I think the reason for this suggestion is if you don't want to have one extra field in your result set.
If this is not a problem for you, you can use your original select and don't use derived table (not sure if there would be any slowdown by doing this anyway, probably not).

>I'm not following? Wait a minute... I think I see... I'm going to try that, hold the phone.
>
>>Yes, something like that. You may have to specify ORDER BY by column # if SQL Server complains. You can also get rid of that additional column using current query as derived table
>>
>>SELECT Empid, EmpName, OverTime, DoubleTime, TotalHours1 FROM (
>> -- your select here
>> -- Order by column position instead of names
>> ORDER BY 1,6
>>) dt1
>>
>snip...
>>>snip...