IT Workers Not Eligible for Overtime in New Rules

Well... by setzman · 2004-04-21 04:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

$455 a week=$1820 a month=$21840 per year.

If this figure isn't the take home pay amount, it looks like it would be a good idea (perhaps even a necessity) to get a second job. Ouch. Good luck to all you IT people.

--
C:\>

Re:Well... by jacquesm · 2004-04-21 04:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

This pretty much formalizes the situation that already exists. Also, in other countries there is a large trend towards a fixed monthly salary, instead of an hourly wage. That's a knife that cuts both ways though, it's pretty hard to get overtime paid under such an agreement, unless your employer specifically orders you to come in after hours.

--
MP3 Search Engine
Re:Well... by andyrut · 2004-04-21 04:42 · Score: 3, Informative

$455 a week=$1820 a month=$21840 per year.

So there are 48 weeks in your year? :)

$455/week x 52 weeks = $23,660/year

Your point is still valid, after taxes that's not a whole lot of money on which to live.
Re:Well... by hsidhu · 2004-04-21 04:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

With regards to this, i have a question.

Lately there have been couple of articles on slashdot and basically satated that most of the computer work these days is not really "white collar" (I dont like these terms presonally).

So if one looks at other jobs around alot of workers are unionized eg, airline pilots/mechanics, auto workers etc etc.

Is there a union for computer professionals?

If so which one I havent found one, if not why not?

We talk all high minded on slashdot thousands times a day every day 365 days a year. Is it all talk or do people here think that a Computer Professionals union is needed these days?
Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-21 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nope. I had a professor (who I taught classes for), who asked incoming students, "How many of you are choosing this course of study because there is high demand for your talents and you'll get paid a lot of money?" No one wanted to put their hand(s) up until he really encouraged them to be honest. Roughly 60%-70% put up their hands. That's when he pointed out a fair percentage of people in the work world are in their forties, are too experienced to the point of being overqualified for many jobs (to make a change), are set enough in their ways they can't adapt to something roughly similar to their current skill set, and don't have enough experience to move up (the Peter Principle[1]). Bottom line? They're waiting for the next 20-30 years to pass by so they can retire. That's a LOT of time to wait doing something you don't necessarily like just because when you started you thought there'd be a job.

[1] the Peter Principle: Everyone will rise to a level of incompetency. Basically, you'll get one promotion too many and end up in a job you are incompetent to do. He's dead now, but look up some of his books. The hold true even today.
Re:Well... by setzman · 2004-04-21 04:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was thinking 4 weeks a month (=28 days), but that misses 2-3 days X 12 months, roughly 4 weeks unaccounted for. Oops.
I will say that could be a decent amount to live on, depending on your local cost of living. It costs a lot less to live in Po-Dunk-Town, Alabama than Birmingham, Alabama, and obviously less than New York or Boston. Basically, the IT worker in Po-Dunk-Town commutting to B-ham would probably do well, with the others forced to do a better job with their budget. With the basic idea that you will see more IT people in the higher cost areas, that is where you run into problems with this.

--
C:\>
Re:Well... by Maestro4k · 2004-04-21 05:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
- We talk all high minded on slashdot thousands times a day every day 365 days a year. Is it all talk or do people here think that a Computer Professionals union is needed these days?
It's really a question of the lesser of two evils. Unions aren't exactly the great defenders of the workers they want you to believe they are. I read a very enlightening book a while back detailing (with documentation) what's happened with unions so that they've gotten out of control. I personally would rather avoid joining a union and take my chances as they stand now.
Re:Well... by _Lint_ · 2004-04-21 05:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

No. The last thing professionals need is a union interfering in their ability to negotiate their own employment terms.

This policy doesn not mean you can't be paid for overtime. It only says that your employer doesn't have to make it compaly policy to pay you for overtime.
Re:Well... by galt2112 · 2004-04-21 05:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Unions are rarely necessary for "competent" people with advanced skills. Unions are more useful in industries where "a body is a body"-- factories, etc.

Additionally, a large percentage of IT people tend more toward libertarian/objectivist philosophies, which despise labor unions as a tool of incompetence.
Re:Well... by aastanna · 2004-04-21 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would imagine it would be very tough to unionize IT.

First, auto workers, airline pilots, factory labour, etc. tend to work for a small number of companies with high fixed costs. There are IT people in every company, making negotiations and organization difficult.

Second, IT is a very diverse group. Tech support, code monkeys, developers, systems analysts/architects, network admins, management that still does code reviews/coding, etc. It's difficult to lump those positions together, or draw distinctive lines between all of them.

Third, skill as a programmer depends a lot on natural talent, and there's a lot of ego involved. There are lots of really gifted individuals who would rightfully object to being grouped in with people who took a six month course at the local community college.

Fourth, some of us are a lot more worried about our jobs than others. If you're doing helpdesk tech support you should be very worried. If you're spending most of your time meeting with users in person and doing design for a profitable company you're a lot harder to outsource, and have much more job security.
Re:Well... by mwood · 2004-04-21 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since the promotion ladder in most businesses eventually winds up in management no matter where you start, I'd suggest that the Peter Principle only strictly applies to those who started out in management. For everybody else, the effect is the same but the cause is that you got kicked from a job you like and are suited for into one very much unlike what you signed up to do and have been doing for years.

What happened is that you started (perhaps involuntarily) a new career at the same business, without any formal education. "Incompetent", while strictly true, carries a shade of meaning that isn't really fair. Imagine that your high school just got you a job as a sysadmin without ever offering any computing classes.

Now, I would agree heartily that if you are training for a career in X mainly because of the money, you are probably seeking the wrong job and you won't like it much.

BTW, those guys doing the same job every day for the next 30 years? those jobs are the ones now being outsourced to another continent. Stay flexible if you want to continue working.

(As for that "overqualified" jazz, I'm reminded of Art Buchwald's story about a nuclear physicist named Kase who kept dumbing down his resume' until he landed a job.)
Re:Well... by slipstick · 2004-04-21 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unions aren't designed for the benefit of the whole only the benefit of their members. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing if your in the union but if your not, good luck finding a job.

I may be presuming too much but I would think that a computer professional is likely smart enough to negotiate their own contract. If you aren't getting paid enough or you haven't negotiated an overtime scale than that's your fault. Why would you want to abdicate responsibility to a union anyway? Soon enough they will do something you don't like and than you have no way out.

I totally understand that market forces may be such that computer professional salaries are low due to over supply in the market. Artificially increasing the salary through unionization won't benefit you in the long run. Already I see people here complaining about off-shoring. Just wait until you have a union, the jobs will bolt like there's no tomorrow.

The best way to fight an over supply in your field is to train for a different field! Or simply be the best in your field.

--
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
Re:Well... by Bronster · 2004-04-21 05:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

I read a very enlightening book a while back detailing (with documentation) what's happened with unions so that they've gotten out of control.

And I read a very enlightening book a while back detailing (with documentation) that not joining a union will make gremlins fly out of your nose, make your wife/girlfriend/right hand leave you for a football jock and besides the unions will give your name to the Mafia and you'll be lucky if they only break your kneecaps.

I swear that's exactly what it said - only I can't remember exactly which book it was. It certainly was enlightening though.

Back on topic: of course there's going to be bad eggs in unions and some of them probably have got out of control. Guess what - there's employers like that as well. I'd rather have those unions there and employers realising that they can't gouge me quite so hard because my co-workers are willing to back me up. Politics goes where there's power, and I for one am glad that unions have enough power to influence things (while hopefully not gaining so much power that the bad apples take over - I think that's what you're talking about. Surprise, it happens everywhere with power, including politics in general if you haven't been following along at home).
Re:Well... by killjoe · 2004-04-21 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

If reading slashdot is any indicator IT people hate unions. Don't expect one anytime soon.

Maybe it would be more palatable if you did not call it a union. Call is an "association" like the doctors (AMA) and the lawyers (ABA) do. It does not seem so low class when you call your union an association. After all the people in unions drive chevys people in associations drive BMWs.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Well... by TwistedGreen · 2004-04-21 05:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Third, skill as a programmer depends a lot on natural talent, and there's a lot of ego involved. There are lots of really gifted individuals who would rightfully object to being grouped in with people who took a six month course at the local community college.

So don't join the union. If you think you can make it on your own, go ahead. But the way things are looking, that's becoming increasingly more difficult.

Also, in my mind, IT is very different from software development. With IT is basically system maintenance, software design is entirely different. There can obviously be a bit of both in someone's job, but either way, this isn't terrible relevant: A union's members don't have to be homogenous. An auto-worker's union, for example, supports many different people with diverse job functions that may only be indirectly related to building automobiles.

You're outlining reasons why unionization of the IT sector hasn't been widespread, but I think the main one is this: it hasn't been threatened like it is now. When it gets to either unionize or die, I think we'll see a different picture.
Re:Well... by kildea · 2004-04-21 05:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

are you suggesting that one must be competent to be a computer professional? in my other post i pointed out that i do both firefighting and computer work, and honestly the firefighting/ems/rescue work requires a presence of mind and ability to problem solve under extreme conditions which does not compare with the database and network 'management' and user-sitting that is required of me at the office where i work. but it's worth noting that i earn the same at the end of the pay period at either job, while i work about half as much at the office. you're kidding yourself if you think a body's a body doesn't apply to this field, we just think it does because we're overpayed.
Re:Well... by DrVomact · 2004-04-21 05:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Organizing a union sounds just great in theory; the practice is a bit rougher.
To do any good, a union occasionally has to strike. You might think twice about the attractiveness of unions when you have to decide between collecting a paycheck and walking a picket line...betting on the chance that the union will win and you get a raise, instead of having your job shipped to India. You ready to beat up the scabs (your ex-friends)? You ready to get the shit kicked out of you by management goons? Gonna put up with all the BS rules the union hierarchy imposes in addition to your employer's BS rules?

There are worse things than working extra hours for a PHB, so I think union talk is going to stay just that: empty talk. At least I hope so.

--
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Re:Well... by pyrotic · 2004-04-21 05:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

I belong to the National Union of Journalists in the UK. They issue press cards, but also do uniony things, like get discounts for buying Macs, insurance deals, bitching about certain companies. If you think programmers are a diverse and egocentric bunch, you should really spend some time with journalists. The union here covers editors, TV folks, photographers, staffers, freelancers, and reporters from tech to gardening to celebrities to war.
Re:Well... by danaris · 2004-04-21 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

But if you were part of such a union, you'd have a say in it. History seems to show (though I'm neither a historian nor in a union, so I'm not exactly an expert...) that unionized workers can, on the whole, get better employment terms than non-unionized workers. That's not to say that you, with your mad negotiating skills (which you may or may not possess; just an example) can't negotiate a better contract, just that for the majority of workers, the contract the union can get them is better than the one they could get on their own.

I've also heard some pretty stupid stuff that unions have done. However, a union is neither better nor worse than the people who make it up--which means that at worst, it can be a royal nuisance to the people in it and outright dangerous to the people not in it, employees and employers both. But you can always try to change it once it's there. Without it there, we won't have nearly as much clout as a group.

Dan Aris

--
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Re:Well... by hereticmessiah · 2004-04-21 05:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Thing is, most unions are just fine. The number that get out of control is actually quite small compared to the total number. Most of the nonsense that get's bandied about on unions is quite simply an attempt to demonise them in the eyes of the 'middle class'. Remember, the US is a country where 90% of the population consider themselves middle class and yet 50% are below the poverty line.
You know the reason why Europe went 'socialist'? (though I'd better point out that social democracy is far from being socialism) The laissez-faire experiment of the 19th and early 20th centuries failed. People forgot that business is a tool of society, tolerated because it theoretically can help society improve the lot of its members efficently. This is the great thing about free enterprise.
What people forget is that government is there to protect those who can't protect themselves. It's not a tool of business, but a counterweight to balance it's excesses. If, for instance, chemical companies weren't regulated, they'd dump their waste wherever it was cheapest and most convenient, taking a short-term gain for itself in exchange for a medium- to long-term loss for itself. That's why government is there, and that's why free enterprise needs to be regulated.
Unions are another form of balance, a form of last resort for the worker when government doesn't work for them. They didn't just appear out of nowhere. The came about because workers felt they were getting a raw deal and deserved to have their lot in life improved. If you want to see a good reason why unions are necessary, go work in a catfish processing plant somewhere in the mississippi delta.
We don't have laws to prevent you and I from commiting crime. The majority of people rarely intentionally break the law. We need them to prevent and punish those who do step beyond the realm of what is good for society, who break society's contract of mutual respect.
Unfortunately, this isn't the way people think these days. More's the pity.

--
I don't like trolls and mod against me if you like, but I'd prefer if you'd reply.
Re:Well... by elBart0 · 2004-04-21 05:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually,
this is exactly why there needs to be a union for non-manangerial hourly employees. Most people I know how fit in that description (not myself, I'm salaried) are not in a position to be negotiating with an employer. There's a reason why they are working in $30k tech support jobs. Usually it is due to an inability to find other, better paying work. When it comes down to no job, or an hourly job for $30k, most people will take the job.
When you attempt to negotiate a raise, or more pay, and the response is "screw you, take it or leave it" most people don't have the option to leave it.
A union brings a balance of power to an employees ability to earn a livable wage. With no unions, and rules such as this, employees have no bargaining position.

These rules only hurt people who have the most to lose. And they don't 'help the economy', they only help those who don't need any more help, the business owners.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Well... by flamingnight · 2004-04-21 05:53 · Score: 5, Funny

I just asked my manager about this. He said
"That guy is full of shit. The Peter Principle is shit. And... (sniffle) well... (tearing up) Oh my God I hate my job and my life. I wish I were back to being a Technician instead of a manager!"

Hm.
Off to console him.
Re:Well... by jak163 · 2004-04-21 05:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think this is an important realization, that a union isn't necessarily just trying to reduce productivity or tilt the playing field toward itself, but in some ways is needed in order to give IT workers the ability to retain what are generally understood to be neutral but fair rules for the game.
The point of time-and-a-half isn't so much higher pay as shorter hours. It's a way of creating an eight-hour day, which was a core labor project for about 70 years, without an outright ban on labor over eight hours. Part of the reason for the eight-hour day is not just justice or humaneness but also the idea that workers are more productive and efficient when they are well-rested.
As someone has pointed out, individual workers can't say no to a boss that tells them to work more hours. This is where a union can accomplish something that an individual can't, but the resulting legislation is not unfairly tilting the outcome toward union members. It benefits all workers.
Ironically it is the decline of unionization from 45 percent at the end of World War II to 9 percent today that has resulted in time-and-a-half and eight-hour days being limited to union workers. It's the weakness of unions that has made union efforts result in special priviliges, not union strength.
During the boom, I found friends in IT generally contemptuous of unions and also concerns about the impact of efficiency improvements on workers. Now that times are tough IT workers are dropping some of the social darwinism and have become more aware of the importance of unions to some of the regulations they take for granted, such as overtime pay (child labor regulations and workplace safety are others). Hopefully this will signal a turn in one of the most important new industries, and be part of a movement to revitalize the labor movement and bring American politics back to the mixed-economy center from its current corporate focus.
Re:Well... by Catbeller · 2004-04-21 06:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's when he pointed out a fair percentage of people in the work world are in their forties, are too experienced to the point of being overqualified for many jobs (to make a change), are set enough in their ways they can't adapt to something roughly similar to their current skill set, and don't have enough experience to move up (the Peter Principle[1]). Bottom line? They're waiting for the next 20-30 years to pass by so they can retire.

