Any labor law protection for people doing the same work for less pay?

I am wondering - does anyone know if there is any kind of legal protection for people doing the same work as someone else but not getting paid the same?

The retailer I work for has decided to get even MORE cheap on wages.... (I didn't think it was possible to go any lower, but they've found a way) Basically the company has created a new position company wide that I can't possibly see as being equitable.

We have department managers. Department mangers get paid SIGNIFIGANTLY more than the lowest level non-management employees. Department managers also get much better benefits packages.

So now the company has created a new position and eliminated 50% of department managers. (well, that is still being phased in) They have just taken away the "manager" part of the title and called it something else.

So these people that are hired for this position do essentially the SAME work as department managers, except get paid much less and get no benefits. Now technically because they are not a manager *on paper* they are not allowed to write people up, directly supervise them, etc.... however, in reality and not on paper they DO. They work alternating shifts against the shifts of department managers and do exactly the same work... but they are getting paid much less.

Now this seems highly unethical to me. Isn't this set up some how illegal? I mean damn, how low can you push wages down and screw over hard working people before some kind of legal protection kicks in?

employment contracts.

but there is not enough information in your post.

So, did 50% of the managers get fired, or demoted? Is it 3rd shift?


More info required.

to fill other open positions at other locations.

So say you have 4 managers in charge of the front of the store. Two of them were moved. Those two positions were then filled with people hired under the new job title. (and are getting paid as much as anyone else in low level non management positions) They then work on alternating schedules on opposite shifts of the other two managers.

So, they moved the current staff into similar positions in other stores, and hired on new people doing something similar but without the title?

Do they have any title that suggests they are in a higher position than the average associate?

The word "manager" has been stripped from the title, but they make management decisions, supervise, give instructions, etc. It's not even "doing something similar" - they do the exact same work. Basically everything the other two managers do but with out the pay and benefits. This is happening at every store in the company. But 50% of the people with the word "manager" are being kept in position because ON PAPER the new people they have hired aren't supposed to be doing the same work, but they are.

do you mean in thier job descriptions?

Its odd that they would hire from the outside to put people in a position like that. And these new people only make what a typical associate makes? No more, no less?

and these were not outside hires. They were former cashiers who were talked in to it and basically told "if you do a good job eventually one day you may get the management pay/position" (which is BS it will never happen). And yes same pay/benefits as typical associates.

These two at our store are not idiots. They have already asked me on the side why they are doing the same work (even though before they were moved in to the position they were told it wouldn't be the same work) but are not getting the pay, and I told them outright this is corporates new plan and they are basically getting screwed.

I can see why the company has stepped up the mandatory anti-union videos. I didn't think it would be possible to screw people on wages anymore but they actually thought of a way.

management? HR? Presumably someone in a position to give them the answers to the questions that they are asking, correct?

Its odd that they would not get a slight wage increase to go with the increased responsibilities.

This whole scenario sounds very Wal-martesque.

we were all briefed on this company plan in a meeting.

Basically in place of wages they get a lot of empty promises that one day they MIGHT get the pay that goes along with the responsibility and that by doing this work it makes them more likely to get promoted. (which is BS, they are in this position specifically so no one HAS to be promoted)

Welcome to life in the race to the bottom.

Someone else on the DU said it (Orrex?)

CEO's are assets, not expense is too great for an asset.
Workers are liabilities, no expense is acceptable for a liability.

Some years ago, in California, employers called employees "managers" and made them forgo overtime pay for the long overtime hours they worked. Lawsuits were initiated and I believe that in many instances, the courts determined that the employers had to pay the overtime. You should present your specific facts to some labor law attorneys. Some of the laws that might be involved are federal and some are state. And you can't present specific enough facts in an internet post to get a reliable or even helpful answer.

Also, times and laws change. After so many years of Republican dominance of our government at both federal and many state levels, there are a lot of Republican judges who will find for employers.

The Chamber of Commerce is a major advocate for anti-employee regulation and legislation.