Salaries
Effective December 1, 2016 it says:

The Final Rule sets the standard salary level at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census Region, currently the South ($913 per week, equivalent to $47,476 per year for a full-year worker).
The Final Rule sets the HCE total annual compensation level equal to the 90th percentile of earnings of full-time salaried workers nationally ($134,004 annually). To be exempt as an HCE, an employee must also receive at least the new standard salary amount of $913 per week on a salary or fee basis and pass a minimal duties test.
Although the FLSA ensures minimum wage and overtime pay protections for most employees covered by the Act, some workers, including bona fide EAP employees, are exempt from those protections.  Since 1940, the Department's regulations have generally required each of three tests to be met for the FLSA's EAP exemption to apply:

the employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed ("salary basis test");
the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount ("salary level test"); and
the employee's job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties as defined by the regulations ("duties test"). "
The Final Rule includes a mechanism to automatically update the standard salary level requirement every three years to ensure that it remains a meaningful test for distinguishing between overtime-protected white collar workers and bona fide EAP workers who may not be entitled to overtime pay and to provide predictability and more graduated salary changes for employers. Specifically, the standard salary level will be updated to maintain a threshold equal to the 40th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census Region.

For the first time, employers will be able to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level. Such payments may include, for example, nondiscretionary incentive bonuses tied to productivity and profitability.
A general rule for comparing periodic salaries to hourly wages is based on a standard 40-hour work week with 50 weeks per year (minus two weeks for vacation). (Example: $40,000/year periodic salary divided by 50 weeks equals $800/week. Divide $800/week by 40 standard hours equals $20/hour).

Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe operates on a two tier system being wages and salaries. Wages are managed by the National Employment Council (NEC). Each sector has its own NEC; i.e. agriculture, communications, mining, catering, educational institutions, etc. On the council are representatives from the unions and the employers. The public sector is under the Public Service Commission and wages and salaries are negotiated there.
Wages are negotiated annually or biennially for minimum wages, basic working conditions and remunerations. If there is a stalemate it goes for arbitration with the Ministry of labour. The ruling will become binding on all companies in that industry. Industries often then use their associations to negotiate and air their views. For example, the mining industry nominates an employee within the chamber of mines to attend all meetings and subcommittee with industry players is a forum for discussions.
Salaries are negotiated by the respective employees. However, NEC obviously affects the relativity and almost acts as a barometer for salaried staff. Salaries and wages in Zimbabwe are normally paid monthly. Most companies' pay around the 20th does allow various statutory payments and processing for the month end. Government employees are also staggered to ease the cash flow though teachers are paid around mid-month being 16th. Agricultural workers are normally paid on the very last day of the month as they are contract employees.
Zimbabwe is a highly banked society with most salaries being banked. All government employees are paid through the bank. Since "dollarisation" (movement from the Zimbabwean dollar to USD) Zimbabwe has been moving toward a more informal sector and these are paid in 'brown envelopes'.
PAYE (Pay As You Earn) is a significant contributor to tax being 45%. Given the high unemployment rate the tax is quite heavy. This of course captures those that pay and keep records properly. The average salary is probably $250. This is skewed downwards by the large number of government employees whose average salary is around there. At the top end salaries are quite competitive and this is to be able to attract the right skills though the cost of living is high so it balances this out. A top-earning Zimbabwean spends a lot more money on necessities than say a South African top earner. This is more evident when a comparison with USA or England is done. The need to have a generator, borehole or buy water or take care of the extended family since there is no welfare given the government's financial position.
In the hyperinflation days salaries was the cheapest factor of production given that it was paid so irregularly though it went to twice monthly. As workers could not withdraw their money, remuneration was often in the following forms:

Fuel coupons were most popular and individuals were paid in liters of fuel
The product that the company is selling; e.g. pork/meat for the abattoirs
Foreign currency payment was illegal and one had to seek special dispensation or had to show that their revenue/funding was received in foreign currency like NGOs or exporters
Shares for the listed companies on the stock market (not in the traditional option scheme but just getting shares)
Prices were price controlled. By remunerating in the product it basically allowed the employees to side sell for real value.
Zimbabwe traditionally had a competitive advantage in its cost of labor. With "dollarisation" and higher cost of living this is slowly being eroded. For example, an average farm employee probably earned the equivalent of $20 but could buy a basket of goods currently worth $500. Now, the average farm worker earns $80 and that basket of goods is, as mentioned, $500, the basket being soap, meal, school fees, protein foods, etc.

Negotiation of salary: Prior to the acceptance of an employment offer, the prospective employee usually has the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the offer. This primarily focuses on salary, but extends to benefits, work arrangements, and other amenities as well. Negotiating salary can potentially lead the prospective employee to a higher salary. In fact, a 2009 study of employees indicated that those who negotiated salary saw an average increase of $4,913 from their original salary offer. In addition, the employer is able to feel more confident that they have hired an employee with strong interpersonal skills and the ability to deal with conflict. Negotiating salary will thus likely yield an overall positive outcome for both sides of the bargaining table.
Perhaps the most important aspect of salary negotiation is the level of preparation put in by the prospective employee. Background research on comparable salaries will help the prospective employee understand the appropriate range for that position. Assessment of alternative offers that the prospective employee has already received can help in the negotiation process. Research on the actual company itself will help identify where concessions can be made by the company and what may potentially be considered off-limits. These items, and more, can be organized into a
negotiations planning document that can be used in the evaluation of the offers received from the employer.

Effects of perspective: The same 2009 study highlighted the personality differences and negotiation mind-sets that contributed to successful outcomes. Overall, individuals who are risk-averse (e.g., worried about appearing ungrateful for the job offer) tended to avoid salary negotiations or use very weak approaches to the negotiation process. On the contrary, those who were more risk-tolerant engaged in negotiations more frequently and demonstrated superior outcomes. Individuals who approached the negotiation as a distributive problem (i.e. viewing the a higher salary as a win for him/her and a loss to the employer) ended up with an increased salary, but lower rate of satisfaction upon completion. Those who approached the negotiation as an integrative problem (i.e. viewing the negotiation process an opportunity to expand the realm of possibilities and help both parties achieve a “win” outcome) were able to both secure an increased salary and an outcome they were truly satisfied with.

Gender differences: Salary disparities between men and women may partially be explained by differences in negotiation tactics used by men and women. Although men and women are equally likely to initiate in a salary negotiation with employers, men will achieve higher outcomes than women by about 2% of starting salary Studies have indicated that men tend to use active negotiation tactics of directly asking for a higher salary, while women tend to use more of an indirect approach by emphasizing self-promotion tactics (e.g. explaining the motivation to be a good employee). Other research indicates that early-childhood play patterns may influence the way men and women negotiate. Men and women tend to view salary differently in terms of relative importance. Overall level of confidence in a negotiation may also be a determinant of why men tend to achieve higher outcomes in salary negotiations. Finally, the awareness of this stereotype alone may directly cause women to achieve lower outcomes as one study indicates. Regardless of the cause, the outcome yields a disparity between men and women that contributes to the overall wage gap observed in many nations.