.stackexchange.com ? Users are much likelier to search in Law SE than here (or elsewhere) for answers to any questions about laws.
– Iñaki Viggers
Aug 27 at 19:32