[nixgeek]

That’s inaccurate (IMO) and there’s nothing saying the minimum ‘accrual period’ for earnings is weekly as an exempt employee. Potentially differs by state and I’d be interested to learn of any where it is different, please cite?

It’s quite normal to see people start Tuesday on payroll, finish on Thursday, and they don’t get paid those whole weeks. They typically get those days paid, even if for example you “offboard” by lunchtime on your last day of work.

[willcipriano]

I don't know of any that are different, but salary law is consistent enough to know that the salary starts when the employee begins work, so in this case, moving the start date up is what is happening even if the employer isn't acknowledging it. The same goes if the employer says the start date is 1/1 but you only show up at 1/2. The salary starts when the work starts, and doesn't stop so long as you show up once a week or so.

From California but similar everywhere:

> Pursuant to California law, an exempt employee must receive his or her full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work without regard to the number of days, or hours worked.

https://www.yourlegalcorner.com/articles.asp?id=135&cat=emp

If employers don't like this, they can pay overtime instead.

[nixgeek]

That’s a good citation (thanks!) but it covers the period of time when you’re legally an employee, thus if you start Tuesday you’re not one Monday, and if you finish Thursday you’re not one on Friday.

In this case with OP, my guess is that left them two choices:

1/ Accelerate start and then as you note, pay the whole period even though it sounded like this occurred before Christmas, was only a few calls then a vacation.

2/ Pay an invoice, which is mucky since it’ll probably involve supplier setup via AP, they’re clearly a W-2 equivalent person so perhaps this complicates other things like tax or benefits, etc.

If the person is “unencumbered” (not currently employed or subject to something contractual like garden leave which prevents them assuming the new employment) and if there was real value to having them participate in the calls then certainly the easiest would be (1.) - and IME, this is how larger employers would do it.

[willcipriano]

They may certainly claim that he wasn't a employee, however he would be working under their explicit direction to accomplish a task they asked him to complete. It doesn't matter one whit how the company classified him, he is a employee from the second he dials into that call. I can't tell you to put a paper hat on and flip burgers then not pay you since "you don't really work here until next week, just thought you might want to get ahead on the burger project."

Consider this, I don't know what this software does but a lot of the conversations around software are confidential. Did they just invite a random stranger into a call with potentially privileged information?