Slashdot Mirror

Your ridiculously sexist off-the-cuff statistics are *surprise*, completely wrong. Women actually make up 47% of the workforce. If only you had bothered to do 2 seconds of googling before you made yourself look like an idiot.

This is the same reason raising minimum wage causes a net loss in employment.

Except it doesn't see https://www.dol.gov/featured/m... from the Department of Labor.

Do you consider the teenager from next door who charges you $10 to mow your lawn to be a "professional?" Yes, or no.

Sorry, but I mow my own lawn myself, so I don't consider that situation at all.

Now if you want to talk to the IRS, they do have standards. So might your insurance.

There are certainly regulations regarding the employment of minors, that's for sure.

And lawnmowing does result in a number of injuries.

So while I don't hire anybody to mow my lawn, if you do, then I suggest you take the time to think about who is going to be made to pay if something goes wrong.

BTW, to get back on the subject of UAS, just in case you're curious, the Academy of Model Aeronautics does have an insurance program, so I suggest if you do want to fly a device covered under their policies, you consider what benefits that might offer you.

And, unsurprisingly, the source you quoted is a BANKER operation uninterested in jobs
As opposed to, say, Dept of labor
Minimum wage mythbuster, for instance. or Center for Economic Progress demonstrating that no such job loss exists and why the Bankers keep repeating the lie and...seriously. Do try some actual research for like, 3 seconds.

Many companies test because they are required to by law because they do business with the Government.

That isn't true, but often company HR departments think it is true, citing the "Drug-Free Workplace Act". This is a quote from the Department of Labor FAQ about that:

Is drug testing required or authorized under these regulations?

The Act and these rules neither require nor authorize drug testing. The legislative history of the Drug-Free Workplace Act indicates that Congress did not intend to impose any additional requirements beyond those set forth in the Act. Specifically, the legislative history precludes the imposition of drug testing of employees as part of the implementation of the Act. At the same time, these rules in no way preclude employers from conducting drug testing programs in response to government requirements (e.g., Department of Transportation or Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules) or on their own independent legal authority.

I have found that trying to explain that no it isn't "required by law" to an HR drone is a pointless exercise.

I know more people working 40+ hours / week who earn below the poverty line

Do you know what the Federal Poverty Line is?

The Federal Poverty Level is $11,880 for an individual, $20,160 for a family of three - dividing that by 2,000 hours of work (50 weeks of 40 hour "full-time" employment = 2,000 hours) puts your friends at either $5.94/hr or $10.80/hr.

These workers are at the very bottom of the income spectrum, based on federal law that makes it a crime to pay a worker less than $7.25/hr.

In your scenario, the problem is caused by automation in the beginning, not a rise in minimum wage. Businesses can easily avoid higher labor costs incurred by minimum wage by transitioning full time workers to part time or decreasing the amount of hours worked.

The chain of events also seems to be very tenuous logic. Here's another cycle based on the same type of reasoning: The minimum wage will increase earnings in the time between the law changing and people getting laid off. A bunch of people with extra money is a boom to business, which leads them to hire more to handle demand, which in turn raises wages further, completely averting the recessionary cycle. A cursory glance suggests both cycles are possible. So how do we know which one makes sense? We look at experimental data. There's a number of studies done on the subject, but I think the Dept. of Labor is a good place to start.

From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets).

I used to believe the same thing, but apparently it's not as simple as that. For instance, according to the department of labour it's actually myth that increases to the minimum wage cause unemployment. They cite a letter signed by 600 economists (including 7 Nobel Prize winners) that claims that recent research shows that raising the minimum wage doesn't lead to job losses and furthermore it actually tends to reduce unemployment by mildly stimulating the economy.

There are well known exceptions:

http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/w...

"Youth younger than 16 years of age working in nonagricultural employment in a business solely owned by their parents or by persons standing in place of their parents, may work any time of day and for any number of hours. However, parents are prohibited from employing their child in manufacturing or mining or in any of the occupations declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor.

