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?"
Right now most IT companies that my friends work for, and mine as well are really putting the screws to the employees. Our company is demanding more work, giving scanty raises, and lowering our benefits. Unfortunately I live in Texas which is traditionally a state that favors the employer heavily. Good luck with your OT issue, but if it was me right now I would probably just lay low being the heartless coward I am :). I know that even if you win you will probably lose your job for not turning off the lights when you leave or something stupid like that. If I were you I would just take the screwing they are giving you, keep track of your hours, and if you ever get fired or quit then sue for back pay and take the nice fat bonus at the end :).
I doubt it. Not when there are thousands of programmers in countries like India who will gladly code for next to nothing. For every programmer who manages to get overtime pay due to this law, half a dozen will end up unemployeed because their job got shipped to foreign developers.
Around here overtime is one thing. That is when you are told specificly to stay longer to work on a specific project. Needs authorization from a manager / project manager in each occasion. That will cause extra money.
But if you are just a little short of time, have been surfing too much etc, then it is not overtime, but extra hours you are expected to give by your own free will. Depending on your salary, you might give 5 minutes, 15 minutes or even 30 minutes per day for free. Above that, and you usually get overtime, or have a job where the contract does not list any weekly number of hours.
This is slightly off-topic, but it's related. A lot of the crap that goes on whether it be screwing employees out of pay, muddled decisions etc - it seems to me that it most often happens to companies that have publically traded stocks.
I work for a fairly large company ($80-100 million), but it is all privately held. They treat their employees with respect (for the most part, though bad managers tend to not be around for too long), have great benefits, pay overtime, heck they even spend a fair chunk of change on the Christmas party.
My theory is that companies like the one I work for, and others of similar size can work a lot better and can afford to treat their employees better if they so choose etc, because they are not tied into the tempests of the public stock exchange. They don't have share holders to constantly report too (well there are share holders, but all within the company). They don't have to worry about losing millions if a bad report comes out. All the money the company has is 'real'. Sure they didn't have the huge inlay of capital at first, but instead a solid business and careful spending, meant that eventually the company became quite profitable and more importantly, remains profitable.
Does this make any sense?
The law exists to protect exployers from over working their employees. So why should a person making a high salary not have that protection? Personally I'd vote for the hourly limit to be 35 hours before overtime kicked in. Then maybe there wouldn't be so many unemployed people and people would get more time off (and less money of couse).
If you have need to work overtime then make sure it is logged and you claim for it.
If you are working overtime because the project needs to be finished, rather than because it needs to be done out-of-hours, log every hour you work, otherwise the situation deteriates into a vicious circle.
If a project is assigned 5 hours work and it takes 7 hours to finish, say it took 7 hours. If you say it took 5 hours and the client is billed for 5 hours it shows an unrealistic idea of how much work that can be done in a set time. Next time the client will want 14 hours worth of work done in 10 hours. And then the problem gets worse and worse. Eventually the programmers will be working 20 hours a day but only get paid for 8.
I've seen this happen at a company I used to work with. When I started everyone enjoyed working there and we used to go out for drinks every night. Six months later the programmers never came out anymore as they were working long hours for no overtime. Eventually a lot of them quit.
Check your contract. If it says you work 9-5 then work 9-5. Anything else they can pay for.
I posted this below under 'Go On Strike!', but it seems more appropriate here:
Move to Europe!
I'm an American currently working in Germany which is supposed to be a worker's paradise. I moved here 6 months ago to work for an accounting firm just because I thought it would be fun to live in Europe for a little while.
My work experience has been much less kind then I expected. The company is great, and the people are nice, but the conditions are definitely not 'pro-worker.' My contract has a minimum 40 hour work week, I pay my own insurance, and my salary is less than half what it was in the States. My co-workers are literallly awed by the pay and benefits that I got in the US.
And the job market is just as bad here as it is in the US. In fact, unemployment is even higher here.
Anyone who claims that Europe is a better place to work isn't telling the whole story.