Well, by that measure, the logical thing for managers to do is to let go of everyone over 40; overqualified, inflexible, chairwarmers waiting for the next thirty years to retire.

And that's exactly what they are doing. Firing people over 35 and hiring young inexperienced people.

Points:

How can you be overqualified and at the same time inflexible? If you are more than qualified for the job, how could you have been inflexible?

Where exactly are YOU planning to work when you are forty? I assume you are a IT/Comp Sci/Engineering type. The professor's pointmakes sense to you now, because you are young (another guess). What are you planning on doing when you are useless? Will you be overqualifed and yet have spent two decades becoming too inflexible to learn new techniques? If you are the exception, why assume everyone else will be the lump you won't be?

And the fastball: how old was the old, inflexible professor? Over 35? Where does he work? I'm thinking he's too old and tired to be employable at his advanced stage in life.So why listen to his unemployable brain? If he is working, at his sad time of life, then where's he getting off making such a comment? If he isn't working in the private sector today, in his golden years, then how does he justify teaching you? He's just as superannuated and untrainable as the old professionals he's dismissing.

**

I was watching Leo LaPorte interview Kevin Mitnick (37+)on TechTV's The Screen Savers a month ago. Kevin,old hacker that he is, has started a security company. Wrote his own code to test the security of networks.

My recollection of a bit of it:

Leo's question: who wrote the code? An old guy like you can't be doing it, right?

Kevin (slightly off-balance): Um, I wrote it.

Leo: But you can't be up to date with all the stuff that's happened in the last few years?

Kevin (a little stunned): Well, I do read books...

**

It's sad, this meme. Almost all the yunguns here on Slashdot posting today will be olduns in ten years. Am I listening to a giant asssemblage of soon-to-be irrelevant fossils?

Maybe it's the old chicken-and-egg syndrome. Older IT workers stop trying because they know that they won't be taken seriously anymore because they don't play the Star Wars RPG at lunch with the other workers, or can't go bar hopping with the gang after work? (yup. speaking from observation at work).

Is it fossilization of the brain, which isn't physiologically possible at the ancient age of 40 -you're at your peak, really - or is it the simple prejudice of the management and the younger workers themselves that set the stage for the demise of the 35+ year old's career?

Not idle questions. A lot of are hitting that wall now.

(My opinion, for what's it's worth, etc: you lose that learning edge when you get married and have kids. Life takes up too much time to spare 20 hours a day learning and coding. Unmarried guys tend to hang in longer.

You also can just get tired of the politics and the endless staring at a screen.

It's not brain death, or inflexibilty. It's about becoming MORE flexible, acquiring more interests, like girls and national politics. And maybe just about requiring more sleep :)
Re:Well... by Ironica · 2004-04-21 06:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Back on topic: of course there's going to be bad eggs in unions and some of them probably have got out of control. Guess what - there's employers like that as well.

More to the point, unionization is the corrollary to incorporation.

Corporations exist for one purpose: to protect and increase the profits of their shareholders. Unions exist for one purpose: to protect the jobs and compensation of their members. NEITHER has any direct interest in the consumer's environment; they only will improve things for consumers to the extent that such actions help achieve their primary goals.

Yet, somehow being profit-motivated is darn near sacred in this country, while unions are evil because they raise wages (and therefore cut into profit margins). I think there should be a better solution, but we haven't found it yet... so for the time being, I definitely support unions as a countermeasure to corporations. (Which doesn't mean I support every union's every action blindly; people make bad decisions. There are also corps that do *good* things, though.)

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Re:Well... by GOD_ALMIGHTY · 2004-04-21 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

What makes you think that you will still be in a position to bargain for better terms from here out? If your job is seen as a commodity, how can you differentiate yourself in a way that will allow you to negotiate these terms? Unionization is a reflection of the maturity of an industry. It also does not require that anyone working in the field be a Union member, it simply means that having a Union is in the best interest of the majority of the workers in that industry or with that specific job. Software development has been around for over 30 years as a job. Auto workers saw their job mature in about 50 years. I would argue that the Software industry is simply maturing and the thought of Unions is something US software engineers should research and consider.

It's no different that trying to get a better price by buying in bulk at Sam's Club. Unions help to insure that workers do not take the brunt of volatility in a mature market. I don't recommend Unionizing new industries as soon as they show up. Individualism and laissez faire policies tend to help new industries, but can actually stop the formation of new industries around old ones.

There is no such thing as a free market in reality. There are always going to be factors that make the market non-free, reason says that you should find the best way to work within the system that exists. Unions, like Corporations, are simply a tool to better organize resources within society. Planned economies don't work, but lack of regulation can make a commoditized industry too volatile to build new industries on top of. How could you build a chip fab if there wasn't a stable and relatively inexpensive source of energy and pool of workers to run it?

Does this mean that this country's experience with Unions has been all roses? No, but neither has our experience with Corporations, yet lot's of people join Corporations, although the Corporation's alligiance is more to shareholders than workers. If you think of a Union as a Corporation who's shareholders are the members and who's customers are the Corporations the shareholders work for, it seems much more natural.

I personally think that this country has done a very good job of exploring the capabilities of capitalism and laissez faire policies. I also think that the progress and complexity of the economy and society we have built with these tools may need other tools and new tools to continue it's growth.

I like Roosevelt's VP Henry Wallace's quote: "Freedom in a grown-up world is different from freedom in a pioneer world. As a nation grows and matures, the traffic inevitably gets denser, and you need more traffic lights."

The idea is to strike balances so as to better the country as a whole without stepping on the rights of individuals. If the eletrical and telecom industries had not matured, it would have been much harder to develop the industries that are built on top of them.

Other countries understand these principles, especially India. That's why the rest of the world standardized on GSM (via regulation) in the cell phone world and why there are more applications, more widely available for cell users in the rest of the world. This country lost it's leadership in the cell industry, because it refused to mature the industry and grow new ones on top of it.

If you want to see the US continue the growth it has had, then we must be intelligent and rational about the tools we use to manage it. Capitalism vs. Socialism is a dead argument. Now we must compete with other countries who aren't still bound to the ideological struggles of the last century. Unions and mature industries are just part of the toolbox. If you don't like the way Unions have been run in the past, think about how you would do it in the future. Would an equivelent of the SEC for Unions help? What model of collective bargaining for labor would best reflect the types of jobs that are currently being commoditized?

--
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
Re:Well... by bstarrfield · 2004-04-21 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Slashdot readers, IMHO, don't believe in unions for several reasons:
1) Most readers believe that they are special and unique. They won't be outsourced, they won't be replaced by a college student who has knowledge of new technologies, etc. Why join a union if your so amazingly good that you'll never need one?
2) For a board that loves to talk about economics, very few people seem to have any understanding of the field. Sorry to say it, but being an intelligent computer programmer does not make you an expert on labor economics. So many readers seem to believe that laissez-faire capitalism will create a better world, but for some reason I doubt they've read Smith, Galbraith, Friedman. Without any knowledge, people somehow make the assumption that unions are incompatible with capitalist economics.
3) Many Slashdot readers are, apparently, quite young. I think these folks - who don't need to send kids to school, consider long term medical care, pay prescriptions, or worry about retirement become Libertarian simply because they're pissed off about the taxes they have to pay. Look, I get pissed off too when 40% of my paycheck disappears. Certainly Ayn Rand and other Libertarian thinkers don't view unions too highly - after all, its the little guy ganging up against the Perfect Man.
4) The truth is, programming is becoming a commodity service. Higher managers don't care that you're a great guru of Z++ on Amiga when they can hire from India at 1/5 the price. Commodities are easily exchanable, and very very few programmers have such unique skills that they cannot be replaced. At least unions let the commodities (us) have a fighting chance at negotiation.

--
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
Re:Well... by Artifakt · 2004-04-21 06:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Is it fossilization of the brain, which isn't physiologically possible at the ancient age of 40 -you're at your peak, really -"

Even at 40, you're probably not at your peak yet, unless you choose to be.

There's been a number of myths about this for way too long. People point to scientists such as Einstein, ignoring the Maxwelloids and Lord Kelvenites who did some of their best work after 40, or occasionally 60. Buckminster Fuller was famous enough to pose at age 40 for a bust commemorating his career in 1929, but practically everything he is now noted for he did after that. The same sort of examples can be cited for art and music (Look at what Bach did after 40). I'm citing mostly historical figures because, if anything modern medicine is making the chance of outstanding performance in later life grater and greater.
Meanwhile, some people ignore counter-evidence of rather obvious kinds. (For example, the US Army is generally a young man's game for purely physical reasons, but they grant hundreds of age wavers to keep talented people over age 60 in every year. These are people being kept primarily for their mental skills, and who are also willing to work hard enough at keeping up their physical abilities to not be knocked out for not being able to do 50 push ups on a test before they are even eligible for a waver - obviously that's a lot more selective a pool than in the tech industry, where a diabetic or wheelchair bound person is unlikely to be rejected on those grounds before they even get rejected for age biases).

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Well... by gfxguy · 2004-04-21 06:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

By extension, union members often try to support union businesses, because the more successful unionized companies are, the more likely it is that their union will remain strong.

I look at it differently. By boycotting products from non-union companies you are trying to extort the company into "allowing" unions. I didn't hear the people at Coors complaining they were being taken advantage of, and for crying out loud - if you are being taken advantage of, quit, otherwise freaking stop whining and accept it - you are ultimately responsible for you.

And so tell me how someone is better off in a union? Let's say you do start off making close to minimum, how is it better now that you have to pay another "tax" on top of that? And what do you get? Generally crappy raises compared to what you could get if you applied yourself at another company.

Unions are NOT necessary. You are right, the government gives you minimum protections - by defination that's all you need. If you want more, then ask for it, but to gang up on your employer and demand it is extortion, especially under threats of violence to those who refuse to strike.

Unions may be nice for some people, but they are no longer NECESSARY. Unions do not normally improve the employees lives. Yes, there are some outrageous unions that do (like the dock workers in CA), but for the most part: you are guaranteed a raise, for example, but you don't get any more if you work extra hard to excel. You get treated like one of the herd. Forget it, I like my indivuality more than a guaranty of 2%/year raise.

It's getting way off topic. I don't mind discussing this, but I could give you a laundry list of all the negatives of unions, and all the positives are things I'd rather achieve as an individual. Some people don't like proving themselves, some people will fall back and do the minimum necessary to get by. That's just not me.

--
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Re:Well... by Bronster · 2004-04-21 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'd say that the biggest problem with unions is the petty beuraucracy and jealous territory grabbing that grows out of them.

Yep - sounds just like every other area of human endeavour unfortunately. Strangely enough, it sounds remarkably like middle management in a decent sized company, or politics in any other area. Welcome to humanity.

(of course it's often pretty bad in unions, but better than not having unions at all)
Re:Well... by gid-goo · 2004-04-21 07:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

look at it differently. By boycotting products from non-union companies you are trying to extort the company into "allowing" unions. I didn't hear the people at Coors complaining they were being taken advantage of,
Now you're being an idiot. People vote with their dollars don't they? Isn't that the popular saying? If you don't like it, don't buy it? I know Ayn Rand is easy to understand philosophy for 16 year olds but at some point you have to actually understand what extortion means. The fact is that many companies that don't have unions are actively engaged in union busting. Wal-mart has got in to trouble lately for this. There is also a big scandal with a lot of businesses editing employee time cards to reduce total number of hours worked. That is why there are unions. Plus collective bargaining generally provides more leverage than individual. I don't know if a union would work in tech fields or not. But you should really read something besides Ayn Rand.
Re:Well... by greenhide · 2004-04-21 07:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

You will get paid what the market decides you are worth.

It's an employers market. Which means you will pretty much be paid crap if you quit. Employers know this; Congress knows this; the President knows this. In fact, it's pretty much the reason that all of this crap is able to happen: workers are far too busy working extra hours to keep from being canned to worry about being politically active. They have mortgages/rents to pay and kids (or at least themselves) to feed.

In the times to come, I predict that the worker will be increasingly squeezed. I mean, productivity has gone through the roof, but jobs have consistently been going down. What does this mean? It means that companies need to higher fewer people, which means that for each person working, they know that there are 10 people out there who want his/her job. So that person will work harder, won't ask for a raise, and certainly won't try to upset an employer by pointing out that s/he isn't being paid overtime.

In fact, we have a situation similar to the end of the 19th Century, with thousands of workers clamoring for factory jobs and being willing to stand for ungodly working conditions and low pay because the alternative was no job at all. The *only* thing keeping it from being that bad is *NOT* market forces, but rather a whole slew of governmental regulations that make sure a worker has acceptable working conditions. Those laws were passed as a result of political action by the labor movment. Tragically, the labor movement has now lost a great deal of it strength and credibility. We do need a similar movement however, to protect the rights of the workers and to re-assert the main goal of the United States: not to support the making of money and protections of corporations, but rather the livelihood and freedoms of its populace.

--
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
Re:Well... by ultranova · 2004-04-21 08:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Government does create laws to protect people, but when you get a job you enter into what should be a private contract between you and your employer. The government has created labor laws protecting workers. These laws define the length of a workweek, they define a minimum wage, they establish departments like OSHA. There are no longer any valid reasons for unions.

Of course there is. Namely, to be the representative of the workers, just like the corporation is a representative of the shareholders.

Maybe this will be easier for you to understand if you replace the union with a corporation. That corporation rents workforce to the other companies. It pays its employees most of what those other corporations pay for rent, keeping a small amount for itself (union fees). You should have no objection to this, because, after all, a private contract is a private contract, whether it's between an employee and a corporation or two corporations or an employee and an union.

This, then, allows us to adress your points as follows:

Don't anybody whine that they may lose overtime benefits. Nobody guaranteed you a job out of college, let alone one that paid $50k or more because of overtime.

Don't no corporation whine that they may lose profits. Nobody guaranteed them cheap workforce, let alone one that works for less than $50k for overtime.

If you think you're working too hard for not enough pay, that's when you go to your employer, show the evidence of how much extra you've done for the company, and ask for a raise. If you're not inclined to do that, then you probably would LIKE more money, but realize you're not worth it.

If you think you're paying your employees too much for too little work, that's when you go to the union, show them the evidence of how much extra you've paid to them, and ask for a lower price. If you're not inclined to do that, then you probably would LIKE a better deal, but realize you're not worth it.

If you're scared you'll get fired, then you probably realize that you are expendable and are being paid what you are worth to the company.

If you're scared you'll get the contract terminated (the employees go to a strike), then you probably realize that you are expendable and are being paid what you are worth to the union and its employees.

If you don't like, go somewhere else. Despite all the doom and gloom news, there are plenty of jobs.