In addition, the child labor rules do not apply to:

        Youth employed as actors or performers in motion pictures, theatrical, radio, or television productions;

        Youth engaged in the delivery of newspapers to consumers; and

        Youth working at home in the making of wreaths composed of natural holly, pine, cedar, or other evergreens (including the harvesting of the evergreens)."

You are talking about laws of a developed country that has social welfare, free education, free medicine for the poor, free housing for the poor.

I am talking about countries that have none of that. Where the children will starve to death if they do not work.

Have you been to India?

There are well known exceptions:

http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/w...

"Youth younger than 16 years of age working in nonagricultural employment in a business solely owned by their parents or by persons standing in place of their parents, may work any time of day and for any number of hours. However, parents are prohibited from employing their child in manufacturing or mining or in any of the occupations declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor.

In addition, the child labor rules do not apply to:

        Youth employed as actors or performers in motion pictures, theatrical, radio, or television productions;
        Youth engaged in the delivery of newspapers to consumers; and
        Youth working at home in the making of wreaths composed of natural holly, pine, cedar, or other evergreens (including the harvesting of the evergreens)."

Here is what one is dealing with in the DRC:

The Democratic Republic of Congo remains plagued by wide-ranging conflict between government forces that historically have been backed by Angola, Namibia, and Zimbabwe and rebels supported by Uganda and Rwanda. Much of the eastern part of the country remains embroiled in conflict. In 2006, Joseph Kabila won the first multi-party election in 40 years. He was re-elected in December 2011 in a flawed and violent election. Rebel groups including the Lord's Resistance Army, M23, and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda remain active in the eastern regions. Renewed violence has led to massive population displacement and atrocities against civilians. The DRC continues to host the U.N.'s largest peacekeeping mission. Political instability, lack of transparency, and systematic corruption undermine economic growth.

17% of children 5-14 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo work. This is despite 67% attending school, and 16.2% of the children go to school and work.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has ratified all key international conventions concerning child labor, including a minimum age to work of 16. But obviously it isn't enforced (if it is enforceable).

Children are required to attend school only up to age 15. This standard makes children who are 15 years of age who do not have an apprenticeship particularly vulnerable to the worst forms of child labor, as they are not required to be in school but are not legally permitted to work either

More info here.

You and all these other folks need to a) review FLSA guidlines and b) stop it.

And seriously, B. If you and all the other idiots would simply STOP WORKING STUPID HOURS the industry would stop expecting it.

It's machismo. Computer nerds look down their noses at jocks or 'regular' office workers because they carry around this intellectual superiority crap; "well, since everyone else around here is so stupid, looks like Super Me will have to work all weekend again and get the job done."

Federal poverty line is a bullshit number.

I did my calculations using the retail price of goods, plus risk reserves. A surprising amount of that is just extra cash thrown in because my calculations may be off, there may be a recession, prices may spike now and then (look at eggs), or people may occasionally spend irresponsibly (a monthly payment instead of lump-sum per year *really* provides a huge control for that particular risk, since you can only screw up one month; I do expect people to learn, readily, if they're not already fiscally-responsible accountants. They're poor, not retarded).

The Federal poverty line for a single individual is around $12k, and the numbers I give are well below that.

If you're on the bottom economic rung, an apartment/house of your own should not be expected.

224sqft. Enough for a 6'x9' bedroom (I actually spend much of my time in a room that size, with a futon, a computer desk, a 32 inch TV, video games...) and a 10'x9' common room, plus a bathroom and small kitchen tacked on. Low-income apartments have a median cost per square foot of roughly $1, although I've seen as low as 60 cents; with the risk reserve, I accounted $1.33/sqft.

That's for one individual, no room mates, no kids. If you've got a room mate (married?), you're getting twice the income. I pegged immigrants and families to a legacy public aid system, which doesn't support the adult population at all (except non-natural-born citizens) and so is much smaller--consequentially, less risk of abuse, so we can accept proportionally more fraud and focus on getting aid to families who need it. That means $1,100/month (in 2013) plus aid to feed and clothe your kids.

