Slashdot Mirror
Are Coders Exempt From California's Overtime Laws?
Gizmo Kid asks: "How many of you Californian, full-time, software programmers are getting paid overtime? From what I understand, a law in California, passed within the last two years, says that software engineers who make less than $41/hour [PDF version] are required to be paid for overtime? Are your employers following the rules? I'm not sure mine is?"
that if you're making >$41/hr in these times, you probably aren't the one who's going to make a big fuss over not getting overtime pay...
It really works, you get decent holidays, you dont get screwed out of your retirement. It has democracy inside ! (no inherited positions of power, for example) It depends much less on imported oil. (which will run out in your lifetime, enjoy)
(Too many other reasons to mention)
What I've found (and this isn't really a California thing, but more like something I've found regularly at companies) is that overtime isn't mandatory, but if you have a deadline, you need to finish your responsibility by then. If you can do it within the normal work hours, then great! More power to you! But if you can't, it would reflect badly on you if you didn't put in the extra time, despite the fact the company doesn't pay for overtime. It's one of those "you're doing it because you want to, not because we're making you" despite the fact that you are really in a situation where you need to in order not to get a bad review.
yours,
kbs
The situation for people working in the US seems to be quite bad, at least to me. Isn't it time you guys start a proper union and start raising some hell?
And how much paid vacation time I get per year? 6 weeks. How many weeks do you get in the states? And yes, I am only 26.
Complain, make it better, do something (and get free Coca Cola as mandatory).
(and if you happen to run a cool and nice company, with proper benefits, consider hiring me;))
Maybe you misunderstand. Overtime isnt something you can give up. The law REQUIRES the company to pay you at 1.5x your normal rate of pay for time over 40 hours a week. It does not provide an option for you to opt for TOIL or any other alternative compensation.
I'd likely be glad I had a job, let alone overtime... ;-)
CC-licensed translations of Japanese fiction: http://tonygonz.blogspot.com/
IT businesses in USA seem to be the western equivalent to Nike sweat shops. Why would you NOT get paid for spending the remaining hours of your already limited time off work? Here in the communist soviet nordic countries, and most civilized EU countries, you get paid 150% or 200% of the hourly wage. And before you start talking about bringing down companies to their knees by them actually paying their workers, last time I checked, the nordic software/tech companies are doing just fine. But here I guess the terrorists have already won or what?
Sometimes you guys amaze me. I'm not sure if it's the Gen-X'ers, or the prima-dona IT guys, or the combination.
If you came to me with this concern, I would find a polite way to say "You're fired". I have hundreds of resumes passing through my hands each month, and I am just appalled to hear the ungratefulness of some of the people who HAVE jobs. Try being unemployed for 6 months, as some of these folks have been. Then see if you want to bite the hand that feeds you.
Yes, I agree that employers should be held accountable by the law. But look at this... $41/hour? That's like $80K. You're telling me that if I hire a $75K programmer, I have to pay him overtime? That's an easy decision. I choose not to expand or incur the headcount of a 75K+ overtime programmer. Give me a break. That is a bonehead law which will put downward pressure on hiring. If that's the law, then I choose not to hire.
If he's on staff now, and I have to pay him overtime, he's fired. (Call it a business restructuring.) I KNOW in this economy I can do just fine with 1 less programmer (or fire the whole staff, for that matter... SO many of these people on the street will perform contract services.)
Work for hire laws permit me to let you go without cause.
Your value to the company must exceed your cumulative cost, and by a large factor. Otherwise you are expendable. Bitch, and that adds to the cumulative cost. Bitch some more and you are gone. No questions asked.
I hired a Gen-X-er who had the NERVE to bitch about his cell phone, which is purely a perq - he doesn't need it for the job. Since it wasn't perceived as a perq, and it was costing us money, I said "cancel it". Next he bitched about something else, and I recommended him for immediate termination. Who has time for whiners in this economy? We are trying to make a living - and if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
There's a line outside of people who want your job. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Hah, yeah like in Italy where nobody below manager can be fired. And look what an economic powerhouse Italy is!