This is typically a catch 22 situation. Sure, if your employer doesn't pay you overtime even if he is required to by law, you're fucked either way. Or you don't make a point out of it, and get paid less than you deserve. Or, do make a point out of it, sue the guy, get your pay and leave your job. Because, face it, the boss is going to be pissed off about you taking him to court, and you're never going to be able to reestablish a normal working relationship with him. He'll get you in his own way, either buy making your life miserable or by looking for a reason to fire you, which he'll always be able to find.
The only reason to do really pursue the issue is to help your co-workers, because if you win the court case your employer would be crazy to risk other cases with the other employees, and if he has some brains in his head he'll start paying them overtime as he should. So, as some other poster already said, do this when you've found another job anyway, sue the guy for backpay, and leave your ex-co-workers with a nice present.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
This is a long disorganized rant.
.. Are no longer "magical." The magic is gone folks, and they're just jobs now. Sorry to break this to you.
:)
I know what you think. Unions are for trades workers. Not so, ask a school teacher.
Historically in the U.S., unions were created to correct the horrible treatment of workers by large, overpowerful corporations during the robber-baron era circa 1920's and 1930's. 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.
We live in an age when companies are reclaiming the type of power not seen since the 1920's. Where we have robber-barons. CEO's that cut jobs to improve stock performance while taking $10 million dollar bonus packages.
It works both ways, of course. There are tradeoffs. But I.T. is becomming a basic commoditiy to employers. Don't stroke your ego. While the Slashdot readership may be a clever barrel of monkeys - Inteligent, highly innovative and/or intelligent - The jobs you perform as programmers, sysadmins, network engineers, etc.
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. At an ISP.
My fiance' is Swedish. 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. Not the whim of an asshole manager playing office politics.
Large companies don't like unions. Collective bargaining gives employees power. Review boards investigating alleged employee peformance problems or misconduct puts employees on the same level as management during administrative issues. Employees are no longer drones to be dumped on by management. Peter will in fact NOT work this saturday, Bob.
Did you know that the Teamsters is trying to unionize nursing staff in hospitals across the country? Why? Because hospitals are mistreating nurses. Underpaid, overworked, and being replaced by cheaper H1-B labor.
I'm out of rant for now. Discuss amongst yourselves.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
I work as an office equipment repairman (copier tech.). We have been told quite clearly that the company will not pay OT. But we are still to meed the call load and be working (call into the the auto-dispatch) by 07:30 and on the job at 17:00.
I have been told that to make my stats (required workload) that I need to do what the other techs do and work through lunch. Or, if hungry, to go through a drive-through and eat in my car in-route. That is an hour that they are TELLING me to give them right there.
On the other end of the day we are to be at a account at 17:00. If any of you have ever watched a copier tech work you would realize the being at work at 17:00 means finishing about 17:30-17:45. That extra time is all unpaid. The theory is that we get comp time but it is pretty clear that requesting comp time would be a bad idea. The companies often reply that summers are slow so we are not logging a full eight hours during those months, as if it is our problem that they cannot come up with a steady workload.
The management answer is real simple, "If you think you can do better somewhere else then go there." All this for $10usd/hour (and don't even get me going on auto reimbursement). No need to say, "go back to school." I have a B.A. (as do about 1/5 of techs. The number of new hires with degrees is increasing (or should that be,without degrees laid off). I am going back to finish my masters, not so much as that I feel it will improve my situation as for something to do.
In general we need unions but the unions will not even talk to us. I was part of an effort that tried to interest the unions in copier techs nd the response was that if we were not members of a union then they could (would) do nothing. Having my minor in H.R. I know that there are too many pitfalls for people who try to unionize on their own.
Basicly it is an exploitive situation that ignores labor law. And yes, I am looking for another job
This is slightly off-topic, as I am a technician, not a programmer.
Well, I made over $41/hour working for my last employer (quite a bit more, actually, all things considered, viewed from a 40 hour work week perspective). At my last job, my title was "Vice President of Technical Services". But, I can say that overtime *should* be paid, regardless, and here is why:
My last job (2 years ago): In return for a great salary, plus a company vehicle for my work and personal use and full health insurance benefits, I worked anywhere from 60 - 80 hours per week, 7 days a week, and holidays.