If you don't like, go hire someone else. Despite all the doom and gloom news, there are plenty of workforce. Of course, you propably won't find any who will work for any less, but hey, that's marketplace for you.

If you're not qualified, then you don't have anyone to blame but yourself.

If you're incapable of making a profit while paying what the workers ask, then you don't have anyone to blame but yourself.

Why is it that the robber barons always swear by private contracts when they are big and strong and the employees are small, unorganized and weak, and start whining when the employees take the obvious step of banding together to gain negotiating power ?

What goes around, comes around.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Well... by dresgarcia · 2004-04-21 08:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Its all BS, the two best(and most respected) sysadmins at my company are 35 and 40. The rest of us youngins look upt o them.
Re:Well... by geekoid · 2004-04-21 08:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

" I didn't hear the people at Coors complaining they were being taken advantage "

thats probably becasue the company was forced to pay them a wage and benefits so they can compete to keep workers from moving into a unionized shop. A benefit fom Unions. A good reason Union memeber boycotted them, becasue they were getting the benefits of a union without paying there fair share.

"And so tell me how someone is better off in a union? Let's say you do start off making close to minimum, how is it better now that you have to pay another "tax" on top of that? And what do you get? Generally crappy raises compared to what you could get if you applied yourself at another company."

You get a lot. here is an example:
seniority
Better benefits
you don't start at minumim wage.(what, you think nobosy else thought of the extraexpens before you?)

"but you don't get any more if you work extra hard to excel"

myth. Many unions hae pay grades, someone who excells can be bump into the next paygrade. either by working hard, or aquiring more education.

"You get treated like one of the herd. "

how so? you are part of a body of workers with one voice to the company, and to the government. You still get to vote on issues, you can still get involved.

A union takes NOTHING away from the individule.

OF course an IT union would be different then your manufactureres union, it would have to be. Mostly it would be a voice to help stop us from getting kicked around anymore.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Well... by rolla · 2004-04-21 08:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your logic is the most flawed I have seen. There is no need for a IT Union if there ever became one I would be one of the first people to leave this industry because that will be the first sign of decline. When you have unions you end up with things like I cannot move that power cord on the floor because it is another union I have to sit here until that union shows up and moves it for me. So to put in IT speak. It wold be liking having the wait for the network union to show up to plug you network cable into the wall before you can use it and god forbid you plug it in yourself. You will be branded as a job stealer and most likely find that your network will stop working for no reason and unable to get it to work. Also all that cross training you use to get where you could learn how to be a DBA or a sysadmin or a network admin. Forget it will all be locked up in that union. You will only do what your allowed to do. Cause if you think that it would only be 1 big IT union you are nuts each little group would stand theirs up because the other don't understand their problems. Now Think about that.

--
"That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!"
Re:Well... by 14erCleaner · 2004-04-21 08:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Be of good cheer: NPR reported yesterday that computer science college enrollments are way down. So the oversupply will correct itself (again) as those students who don't really like computers stop majoring in it.

--
Have you read my blog lately?
Re:Well... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2004-04-21 09:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lets face it. The Boom is over.

Programmers are a dime a dozen. Helpdesk is point and click. Sql Server types are removing the need for database admins and any IT skill that isn't oversupplied is outsourced to India, where everyone is better than us anyway.

There is no more money in IT Office work.

Go solo. Set up your own company if you want to see more than 30k and yet another UAT form.

We should have taken business courses

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:Well... by kjd · 2004-04-21 10:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Off to console him.

I had to read that 3 times before I could get it to mean "comfort" and not "root tty". Time for a break...
Re:Well... by sumdumass · 2004-04-21 10:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wait until your company decides to start going in another direction with the next "best" technology.

When some fresh PHB, fresh from a marketing camp for the next best way of doing things (other words cause some sales man just told him how great this other way is) steps in and decides that the company is being held back by slow outdated technology. Your experienced and most respected sysadmins will soon fall into the "over qualified" and "unable to chage" category. Not because of fact or truth but because of a lack of technical understanding and the new direction the company is going. Even you will probally become buffalo'ed into believing it too.

This won't happen because it is actually true but, because the PHB believes someone's "promis of profit from swamp land in florida" sales pitch. Of couse your senior sysadmins will see clear thru this and now be seen as " holding the company back from a great profit potential".

Now any resitstance to the new buffalo gold scheme will be bad and they will lose thier job. Most senior system administrator jobs are already filled and they will probally need to take a job at a lower position to remain active in the field. Most likley thier qualification will demand more money then they are going to be offered and will be seen as a risk to the new hiring company worried about employee retention and the investment they take in training (for thier systems).

Now you have an overqualified person that can't get a job. It isn't somethign that happens because the industry moves but rather because of the actions of a couple unqualified persons in a too powerfull positions. I could tell you lots of stories about the effect sales people have on PHBs and how this exact scenario works out.

This is new how? by ajiva · 2004-04-21 04:27 · Score: 5, Informative

I don't see how this changes anything? Most IT workers never got overtime, of course we have very flexible schedules so its a good tradeoff I suppose.

Re:This is new how? by Jhon · 2004-04-21 04:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is true. I received overtime until last year when I got an "offer" to go salary. I cant complain, they took my previous years base pay + all the over time I made and added an additional $15k/year and asked if I would go salary for that. Thinking "Hell yes!", I said "Hmmm... sounds reasonable -- let me talk it over with my family". Took the offer, of course.

With a few exectpions, I can walk out on my job at the drop of a hat and pick up where I left off in the evening. Of course, there's the off 2am page/alert that has me up and at work -- or once I had to walk out of an amusement park and return to work -- but it's a fair trade, imho (and MINE is all that matters to me).

-jhon
Re:This is new how? by LostCluster · 2004-04-21 04:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

The key thing is that you at least feel that your're getting a fair shake on the deal... no more accounting for OT in exchange for more money than you feel you would have gotten if the meter was running.

2am pages are acceptable if they're rare and they're about real issues. It's when there starts being too many of them that things get messy.
Re:This is new how? by buckeyeguy · 2004-04-21 04:58 · Score: 2, Informative

If they added your OT pay *and* 15,000 on top of that, you got an unusually good deal.

--
I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
Re:This is new how? by comedian23 · 2004-04-21 05:55 · Score: 2

I had ver flexible hours when I was doing sys. admin work. As long as I came in earlier than everyone else and left later than everyone else I could pretty much make up my own hours. See, very flexible. :-)

If you don't get paid for something by Moderation+abuser · 2004-04-21 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't do it.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:If you don't get paid for something by Frymaster · 2004-04-21 04:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't do it.
if you "don't do it" as an individual, you'll get fired. however, if you "don't do it" as a group you'll have more power. if the entire i.t. staff decides to cease work until their is fair treatment, your chances of success is greater.
that's right: i'm talking union.

--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:If you don't get paid for something by Frymaster · 2004-04-21 05:08 · Score: 2, Interesting
I know of a store near where i live
ah yes, anecdotal "evidence".
what your story tells me is that the store in question attempted to punish its workers for organizing. the result was because of the vindictive nature of management.
i think that management needs to realize some things when faced with unionization:
1. they sign contracts with suppliers and distributors because if they didn't, no one would do business with them. labour is no different. negotiate in good faith, reach an agreement and everything runs fine - just like in the rest of the business world!
2. labour is who made them rich in the first place. empty factories, unused computers and fallow land don't make anyone any money. these resources only become valuable when people use them! and we call those people "workers". in the capitalist system, owners make money by getting a worker to generate x dollars worth of value and paying them less than x. in return, owners provide jobs for works. in theory, it's a symbiotic relationship.
  of course when things like demands for free overtime start happening, the relationship doesn't look so symbiotic any more. unions are about addressing that.
--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:If you don't get paid for something by Perl-Pusher · 2004-04-21 05:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course then, the managers will start displaying maps of India. For the same reason they displayed maps of Mexico in factories in the 1990's!
Then employees can start wearing NRA insignia. Personally, I find it amazing that some employee that has been outsourced hasn't assassinated a high profile supporter of outsourcing such as HP CEO Carly Fiorina. It's either an amazing show of judgement and restraint by the employees. Or lack of will and resignation of the fact that these people will always be able to walk all over you. I haven't decided which.
Re:If you don't get paid for something by Ironica · 2004-04-21 06:47 · Score: 2, Informative

You have to remember the people who worked there were aganst the union, .... Then the store became a union shop per the demand of the union.

Er, not legal under US labor law.

Unions must be certified by the bargaining unit (the employees). If a union comes from outside to organize a shop, they (1) usually need someone inside to do the organizing, because it's only employees that have those rights (the union organizers who are not employees do not necessarily have the right to distribute literature, organize meetings, etc.); and (2) have to hold a certification vote where a majority of employees vote to bring in the union. There are cases where bargaining can become recognized without a successful certification vote, such as:

- The union presents signed union cards that represent a majority of the employees (proof that the employees *would* vote for the union). This is not usually done, though, because people want their anonymity protected until the union is certified.

- The shop is purchased by a company with an existing union contract, and the acquisition defaults to union status.

- An unsuccessful certification vote is held, but it is determined by the National Labor Relations Board that actions of the employer tainted the results, and further, that any re-vote would suffer from the same taint, such that it is not possible to have a fair election. The NLRB can then require the employer to recognize the union. (This is VERY rare; usually the NLRB requires the employer to remedy the actions that tainted the election, then holds a new election.)

- The employer can choose to recognize the union without a vote. This is very risky for the employer, though, since they could be accused of installing a company union, which is an unfair labor practice. Further, the employees have a right to hold a decertification election if they don't actually want to be recognized. (This is the only way the story you tell could have happened, but since the employees could have voted out the union, it seems very unlikely.)

So, um, where are you getting your "facts?" It sounds like you're getting a garbled version of the story from someone who was very much against this unionization campaign. Do you have a news article or something with more concrete information?

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

Overtime? by G27+Radio · 2004-04-21 04:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

You mean we were supposed to be getting overtime before? I don't ever remember getting paid overtime in the last ten years.

100k by thebra · 2004-04-21 04:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Workers may still get overtime pay if they earn between $23,660 and $100,000 and work more than 40 hours per week.
I don't want to hear any complaints if your making over 100k a year. If your making less thank 23,660 a year I'm confused too.

Re: 100k by Grant_Watson · 2004-04-21 04:39 · Score: 2, Informative

"Workers may still get overtime pay if they earn between $23,660 and $100,000 and work more than 40 hours per week."
I don't want to hear any complaints if your making over 100k a year. If your making less thank 23,660 a year I'm confused too.

"According to new exemption tests, the employee isn't guaranteed overtime pay if primary duties involve office or non-manual work."

The people who have to make $100k are the people who aren't exempted.
Re: 100k by panaceaa · 2004-04-21 10:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Are you on crack? Even in San Francisco a 2 bedroom apartment for $2600/mo that's "crap" is a complete rip off. I have a beautiful 3 bedroom apartment in the Mission for $2700/mo. Maybe there's crap 2-br apartments for $2600/mo on Nob Hill or in North Beach, but no one's forcing you to live in an expensive neighborhood.

--
my blog

Not news by NineNine · 2004-04-21 04:28 · Score: 4, Informative

I could be wrong, but I was first in IT back in 1996, and this was the case back then (In NC). This is most definitely not news to me. I was in IT for almost 7 years, and I never got paid a dime of overtime (but the hourly rates I was getting paid were already obscene).

Video Game testing by Rize · 2004-04-21 04:28 · Score: 2, Funny

What about video game testing? That sounds white collar...

wait just a second here by theMerovingian · 2004-04-21 04:29 · Score: 2, Funny

You mean we were supposed to get overtime pay BEFORE they passed this law?

--
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti

whew.. by dogas · 2004-04-21 04:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Boy, am I glad I don't make $27.63 an hour.

--
'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST

Re:whew.. by Jackazz · 2004-04-21 04:35 · Score: 2, Funny

I think you meant "Boy, am I glad I make $27. 64 an hour!"
Re:whew.. by Suidae · 2004-04-21 04:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

What is it with hardcoding numbers like this in laws anyway? Shouldn't they provide a forumla to calculate the value based on some economic figures that the government could maintain in a big table somewhere? Like minimum wage could be (Imed/2.5) where Imed is the median income for the region, as defined and maintained by some government department.

They could keep track of whatever variables they need to define these numbers so that the values defined in these laws stay resonable over time and through times of high and low economic prosperity.

The law should also define exactly what the various terms in the equation represent and the reasoning behind why they were chosen.

We have all these computers around, we should be using them to improve the way our government works, not just by giving government workers ever-more bloated versions of Word, but by improving the process by which laws are made and maintained.

Right now we hardcode all the values and 'recompile' every couple of years. Its dumb and a waste of taxpayer money and resources.
Re:whew.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-21 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Minor problem...if you used a formula then your minimum wage might change periodically. Do you really want to see ads in the paper advertising a payrate of (imed/2.5 + .25)/hr? As most payrates are indirectly based on lower payrates (if they were not then the supervisor might make less than those under him), then a lot of people might end up with semi-flexable wages. Plus every quarter/month when these tables changed EVERY fastfood place and any other business that has a large number of low paid positions (even those that are not getting just minmum wage...as again most of them are based loosely on what the minimum wage is as they want to pay xyz more than minimum to keep the "good" people) would have a huge job of redoing everyone's wages and all their prices.

That and how would YOU like it if your payrate would go up or down based not on your performance, but on an arbitrary number that changed regularly?
Re:whew.. by iwadasn · 2004-04-21 09:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

While this soudns like a good idea, it probably isn't. If you don't calibrate your functions correctly you can easily have blue-sky disasters. I know it sounds like I'm making these words up, but i'm not. :-)

A blue sky disaster is where one variable explodes to infinity at a specified point in time. This is easily caused by many classes of functions where they start to feedbackon each other. In fact, keeping stability when the median income is affected by the minimum wage, which is affected by the median income, etc... is a really hard problem. Most of chaos math is based on trying to figure out when systems like this will explode. Most of them have a way of slowly working their way into a regime where they catastrophically fail.

Very similar to a ship being rocked by waves or a skyscraper pushed by wind. You have to be very careful that there are no resonances, or you have to stay very far away from the "edge" of your safe zone to avoid being pushed over or capsized.

Damn... by Jin+Wicked · 2004-04-21 04:29 · Score: 4, Informative

For all the difficulty and struggle that comes with it, it's a good time to be a contractor or self-employed.

They (some dept. in the govmn't) also put out a press-release type thing months ago instructing employers how to avoid overtime pay under general circumstances. Maybe someone could help me out and dig it up...

Your government, always fighting for the little guy instead of big business. Gotta love it.

--
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street

Re:Damn... by Jin+Wicked · 2004-04-21 04:31 · Score: 5, Informative

Ah, here it is:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/ 2001830565_overtime06.html

That's an article about it, I used to have a copy of the actual document they're referring to.

--
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
Re:Damn... by hoggoth · 2004-04-21 04:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

> How does it help to be self-employed? This means you work extra hours for the same pay.

I've been self-employed for over three years now. It's a lot of work, and I spend as much time selling my services as actually doing the work I enjoy. However every time I see an opportunity for an employee position it's for less money than I'm making now and usually includes a long commute.