Having job protection makes the worker feel better, but it hurts the economy (Sometimes employers just have to cut 5000 jobs to stay afloat - is it better for the company to go out of business because it's paying a bunch of dead weights?) and it eliminates healthy competition.
Just one question -- what is the benefit of the economy at the other extreme -- take for instance unlimited power of executives -- is that good for the economy? Enron, WorldCom, anyone? The truth is too much power on either side will destroy the economy. Controls are put on both labor and capital because both sides will try to exploit the weakness of the free market and loot the unaware. I have been on both sides of the equation. Don't be too eager to take any side of this argument. Neither are justified in using people and resources as if there were no consequences to their poorly executed decisions
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
You raise an interesting point. But you do have to consider the companies as well. I mean, if a company is doing poorly and needs to trim jobs to stay afloat, and they can't... what happens then?
If the company goes out of business then everyone who worked there is out of a job. And regardless of how evil corporations may be at times, we still need them to provide jobs and put money into the economy.
-Through the server, over the router, off the firewall... Nothing but 'Net!
The reason you hear "be glad you have a job" so often is not a surprise: many Slashdotters are OUT OF WORK, and have been for a while. It's also the reason why those currently employed are scared to speak up: they think they'll have a hard time finding a new job, too.
The tech sector has a glut of qualified people; it's the law of supply and demand. Bad news for me, as I'm about to graduate with a degree in CS.
I'm glad you're employed, and I'm glad you won't take any crap from your employers. But you can afford to feel that way. I bet if you did get fired, you'd be able to find another job pretty quickly.
Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
Your "observation" sounds more like arrogant, elitist wishful thinking to me. Do you think the US or Europe is the only place where high quality coding can be done?
If you really think that then you are in for a rude awakening.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
I work for a company in Texas as a salaried employee. I do not get paid overtime. When I brought this to my management's attention they stated that the size of my salary was calculated with the assumption that I may have to work up to 10 hours over 40 per week. If I don't work over then consider it free money. If I do, I'm being compensated for it already. In the last year I regularly put in 15-20 hours a week over. Since the economy is in the tank I'm not going to
It certainly does where I work. If you hit a certain salary grade, they don't pay you overtime - you get TOIL instead.
I'm sorry, but this is laughable on one hand. In my fields, medicine and science, folks with earned doctorates (Ph.D.'s & M.D.'s) routinely get paid a pittance (~$30k) while piling on more hours than most folks can imagine (100-120 hrs/week). Granted, everyone wants to make more money, and there should be limits placed upon the amount of time one should have to work, but when I hear dudes making $75-80k/year bitching because they are not getting paid time and a half for the "extra" 5 hours a week they are working, I just have to shake my head and wonder what I have gotten myself into.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The relevance of unions today has been questioned by big business, citing numerous government regulations that work to protect employees from hazards in the workplace, discrimination, work hours, etc. What these government regulations don't protect you from is being treated like shit by companies that cut hours, push for unpaid overtime, cut perks, cut staffing, cut benefits - All while operating profitably.
The plight of the poor, put-upon IT worker making five times minimum wage with benefits, with his fat ass in a safe office chair instead of a coal mine? Nope, doesn't resonate.
I've always been anti-union. But that was before the dot-com bubble burst. I was working at an ISP a few months ago. I had a guy with a Masters' degree and two certifications walk in our door looking for a job.
And how the *fuck* is unionizing going to keep your dot-com parent company going to keep from going under? The problem today is not companies making shitloads of profit and exploiting their workers more (a la coal magnates). The problem is that the *companies* are doing badly. You can't just squeeze the company and get more money from it, and make everything fine. The people at dot-coms, American Airlines, Enron, WorldCom, AOL, etc, are just going to have a rough time of it. There isn't a nice way to say it.