This is tied to the total income, and essentially to the per capita income, which always grows (GDP is the same number). You'll notice it's not a straight line; while there's a constant growth trend, the fluctuations are risk. That risk reserve thing I talked about? It's for that, too. In theory, as long as we don't dip below, say, 2013 (my established baseline), it continues to work without activating risk reserves; the minimum viable is a 2009 baseline.

By the by, being in the military counts as "Resident". On top of your military pay, you'd have the dividend going home to your spouse, or whatever you want to do with it. I advocate against paying citizens who don't live here; if a Chinawoman comes to Hawaii to birth a baby and then goes back to China, we shouldn't pay that kid money when he turns 18, having lived his life in China, living in China, working in China, having American citizenship. If he lives in America, well... he's a natural-born American and entitled to that money. Yes, I have thought of every possible risk--even the risks I can't name (most of which would just tank the economy anyway, so my answer is "nothing works then, so I haven't bothered").

Finances, economics, taxes... I've juggled too much money looking at this. I even wrote my own economic theories because the state-of-the-art was inadequate and couldn't explain a lot of economic behaviors. Can you believe nobody could explain why we have welfare systems, why welfare systems are possible *now* but not in 1750, or what causes Supply and Demand and scarcity? Like they could tell you prices increase when demand outpaces supply, but they couldn't tell you why supply wouldn't just increase to keep up with demand. (Hint: it's labor. Supply lasts as long as linear scaling; scarcity occurs when labor requirements scale superlinearly. That's part of why the per-capita incom

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/co...

Say a lawful U.S. resident no longer qualifies for a driver's license because of auto-brewery syndrome. So instead, she plans to take the bus to and from work. But the bus doesn't run 24/7; it's closed at night, on Saturday evenings, and all day 58 days out of the year. (Source: fwcitilink.com) And her employer refuses to give her more bus-friendly hours, instead threatening to fire her.

I thought employers with at least 15 employees were required to accommodate an employee's disability. What am I missing?

http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage...

To whom does the minimum wage apply?
The minimum wage law (the FLSA) applies to employees of enterprises that have annual gross volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000.

It also applies to employees of smaller firms if the employees are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, such as employees who work in transportation or communications or who regularly use the mails or telephones for interstate communications. Other persons, such as guards, janitors, and maintenance employees who perform duties which are closely related and directly essential to such interstate activities are also covered by the FLSA. It also applies to employees of federal, state or local government agencies, hospitals and schools, and it generally applies to domestic workers.

The model of relying on a business to provide benefits to its employees in lieu of the government or the employees themselves turns the employee into a serf, unable to leave in fear of losing their benefits. COBRA was the last grand experiment in government meddling in "portable" healthcare benefits and it was by all accounts a miserable failure.

Explain this to me, I run a small company, how is it you think you can stop me from outsourcing work to other countries (and I do that) when not outsourcing is so much more expensive in terms of regulations, taxes, laws, never mind hourly wages, so how do you do that exactly?

What do you think you can do to prevent an owner of a company from hiring people ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD exactly? Ha!

I don't know, the law? http://www.dol.gov/whd/immigra...

Unless you're a business owner who doesn't mind breaking the law to make more money. In which case, go for it.

What IS the difference between a contractor and an "employee",

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/co...

The most important one is: "6) The nature and degree of control by the employer. Analysis of this factor includes who sets pay amounts and work hours and who determines how the work is performed, as well as whether the worker is free to work for others and hire helpers"

If the allegations are true, Amazon sets the hours, sets the pay, requires uniforms and interacts only with individuals. That makes the workers misclassified employees, not independent contractors.

Employers aren't required to give you anything when they let you go, other than your final paycheck for whatever time you've worked but they haven't yet paid.

It depends. If they've got 100 or more employees and they're laying off 50 or more in one geographical area it's likely considered a mass layoff and they're required to publish a 60 day notice under the WARN act. Usually the way companies get around it if they want to give no notice is pay everybody for the 60 days that they would have still had a job. They could say in the severance "we're paying you to keep working for us for 60 days, but we don't want you to come in unless we call you" and that might not be considered unconscionable. But paying you for 60 days and expecting you to be on call for 2 years? That probably won't fly anywhere.