No thanks.
I'll be my own boss, make more money, and work from my home office.
Yeah, sometimes I may have to work late at night when my family goes to sleep, but at lunch I go jump on the trampoline with my kids. Fair trade-off.

--
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)

PHBs... by ItMustBeEsoteric · 2004-04-21 04:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Affected employees include computer systems analysts, programmers, software engineers or anyone with a similar title."

Admittedly, I didn't RTFA, but that statements just SCREAMS for pointy-hairs to change the job titles of the people who they don't want to have to pay for overtime.

Re:PHBs... by secolactico · 2004-04-21 04:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

The title has nothing to do this. It's about white collar workers in general.

Oddly, it also includes funeral directors and embalmers.

--
No sig

WTF? by MadBiologist · 2004-04-21 04:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Why in God's name is slashdot quoting the Oneonta Daily Twinkle? I mean... my God.. can we get a smaller town paper to read for national tech news?

Can you tell that I lived in Oneonta for a while?

J

--
'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?'

I don't get it by Soporific · 2004-04-21 04:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Where did they get the $455 weekly and $27.63 hourly figures from? If you are getting paid $27.63 an hour, chances are you are clearing that $455 easily and if you are making $455 (after tax) weekly you are getting paid about $13-14 bucks an hour.

~S

Re:I don't get it by The+Clockwork+Troll · 2004-04-21 04:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

The hourly figure applies to part time workers.
If they didn't state it that way, then someone could hold down 3 16 hr./week jobs that paid $27/hr., work 10 extra hours at each and effectively subvert the overtime rule.

--

There are no karma whores, only moderation johns

What is this thing called overtime? by Ian+Wolf · 2004-04-21 04:30 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh yeah, thats that "time and a half" thing I use to get before I was salaried.

I've been salaried so long now, I stopped lamenting paid overtime ages ago. Unfortunately, this means my wife's already meager paycheck is gonna get leaner.

Great.

--
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."

Only 100,000 people affected? by BetaJim · 2004-04-21 04:31 · Score: 2, Informative

On NPR yesterday it was reported that only about 100,000 people would be affected by the new changes. If IT folks aren't eligible then that reported number is much too low.

This sucks. I think that if you get an hourly wage you should get overtime pay, regardless of any other factors, if you work overtime.

--

"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.

Re:Only 100,000 people affected? by VoidPoint · 2004-04-21 04:36 · Score: 2, Funny

That's the number of IT people left in the U.S. This law doesn't apply to outsourced positions.

"New" rule? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2004-04-21 04:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

new rules that seem to specifically target IT workers and other white collar workers for exemption from overtime pay.

That "new" rule is as old as IT : if you do your legal 40 hours per week in an IT company, you're out of here faster than you can say "antidisestablishmentarianism".

In the last company I worked for, a minimum of 60 hours per week was expected, sort of like an unwritten rule, often a lot more during death marches. I was well paid of course, and bonuses were huge, but in reality I had a really shitty hourly wage.

So what's new here? just that it's now a written rule that IT workers are slave workers. The only thing this does is diminish even further the impression of "privileged workers" non-IT folks have of us, and that's too bad because that's about the only glamour of the job.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:"New" rule? by bc90021 · 2004-04-21 04:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, I work for a tech company, and they expect me to work sixty hours a week too... the only difference is that I don't. I work the forty. At 5pm, I get up, pack my computer, and leave.

It's that simple. I'm not getting paid overtime, so I'm not doing overtime. Granted, I'm "on call" once every other week, so I get woken up sometimes, but frankly, I just don't understand why people think they have to do that extra 20 hours. Do they give you more money? Do they come over and help clean your apartment? No. So why do it for them?

They are providing you a job, and as long as you do that job, then "expectations" are just that.

--
libertarianswag.com
Re:"New" rule? by LostCluster · 2004-04-21 04:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Reminds me of the rumored Microsoft tactic of hiring two people for one job, with the knowledge that one of them would be fired at the end of the first year. The result is that the two would end up working many hours of unpaid overtime that management doesn't even have to ask for in order to get ahead of their rival.

I'm not quite sure that's the kind of environment where I'd want to struggle to keep the job...
Re:"New" rule? by jhoffoss · 2004-04-21 05:23 · Score: 2, Informative

I think the differnce is more that your salary is for completing work assigned, rather than a certain number of hours. Which sucks when too much work is assigned. But this leaves the employer wide open to dismiss employees for lack of performance. But that's the price I pay. And in the future, it will ideally lead to promotion & pay increase, though not necessarily less hours per week. Which also sucks. Better than being union, IMO though. I'm paid fairly, for what I am worth, and am treated with respect and my coworkers are upheld to the same standard.
If we were union (my last employer was) I'd work with some slugs who barely get 40 hours in, and don't do half the work I did most days, and I was a part time student employee. And they got paid triple what I was paid. Yeah, I got screwed, and I made them all look very bad, but my boss also knew I did a lot of work and so would let me take some extra time off with pay from time to time (no vacation for students/part-time) and let me "work from home" a few times a month. Not perfect, but it worked while I was in school.

--
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
Re:"New" rule? by Suidae · 2004-04-21 05:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sounds like a variation on the Prisoners' Dilemma.

I wonder if the alleged Microsoft managers actually understood the strategy.
Re:"New" rule? by bc90021 · 2004-04-21 06:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

I dispute this. "Because you'll get fired if you don't", on several levels:

1) It has been shown (studies during World War II, I recall, and think someone else mentioned) that after about 36 hours of work per week, productivity drops significantly.

2) Are you so replaceable that this is an issue? If so, you need to work harder at making yourself indispensable. For all the system administrators that are out there, I'm one of few (that my employers know of) that has a lot of Linux experience and is good with security (and certified, too).

3) Do you want to work for a company whose main goal is to be so understaffed as to need people to work 60 hours a week?

4) Do you want to work a for a company which doesn't respect its employees enough to give them an appropriate amount of time at home to have a life?

Four is an important point for me. I am amazed at the number of family people I see who work 60-70 hours a week. Granted, I understand that families require money, but families require time as well. Not only that, but when you're salaried, you don't get extra money for the extra time, so the argument that they're doing it to help support the family goes out the window!

So, make yourself more valuable, get them to show you some respect, and enjoy your work... but enjoy your life, too.

--
libertarianswag.com

getting $100k/year hourly? by gevmage · 2004-04-21 04:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

The article says: "Chao said about 107,000 white-collar workers earning $100,000 or more a year could lose their eligibility."

People in that salary bracket are being paid hourly? I had always assumed that anywhere in the 50+ per year range is a salaried position, and overtime isn't an issue anyway, because you don't keep a time clock.

--
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net

figures . . . by uberjoe · 2004-04-21 04:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Another astounding success in the Bush Administration's No Billionaire Left Behind program.

--

The days of the digital watch are numbered.

Stupid by dolo666 · 2004-04-21 04:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's a totally stupid rule. So now all us Geeks not only have to be chained to the desk for 18 hours a day, we don't get the compensation for it? You try it, damned politicians!!! Thankfully, I am Canadian and any journey south would be under contract stipulating that overtime hours are paid at double-time. Just so you know, that contract re-negotiation can give you some leverage to get what you want, and that even if the law says one thing, you can still negotiate yourself out of these kinds of compensation ruts. Don't take no for an answer. Unionize and strike, need be.

This isn't anything new... by lukewarmfusion · 2004-04-21 04:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm on salary. Which means I'm on-call 24/7, expected to do overtime if needed, and can be fired at any time for any reason.

If I'm working as an hourly employee, I'm going to bill my boss for every hour I spend working. At my full rate. If I'm lucky, maybe they'll agree to pay me time and a half for anything over 40 hours (or some other predetermined limit).

They can't make me work overtime hours and not pay me, unless I'm salary. Then I wouldn't expect it anyway.

What about SB 88? by Mr.Surly · 2004-04-21 04:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

Which explicitly states that IT workers making less than $83,000 anually must be paid overtime?

This was signed into (California) law in 2000, I believe.

SB 88

From the bill:

This bill, except as specified, would exempt a professional employee in the computer software field from this overtime compensation requirement if the employee is primarily engaged in work that is intellectual or creative, the employee's hourly rate of pay is not less than $41.00, and the employee meets other requirements.

Inaccurate Headline... by jkubecki · 2004-04-21 04:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Once again, typically for Slashdot, the headline is very inaccurate. It's not that IT workers aren't eligible for overtime pay, it's just that it's no longer guaranteed. If your employer wants to pay you overtime, that's still their prerogative, not to mention a good idea for retention. Believe, there are folks out there earning overtime for IT work that this will not affect at all.

Re:Inaccurate Headline... by ThosLives · 2004-04-21 04:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Alas, today I have no mod points: I have been checking to make sure that somewhere out there someone else noticed this. It might be a fine semantic point, but the new legislation just changes around exempt vs. non-exempt classifications. When my company was doing well, I got overtime (I'm salaried, so just got straight-time except holidays, which was time-and-a-half). When my company hit the rocks, I got no overtime. Big whoop, $60k / year is more than enough to live quite nicely. Mostly, though, my management is pretty good about compensable time (gee, you worked 16 hour days the past three days - take a couple days off!) so it's not that bad.
Even in salaried positions, there are OSHA regulations which specify maximum continuous hours worked and minimum time off between shifts. I think the only exceptions are for certain health care and emergency personnel, but there are laws for the nonunion employee about allowed work practices.
This whole argument, to me, is kind of silly because people are either uninformed or just angry that they can't get as much of a free lunch as they once did. I'm with all those folks who have no tears for people "in tight financial straits" with a family and going from $100k to $75k salary (my parents raised me and my two siblings on about $28k (gross)/ year, and we even had two functional automobiles and a swimming pool! So yes, I'm biased and think that people with problems that make over $35k / year should shut up and suffer the consequences of poor decisions).

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)

Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? by w.p.richardson · 2004-04-21 04:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seems to me that there's nothing stopping you from giving it a whirl. Nothing quite like being knee deep in a malfunctioning septic tank!

--

Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!

Math troubles? by pknoll · 2004-04-21 04:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Computer employees are not guaranteed overtime pay if they make $455 a week, or if their hourly rate is $27.63.

$455 a week is $23,660 yearly.

$27.63 an hour is $57,470 yearly, which is already close to Federal overtime exemption (if not hitting it exactly, I don't recall the current figure).

So, why the $34,000 discrepancy?

Re:Math troubles? by m000 · 2004-04-21 04:45 · Score: 5, Informative

That probably refers to people making at least $27.63/hour who do not work enough hours/week to break $455.
Re:Math troubles? by SuperBigO · 2004-04-21 09:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Some hourly wages do not include benefits such as health insurance, 401K, bonus, etc. My current job is like that. Basically a W-2 contract employee.

Most salary jobs include benefits so the net value of the job to the employer is the same as a higher hourly wage.

No better in Canada.... by Colonel+Angus · 2004-04-21 04:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

...well, perhaps not all of Canada, but I have been in IT now for 6 years and never once have received any overtime.

My current job has the best "overtime" policy that I've had thus far, in that lieu time off is calculated on overtime hours * 1.5. So we get time and a half OFF for the time we work. Not bad. Gives me at *least* one day off every 3 weeks.

So I have more time off, and no extra income to fork over to the gov't to misappropriate.

Re:No better in Canada.... by Senjutsu · 2004-04-21 06:32 · Score: 2, Informative

well, perhaps not all of Canada, but I have been in IT now for 6 years and never once have received any overtime.

If you're salaried, you're not entitled to overtime. If, on the other hand, you're payed hourly and are working more than 44 hours per week, your employer is legally obligated to pay you time and a half for every hour over that. If this is the case, contact the labour relations board immediately and they will bitchslap your employer through the floor and obtain the outstanding wages owed you.

AFL-CIO story by blakespot · 2004-04-21 04:34 · Score: 4, Informative

It's terrible stuff. We need to get this guy out of office.

http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/n s04202004.cfm

blakespot

--
-- Heisenberg may have slept here.
iPod Hacks.com

Re:AFL-CIO story by Jason+Hood · 2004-04-21 05:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Crap I thought all the slashdot socialists and commies would be happy with this.

The intent of the overtime cutback is so that their will be more jobs available and so that the government wont be wasting as much money. Instead of paying some people 1.5-2x their regular rate in overtime, the government and its contractors can hire more people. Studies have repeatedly shown that over-working employees over time greatly reduces both the quality and quantity of their work.

I have worked for the government in an IT department. People 35 years old had retirement day counters on their desks. Yeah no joke, they dont care. They would surf the web all day long and work 2 hours extra everyday so their take home was greater. You can't fire them, you cant motivate them and you have to promote them. Go work for the government and see for yourself.

Before you jump on the Bush sucks, right-wing sucks bandwagon try and find out why this proposal was created. At the minimum you can at least see what "the enemy" is thinking.

--
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?

Bush administration by catphile · 2004-04-21 04:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

These right wing freaks are hostile to modernity itself. Overtime was progress 70 years ago, now they want to go back. They are extremists who must be stopped.

Re:Bush administration by comedian23 · 2004-04-21 05:39 · Score: 2, Informative

>Second of all if you're making $21k/yr or more then you're making more that most Americans. These rules only affect the rich.

I don't think that's true. 21K is very close to the median for some of the poorer states like AR, MS, etc. States with higher populations like NY, and CA are higher, around 26-27K per year. Someone in IT making 21K/yr is far, far, far from rich.

Here is a link to find median wages for the US.
Re:Bush administration by ERJ · 2004-04-21 05:42 · Score: 3, Informative

Median (not mean) household income for the USA is around $41,500 or so...
Re:Bush administration by ERJ · 2004-04-21 05:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh, and a link (warning PDF file):

2002 census info
Re:Bush administration by ElGuapoGolf · 2004-04-21 07:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Like someone else did earlier, I'll call bullshit on this.

Kerry, among other Democrats, has taken great pains to point out that he favors a tax increase on only those household who take home more than $200K a year.

Just as a little personal example... I make a bit mroe than 28K a year, but less than 100K a year. I'll leave a little wiggle room in there for your imaginations. Last year, thanks to George W's tax cuts, I had to pay less income tax. Net savings was approx 300. Thanks!

But wait. Because W wasn't done yet, oh no sir. He lowered the amount of interest I pay on my student loans that I could deduct on my taxes. Net loss to me, approx 740. Apparently getting a (very slight) break on the interest of your student loans is too much to ask for. Thanks!

So thanks to George, I'm paying about 340 more than I did before, our deficit is through the roof, and it doesn't seem things will get better. If Kerry wants to raise taxes on people who make over 200K, and reset it so we middle class folks get our real advantages back while losing those superficial advantages, god bless him and good luck in November.
Re:Bush administration by cluckshot · 2004-04-21 08:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is a great comment MOD this guy up! I have worked for the State of Alabama Department of Revenue Sales and Use Tax Division in the past. This will save money on collection and reward people for doing good. My Only objection to what is said here is that the Flat tax is actually worse than the current Income Tax. A National Sales Tax and you could kiss the IRS goodbye. Just don't associate the two.

