Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA CMP™
As the US Supreme Court is preparing to review the contentious debate about overtime pay for sales reps, the US Solicitor General has filed an amicus curaie, or friend of the court brief, and sided with pharma reps. The move is not surprising, given that the US Department of Labor has, several times, taken a similar step in federal courts around the country where cases were heard.
Far Reaching Implications?
The review is expected to have far-reaching implications for the pharmaceutical industry, and I believe the financial services industry, as well. Why?
Both sectors have been fighting a growing number of cases nationwide over the past several years, but has had mixed results as the issue has continually divided the courts. At the same time, drug makers, Wall Street and broker-dealers have been laying off thousands of sales reps – “financial advisors”, “wealth managers” and stock brokers – as they try to cut costs and alter their business models to prepare for some level of fiduciary accountability.
At issue is whether drug reps, and FAs by extension, are exempt from overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA overtime compensation requirement does not apply to employees who work as outside salespeople, but the law does require employers to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 hours a week, unless a FLSA exemption applies.
And so, does this mean that most “financial advisors” are really stock-brokers and product pushers after all? At least in medicine, we doctors know what a pharmaceutical rep is – and we understand his/ her roll is to push pharma products, DME and drug sales.
Shouldn’t a salesman – be a salesman – and an “advisor” – be an RIA or RIA rep? I don’t often agree with the White House, but I do on this one.
FAs can’t be independent client advocates – and employees – at the same time
Now, isn’t it time for the public to know that the vast majority of FAs are just salesmen [still SBs], too? Just selling retail financial products to doctors and others; not drugs. After all, FAs can’t be independent client advocates – and employees – at the same time. And, it appears with this potential filing and ruling; that they truly wish to be the later. Now FAs, admit it!
Why do you think FAs are licensed as “registered representatives”? Rarely; a fiduciary among them!
Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.
Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com
OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:
- PRACTICES: www.BusinessofMedicalPractice.com
- HOSPITALS: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466558731
- CLINICS: http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439879900
- ADVISORS: www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org
- FINANCE: Financial Planning for Physicians and Advisors
- INSURANCE: Risk Management and Insurance Strategies for Physicians and Advisors
- Dictionary of Health Economics and Finance
- Dictionary of Health Information Technology and Security
- Dictionary of Health Insurance and Managed Care
Filed under: Career Development, CMP Program, Drugs and Pharma, Ethics | Tagged: Are Financial Advisors Professionals or Employee Sales Representatives?, CFP, CMP, Dr. David Marcinko, fiduciary, financial advisors, RIA, stock-brokers, wealth managers, www.certifiedmedicalplanner.com |