The interesting thing is in the 80s there was even fewer girls into computers then now.

Well that would be a lot more interesting if it were true. Lets see what the department of labor says about that:

http://www.dol.gov/wb/factshee...

Scroll down to the 2nd graph "Employed computer systems analysts, scientists by sex 1983 - 2001"

In the 80s women made up nearly half, and the gap has increased. So there were in fact more women computer scientists and systems analysts in the 80 than now. Not less. That pretty much trashes your entire thesis.

But you know what, I completely agree with you that men and women are likely biased towards different things. And I agree its pretty likely in a world with no sexism men would still be prevalent in some fields and women prevalent in others. I don't dispute that. I'm not suggesting every job needs to be 50:50 men and women or: sexism !!

But just because that is true, that doesn't mean sexism doesn't exist, and isn't a problem in any industry.

Additionally, when the women who ARE in tech leave tech they most frequently cite the culture as being the primary issue. That doesn't line up with your thesis that they aren't interested in the subject... they WERE interested in the subject, they enjoyed the subject, they left in droves because of the culture. And yeah... I have cites for that... three different studies.

http://www.npr.org/sections/al...

http://www.fastcoexist.com/301...

http://fortune.com/2014/10/02/...

Not totally convinced? That's fine; you owe it to your own intellectual integrity to accept that maybe the situation is more complicated than "women don't like computers as much as you do" after all.

So when you talk about sexism, give me a fucking break. No. Scratch that. There is a problem of sexism in tech : women are privileged over men.

In the sense that all these over-the-top-sexist (pro-feminist) and highly ineffective programs to get women back into tech exist, I completely agree. They don't solve anything, and if anything make things worse. They are part of the problem, but they are not the entire problem by a long shot.

In the USA, generally, hourly employees whose travel is required for the job must be paid for their travel time, with the exception of home to work (and work to home).

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/w...

So why, exactly, does the DoL have 5-tray DVD burners in the first place?

The DoL publishes a shitload of documents. They used to publish it all on paper. Now they publish it on the Internet, but at one time they could presumably save a lot of money if they published it on DVDs. If you want a report of every workplace fatality in the US in 2005, that's a lot of paper that you could fit on 1 DVD.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/public...
https://www.osha.gov/

(But that's assuming the DoL did have 5-tray DVD burners. The article just says that the guy used 5-tray DVD burners. It doesn't say that he used the DoL's 5-tray DVD burners.)

Preaching to the choir, man. My wife was laid off the day she came back from FMLA leave after our oldest was born. In our case it wasn't unexpected, it was a situation in which during her time out we did math and figured out it was actually less expensive for her to stay home instead of working and paying for daycare. But with at-will employment, yeah, it's tough to prove that you're being fired for using FMLA instead of whatever trumped-up bullshit they're trying to use as an excuse.

Strictly speaking, FMLA does not necessarily require you to use any paid time off you've accrued, but either 1) you can elect to, or 2) your employer can require you to use any accrued PTO. See here.

Yes, the law asks for that. In practice, once every single group asks for a "reasonable" accommodation, sometimes pushing the limit of the definition (but even if it wasnt), it fucking adds up. A lot.

Actually, it doesn't cost a lot.

Myth: Providing accommodations for people with disabilities is expensive.

Fact: The majority of workers with disabilities do not need accommodations to perform their jobs, and for those who do, the cost is usually minimal. According to the Job Accommodation Network (JAN), a service from the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy, 57% of accommodations cost absolutely nothing to make, while the rest typically cost only $500. Moreover, tax incentives are available to help employers cover the costs of accommodations, as well as modifications required to make their businesses accessible to persons with disabilities.
http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/f...

According to the Department of Labor, your statement is wrong.

According to your reference, my statement is correct. Read the "six criteria". Unpaid internships are illegal, if the intern does any actual work. Twenty years ago, this was not strictly enforced. Today it is. You can legally provide pure education to a student, with no actual work whatsoever, but that is not what an "internship" means to anyone.

So do all the media companies have to redefine what "actual work" means? They seem to be the most offensive industry as far as sheer volume of unpaid internships.

According to the Department of Labor, your statement is wrong.

According to your reference, my statement is correct. Read the "six criteria". Unpaid internships are illegal, if the intern does any actual work. Twenty years ago, this was not strictly enforced. Today it is. You can legally provide pure education to a student, with no actual work whatsoever, but that is not what an "internship" means to anyone.

I always thought unpaid internships were relegated to liberal arts students ..?

Unpaid internships are illegal in the United States. They are a blatant violation of minimum wages laws. In the past, a few companies got away with it, by claiming the internships were purely education, and didn't involve any work. But that loophole was effectively closed more than a decade ago. If you worked an unpaid internship, you likely have the right to demand full retroactive back pay, if you even so much as fetched your boss a cup of coffee.

According to the Department of Labor, your statement is wrong. I agree that unpaid internships SHOULD be illegal, but there are circumstances in which they are allowed.

The Dept of Labor has info on what qualifies.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/f...

I believe that the purpose of that threshold is to prevent employers from claiming anyone below it is salaried. Overtime pay for non-salaried employees is a legal requirement in the U.S. And, yes some unions have negotiated higher multiples, but 1.5 is the minimum for hourly.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/co...

Am I missing something here?

Yes, two things.

The first thing is that you are using your own definitions and not the ones applied by labor law. There are six guidelines by Department of Labor. (Integral to business, permanency of relationship, worker's investment in equipment and facilities, nature and degree of control by principal, worker's opportunity of profit/loss, and skill/training necessary. While your brief lists are interesting, they don't match what the government actually uses.

The second thing you are missing is the definition of contractors. This is about the legally defined "independent contractor" or 1099'er, that are one type of contractor who is effectively a person operating as a business. There are other types of jobs that people refer to as contractors, such as short term employment (w2 with a time limit), or cases where employees of one company are brought in to work with another company's employees. Their decision is only about the 1099 style of contracting, which Uber uses.

---

Going through each of the government requirements as they apply to Uber and your Ebay seller example:

Integral test. Uber's core business is connecting people for rides and moving funds between accounts. Drivers provide rides using the service, but they aren't integral to the business of connecting people (although they are necessary to implement the task). Ebay sellers similarly use the service, but aren't integral in providing the service. MOSTLY NEUTRAL, slight bias toward employee.

Permanency test. Some Uber drivers meet this, others don't. Those who infrequently pick up riders, those who are on for an hour or two during the day, they're not really permanent. The ones who have used Uber to replace their income, or drive for many hours each day, they're much more permanent. Most ebay sellers are extremely transitory, having items up for under a week, or using it as a store front for goods that are constantly rotated. WEAK FAIL, some people biased towards employee, others biased toward 1099'er, so maybe some people should be reclassified.

Investment test. Uber has some investment through insurance and their guarantees, but leaves most of the cost to the individual. They've got a weak investment. Ebay has nothing invested in the sellers. WEAK FAIL, the long list of guarantees and insurance they offer to their drivers pushes toward employee.

Nature and degree of control test. Uber has a high amount of control, coordinating all the details of rides,establishing fares, and causing the drivers to be redistributed based on their algorithms, and requirements about the cleanliness and maintenance of the vehicle, but they also have weak control in other areas by not dictating work hours and a few other details. Ebay has zero control. STRONG FAIL, Uber's heavy control over what drivers do pushes strongly toward employee.

Opportunity of P/L test. Uber sets the fare cost, and takes a cut, the driver gets no options. There is no opportunity for additional profit or loss. Nothing they do personally can modify their results, get more business, get better rates, or otherwise modify the opportunity of profit and loss. For the ebay example, Ebay sellers can operate under whatever terms they choose, including running full brick-and-mortar stores, which many sellers start and operate as. STRONG FAIL, these "independent contractor" Uber drivers cannot operate as a business independently.