Definitionally a Flat tax is the end of small business. It wipes out the deductions against Income for individuals and does not allow you to count them against your earnings as a whole. At the same time a "Flat Tax" would leave the same deductions in place for the Big Co's.

The Sales Tax taxes everybody the same. The most profound thing it does, is that it ends the tax advantages now extended to foreign (Not USA) businesses and individuals causing all players here to pay equally. It also frees US Exports from being mostly US INCOME Tax allowing us to compete in the world market. Want to watch the world scream for protection from the Americans... ? Pass the National Sales Tax and repeal any income taxes.

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Re:Bush administration by mdfst13 · 2004-04-21 08:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Local electricians make $27/hour (about $54K a year without overtime) and get time and a half for anything over forty hours. Sixty-five hours a week would easily give $100,000 per year. High Voltage test techs make about the same per hour and get time and a half over 8 hours in a day (or Saturdays) and double time over 10 hours in a day (or Sundays). There was an article about an employee of one of the big three US car companies that made a $100,000 in a year with overtime.

I would agree that this is rare in an office environment, but there are any number of blue collar jobs that are hourly and pay better than $40K per year. For that matter, I have had several salary style jobs that paid considerably less.
Re:Bush administration by Pickup+Chick · 2004-04-21 14:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Wait a minute! I was looking around at the DOL website, and they have actually RAISED the maximum amount you can make and still receive government required overtime compensation. They approximate that 1.3 million people will now receive 1.5 time overtime pay who were not required to receive it before. And, employers can decide to pay overtime even if people make more than this maximum - they just aren't required to do so. http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/541_Side_By _Side.htm

In other news by cexshun · 2004-04-21 04:36 · Score: 5, Funny

In other news, the Department of Labor is experiencing strange outages with their network, website, and all IT related systems.

I can see it now... by Frennzy · 2004-04-21 04:36 · Score: 4, Funny

PHB: Mr. Frennzy, we'd like to offer you employment. Your base wage will be $27.65 per hour.

Me: No WAY man! I won't take a penny over $27.62 per hour.

Thankfully, it's not an issue if you're self-employed.

Actually, this story is WRONG by ScottGant · 2004-04-21 04:38 · Score: 4, Informative

I repeat, the overtime rules were reworked at the last minute!

The Bush administration on Tuesday pulled back from a planned overhaul of the nation's overtime rules, allowing more white-collar workers -- including those earning as much as $100,000 a year -- to continue collecting premium pay if they log more than 40 hours a week.

From The Oregonian

--

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.

Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by Suppafly · 2004-04-21 04:45 · Score: 4, Informative

There was, and still may, be a law that exempted some groups of workers from overtime pay. IT was, and may still be, in that group.

IT in general wasn't in that group, very specific subsets of IT employees are in that group. Many employers would love to have you believe that every IT job is in that group, but that is simply not the case.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2004-04-21 05:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Computer workers do not qualify for OT if the following applies:

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:

1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;

2) 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;

3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or

4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.

These are the up to date rules changes proposals.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairp ay /fs17e_computer.htm

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by GigsVT · 2004-04-21 05:50 · Score: 2, Informative

The story is wrong in other places too:

There is no "highly compensated test" in current law,

There is... As an IT worker, you can be exempt if you make 6 times minimum wage or more.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by cluckshot · 2004-04-21 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not only is the Story Wrong but even the thinking behind the ruling is wrong.

Overtime laws were set in place first during the 1930's to reduce labor supplies in order to maintain some price levels to prevent deflation. During World War 2 the US War Department (Now DOD) ran into a problem with productivity. They had very highly motivated workers who had been starved for money and who had family in the field fighting and dying. These workers wanted to win the war all by themselves THIS WEEK!

The problem developed that they bought the ideas behind the new rules that more hours of work ment more productivity. So they wrote contracts with companies that open endedly encouraged long hours. As soon as these began productivity spiked upwards and by the end of a month it had crashed to levels in the order of 50% or less of what productivity had been during the 8 hr/day 40hr/week times. The hours were pushing upwards to 100 or more a week so the US War Department did some serious studies on productivity.

Their research showed that after about 35 to 36 hours a week of work, no additional productivity could be sustained even working much longer. In factory line situations this was even worse as defect rates rose catastrophically. Simply stated the 40 hr work week was about 4 hours too long for human functionality. By 44 hours the situation was seeing rates of production drop dramatically. By 72 hrs nonfunctionality had happened.

Studies have been done of office workers on this issue and the numbers are even worse for them on hours of sustained productivity. The reality is that OVERTIME is no good for families, industry or profits! It is a good way to get programs or devices that fail. In offices where workers salaried are paid flat rates, we often see long periods of non-productive time because of this. The few "Workaholics" we see are mostly very busy but frankly most of them actually damage the production effort in the long run. Unfortunately they look good to management who often does not look to see where the money came from.

The whole ideals set for the Bush team is an early industrial revolution set of ideas that did not work. Their "Adam Smith" "Invisible Hand" theories do not work either. Their concept is that there is a shortage of labor. This is inspite of 80 years of American History showing that we have a profoundly dangerous over supply of labor both in the USA and world wide.

The Technolological progress many of us in IT are responsible for is actually increasing the world wide efficiency of the labor by about 12% a year. This is threatening to collapse the market all together. This is the "Jobless Recovery" that is still very much a reality. By the way, don't give me the crap about 308,000 jobs in March. It is probably a fiction anyway but assuming it is true, the USA must add nearly 360,000 jobs a month for static economic conditions to be maintained due to population changes. The USA must also increase income by about 3.5% per annum for the same reasons. It currently is seeing rises in income about 1%/annum which translates into a 2.5% cut in actual wages per average person.

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by caseydk · 2004-04-21 06:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why don't we just tell the government to get their damn hands out of it in the first place?

I have a salaried job now that doesn't get me overtime. I have had hourly contract jobs in the past that don't give overtime, but pay for the actual hours worked.

Shifting from contract jobs to a salaried position meant that I had a significant paycut and unpaid overtime (like everyone else in the field), but it offered stability.

If you want to be compensated for working more than 40 hours, do it at a different job or get it into your contract.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-21 06:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

fascinating. Do you have a source for your information? I'd like to read up on this.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by timeOday · 2004-04-21 06:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

That is bizarre, why are they targeting us? Why not at least base it on something less ambiguous, such as pay?
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by pbox · 2004-04-21 06:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The 300K new jobs in March most likely came about by counting in the people standing in line for unemployment checks. After all it is like working for the checks...

Almost as ingenious, as the previous move, whereas the fast food employees suddenly became part of the manufacturing sector. The manufacture cardio-vascular problems...

--
Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-21 06:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

I just came off a contract as a software engineer at a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 insurance company. The management, apparently, does not believe your statements about reduced productivity when you work too many hours in a week. All the full time (hence salaried) engineers were working well over 80 hour weeks. They would keep track of the number of hours these salaried employees worked. One of my co-workers put in over 90 hours one week and was not even in the top 10 for number of hours worked. This went on for months. If a union is required to stop this insanity, I say unionize. Those poor schlubs were beat and ill-tempered almost all the time and I can tell you they made a lot more mistakes than they should have.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by Phurd+Phlegm · 2004-04-21 06:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Everyone I know works more than 40 hours a week and nobody gets paid overtime.
The solution to this problem is simple. Tell your prospective employer you are willing to work forty hours a week, but you're willing to negotiate more hours for higher pay. Then, when they say they expect you to work "till the job is done," tell them no.
I've found it works better expressed in terms they can relate to, e.g., "I'm just so unproductive on a long work week I end up getting less done," or "I make so many mistakes the last twenty hours I spend the next forty cleaning them up," though what's really true is "my family and my life are more important than the emergency you're too cheap to staff."
My favorite line is, "a professional works till the job is done." This is actually true, but incomplete. It should end with "and sends you a bill for every minute it took." Check with your lawyer and see if you can get a flat rate for an open-ended job.
Of course, it helps if you're good enough that even your manager can see that you're a bargain....
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by sjfoley · 2004-04-21 07:07 · Score: 2, Informative

It is probably a fiction anyway but assuming it is true, the USA must add nearly 360,000 jobs a month for static economic conditions to be maintained due to population changes.
Wrong. Try 150,000 I'd be interested in seeing the stats to back up your other numbers...
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by Rich0 · 2004-04-21 07:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Technolological progress many of us in IT are responsible for is actually increasing the world wide efficiency of the labor by about 12% a year. This is threatening to collapse the market all together.

The problem is that our system is designed around the scarcity of labor - which is becoming less the case.

Suppose we developed the technology to have robots do 100% of all physical labor, and 95% of all non-inventive labor (any kind of service which doesn't involve very high levels of labor). In theory in such a society everyone could afford to live like a king (at least at present population levels). However, under our present system, you'd have 50 people living far better than any king in history (the 50 people who own the robots), and everybody else who can't even afford to buy food.

The problem is that with modern technology, the need for workers is lowering every year. However, with our present system you can only obtain money by working. Anybody see a potential problem with this?

I'm not sure that communism is the right solution, however eventually something has to change. Perhaps mandatory maximum 5 hour work weeks will be the norm one day?
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by br00tus · 2004-04-21 07:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Give me a break. I don't even believe that you are an IT worker, you're probably a boss and lying about it. Yaa, "tell the government to keep their damn hands off of it". Off of what, me getting paid for the time I work? Me having a social life instead of working all of the time? Chao is trying to change the rules which is government putting its damn hands all over it, putting it for the IT companies which are bankrolling the Bush campaign.
There are a million rules tying the hands of unions - Taft-Hartley, secondary strikes. Bush ordered the ILWU longershoremen on the west coast not to strike not long ago. You can bet your ass that the Bush administration is not going to keep its damn hands off of that power.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by geekoid · 2004-04-21 07:52 · Score: 3, Informative

Becasue we have a lot of power.
Companies depend on IT. No IT, and your company will collapse. Now if we had a nation wide Union, we could stop this is a heart beat.

Some people don't want to let market decide pay rates when it doesn't work in there favor.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by geekoid · 2004-04-21 07:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

I am beating this to death in this thread, but it is important.
Salary doesn't mean your not entitled to overtime.
read your state labor laws regarding this.

also, I have found out the salaried 'full time' employee does not mean stability. The last place I was at, they kept the contractors, and let the regular employies go. Different parts of the budget.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by SirChive · 2004-04-21 08:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes, this guy gets it! Society is facing structural changes in the nature of work unlike any seen since the beginning of the industrial age.

Back in the 50's and 60's the popular press was filled with stories predicting a future when automation would mean we could all work 25 or 30 hour weeks and still live the good life. The accepted presumption was that the wealth of society would be shared.

But under our current system of unrestrained capitalism business has found it more profitable to fire a quarter of the workforce, move a quarter of the jobs overseas and crack the whip on the remaining few workers forcing them to work massive hours for stagnant pay.

Eventually something has to give. The trouble is that Joe Pickup and Mommy Minivan still buy into the illusion of upward mobility even as their finances crumble around them and decent work disappears.

Maybe when the 30 million Walmart and Fast Food jobs get turned over to Service Robots people will wake up and start to wonder how we are going to provide the chance at a decent life to all the members of our society.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by op00to · 2004-04-21 08:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

However, with our present system you can only obtain money by working. Anybody see a potential problem with this?

Better tell the IRS that, because I made money last year without working! I recieved interest on a money market account, I recieved dividends from stocks... It is unfortunate that people thing the ONLY way to make money is to work. The only result from working for a living is perhaps to be debt-free, but certainly not very wealthy once you retire. When you work for a living, you create expenses like having to own a car or buy a train ticket to commute every morning, having to buy special clothes for work, that sort of thing. Why not invest your time into buying and selling real estate? Don't have money you say? That's great! That's a better situation to be in than having some money, because you've got nothing anyone can take in case you tank. You can buy and sell wonderful imaginary things called "options" on the houses that you can't afford. Leverage your brain and your money, instead of merely slaving away to make someone else rich. Make your money work for you, so that you don't have to work. For fear of sounding too much like an informercial, I won't name any books for you to read, but if you do your homework, it is possible for anyone, with any income to buy and sell real estate. It won't happen right away, but if you're smart, you won't have to work for someone else any longer.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by spun · 2004-04-21 09:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

You need a union because if you go it alone, they will squash you like a bug. At least they won't hire Pinkertons to KILL YOU anymore. Unions brought us child labor laws, the weekend, the 8 hour work day, 40 hour work week, minimum wage, workplace safety regulations and a lot more that we take for granted now. Sure, lots of today's unions have been taken over by greedy fat-cats, but that doesn't make the basic concept wrong.

Let's remember that strikes are not the only tool in the box of the creative labor organizer. Sabotage, sick-outs, work to rule, and slowdowns are all massively effective and less likely to get you replaced if you are careful.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by caseydk · 2004-04-21 09:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

ive me a break. I don't even believe that you are an IT worker, you're probably a boss and lying about it. Yaa, "tell the government to keep their damn hands off of it". Off of what, me getting paid for the time I work? Me having a social life instead of working all of the time? Chao is trying to change the rules which is government putting its damn hands all over it, putting it for the IT companies which are bankrolling the Bush campaign.

Are you blaming Bush for not having a social life?

Anyway, if you only want to work 40 hours a week, then start working towards that as your goal. When I first started my current job, I was at 40 hrs, which steadily drifted up to 50 hrs and it drove me nuts without additional pay.

Therefore, I've steadily decreased my hours and now I work 40-43 hrs/week.

At a Friday meeting a few weeks ago, I had three new requirements thrown at me for a nearly complete app. I told them (and my boss) that I would start on it Monday. When asked why I wouldn't start it immediately, I told them that unless I was being paid hourly, I take the weekends off.

You have to set your priorities and then live by them.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by DarkSarin · 2004-04-21 10:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Good for you.

My brother was in a similar position, working for the CA state maximum security prisons. They wanted to give him a promotion and put him on salary, but he had already looked around at other salaried workers and decided that it wasn't worth it--everyone on salary worked 50-60hrs with no additional pay.

The trouble with limiting overtime pay is that you must ALSO restrict overtime work and make it illegal for the company to require overtime. Then if you are asked to work it when they aren't supposed to, you very firmly say no, and document it (and tell them that you are). Then if they fire you, its time to go to court.

If people would actually do this, companies would be much more wary about asking ridiculous amounts of overtime.

I have to further note that it is unreasonable to expect people to work more than 40hrs/week. Very few are productive that many hours in one week. I agree that 30-35 should be the standard, even in positions that are essentially vigilance duty (guards, orderlies in a mental hospital, process control workers (steel plants), etc).

Fatigue and exhaustion are a nasty little set of problems, but most managers run roughshod over them, claiming that workers are lazy.

The only job that I ever had where I worked 60+ hrs was granite mining. I lost a lot of weight that summer. We got up at about 6am and were on the job at by 6:30 or 7. We went home at 7:30 or 8. We worked saturdays too. We stayed productive and we had fun (blowing things up helps keep it exciting).

