Title: 30% over minimum wage law
I work as a paramedic for an ambulance company in the coastal area of California. The employees are also part of a bargaining unit that has well over 100 employees. We have just come to a Tentative Agreement but shortly found out that EMT’s that are being paid minimum wage are also getting a 30% increase (which bring their wage up to $14.30 an hour which also a base pay for a paramedic) before the agreement is even voted on.
It seems like the company and bargaining unit. Did not know anything about this 30% law. Which everyone is trying to figure out what and how this is. You have an employee that has zero experience on an ambulance take a semester class and get a job as an EMT getting paid the same an hour as an employee that has at least a years experience as an EMT plus goes to Paramedic school for over a year and has a base wage as a starting EMT now.
How does this work? Some coworkers are also saying that some employees are due back pay from the year 2000 because of this law. We have 3 shifts that an empkoyee can work, a 24 hour shift ( EMT and Paramedic starting at $14.30 and hour, when the tentative agreement says EMT start at $11), and day 12 hour shift ( EMT makes $14.30 and Paramedic makes $17.95 and tentative agreement says EMT will start at $13.81) and last the 12 night shift ( EMT makes $16.32 and Paramedic makes $21.22).
Can you help me understand why these two shifts EMT’s can make the $14.30 an hour with this 30% above minimum wage law?
Hi Gorge,
EMTs and paramedics are subject to Wage Order No. 4. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11040.) This Wage Order was last amended in 2002. I think the subdivision you’re referencing is 3(I).
A simplified version of that subdivision is that certain types of employees are exempt from overtime rules if they are part of a collective bargaining agreement and the agreement meets certain minimum requirements.
Among those requirements, the collective bargaining agreement must:
- Expressly provides for the wages, hours of work, and working conditions of the employees;
- Expressly provide for premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked; and
- Pay for those employees not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage.
If each of these requirements are met, then the employees subject to that agreement might be exempt from California’s normal overtime rules.
But if any requirements are not met, the employer must pay their employees a regular overtime rate. California’s law on overtime wages is explained in more detail here: Overtime Wage Laws in California, Explained.
Importantly, there no legal requirement that employers or unions participate in the exemption provided in subdivision 3(I). Meaning, an employer and a union could decide to pay employees less than 30% more than the minimum wage and just follow regular overtime rules.
If your new union agreement requires all employees subject to it to be paid at least 30% more than the state minimum wage, it is possible that they are amending the agreement with this overtime exemption in mind. It is also possible that your previous agreement did not address this overtime exemption, in which case you would have been entitled to premium overtime pay at a normal rate (unless you were subject to a different exemption).
Either way, there would be no way for me to know with any certainty without first reviewing both the old and the new collective bargaining agreements. I would probably also need to review your past pay stubs. Those tasks, however, fall outside the scope of what would be appropriate in this kind of public forum.
Anyway, I hope this information helps. Please remember that this information does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on. Nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.
I wish you the best of luck in your situation!
Kyle,
Thanks for answering some things for me. It new law or what ever it is, has been somewhat of a pain because it seems like even our employer does not know anything about it but also is not telling any employees about it as well. Right now we just know that sense January 1st new to newer EMT’s are being paid $14.30 an hour, when in December 2017 they were being pain minimum wage or a little higher then minimum wage but no where near $14.30 an hour.
Most of us are really trying to wrap our head around this and figure out what is going on sense we don’t have any clue. We had found the 30% verbiage in the Industrial Welfare Commission under section 3 (hours and days of work) sub-section H. From what and some of my co-workers have found that dates back to the year 2000. Which it really does not make sense why this all changed this year.
Hi Gorge,
Thank you for your question. Do you have a citation to the law you’re referencing? Or is it just part of your collective bargaining agreement or a new policy by your employer?
I haven’t heard of any law requiring EMTs or paramedics to be paid 30% above minimum wage, but I know certain cities and counties have adopted special minimum wage rules. If I know the specific statute you were referencing, I might be able to look it up and have a better understanding of your question.
You have an employee that has zero experience on an ambulance take a semester class and get a job as an EMT getting paid the same an hour as an employee that has at least a years experience as an EMT plus goes to Paramedic school for over a year and has a base wage as a starting EMT now. How does this work?
This sounds very frustrating. Unfortunately, the law does not require employers to compensate workers fairly. It only requires them to be compensated according to the minimum requirements of the law.
So, it’s common for inexperienced workers to be paid the same rate as experienced workers. There is normally nothing unlawful about that, as long as the employer is complying with all laws and not motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
It is perfectly legal for employers to be cheap, as long as they follow the law. Hopefully your collective bargaining agreement will address this disparity.
Some coworkers are also saying that some employees are due back pay from the year 2000 because of this law.
This wouldn’t be right. If your employer was violating the law and that resulted in your receiving less than the amount you are legally owed, there would be a deadline to file your claim. This deadline is called a “statute of limitations.”
The statute of limitations for a minimum wage or unpaid wages claim is generally three years. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (a).) Meaning, employees can go back and collect up to three years of unpaid wages before the date they file their claim.
If the employee is enforcing the breach of a written employment contract, the statute of limitations is four years. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 337.)
In some cases, employees seek to extend the statute of limitations in their wage and hour claim by bringing the claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Those claims must be brought within four years. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17208.)
It is usually better, however, to bring claims earlier, if possible, so as to avoid relying on this kind of claim in case it turns out to be inapplicable.
Anyway, I hope this information helps. If you would like to learn more about California’s laws surrounding unpaid wages, please see our article: The Law on Late & Unpaid Wages in California. Or, if you’d like to learn more about California’s minimum wage laws, you can find that information in our article: Minimum Wage Law in California.
Please remember that this information does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on. Nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.
I wish you the best of luck in your situation!