Level of skill/business acumen test. Uber drivers are hired for being able to drive. They cannot really market themselves independently, take good advantage of business insights, leverage their own personal strengths, modify their business based on any personal skills or talents. Nothing they do personally can modify their products or results. Strong contrast with Ebay where sellers have a large degree of control over what they do and how they do it, what they sell

Remember Ernest Rutherford, the arrogant physicist who was saying that all of science is either physics or stamp collecting?. Here on Slashdot, because many of us are self or well-employed developers and computer scientists, we think that we can easily figure out even the most vexing problems relating to the economy. In particular minimum wages are of course for slackers, never mind that first summer job we got ages ago.

How about some interesting myth busters?.

pays their full-time workers so little that they can't afford food or a place to live without welfare and foodstamps?

Could you please provide a source for this claim? In 2014, the Wal-Mart blog fisked a hit piece that was claiming things similar to what you just claimed, and pointed out that the average hourly wage at Wal-Mart was $12.91 per hour (and that is specifically not including highly-paid management).

http://blog.walmart.com/fact-check-the-new-york-times-the-corporate-daddy

How does it help me that my tax dollars have to subsidize Walmart employees

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/13/apologies-but-welfare-payments-to-employees-are-not-subsidies-to-walmart-and-mcdonalds/

Wal-Mart makes about 3% profit. In comparison, Apple Computer makes about 24% profit. Additionally, Wal-Mart has a more ethnically diverse set of employees than Apple Computer has. You seem to hate Wal-Mart; do you hate Apple Computer even more?

https://www.aei.org/publication/every-month-walmart-gets-one-profit-day-from-its-sales-while-apple-gets-7-5/

Also, low-income people like to shop at Wal-Mart because the low prices are a benefit. Some economists have written papers attempting to estimate the impact.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/11/walmart-destroys-jobs-yes-but-the-benefits-go-to-consumers-not-the-top/
http://www.nber.org/papers/w11809

So, to summarize: Wal-Mart pays a lot of taxes, employs a lot of people at an average hourly rate 78% over the US federal minimum wage, and benefits the poor by helping them spend less on the things they need.

I just don't understand all the Wal-Mart hate.

It is not immediate, it is economic growth. Every time the minimum goes up the economy gets a boost which leads to more jobs. That growth stagnates and declines when inflation overtakes the gains. Inflation has shown NO change to its rate of growth in relation to minimum wage hikes. Ever. it grows whether or not wages keep up- but the economy suffers if wages do not keep up.
http://www.dol.gov/minwage/myt...
http://www.cepr.net/documents/...

What country are you in? The LMGTFY link goes to google.com, but the locality settings for Google will over-ride that, so your search from outside the USA will not give the results anyone going to google.com would get. I got none of the links you mention. I got http://www.raisetheminimumwage... and http://www.dol.gov/minwage/myt...

Yes, it was as easy as putting the quoted words in my post into Google.

Workers who are in positions where they are 'tipped' earn a minimum wage of a little over $2/hour, plus those tips. They pay taxes on those earnings plus an IRS-calculated percentage based on the receipts from their tables, whether they were tipped or not. Tips are an excuse to underpay staff.

The minimum direct wage is about $2/hour; however, the minimum total wage is still $7.25/hour. If direct wages + tips end up less than $7.25/hour, the employer pays the difference so that the employee makes $7.25/hour. See http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm

The US Federal law requires providing you with 2 10 minute breaks, in addition to your 30 minute lunch.

It should, but it does not and only a handful of states require breaks.

The US Federal law requires providing you with 2 10 minute breaks, in addition to your 30 minute lunch.

It should, but it does not and only a handful of states require breaks.

Actually, for most definitions of HR, it doesn't matter what they think about polygraph tests. In most cases, they aren't allowed to ask you to take one, and you can pretty much always refuse if they do.

See "Computer Employee Exemption" http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtim...

To qualify for the computer employee exemption, the following tests must be met:

• * The employee must be compensated either on a salary or fee basis at a rate not less than $455 per week or, if compensated on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour;
• * The employee must be employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer or other similarly skilled worker in the computer field performing the duties described below;
• * The employee’s primary duty must consist of:
• • * The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;
  • * The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;
  • * The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
  • * A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.

The computer employee exemption does not include employees engaged in the manufacture or repair of computer hardware and related equipment. Employees whose work is highly dependent upon, or facilitated by, the use of computers and computer software programs (e.g., engineers, drafters and others skilled in computer-aided design software), but who are not primarily engaged in computer systems analysis and programming or other similarly skilled computer-related occupations identified in the primary duties test described above, are also not exempt under the computer employee exemption.

If the "computer professional" part is removed, then the entire exemption goes away (unless one of the other exemptions applies). The other exemptions only apply to other specific jobs, excepting the "highly compensated" exemption, which is currently pegged at $100,000 per year.

For programmers in CA, normally they are non-exempt, although I'm sure many skirt around it. My understanding is if you want a favorable equity package, you'll accept exempt status. If you want an hourly wage and a life, you declare non-exempt.

Both the Department of Labor and the courts disagree with your assessment.

The actual job duties themselves, not the job title, not the method of payment (hourly vs salary), and not the contract, determine if an individual worker is exempt from overtime rules.

This has been challenged time and time again in the courts. The concept of a "working foreman" is often mentioned since management is exempt from overtime. If the individual can show that at least half the time is spent on non-management tasks they are not exempt. If you spend 49% of your time or less doing management tasks you are not exempt. Even if your job title is "Managing Director", even if your contract calls you an exempt worker.

Although you are correct about the fact that the job duties matter, rather than the simple title, and you are correct about the fact that companies will give you a title, declare that you're salaried and therefore exempt, and try all sorts of other tricks to avoid paying overtime, you're wrong about one crucial thing - there's also an exemption for programmers:

Computer workers may be exempt under any of the "white collar exemptions," as bona fide executive or administrative employees. (See, FLSA Coverage.) For example, a "network administrator" may be performing administratively exempt job duties. There are, in addition, some special rules which apply to employees who work with computers and permit them to be classified as exempt even if they don't meet the usual requirements for exempt executives or administrators. However, there are special provisions which exempt some computer employees who might not otherwise qualify as "professionally" exempt. These include systems analysts, programmers (who "write code"), or software engineers. More specifically, the special computer employee exemption applies to workers who apply systems analysis techniques and procedures to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications, or who design, develop, test or modify computer systems or programs based on user or design specifications.

And that's what the article and thread are discussing - programmers. Here is the fact sheet from the DOL. If you:

• are compensated either on a salary or fee basis at a rate not less than $455 per week or, if compensated on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour; and
• are employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer or other similarly skilled worker in the computer field,

then you probably are exempt from overtime.

Would you prefer they continue to suffer without offering resistance then? Do you believe they had some readily available option which they refusedf to use? That is a bit hard to say from the perspective of people over a century later.

You could ask Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, even Moses, their thoughts as well.

Well let's have a look at the times before modern labor unions:

In the eighteenth century something approximating permanent labor organizations or trade unions were beginning to emerge from the industrialization of Great Britain. But in colonial America, as a general rule, the laborer procured the terms desired without having to combine with others. When American workers did take concerted action, it was invariably for a specific grievance and did not result in a permanent organization. The cases where master carpenters set up price scales for their trade are the exception. In certain trades, master workers combined to secure or maintain a monopoly of business operations and to prevent others from entering their trades, but such restraints were rapidly diminishing as the eighteenth century advanced. In the licensed trades, those who acted in concert were generally the employers. They combined with others in the same trade to secure better fees or prices, which were customarily regulated by local authority for the public interest. Today such combinations would be subject to antitrust laws.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdo...

Which by the way, this also explains why trade unions were VERY unpopular during the early years of America. Ben Franklin in particular was outspoken against them.

Hiring people just to give them a paycheck is the ditch diggers fallacy. Spending money to dig ditches and fill them in moves money around, but doesn't actually produce anything of value - at the end you've spent money but have nothing to show for it. It would be better to use use that same money to produce something (anything) of value, so society benefits. http://theclassicalliberalblog...