Due to the location (Little Cottonwood Canyon in Utah), we even got occasional bomb-threats and protestors (we were ruining some really good climbing spots, but hey the property was privately held and the owner wanted lots of granite of a very particular variety).

On the other hand I've had part-time jobs where no one was productive more than about 50% of the time, and we only worked about 20hrs/week.

It partly depends on the job, but there are a lot of jobs where 25 hrs of hard work would be enough to keep up with the work.

--
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG by Martin+Blank · 2004-04-21 10:48 · Score: 2, Informative

State law trumps contract law in most (all?) of these cases. For example, in California, you can not sign away overtime rights guaranteed to you by state law. The law does allow for some small modifications, such as 4/40 or 9/80 schedules, but there are limitations.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

work overtime for regieme change at home by swschrad · 2004-04-21 04:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

nothing will change if the persons in government don't.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Re:Republicans Hate Workers by sqlrob · 2004-04-21 04:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's why this year I'm going to vote with my... vote... for a regime that's more in line with my goals.

Name one. Chances are if they're in politics, they aren't in line with your goals.

"Salaried" usually equals "hourly" anyways by four12 · 2004-04-21 04:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've worked for 17 years in the IT field, and all but three of those years have been as a "salaried" employee.

If I am "salaried", why do I have to fill out a timesheet? Why, when I only have 38 hours on my timesheet, do I get paid for 38 hours? Conversely, when I have 68 hour, I only get paid for 40?

I've brought this up as "illegal" on a couple occasions, and even cited the state's labour laws, only to have it thrown back at me.

THIS is where we need to make some reforms too...

Re:"Salaried" usually equals "hourly" anyways by startled · 2004-04-21 09:58 · Score: 2, Informative

(IANAL, but I've recently discussed this issue with one. Talk to a real lawyer for the real deal, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah. Also, this may only apply to California.)

It is illegal. Many companies have (fairly recently) been found in violation, and had to pay every employee all their owed overtime pay. By docking you 2 hours of pay, the company has firmly classified you as an hourly employee, and they now owe you 26 hours (just math from your hypothetical situation) of overtime pay, regardless of whether you're even still employed there.

If there's no dispute over the fact that you were docked for sub-40 hours, this is cut and dried. If the company made a practice of this and is reasonably large, they are in very real danger of getting hit with a class action, and having to pay a massive amount of back overtime pay.

It's not new - for salary workers by Slowtreme · 2004-04-21 04:40 · Score: 4, Informative

Salaried, AKA Exempt Employees, are exempt from overtime pay. If you have a contract for $60K per year and no other stipulations you should not expect additional pay for working over 40hours per week.

Employees that are on an Hourly wage get paid hourly. This new law is saying that if your wage is over this $20 mark, you do not have a right to earn time and a half, but you will still get paid on your hourly wage. If you work 60 hours you get paid for 60, not 70 (40 + 20 + (20/2))

Companies are required to have no more than 50% staff on Exempt status (ratio may change from state to state)

--
Post: Sigged, for your pleasure.

Re:It's not new - for salary workers by LostCluster · 2004-04-21 04:53 · Score: 4, Informative

It should be noted that if you're an overtime-exempt non-hourly employee, a whole new rulebook comes into play.

They can't make you punch a timeclock... nor can they deduct pay for being late or leaving early. Just like working extra time can't earn you extra money for the week, they can't deduct money if you work less than fourty hours. When it comes down to it, about the only retribution they have if they don't think you're working enough is to let you go.

I usually make a policy of demanding offsets for any time that I'm schedule to do something outside of business hours within the same week so that if anybody asks while I'm not there, there's a recent project that can be pointed at.

If a project just can't survive without me showing up seven consecutive days... then this is an ill-designed project to begin with. Most states have a "day of rest" law that prevents employers from scheduling any seven days in a row for the same employee anyway...
Re:It's not new - for salary workers by Hrothgar+The+Great · 2004-04-21 05:04 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, I see a lot of factory workers posting on Slashdot at 12:58 PM.

Also, one time I totally strained my back typing on my keyboard all day.
Re:It's not new - for salary workers by John+Courtland · 2004-04-21 05:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

They can't make you punch a timeclock... nor can they deduct pay for being late or leaving early.
This exact bullshit happened to me, where despite being salaried, I had to punch a clock. That job ended in a flurry of "Fuck yous" and I wish I had had the sense to quit before they fired me.

--
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Re:It's not new - for salary workers by bjarvis354 · 2004-04-21 05:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just to throw my personal perspective into the mix. I am also a salaried employee and currently, I *do* get overtime. I have a union contract that defines many conditions where I am paid OT as a supervisor. I work past those limits, I get an extra 1/6th of my salary (our work week is defined as a 6 day week).

The men and women who I supervise are hourly get ~$30/hour and get OT as well.

In closing: IMHO Unions are good.
Re:It's not new - for salary workers by Slowtreme · 2004-04-21 05:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I was confused about this 50%, my mistake. This is where I got the % from:

The Exempt Employee Must Primarily Perform Exempt Duties.

To be exempt, the employee must be engaged in work that is "primarily" intellectual and varied, etc. The rule of thumb is that the employee must be engaged in his/her "exempt duties" for over 50% of the work week. However, under the federal rules, there is not an absolute 50%-plus rule if it is unquestionable that the employee's role is as an exempt individual.

However there is a stipulation about exempt vs non, but not a ratio. You just must be able to prove that your employee is exempt. You can't just blindly say "Sorry no OT for you". and you can get called on it.

Here is an article on Florida's overtime:
http://articles.corporate.findlaw.com/a rticles/fil e/00156/008487

--
Post: Sigged, for your pleasure.
Re:It's not new - for salary workers by arkanes · 2004-04-21 06:49 · Score: 2

We've got the same crap at my job. I'm about 80% sure that the reason is that the crappy contractors who set up our payroll system (which only tracks hours, and has no provision for non-hourly people) and the stupid managment who decided everyone had to use it, and stupid financial policies about charging time are the reason, rather than any sort of actual evilness. Everyone I know just sticks down 40 hours of time no matter how much or little time they work anyway.
Re:It's not new - for salary workers by rollingcalf · 2004-04-21 18:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you worked overtime while punching the clock and not getting paid for it, and were penalized or reprimanded when you went below 40 hours, you you may be able to successfully sue them for back pay. When you're overtime-exempt, employers generally aren't supposed to track hours and penalize you for undertime. Many ex-employees have won suits like this which forced the employers to give pack pay not only to the plaintiffs but to every other employee.

--
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.

No, it's accurate..... by Genjurosan · 2004-04-21 04:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Because by the time the CEOs are finished, there will be less than 100,000 IT workers in the US.

Re:OTOH by AmericanInKiev · 2004-04-21 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not entirely,

Overtime is an incentive for employers to HIRE people rather than working the one's they have to death.

It is incentive which recognizes that the market if left to itself will gobble up all the dedicated people who don't have kids and can work weekends and evenings and leave the people who carry the real burden of society (yes parenthood) unemployed.

Where there is no negative pressure on expliotation - people will sign up for expliotation rather than get left behind and starve - that is a comment on world experience over time - your mileage may vary (but not by much)

AIK

Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · 2004-04-21 04:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

>>...unions have gotten a bad name due to all the corruption, mainly in the 1950s to 1980s. But the idea is valid.

Yes, the *idea* was good, the *implementation* of said idea was seriously borked. And in the end, it destroyed a lot of good companies.

--
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.

How do you like Bush now? by carcosa30 · 2004-04-21 04:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lots of techies, a surprising number, are on the right side of the political spectrum. The very idea of any kind of labor organization was abhorrent. I think a lot of this is because until recently we've lived cushy lives.

Now there's a hard-hitting new pimp in town and things aren't quite so nice.

How much more of this FUCKED UP REPUGNANT SHIT is it going to take before people wake up? We're the ones who run the machinery here during this all-important war effort. What are they going to do if we won't work, for free, conscript us?

Uh... Don't answer that.

--
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.

Re:How do you like Bush now? by Control+Group · 2004-04-21 05:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oh, come off it. IF your overtime is worth getting paid extra for, then don't do it unless you get paid extra for it. We're not talking about Standard Oil, here, we're talking about every business out there that needs software development. We don't need a union, we need to decide what conditions we're willing to work under, and then only accept jobs that meet them.

And yes, I say this as a worker in IT who was worked in a union shop. It sucked. I would rather have the opportunity to get paid bonuses and comp time, like I do now, than trade all that away for a guaranteed fixed raise every year regardless of performance, up to a hard cap that can't be exceeded no matter how important I become.

Not having a law mandating overtime pay isn't "fucked up repugnant shit," it's allowing small businesses like the one I work for to get on their feet. When we were just starting, hell yes, we put in a metric fuckton of overtime, and I didn't get "paid" for it. But I got quarterly (sometimes monthly) bonuses in the four-figure range, and managers often brought in stacks of free pizza on late nights. And even the occasional half barrel of beer. If they had had to pay time and a half for every employee, none of that would have happened.

So get off your high horse. If you need a law to get yourself adequately (in your mind) compensated for your time, maybe your time isn't worth as much as you think it is.

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...

memo from managment: by whitelabrat · 2004-04-21 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, um... were going to need you here this Saturday... and oh yeah... Sunday too.

I can see this as a great opportunity for tech sweatshops to own their employees free time. My guess is the federal gov't wants to get out of paying contractors overtime fees?

Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? by XorNand · 2004-04-21 04:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Man, I've worked construction. You'd pry my ergonomic mouse from my cold, pastey hand before I went back. You're just laborer, paid to break your body for someone else. The mentallity of your supervisors and coworkers is worlds apart from IT. It's a mind-numbing and spirit-crushing existance. I've been used and abused in IT too, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't even compare.

Your talk of 6-figure incomes is BS. I've know only handful of people who have done that well; it's only because they work more overtime than should be humanly possible. Every single one is an alcholic who has to pause a moment to recall how old his own kids are.

Choose wisely.

--
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"

An Opportunity Here by blueZhift · 2004-04-21 04:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe there's an opportunity here to get our lives in order. As some have already posted, if you don't get overtime pay for overtime work, then don't do it. Well, let's ask ourselves why there was a need to work overtime in the first place. Maybe it's time to slow things down to a pace where all of this overtime in not needed in the first place.

The bosses in the corporate offices cannot have it both ways. If they want insanely high productivity, they are going to have to pay for it. Even workers in India will eventually cost as much as here for the same work output. So let's stop this madness and live our lives like human beings instead of 24/7 machines. Let's spend more time with our friends and family. Or perhaps more time actually getting friends and family! ;-) We may not get richer, but we will be happier. And if the boss man don't like it, screw him! He's gonna lay you off eventually anyway, so why sacrifice your life for him?

--
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started

As the market fundamentalists like to say... by composer777 · 2004-04-21 04:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Capitalism is a positive sum game. While I certainly disagree with that statement, in this case it makes sense. When Unions fight for extra rights, then employers who are unecessarily hoarding all that cash are forced to give some of it away. This helps out everyone in the economy (except for a very small, very wealthy group). Unions are positive sum. When a Union struggles and wins extra rights, all workers benefit. The idea that somehow by forcing employers to take care of their employees and pay them a living wage will destory the market is ridiculous. We all benefit when society consists of people that are paid well, healthy, and happy. Perhaps you would like to go back to the early 20th century when children were worked 14+ hour days, and people were treated like machines (oh, wait, that second one hasn't changed much). If it weren't for Unions, chances are that you would be working a miserable, low wage job, and the country would be entirely in the pockets of the rich by now. You have quite a bit to be grateful for, it's too bad that you don't realize it.

Re:As the market fundamentalists like to say... by slackerboy · 2004-04-21 05:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

If it weren't for Unions, chances are that you would be working a miserable, low wage job, and the country would be entirely in the pockets of the rich by now.

Glad we've managed to avoid that...
Cynicism aside, labor unions have served an important role in the past in the U.S. and a few still do. Some of the largest, however, have serious problems because they have a leadership that is more concerned with keeping power than benefiting members. This, in turn, has made all unions look bad to a lot of people. Especially people that have never directly benefited from them.

--
Things to do today: See list of things to do yesterday
Re:As the market fundamentalists like to say... by Matthew+Weigel · 2004-04-21 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Unions are a check against overzealous management. What most people don't realize is that management is a check against overzealous workers and unions, too. Management has to balance what workers are paid, how workers are treated, etc., with the continuing viability of the business. If workers are paid too well, the company fails to make the profit necessary to grow for new business, etc. If the workers are paid too little, they lack motivation, leave, etc. and the company fails. Laws that empower unions or management too much disrupt this balance.

--
--Matthew
Re:As the market fundamentalists like to say... by composer777 · 2004-04-21 09:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Facts? Ok, I can't "prove" any of this to you. However, disproving things is much easier. I would challenge you to find a case of a Union shop having the effect of an employer treating non-Union employees worse. I can't think of any, nor can I think of how this would occur. What would an employer do, tell it's non-Union employees that the Union is causing their wages to drop? If they do that enough, then the non-Union employees will form a Union. Not only that, but non-Union shops still have to compete with Union shops for employees. If your competitor is offering $40 an hour to it's employees, and you only offer $25 for the same amount of work, how can you expect to compete? It would seem rather self-evident that market forces would cause both Union and non-Union shops to increase their wages. This of course can cause devaluation of the dollar, however, that's a good thing in this case, since devaluation actually reduces the amount of power that those with lots of cash have over us. If someone is sitting on a pile of $20 billion dollars and wielding it like a stick to beat labor into submission, cutting the value of that money in half reduces the power that they have.

As far as ad-hominen attacks go, I fail to see how paying attention to the facts is an ad-hominem attack. I was merely giving my opponent credit for understanding the fact that without labor unions it is likely that the conditions of working people, including children, would likely get much worse. Things didn't get better magically. Businesses didn't accept a minimum wage and health benefits out of the goodness of their own hearts. The logical extension of "letting the market set prices", is going back to conditions when the market did set the price. We have history, we have facts, we know what it was like when "the market set the price". I shouldn't have to dredge up every single fact or write a book to remind him of this. The logical extension of what he is promoting are similar conditions to the early 20th century in America, or the current situation in the 3rd world, where there are no regulations.

Yes, I have backed that up. I've told you the facts, that things were much worse before Unions were around. More specifically, in countries that have no Unions, such as Mexico, India, the majority of South America, China, etc., the workers are treated much worse. The economies in the majority of the 3rd world are about as unregulated as it gets, with no environmental protections, no labor laws, etc, and I see no reason to envy them, can you give me any? I'm sorry if that's not enough for you, I'm not going to find references for everything I say in an online forum. Maybe some other time I will. If you really believe that workers were treated better before Unions, then I would like to see your evidence. I have found references in the past but I think that the effect Unions have had on wages is fairly obvious.

this is news? by moojuece · 2004-04-21 04:48 · Score: 3, Informative

this has been happening for years...last time i got paid overtime, i was working at a liquorstore doing inventory i havent seen a penny for any of my overtime hours since working in IT

Alberta by decipher_saint · 2004-04-21 04:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

This has been on the books in Alberta since Y2K became an issue. According to Alberta labour laws we are treated like "essential services" (police, fire dept, etc) and aren't elligable for OT compensation. Now, that's not to say that many IT companies in Alberta don't do this, it just means that they aren't legally obligated to do so.