At the time, I thought it was worth it: I was the "star" employee, first technician hired, bright, motivated - all the other techs came to me for help, and as a result, they could successfully complete their service calls with my assistance, thereby benefitting the customers and the company. My customers loved me, and I was happy doing what I loved to do.
For awhile, I enjoyed being "it", and thought that the time I spent working was the natural result of my skills and experience, and the need for my company to make money to offset my salary and benefits.
Now, I realize that I was wrong. I almost always billed enough time, directly or indirectly, during a normal business week, to justify my remuneration. The late nights, weekends and holidays were just "gravy" for my employer, since I was never paid for any of that time.
Weekend server migrations/upgrades (to save downtime for the customer, of course!): Billed at full rates by my employer ($95/hour at the time). LAN/WAN infrastructure improvements, the same.
Was I being compensated well? Absolutely. Was it worth the time spent? In my opinion, in retrospect, no.
At any given point, ALL of the time I spent beyond a standard work week was at my personal expense, just extra money generated for my employer. Over time, it became expected of me, and I bought into it, for years, as the price for employment, for being "good" at what I do. To my shame, I demanded the same from all of my technicans as well.
Training? Forget about it! My last boss wouldn't authorize training during business hours. If I wanted to learn, I did it on my own time. He would graciously pay for certification tests, but God forbid I should fail the first time.
Sadly, it has been my experience over the past 15+ years that this is the paradigm for all small-medium sized service companies, especially those owned privately. The technicians are merely cash cows to be milked. Technicians around here (Upstate New York) are salaried, not because they are being paid higher than normal, generally, but to save on overtime.
When I was fired from my last job (officially for "having been late for no compelling reason after having been previously warned" - tell me that a VP that sets his own hours can be late?!?), I set off on my own. I've done well over the past 2 years, and, when I needed additional help, I hired good technicians as subcontractors, and paid them the lion's share of their billable time (85/15 split - they get the 85 percent, after all, they are doing the work). I'm not getting rich by so doing, but I sleep well at night.
Over time, what I've come to realize is this: Money is a good thing, but money earned to the detriment of others ("greed") is not. The vast majority of managers, executives, etc. that have never been in the trenches, possess no technical skills to any great degree, view we geeks as chattel. The phrase "human capital" has been mentioned in the IT trade mags of late (notably in InfoWorld) - it underscores the problem, the perception that we geeks are merely plug-in components of a company's technical prowess, to be used, discarded and replaced at whim.
So, to wrap this up - Sure, $41/hour is a lot of money, but at what cost to the person earning it? If that person works 60 hours per week, salaried, what was once $41/hour becomes about $27/hour, and lessens with every additional hour worked, to the employee's detriment, NOT to the employer's.
So, I think that overtime, generally, is a good thing: It uses the motivation of management to generate revenue as a brake: The more we geeks work, the more the employer has to pay. It is a perfect example of negative feedback in its truest sense, and removes the incentive on the part of the greedy to exploit us egregiously.
Just my opinion.
dj
I was a member of the IWW tech workers union in San Francisco. The IWW was founded as a response to the evils of trade unionism. Back in the early 1900s, people realized that corrupt unions were worse than no unions. In the IWW, there is only one paid position, the elected head of the union. Everyone else is volunteer. Dues are paid directly to the union, never taken directly from your check.
The IWW was the second union in the world with a web presence, second only to the Isreali Teacher's Union. I helped the IWW with the first cyber picket of Border's Books, when crackers we assume were hired by Border's attempted to take down our servers. Better than the old days, when companies hired the Pinkertons to kill union organizers...
Today, many unions are large beauracracies whose sole apparant purpose is to fatten beauracrats pockets. Union organizers cut deals with management to the detriment of the workers. Big unions sometimes ignore the plight of workers at smaller companies because there isn't much publicity in fighting those small battles.
But the idea of unions, that is, a bunch of little guys getting together to stand up to the big guy, that still makes sense. On a truely level playing field, in a true free market, maybe unions would be irrelevant. As long as business owners have all the power, while the working people who create the actual wealth in the world have very little, unions will be an important way to keep things a little more even.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton