Are Coders Exempt From California's Overtime Laws?

Move to Europe ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-11 00:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

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)

Re:Move to Europe ! by crystalll · 2003-02-11 01:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Still dunno why this kind of insulting posts always come from Anonymous Cowards...
Re:Move to Europe ! by Ironica · 2003-02-11 03:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

If France and Germany had to provide 100% for their own defense I think their welfare state would shrink as well.

Yeah, because after all, we don't have terrorists killing thousands of people here, because we have this great army, and they're helpless against that...

Oh, wait, bad example.

French and German citizens are not threatened by terrorists because the US Army protects them from them...

No, still bad example; we don't do anything about that at all.

Hm, now, how is it exactly that we are protecting France, Germany, and the rest of Europe? And, er, does it count if we're doing it against their will (see EU opposition to military action against Iraq)? And can we parse out what attacks are *based on* their alliance with us and our bullying tactics, vs. what they'd incur of their own accord if we weren't helping?

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?

overtime issues by kbs · 2003-02-11 00:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:overtime issues by forsetti · 2003-02-11 00:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

In some circumstances, I would agree with you, however, most of the time I find myself burning the midnight oil because management decids to ignore the technical recommendations and have set unrealistic deadlines

--
10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
Re:overtime issues by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-11 00:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

And it was also a good idea for coal miners to put in that extra effort to get the extra ton of coal mined by the time they left for the day. Not because they make you, but because you wanted to. Heck, we're not making you work 16 hours today, you just want to to fulfill an obligation you feel you owe to the company. Overtime? You're exempt!
Sorry, but no. Exempt status is the new slavery. It shouldn't exist. All people should be paid hourly, period. If you work more than 40 hours a week for any reason you earn time and a half. Life in America would be a lot better for families if mom and dad weren't expected to put in 80 hours a week for their base salary with the threat of being fired looming over their head. Your number one obligation is to the people you love, your family, friends, etc. Work doesn't even place a distant second in my opinion. I'll help out if it doesn't effect my family life, but otherwise when my 8 hours are in I leave for the day and forget about work. Companies don't care about you! You're just a resource to be exploited like a machine processing materials.
Re:overtime issues by Stephen+Williams · 2003-02-11 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

Except that you can't do it within normal work hours, because the deadlines are so tight that everyone has to put in overtime. Call my cynical, but it almost seems as if the deadlines are set deliberately tight in order to get extra work out of everyone.

The implication is "you're contracted for n hours per week, but we nevertheless expect n+7. If you're not doing the extra 7, we want to know why". That was the culture at my previous job (at a multinational). The culture at my current workplace (small start-up) is fortunately much friendlier.

-Stephen
Re:overtime issues by Stephen+Williams · 2003-02-11 01:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

You're just a resource to be exploited like a machine processing materials.

Indeed. Notice how personnel departments are never called "personnel" any more? S'always "human resources" nowadays.

-Stephen
Re:overtime issues by tftp · 2003-02-11 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

All people should be paid hourly, period.
Sorry, it can't work this way. For example, one guy is lazy and stupid, and it takes him 3 days to code "Hello World" in Perl. And another guy is -normal- (not even genius), and it takes him 3 hours to do a similar job.
Now tell me how can I pay them hourly if the lazy guy just relaxes, while the other one works?
One fair way is to pay per work performed. You estimate some reasonable time needed, you give the assignment, and whenever they finish is up to them. If the lazy guy has to come on weekends, it's his problem.
The only alternative is to fire the lazy guy. But I fail to see how it helps; and as an employer I really don't mind using lazy guy's help even it comes slower than usual. People are different, and something that is obvious to one may require extensive reading to another.
Re:overtime issues by spRed · 2003-02-11 01:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Don't take a job that requires an 80 hour work week.
If somehow you didn't know 80 hours was expected, or if you were lied to in the job interview then quit.

You say as much, you have a family and value the time you spend with them so you have a job that doesn't require more than 40 hours a week. That is a mature decision, you made a choice between available alternatives.

Declaring that there should be justice and plenty for all and the man is trying to keep us down is just plain childish. Ditto for the vague idea that everyone is entitled to their dream job. It doesn't exist, you pick between what is available.

--
.sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
Re:overtime issues by Anitra · 2003-02-11 02:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

You crack me up.

Each person needs to evaluate job offers they receive....

What job offers? Try job offer. Singular. And if it comes down to a crappy job or no job, I'm going to take the option where I can still eat and pay rent.

If employees believe that they are not being treated fairly then they should resign and move to another employer.

That's nice, if you've got somewhere else to move to. I've been searching for a job for months (I'm finishing school in May), and I've yet to have even a second interview with any company, much less a job offer. What more can I do?

--

Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
Re:overtime issues by DigiBoi · 2003-02-11 03:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's nice, if you've got somewhere else to move to. I've been searching for a job for months (I'm finishing school in May), and I've yet to have even a second interview with any company, much less a job offer. What more can I do?

Do what i do. In MN, i got fed up with finding a computer job, so i filed for an S-Corp, and opened up a consulting shop for on-site computer/network repairs and installs. It may not be computer programming, but i charge clients around $100 (less for residential, more for businesses) per hour, minimum 1 hour. you would be surprised how fast throwing up an ad in the newspaper will get the ball rolling.

i probably wouldnt be doing this if times weren't tough, but this pays my bills and leaves me with some spending money at the end of the day. ive been doing this for almost 2 years now, and if i found a job not working for myself, i would probably continue to do this on the side.

--
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Re:overtime issues by ratamacue · 2003-02-11 03:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Companies don't care about you! You're just a resource to be exploited
Wrong. You are a resource offering your service in exchange for compensation. Employment is a form of trade. By engaging a work contract, you are engaging in trade. It is up to you to determine whether or not your trade is worthwhile. If you don't have enough information to do that, it is up to you to seek employment elsewhere. If you don't have the ability to determine if your trade is worthwhile, then you shouldn't have engaged work contract in the first place. Why exactly should I be punished (via taxes) because you can't make a good decision?
Smart employers will always care about you, because they care about their investment. To propose that employers don't care about you is to propose that they don't care about their business, which is illogical.
In a free market, incidentally, employers who don't care about their employees would quickly disappear. Logically, employees will reward the employers who care and punish the ones who don't, through the process of market competition. But we don't operate in a free market. Government is very deeply entangled in the economic system.
Re:overtime issues by ratamacue · 2003-02-11 08:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

A free market does not guarantee that every business is "ideal" or treats their employees well. It doesn't have to, and it doesn't need to. A free market guarantees that every business has equal opportunity (NOT equal outcome which government attempts to bring about) to compete in the market, precisely because there is no coercion. Hence, the free market guarantees that only the smartest businesses will survive.

Remember that voluntary association is the key to free market economics. In a socity based on voluntary association, individuals would be 100% responsible for their choices of employment. Free competition would ensure that only the smartest businesses survive. Why would employees willingly endorse a business that treats them any less than they want to be treated? In a free market society, this would not happen, because employees would not be able to ignore the need to make good choices.

Again, the free market system does not guarantee that "bad" employers do not exist. It only guarantees competition, and employees are a fundamental part of what makes competition work. Government's only role in the free market system would be to protect the individual from the initiation of force. If an employer breaks the employment contract, or otherwise initiates force or fraud against the employee, the employee will either take legal action or simply "vote" for another employer.

Now, I'm not about to read that entire book so if you could briefly summarize what happened I would appreciate it.
Re:overtime issues by Jason+Earl · 2003-02-11 09:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

What does this example have to do with anything? In all of your examples overtime is simply a method where the slow, unproductive, and troubled get paid extra to do the same amount of work (as long as they stick around the office while they are being slow, unproductive, and troubled).
On the flip side, let's say that my wife is sick and I would like to go home early to give her a hand with the kids. As a salaried worker I can leave early without losing money. As long as I get my job done to my employer's satisfaction I can be far more flexible with my time. If my employer is unhappy with my performance he can hire one of the "100 guys standing in line to get a job." Likewise, if I am unhappy with the hours that my employer is asking me work I am free to try and find another job.
Quite frankly, unless you happen to have a job as a security guard or something where the primary component of your pay is your physical presence then it simply doesn't make sense to get paid simply by the amount of hours that you spend in the office. My employer doesn't really care where I get my job done, as long as it gets done. Yes, sometimes that means that I have long days, but sometimes it means that I get to go home early.
Re:overtime issues by HiThere · 2003-02-11 09:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are presuming a non-existant level playing field. If there ever was a free market in this country, it must have been sometime before 1860, and after 1800. I didn't study much history covering that period. Possibly also some time before 1750. But I consider this unlikely.

"Power politics" is much more accurate as a descriptive term than "free market" for any period of time that I am well informed enough to have an opinion. Wealthy people buy and bought laws that favor them. This doesn't make governmental oversight any panacea. Regulatory commissions that are at all effective tend to become captive of those that they regulate, and tend to create environments where new businesses are severly penalized for attempting to enter an area. Commissioners tend to be hired by companies upon their retirement, and then used to lobby their old friends in government. etc.

Centralization of power is the chief evil that I see here. How to avoid it is much less clear. An employer rep. doesn't benefit from doing a good job, but rather from appearing to do a good job. If a manager can cause the staff to put in more hours without paying extra, it will look good on his record, regardless of what the result is in terms of project quality, correctness, or employee morale. Those are hard to measure.

You can say that a smart employer wouldn't act this way, but you are assuming that the manager is the top management. In a small enough company you may well be correct, but when you start dealing with hierarchical levels, then the social contracts stop working. The top manager gets only a very abstracted image of what is happening, and how the staff feel. He deals mainly with the managers, who deal with the supervisors, who deal with the staff. There can be more levels, but that just makes things worse. Top management can't know the details. So only the easily measured things get abstracted. No malice needs to be involved. But at each intermediate level, the managers at that level are rated by the things that are easily measured and quantified, and passed along.

The result is that, yes, you shouldn't be surprised to be exploited. It's not optimal behavior for the business, but it's optimal behavior for the managers as individuals.

I'm always surprised that labor unions are so disregarded. Yes, they are subject to the same limitations, but they did act as a countermeasure against the more extreme examples of abuse. Corrupt? Of course. Organizations that centralize authority can't avoid corruption in one form or another. And labor unions did centralize authority. And the leaders benefited from making impossible promises. But they frequently didn't themselves know that the promises were impossible. (That information was considered secret, so the companies wouldn't share it. And it still is.) My memories still rankle at the times that management has talked staff into not insisting on a pay raise because the economic conditions were too bad, and then as soon as the agreement was signed they turned around and gave themselves a larger pay raise than the staff had been requesting. One of them said "you should have hired yourselves a better negotiator", but the problem was that the necessary information to make a decision had been falsified. Don't expect anything better. I have it on good authority that our management is (or was) better than most. But don't trust them either.

Unfortunately, this doesn't give much of a clue as to what you should do. Yes, you are probably being illegally exploited. But this doesn't necessarily mean that you should complain to the laws. That might well be to your long-term disadvantage. And this would apply even after you have accepted a new job, and tendered your resignation. Remember, your new boss will be in a machine with the same basic shape, and if he should feel that you are a threat, he will probably find a reason to dispense with your services. And the note in your personnel records probably wouldn't make a good reference for a new job. (And who writes the note? Who gets to evaluate it for correctness? Centralization of authority again.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:overtime issues by Steveftoth · 2003-02-11 10:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

[quote]Sometimes you have to make sacrifices early on, for a better pay off later. [/quote]

Yeah, like buy a cheaper house, or send your kids to a state college (or like my parents did, make me pay for the bulk of college). Nobody told you that you have to buy that new car, that PS2 or the big screen TV (or a TV at all). Maybe the reason that people are working 80 hour jobs is that they can't afford what they are buying in the first place (one reason we see so many cyberbegging sites online).
Re:overtime issues by Anitra · 2003-02-11 12:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
I'm a college student, so not all your points apply equally to me, but this is my take:
- I only apply for jobs I feel I'm qualified for, and for which I have many (if not all) of the skills they're looking for.
- Any gaps in my work history are because I'm a college student. I've been able to get a job at school twice, and sometimes summer jobs. There's not exactly anything more I can do now to get more "professional experience", especially when I still need to pay my bills (ie. I can't afford unpaid work).
- I do as best I can in the interview. It's hard to be confident because I have so little experience.
- I don't think I'm a nerd. I'm certainly not perfect. I'm female, but there's nothing I can change about that to convince interviewers I can do the job.
--

Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?

Go on strike! by forgoil · 2003-02-11 00:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

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;))

Re:Go on strike! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-11 00:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

What worries me most is hearing of some of the shocking states of workers in the US. and mod me down for complaining about things worth complaining about. Seems every askslashdot with questions about work conditions brings up the "be glad you have a job" comments.

Yes, be glad you have a job... then in 15 years after y'all are continually 'glad just to have a job' and being paid less and less, working longer hours, with less benefits and worse conditions... it gets closer and closer to not having a worthwhile job at all

No I'm not in the US, yes I'm employed, and I'm earning a decent amount without insane overtime expectations because my co-workers and I won't take shit from our employers. We'll accept when there are hard times or projects that need extreme amounts of dedication to finish, but as for consistent long term crap... no way.
Re:Go on strike! by spRed · 2003-02-11 01:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

We have a thing over here, it is called
"Vote with your feet"

Leave, get another job on better terms. If you can't get a job on terms you like better, tough cookies. You are not entitled to one. The idea that if everyone banded together then more money to pay workers would magically appear is rediculous.

You can complain that you get less of the company profits as an employee than the investors. Again, vote with your feet and start a company. People do it everyday. Most millionaires in the US got that way by starting their own business which is still a small business.

If you pass a law that says 6 weeks vacation for everyone you disallow people to _choose_ to take a job that offers more pay in exchange for less than six weeks of vacation.

--
.sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
Re:Go on strike! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-11 01:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

The idea that if everyone banded together then more money to pay workers would magically appear is rediculous.