I don't even want the money really, I'd just be content with time in lieu. If a project was worth sacrificing my time it should be worth some kind of compensation (or maybe my perception of how important a project is compared to my life will change next time).

--
crazy dynamite monkey

No reason to thank the unions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-21 04:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The idea that somehow by forcing employers to take care of their employees and pay them a living wage will destory the market is ridiculous"

Yes it will, because a "living wage" is an arbitrary concept that has nothing to do with the value of the work. If you muck with wages this way, you are telling the company to do all it can to make do with fewer workers, or get out entirely. Let the market determine the wage, not meddling Washington bureaucrats.

Re:No reason to thank the unions by composer777 · 2004-04-21 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Gee, that's a nice theory. The good thing is that we don't need to theorize about what will (continue to) happen if we don't set a living wage, we have a long history where we can show what happens when people get subservient and don't fight for their rights. They get paid less and less, and their treatment is worse and worse. The history is very real. Your theory that if we lower wages enough that somehow employers will employ the maximum amount of people, is absolutely baseless, has no history to it, and no evidence. Your assertion that setting a minimum or living wage that employers will stop hiring people, is also baseless. Employers have ALWAYS sought to hire the least amount of people possible. The idea that allowing them to treat their employees like shit will change has no basis in reality.

The other obvious thing worth pointing out, is that prices are set by supply and demand. Since there has never been 100% employment, in other words, there has always been an oversupply of labor, one can conclude that the market value of labor is heading towards $0 an hour. Clearly the price set by the market is unworkable. If employers actually hired people when the price of labor was low to non-existant, then why haven't they hired all of the Americans willing to work for less than $5.15 an hour? Why haven't they employed all of the people of Mexico, who are willing to work for whatever the market will bear? Oh wait, that's right, it's because everything you've said about employers hiring as many people as possible if the price is low enough is false.
Re:No reason to thank the unions by Nematode · 2004-04-21 05:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

The post to which you're replying was talking about unions and collective bargaining, not federal wage and hour laws.

The presence of union means very little except that management is obliged to bargain with it in good faith. If a company can't afford higher salaries and benefits, it can present its case during the contract negotiations. It's not hard to grasp that there is a point beyond which employers cannot afford certain demands, and it's counterproductive for unions to insist on such bargains.

The presence of a union gives employees the right to have management bargain with them in good faith. It does not guarantee higher wages, shorter hours, longer vacations, or even the creation of a collective bargaining agreement itself. It's not a particularly significant intrusion on a free employment market, since the protections are basically all procedural and not substantive.
Re:No reason to thank the unions by Geoff-with-a-G · 2004-04-21 06:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wow.
Some really appaling economics failures in this post.

Let's start with:
"Employers have ALWAYS sought to hire the least amount of people possible. The idea that allowing them to treat their employees like shit will change has no basis in reality."

They SHOULD always seek to hire the least amount possible. If it costs me $10 to make my product (car, ladder, gallon of milk, whatever) then I can sell it to you for $20 and make $10 of profit. If I have to hire three times as many people, it costs me more than $20 to make it now, so no way am I selling it to you for that. The only people who benefit from that are the extra workers, who are effectively being paid to do nothing, since they add no value above the original staff. Forcing someone to pay you when you aren't giving them value in return is theft.

Your problem is you have this mental image of these magical corporate vaults that just fill themselves with money, and the corporations horde it all. With that as your standard, it's no wonder theft seems appealing. But that vision just isn't true. They're filling that vault by charging YOU for their products. If you rob their vault, they're just going to charge you more. The way to make things better isn't to steal harder or faster, it's to work in good faith with the corporation to make the system as efficient as possible. In free trade, both parties profit. Parasites only profit until their host dies or fights back.

Another, more glaring flaw:
"Since there has never been 100% employment, in other words, there has always been an oversupply of labor, one can conclude that the market value of labor is heading towards $0 an hour."

First of all, if it was true that there was an oversupply of labor, and that it was causing the price to head towards zero, then it must be heading there really slowly, or else it would be there already. As you state, employment has never been 100%, so the market adjustment you predict seems to be taking longer than all recorded human history.

The reality is that "labor" isn't a single commodity like pork or lumber. Not all labor is the same. You can't fire the Chief of Neurosurgery and replace him with the $5.15/hour guy.

Lastly:
"If employers actually hired people when the price of labor was low to non-existant, then why haven't they hired all of the Americans willing to work for less than $5.15 an hour?"

1) Because there aren't actually that many Americans willing to work for less than $5.15 an hour, especially over the age of 17.
2) Because the unions and the minimum wage laws will try to prevent you from hiring people for $3/hour.
3) Because you have to create the jobs for them to be hired into. This isn't something that should be done by politicians (though they usually claim to do it). This has to be done by corporations, be they large or individual startups, and it requires that they have access to surplus money. Right now they're spending that surplus on the three guys doing one guy's job, two of whom are on break.
Re:No reason to thank the unions by Ironica · 2004-04-21 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your theory that if we lower wages enough that somehow employers will employ the maximum amount of people, is absolutely baseless, has no history to it, and no evidence.

Well, actually...

It is true that lower wages increase number of people employed. In countries with very low standards of living and wages, jobs are accomplished by throwing lots of labor at them. In countries where workers make more money, employers are more inclined to make capital investments that will lower their labor costs. Generally, employers will make the trade-off between labor and capital based on the price of each; when labor gets more expensive, capital looks more attractive. That's why Wal*Mart is the largest employer in the country... they teach their employees how to apply for food stamps, and get by with paying them $7.50/hour on average (supposedly company-wide... including management and executives). If they had to pay more, they'd probably find ways to cut labor, because it would no longer be the cheapest way for them to get things done.

Which isn't to say that lower wages are somehow good for people because they create more jobs. Underemployment is, in many ways, worse than unemployment... you have to work, but you *still* can't make ends meet. When there's a growing disparity between what people can earn in a full-time job and how much it costs them to live, you wind up with all kinds of economic problems.

--
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
Re:No reason to thank the unions by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-21 07:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Since there has never been 100% employment, in other words, there has always been an oversupply of labor, one can conclude that the market value of labor is heading towards $0 an hour.

This incorrectly presupposes that the lack of a 100% employment rate coincides with an oversupply of labor. It's generally understood in economics that a significant amount of unemployment is due to unavoidable due to frictional unemployment (day-to-day changes in a dynamic, changing economic system in which old industries die and new ones are born, in which people get tired of old jobs and old bosses, in which bosses find work of subordinates unsatisfactory, and in which new people enter and others reenter the labor force), and partially unavoidable due to structural unemployment.

Furthermore, you're implicitly assuming that the "employers" and "employees" come from 2 perfectly distinct pools and that no one goes from employee to employer (nice hidden communist ideology in your post). This is false. In a free capatlist society someone who is working as an employee or is unemployed can start up their own buisness, creating more jobs and oppertunities (increasing the demand in the labor market) while simultaneously removing himself from the market (decreasing supply). The effect of these forces leads to a dynamic balance where the employment number fluctuates accordingly with the state of the whole economy.
Re:No reason to thank the unions by composer777 · 2004-04-21 10:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're right, it was an over-simplification that ignores the obvious fact that if things get low enough people simply drop out or attempt to form their own business. Now, there some pretty huge barriers that make the latter rather difficult, but there is evidence that the former (which is simply dropping out) is happening at an alarming rate in the US. Go through my posts and read the last post that I wrote. Basically, as I explained in that post, "dropping out" is a nice euphenism for some of what is happening already in our country. People are already refusing the $5.15 an hour and choosing crime, or simply to drop out and go on welfare if they can, or be homeless. None of these things are good. This is part of the reason that we have such a huge jail population, the largest in the world, even larger than China's. So, you are right, I did over-simplify, simply to help make my point more succint, not because I was afraid of where logically extending my argument would take us. If anything taking into account the fact that people will only go so low makes my argument stronger, not weaker. When a large enough group of people reach that breaking point, it usually means the destruction of the society they are a part of.

Slashback.... by telstar · 2004-04-21 04:51 · Score: 2, Funny

I guess we've got our answer for this guy. Cliff, don't take a penny more than $27.62 an hou, then work a 90 hour work week.

Read the friggin rules by dieman · 2004-04-21 04:53 · Score: 3, Informative

"The exemption for employees in computer occupations does not include employees engaged in the operation of computers or in the manufacture, repair or maintenance of computer hardware and related equipment."

Systems Administrators are still non-exempt. Programmers with 'high skill level' are not.

--
-- dieman - Scott Dier

Why Manual? by dmomo · 2004-04-21 04:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why OT granted only for Manual labor?
If I work over time, chances are, that overtime is spent staring at a computer screen. I didn't need glasses until last year. I worked a lot of overtime last year.

Actually, actually, this story is RIGHT by ArmenTanzarian · 2004-04-21 04:57 · Score: 5, Informative

From Misleader.org

In a move designed to blur the issue, the Administration today said it was revising its previous effort to terminate overtime protections for 8 million workers. But even by the Bush Administration's own admission, the "new" regulations will mean that tens of thousands of lower-income workers will be cut off. Opponents of the Administration's plan say that the revisions would still cause problems for mean millions. The regulations are so bad for workers that some state legislatures have even rushed through legislation to block them.

Is your hourly rate $27.63? by PetoskeyGuy · 2004-04-21 05:00 · Score: 2, Informative

That means you, yes you Joe Wilson are no longer eligable for overtime. People who charge whole dollar amounts and don't compute their bills to the nearest penny are not affected.

who is hurt by new rules by queequeg1 · 2004-04-21 05:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

As many have observed, these rules will likely change little in the workforce and will merely codify what is existing practice (although only time will tell). One of the primary stated motives for the new rules was to update 50 year old Department of Labor rules that made it very difficult to determine exactly who was and was not eligible for overtime because the rules referred to positions that for the most part don't exist anymore (e.g. straw men and keypunch operators).

To put a really cynical spin on these new rules, I believe that one of the groups that will be hit hardest by overtime rules with bright line requirements will be the employment law plaintiffs bar, which will be hindered in its efforts to troll for new highly profitable cases by representing highly compensated former employees who could conceivably still be eligible for overtime under the old rules Representing low-hourly wage employees isn't that huge a business because employee will often settle for some minimal amount that they need just to survice and which employers will often be willing to pay to avoid a trial - and a potential award of attorneys fees if the employee wins.

Re:who is hurt by new rules by himself · 2004-04-21 06:11 · Score: 2, Funny

queequeq1 wrote:
One of the primary stated motives for the new rules was to update 50 year old Department of Labor rules that made it very difficult to determine exactly who was and was not eligible for overtime because the rules referred to positions that for the most part don't exist anymore (e.g. straw men and keypunch operators).

What? I see straw men all *over* the Internet, especially in Slashdot discussions. I thought the rise of blogging practically guaranteed lifetime employment for any straw man who wanted it.

Get organized or get used to it. by randomizer · 2004-04-21 05:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I never understand how negatively so many people view unions. This is exactly why individuals have to join together to protect themselves. If one worker objects to unfair labour practices the boss can choose to ingnore him or fire him. If the IT workers of America refuse to work under unfair conditions then ... 1. Their jobs go offshore more quickly (maybe); or, 2. The PHBs relocate to right-to-bugger-workers states (perhaps); or, 3. The PHB negotiates, a compromise is reached and, while nobody gets to declare victory, a truce can be arranged (sadly less likely than ever before due to workers neglect of the need to protect their own). Obviously the demonization of unions by owners that has somehow been sold to credulous workers makes #3 unlikely in most of the Unscupulous States of America. Until electors figure out which side their shrinking bread is buttered on (repeat after me: my interests are not the same as those of the rich) and that they actually have the power to change things (though picking a Dem over a Rep doesn't change much) then you can all just bend over (unless you are rich, in which case -- fsck at will).

Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? by Chilltowner · 2004-04-21 05:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, we may get it, we may not. Once upon a time, there were highly trained, very skilled workers who were at the forefront of technology. They were also fiercely independent--the last group of people you'd ever think would get together in something like a union. But when the shit started hitting the fan, that's what the auto workers did--they formed the UAW. And, say what you will about their state right now, for decades they were a MAJOR force for building the middle class in large parts of the industrial U.S.--the same middle class that is rapidly disappearing now. Time will tell, but I remain optimistic if history is any guide. Union up, geeks; it's time to save our flat asses.

There is a union for computer professionals by XopherMV · 2004-04-21 05:03 · Score: 4, Informative

WashTech is the union for computer professionals.

How many engineers/IT workers get overtime pay? by CatGrep · 2004-04-21 05:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't know of any software engineering/ IT jobs that pay overtime now. Usually these jobs are salaried - no OT.

How many people in this field get paid for overtime?

If that's the language... by Muad'Dave · 2004-04-21 05:06 · Score: 2, Funny

they really use, we're all safe. I'm not a "Computer Employee," I'm a human employee that works with computers. I don't care what the Computer Employees get - probably WinXP if they're naughty.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.

BFD by Sloppy · 2004-04-21 05:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

This stuff a matter between the employee and employer. It doesn't need to be regulated by government or have any "guarantees" handed down, as the relationship is totally mutually consensual. If you don't like the deal, you can always either negotiate or Just Say No.

And don't try to tell me IT is anything like a sweatshop, no matter how much overtime you have, or how stupid the users you support are, how often the computers crash, or how hard it is to find a job. We have big asses and soft hands, and anyone who thinks it is like 19th century meatpacking, is a complete pussy.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Unions? by tehanu · 2004-04-21 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

One has to ask why IT workers don't form a union or if they don't like the idea of a union, at least a Professional Organisation like doctors and lawyers have to fight for their rights? Right now, the only IT lobby groups represent your employers ie. the big IT companies. Remember, government doesn't hear anyone who doesn't have a big enough lobby group. Government is a matter of give and take between different interest groups and since there's a finite money to go around (yes, even with the heavy government debt) if you're not one of the winners, you're one of the losers. It was fine to be free-wheelers during the dot-com boom, but now in the down-turn you need to really have an organised voice.

Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? by Gunzour · 2004-04-21 05:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Seems to me that most blue-collar workers put down their tools at the end of the day and walk away from the work.

I agree.

Seems to me that most blue-collar workers damn well do get paid for their overtime, and if the boss doesn't want to pony up the bucks, he can do the work himself.

I agree.

Seems to me that most professional blue-collar workers, like plumbers and carpenters and such, make upwards of six-figure incomes.

Six figures? Maybe if you include cents. According to this page (from a quick google search), carpenters make an average of $16.44/hour. That's about $32k/year. Plumbers make $13.70/hr.

You can still get overtime by hng_rval · 2004-04-21 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just because the law no longer mandates 1.5 overtime pay for certain jobs does not mean that you cannot request it in your contract.

If you are about to accept a job offer and they do not pay 1.5 for overtime, ask for it. If they refuse, suck it up or find another job. You don't need the government to mandate that they pay 1.5.