The fallacy of that analysis is the economic multiplier of paying someone to work. http://www.economicsonline.co.... I've seen estimated multipliers of 1.6 to 2.0 every dollar spent on unemployment payouts http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/p...

As the above article points out, paying unemployment saves other people's jobs by virtue of the fact that the unemployment dollars are spent. This interesting secondary factor which is unemployment once people find jobs roughly equivalent to what they had before. If people were forced to take low paying jobs, cutting their income to a fraction was before, the economic multiplier works the other way that we lose twice as much economic activity as the person lost in wages.

So, I'm cool with paying people to dig ditches and then fill them in, (it would be nice if there were publicly owned fiber in the bottom of the ditch). More people working, getting paid, buying necessities keeps other people working and the economy grows. Starve people's financial resources, reduces demand, the economy shrinks, more people are starved for financial resources and you spiral down. It's the law of supply and demand, no supply of money, no demand for goods.

Oops, forgot link: http://www.dol.gov/minwage/cha...

Agreed. It's not advertising's fault, it's not anybody's fault. There is nothing for which there is fault to be assigned. "The number of women coders today" is as irrelevant to actual scientific data as saying there is something wrong with my fork-full of spaghetti because of the lack of meat-balls in this bite when there will be plenty of meat-balls in the next bite. Don't decry an unbalanced demographic based on "right now" because "right now" will be different tomorrow. No profession is going to have equal numbers of men, women, and an even mix of ethnicities. How many men go into careers as aestheticians? Here's the STFU statistic: In 2007, "Women accounted for 51% of persons employed in the high-paying management, professional, and related occupations." http://www.dol.gov/wb/factshee... So why aren't there more women coders? The greatest likelihood is that it's just not the current trend. There is no conspiracy to keep women out of software. What are you going to do? Start telling girls that they HAVE to go into software dev just because there aren't enough women in the field? It isn't as if it's the highest paying field out there. Are we sure there is even a problem here? I can say with confidence, being in the field, that if more women choose CS and IT in college then there will be more women working in CS and IT. It's an organic situation that will change in 10-20 years naturally, and I do know it's going to change naturally. I recently gave a career day presentation on jobs in CS - it was mostly girls who showed interest. Just be patient, after they get through school, we'll be talking about men having trouble holding their own in IT.

No you are wrong.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/progr...

The rate of women joining the workforce has been more or less constant since 1948. The increase in the divorce rate, the pushing of women to have a career instead of staying home, the reduction of well paying manufacturing jobs, and many other issues has caused this.

I know of a couple where the mother has the higher potential to earn and the father stays at home which is fine. The key is not that women must stay home but at least one parent should stay home during the early years of the childrens life.

Reagan

Here we are, discussing a story about the developmental damage measured in the brains of the victims of Ceausescu's communist hellhole, and this fucking freak starts bitching about Reagan, the one president in my lifetime that made a point of illuminating the plight of people subjected to that nightmare.

In actual fact the ratio of working women has been steadily increasing since the end of WW2. Reagan's time in office didn't influence that trend one way or the other.

But keep knock'n back that Daily KOS kool-aid. No sense in allowing reality to impede on that fucked up worldview.

I had a run-in with this sort of crap when I was younger.

I worked in a grocery store in my teen and college years. They required all employees to join the UFCW ("United Food and Commercial Workers", for those that don't want to bother googling it). The initiation dues were basically the entire first paycheck ($50), but you got half of it back if you went to the UFCW orientation meeting that was held every few weeks. I went to the orientation. I never got my $25 back. Then they milked about $2 a week out of me for the few years I worked there. I received precisely squat in return.

After I had moved on from that job, the local union boss "retired and did not resign" and ended up being sentenced to house arrest for lying to a federal agent at the Department of Labor.

The grocery store and the union were both run by a bunch of absolute scumbags. The sooner the company goes out of business and the union is broken, the better.

You use Form WH-4: H-1B Nonimmigrant Information to to report employers who violate the provisions of the H-1B program. Should, you know, you want to file formal complaints against a company for some random reason.