So companies without the money to pay workers should be able to do what they've done to the submitter of the article - just have them work overtime without being paid for it?
The idea that if a company decides that despite there being no money that workers should still give them more time is even more ridiculous. Banding together takes the control from being 100% in the employers favour to a more balanced level where both sides get a say

Most of the time it works well. Sometimes weak unions will let a company gradually eat away at worker entitlements, sometimes strong arrogant unions will be a pain in the arse for the employer. That's far better than having only employer control over everything with no worker say
Re:Go on strike! by BobBoring · 2003-02-11 02:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's not what Unions are for. Unions are for the workers not being bullied by management

That's wrong. Vote with your feet. If you are being bullied by the management, quit the job! Bad managers don't deserve good employees. Get a clue. Work places full of weak willed low performers go into a death spiral of overwork and tighter deadlines. Tell the business managers to heed your technical advice or THEY can suffer the consequences. Write a memo of record and send it to the CTO, CFO and CEO. When the project is overdue and they are yelling at you hand them a copy of the memo. If they keep whining, quit! Go start your own company.

Unions in the US are a vehicle for the "labor movement" to force you to pay dues and contribute to involuntary "retirement plans" where the organizers then abscond with the money before you are fully vested.

Re:Mandatory overtime payment by Sparr0 · 2003-02-11 00:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

If I were a full-time programmer in CA... by mizukami · 2003-02-11 00:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd likely be glad I had a job, let alone overtime... ;-)

--
CC-licensed translations of Japanese fiction: http://tonygonz.blogspot.com/

Not getting paid? WTH by myom · 2003-02-11 01:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

Re:What are you going to do though. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-11 01:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:What are you going to do though. by sabinm · 2003-02-11 02:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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'

Re:I would say by caseydk · 2003-02-11 02:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Riiight. This has worked so well in Europe. In many countries (Denmark and France, IIRC) they have rules like this and their unemployment is skyrocketing.

Between this and California's new "download tax" I guess they want to be sure no tech development EVER happens there again.

Re:What are you going to do though. by EvilOpie · 2003-02-11 02:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

"Be glad you have a job" by Anitra · 2003-02-11 02:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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?

Re:Overtime pay for programmers? by NDPTAL85 · 2003-02-11 02:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:You're fired. by dentar · 2003-02-11 02:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's this exact attitude by employers that caused me to start my own business. I have worked for people who had respect for me, and I've worked for people who are like this Anonymous Coward who posted this troll.

"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."

If you want slaves instead of employees, leave the country, now, please. We don't want you here.

The company I recently told to get bent used to respect their employees. They switched to an attitude like yours, and they've been losing clients ever since.

--
-- I am. Therefore, I think!

Re:Mandatory overtime payment by BWJones · 2003-02-11 03:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Reality check! by 0x0d0a · 2003-02-11 03:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

overtime is already factored in by orb · 2003-02-11 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Public Companies part of the problem? by smack_attack · 2003-02-11 04:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Work what you are paid for. by havoc · 2003-02-11 04:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Mandatory overtime payment by MojoRilla · 2003-02-11 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you truly worked 100 to 120 hours per week, you would have no time to post on slashdot.

What about employer references? by dten · 2003-02-11 08:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Re:I would say by FatherOfONe · 2003-02-11 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

It kinda comes down to this. If you believe that employers will not screw their employees to make a profit, and that those employees could "just find another job"; then you also believe that these laws are a bad idea. However, if you believe that employers will screw their employees at the drop of a hat for a profit, then you want protection laws.

There is a balance somewhere. In the U.S. there have been MANY instances where employers have screwed their employees, and that has lead to child labor laws and unions. Unfortunately quite a few lazy people seem to want to take advantage of companies. The real problem is greed.

I kinda laugh at some of the companies around here that talk about "retirement" benifits. Yeah RIGHT!

I saw many times Dow Chemical move "older" employees around the country when they started to get close to retirement. They tried hard to get them to quit... I could go on.... Like how the automotive industry actually killed people who wanted to start up a union... But on the other hand I see union auto workers today that make a slug look like the greatest worker in the world...

--
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.

Re:You're fired. by An+Onerous+Coward · 2003-02-11 13:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

You remind me of Mr. Burns when his employees went on strike. "FINE! I'll just run the company by myself!"

You sound every bit as whiny as the Generation X'ers you're complaining about. "I shouldn't have to pay people overtime, they make enough already! I shouldn't have to listen to my employee's complaints, so I'll just hire people who don't complain."

You make some great points in there. Employers and employees owe it to each other to be fair to each other. But your points are undermined by the way you try to make them. Thanks to you, a good many readers are even more inclined to think of their employers as heartless bastards who would rather fire them than give them a cent above what they absolutely must.

I like my job. I'm very happy with it. But if I asked for a raise, or for overtime, and got a speech like this in response, I would be out the door right then.

--

You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

Slashdot Mirror

Are Coders Exempt From California's Overtime Laws?

42 of 595 comments (clear)