In Europe, almost all jobs are protected by government regulations or unions. You -can- fire someone for poor job performance, but it requires a review process.
Nothing like red tape to solve problems! Look and see how many people in Sweden would like to live in the US versus how many people in the US would like to live in Sweden.
Not the whim of an asshole manager playing office politics.
Politics will *never* leave the workplace. Even by adding red tape.
Collective bargaining gives employees power.
Unions also tend (unless you have a single-company union, formed of the employees at a single company) to be designed purely to put money in the pocket of *another* large, self-interested organization with a deep love for taking money from those who need it -- AFL/CIO.
Because hospitals are mistreating nurses. Underpaid, overworked, and being replaced by cheaper H1-B labor.
You want to *unionize* to keep companies from replacing workers with foreign workers and moving jobs overseas?
May we never see th
I've always felt overtime was factored in to my salaray. If I wanted a 40 hour work week with paid overtime, then I'd expect to make a lot less than I make now as a base salary. That's one reason programmer salaries are so high. You want $100K per year AND overtime pay? Get real.
Let's say you make $40/hour. Thats $80k/year with a 40 hour work week. Instead, let's say you average 50 hours a week. That's $32/hour. So - really you are making $32/hour with a guaranteed 10 hours a week in overtime.
If that doesn't seem like a sweet deal to you, I'm sure the guys working for a lot less than that aren't exactly shedding tears for us.
The true purpose is to allow the rich to gamble under the guise of investing.
When the rich invest in the stock market, it's never a gamble.
Hammer of Truth
I've worked for several large companies and a couple of small ones. I've always left one job on my own for a better one. I've always worked on salary (i.e. 40 hours a week), even when contracting. In all instances I have found that from time to time upper management sets unrealistic goals that cannot be met without overtime. Very seldom do I work more than 40 hours a week so from time to time upper management finds that the deadlines were missed and they learn not to overestimate timelines otherwise *they* risk embarisment. Its usually not a big deal. A Friday deadline may be pushed back to Tuesday or Wednessday of the next week.
If I set a deadline then I will try to meet it by working some extra during the week (never on weekends though) because I feel that since I set the timeline (and unlike upper management am qualified to estimate programming timelines) I am somewhat obligated to meet it. If the schedule is held up by external factors though (usually the case) then the deadline gets pushed back appropriatly.
I always let management know the progress of the project.
Now, this isn't to say I won't work a 10 or 12 hour day. I may indeed do that for various reasons, usually because I am "in the zone" coding wise. But, I always try to make up for it by leaving early or coming in late other days of the week. Sometimes a very long lunch will easily make up for it.
Lastly, I try to keep my time sheets consistant. Always right around 40 hours and always around 8 hours a day. Even if I do put in a 10 hour day one day and a 6 the next I just even it out to 8 and 8.
You're wasting your time.
/. hordes are not going to support unionization until they are personally affected by an issue that unionization would have helped them. Rare is the IT tech in his/her twenties who can look ahead and see that while advancement via senority may be "bad" for them at the moment, it is very very good for them when they're in their forties and above. No, they'll have to wait to figure that out by being fired in their late thirties (so the company can hire those cheaper just-out-of-college folks, or the H1B workers) and then realize that as a forty year old they're not going to be hired anywhere. By which time it's too late.
The
Not a one of them believes it will happen to them. Until it already has happened to them. So talking to them is a waste of time.
If you truly worked 100 to 120 hours per week, you would have no time to post on slashdot.
There is a lot of talk in this thread about legally calling employers on their compensation bluffs.
Maybe I'm naive, but I always thought that prior employee references is critical factor in getting a new job, especially for less experienced developers with less than a handful of work history entries. If I buck the system, I won't be able to get a good reference, right? Won't that hurt my ability to get a new job?
Can less experienced developers afford to fight back against exploitation, or are we just stuck?