--
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!

Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? by KingOfBLASH · 2004-04-21 05:13 · Score: 3, Informative

The parent should not me modded Interesting

My brother in law is a plumber and steam fitter. It's true that when you're an independent contractor, and own your own business, you can make lots of money. However, to get to that point you need to get trained, and certified, and pay lots of dues. And you literally do pay dues. To become a plumber, or other skilled blue collar worker you need to work as an apprentice, for $30k a year, if that, for somebody else who makes the $100k a year, until you pay off your training -- which can take years

Even then, when you finally do become a master, and can start out on your own business, that takes a lot of money and hard work. You need money to set up shop, and you need to be a certain type of person to make the business work. If you're not good at keeping books, and running the business, you will never make $100k+ a year, and will have to go back to breaking your back for somebody else, even though you might be making as much as $40k+ for them

From the Dept of Labor: by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2004-04-21 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairp ay/fs17e_computer.htm

Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) of the FLSA provide an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, and other similarly skilled workers in the computer field

These are the proposed rules to affect computer workers; there was a last minute change, but presumably these are the most up to date rules proposals, as it's straight from the DOL's website. Essentially, unless you make less than $455/week, you don't qualify for overtime if you're a computer worker.

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar

Re:OTOH by Analogy+Man · 2004-04-21 05:22 · Score: 2, Funny

If they would just loosen up the labor laws some more I could put my 4 kids to work! That along with less restrictive emissions standards and they could work right in the back yard melting down old computer hardware from failed .COM's and companies that outsourced there operations offshore.

Let's get government off corporate America's backs and into people's bedrooms where it belongs!

--
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

anti-union bias? by ndunn · 2004-04-21 05:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm not exactly sure where all of the anti-union bias comes from. Screenwriters and actors have a union, and they are also well-paid (most of the time) and creative people.

I also think that the argument that we can negotiate our own contracts is equally naive. Sure, there are some that can, but I wouldn't say that social skills and negotiation are well-known geek skills outside of MMRPGs.

The only disadvantage of unions, as was eluded to earlier was the whole factor of diverse employment. However, that doesn't bar places like MS, Apple, Sun, Adobe, IBM, etc., etc., from joining unions. This doesn't mean people sit on their buts while unions continually strike, but it does mean you have someone negotiating your benefits and work week for you, collectively, as well as a network of peers.

Re:anti-union bias? by captbob2002 · 2004-04-21 06:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

A union is not some outside force that comes in and does things for you. The leadership of your union is made up from people that members of the union elect. You don't like the way your union operates, run for a leadership position. Don't like how contracts are negotiated - get on the negotiation team. Contract negotiation is a real eye-opening experience for BOTH sides.

I know that at my workplace being in a union has improved our situation. Professional staff were treated like dirt until we unionized. We were the last group to form a union, the campus already had several unions for other areas. Forming a union was the reaction to poor managment.

And why don't they just...? by mark-t · 2004-04-21 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

... relegalize slavery while they're at it and get this whole mess over with?

That's where employment laws are heading anyways, or at least from where I've been standing. The days of unions are numbered. Bank on it.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Salaried workers can and do get overtime by DavidBrown · 2004-04-21 05:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Sorry, but you are not entirely correct, at least in California. I won't speak for other states. California, BTW, has its own state overtime laws that will probably remain uneffected by the new federal regulations. In California, you get overtime if you work more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week.

Just because you are a "salaried employee" does not mean you are exempt from overtime regulation. Salaried employees have an hourly rate - it's determined by dividing the "salary" by the number of hours worked each week.

Essentially, all employees are subject to overtime rules by default, unless they are categorically exempt. Exempt employees include "professionals" such as lawyers, doctors, etc., and employees whose principal duties are the management and supervision of other employees. There are a number of other exceptions (I seem to recall that truck drivers, for example, are exempt. In California, many employers try to screw employees out of overtime by giving them the title of "manager" or "assistant manager", even though they remain wage slaves.

--
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!

Pussies! Take control of your careers! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-21 06:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ten (unordered) Rules for Success:

1. Know your shit. If you're a sysadmin who can't make an Ethernet cable or a programmer who can't build a workstation, you deserve to be at the mercy of others.

2. Know others' shit. You just gonna sit there while the PFY brings down the intranet?

3. Be your word. Every discrepancy between what you say and what you do will be used against you. This does not mean that your word must be intelligible to anyone but you. Make credible threats and follow through.

4. Incompetents must fear you, whether they work above you, with you, or below you.

5. Everyone is your adversary until proven otherwise. This does not mean you should be on the offensive, but you can't let your guard down. Trust no one with your reputation.

6. Take no shit, give shit only when your case is strong. It's hard to implement (4) without giving shit, but your aim had better be true. Sometimes it's better to bide your time.

7. Make no friends in haste. Lunch is ok but never, never go drinking with an incompetent. It just makes it harder to fire them later (*sob* I thought we were friends!).

8. Be humble. The more bad-ass you say you are, the more the probability of us having a drink approaches zero.

9. Carry your own insurance and retirement, even if you are on salary. It's so easy to walk out the door when your benefits are secure, and they know it. Don't forget to negotiate for extra compensation!

10. Punctuality. Some deserve it, some don't. Learn the difference.

Re:Actually, actually, I'm confused. by Jaysyn · 2004-04-21 06:08 · Score: 5, Funny

And like everything else in this govenment, no one know exactly what the fuck is going on at any given moment.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.

Republican Porn by kotj.mf · 2004-04-21 06:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

I call bullshit on this one:

Taxpayers with an adjusted gross family income of $28,000 or more are among the top half, and are presumably the "rich" half that liberals seem determined to punish by increasing taxes.

Bolding mine.

Note that nowhere in the editorial does that idiot quote anybody saying that those with incomes above the median are necessarily rich.

In fact, Kerry, among other Democrats, has taken great pains to point out that he favors a tax increase on only those household who take home more than $200K a year. Which, by any objective measure, is stinking fucking rich.

That entire editorial is full of shit, and if that's all the evidence you got, so are you.

--
hang brain.

What about consultants? by brodin · 2004-04-21 06:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

For all the talk about "aged" brains and the like the professor didn't mention that _most_ consultants are older (30s - 50s) and presumably are hired for their skills...

Re:What about consultants? by Mateito · 2004-04-21 09:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

> _most_ consultants are older (30s - 50s)

Look. 30s is not "old".

I don't care what age you are. 30 is not old.

Having said that, I've just enrolled in an MBA to stop my job becoming redundant. Sure, its great to be flexible, but you get to a point where you don't want to spend 70-100 hours a week in order to stay on top of things.

I am not going to be the sort of father who never sees his kids. The best job and biggest house aint worth nuts if your never see those things that count. IE.. family.

(and yes, I was a die hard capitialist who has been "reborn" into the "what's important is the simpler things in life" school of thought. The old axiom is true... you simply can't take it with you.)

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl

Because by Run4yourlives · 2004-04-21 06:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

You as an employee do not have the fiscal resources as a company does as the employer, so the negotiation is not an equal one.

If I was selling apples to you a $1000 a peice and you were starving, you do not have "the freedom" to go find apples somewhere else. (Well, you do, but we as a society aren't willing to accept that as reasonable.)

I thought this was established back in the 19th century... apparently, you Americans are still learning.

Re:Correction by beakburke · 2004-04-21 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not every increase in wages is "good". If everyone's wages go up without increasing productivity, then all you have is pure inflation, meaning your REAL wage hasn't really changed. Basically, wages should (and pretty much do) track the productivity of workers.

Why isn't everyone employed if wages are set by the market? Even with very low wages, companies are constrainted by demand for whatever they are producing, and the other non-wage costs of making something. So even if wages are zero you wouldn't have unlimited production, because the cost of making something doesn't become zero.

If you say wages MUST be X, (where X is higher than the market wage), then you increase the cost of producing something. This has the effect of decreasing the number of workers employed and increasing the price of whatever they are making (assuming that wages are a significant portion of total costs of making something.)

--
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.

One more time... FREELANCE!!!! by CodeGorilla · 2004-04-21 06:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Forget the idea of a "cushy" corporate job and get the freedom of being an independant consultant. It's more work, but you don't have to dick with the "rules" of being someone else's endentured serva... employee.

It's no walk in the park to get started, but if you have a grain of talent, common sense and some people skills, you'll never be out of work, nor underpaid.

Isn't everything negotiable? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-21 06:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

- if i don't like an employer's terms (such as benefits, overtime pay, etc.), i won't work for that employer... - and if that employer does a 'change up' on original terms of employment, then i am free to seek employment elsewhere... - i'd only worry if a law were enacted stating that i must remain employed with a certain employer - but i think we've come a few years down the road from that mentality, haven't we?

Bush's overtime changes by forevermore · 2004-04-21 06:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

How is this any different from the overtime laws that Bush managed to push through? Or is this the same law set just reworded? The actual new laws do a lot more than just hurt IT workers. Although some of this has apparently been ammended, the original proposal exempted anyone with a college degree, nurses, police, etc. This is a bad law.

--
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers

Incompetent when old - incompetent when young by Theovon · 2004-04-21 06:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I work with a number of people who are much older than I am. I'm 30, and I work with engineers in the range of 28 to 55. Management has people in their 40's, 50's, and 60's.

We have had people in management and engineering who weren't flexible. Hard times pretty much made those people go away due to layoffs.

Those people who are left are plenty flexible. We have one 54 year old who is a runner. He's healthy as a horse and quick. We have another 51 year old who recently made an easy transition from test engineering (a stepping-stone position) to driver development.

It seems to be an assumption that getting old makes you incompetent. But my opinion is that "old" people who are incompetent were always that way. Perhaps they are no longer so good at hiding it. But those people twice my age who were good at their jobs when they were younger are still good at their jobs AND are able to adapt to new positions.

Mind you, I don't adapt as quickly as I did when I was 20. When you get older, you slow down a bit. Sometimes, learning takes a little longer. But intelligence and discipline can make up for that, and a lot of experience makes one more efficient at identifying WHAT to learn.

Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-21 06:54 · Score: 2, Informative

This is nothing new to anybody that works in BC, Canada. All "hi-tech" workers are not paid overtime until 60+ hours to "help us compete internationally".

Join the club...it's getting bigger daily.

Timesheets by swb · 2004-04-21 07:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

What is the deal with timesheets, anyway?

I work for a business that *sometimes* bills *some* portions of *some* projects in terms of the hours that went into them. I never work on those or any other client projects, and my time is always billed to the "overhead" job number.

I can appreciate collecting time information for people who work on billable business so that either you can bill directly for the hours or determine appropriate fee structures for non-hourly client billing, but why overhead employees?

The timesheets are never seen by HR, so it has nothing to do with time off or compensation. I've asked repeatedly (including getting into a heated argument with the dork that collects timesheets) why they can't just take my total hours worked in a year - vacation and divide by 12 and call it a day, and I get a lot of mumbo jumbo about why that wouldn't work.

Bad for America's tech industry by supabeast! · 2004-04-21 07:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

This sort of thing is going to really hurt America's tech industry in the long run. There is a huge job boom coming in the next few years as the baby-boomers retire, the economy recovers, and more businesses integrate computing into their infrastructures. Computer-science undergraduate numbers are dropping due to a perception that computer jobs are unstable (a perception that most tech workers support can attest to.). Now we have the government exempting essentially all IT workers from any mandatory overtime pay. This sort of idiocy is not going to encourage people to enter the field, and more work will have to be outsourced internationally, which will continue to increase the US trade deficit.

On the upside, at least IT workers can look forward to higher pay overall, although they will not have time to appreciate it.

Good to see government's learning its place by kmweber · 2004-04-21 07:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Government has no place interfering in what is a private agreement between employer and employee.

--
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Interesting - but article is wrong... by SillySlashdotName · 2004-04-21 07:23 · Score: 3, Informative

I worked as an EMT with a county ambulance service for 10 years in the 80s (1980 - 1990) and we went 'round and 'round with the government body we worked for about the overtime issue. They tried to use the FLSA 7(k) and 13(b)(20) sections to exempt us from overtime for time when we might have been asleep (we almost never actually were allowed to sleep during that time, I remember one time we were out polishing the ambulance wheels at 3:30 because there was no calls at the time and the crew chief didn't want anyone to think they let us sleep on the job...) - so they were going to require us to be in the station house for 24 hours, but pay us for 16, even if we were working non-stop all 24 hours.

Of course, we were not very happy at the prospect, and complained loudly!

We were then routinely dispatched to fire scenes for 'standby' so that the county government could try to argue that we were 'fire fighting personnel' and fell under that exemption. When that didn't fly with the workers either (and the law was pointed out to the county commissioners), a LARGE chunk of back pay was paid.

The current law requires overtime for anything over 212 hours in a 28 day period for fire fighting personnel - for anyone else covered by the FLSA it is any hours over 160 in 28 days.

For you or I, that means working slightly over 10.5 hours a day every work day (5 days per week) for 4 weeks - WITHOUT GETTING OVERTIME PAY. (by the way, I am salaried and don't get overtime, anyway - but I do get compensatory time off...)

So when the article mentions the overtime protection already afforded to Fire, Police, and EMS workers, it is deceptive, as they are NOT paid under the same rules as other people.

My take on this is this is another "business friendly - fsck everyone else" move by the Bush administration. I don't like it.

--
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.

And the truth is... by Kenrod · 2004-04-21 07:41 · Score: 2, Informative

I hate stories like this because it brings out every armchair socialist in Slashdotland. Please witness the truth, which follows:

Dept. of Labor rules governing overtime pay haven't been updated since the 1970's. Those rules have an extensive list of occupations and exemption (from overtime) status - I think there are about 1300 of them. Since that time, many new "occupations" have been created (mostly in IT), and those that existed then are totally different now. If employees were in an occupation not covered by the DOL rules, they would often have to seek redress through the courts to have their overtime eligible status determined. This was very expensive and created an incomprehensible web of court rulings that employers couldn't make heads or tails from. The new DOL rules simply codify rulings already made. So for the first time in a long time, Employers and Employees will know the rules up front instead of a bunch of ad-hoc rulings that were fair to no one.

And by the way all of you "indentured servants" and "slaves" should get back to work now instead of reading Slashdot on your employer's dime.

--
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!

Union by geekoid · 2004-04-21 07:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

We must unite. The electronic infrastructure of this country depends on us, and we are getting the shaft.

This is the sort of thing a Union can help with. As a body we would have more power in the state and federal governments. a Union does not have to be the same as Unions in the industrial age, but if you want to be able to be treated reasonable, you had better unite.

Too many smart people think that being smart will allow you to survive, evidence proves that they are wrong.
We must adapt to the growing overbearing controls being fostered onto us be becomings a group with a single powerfull voice.

I say we all call in sick the first 2 working days may, send a message that we are not happy.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Union by JohnCub · 2004-04-21 08:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

The truth is you would have a very difficult time getting people to join an IT union, in my opinion. And even when you did get enough to make a difference, there's still at least 50% (and I suspect quite a bit more) of the workforce out there that will act as free agents and will take jobs as they can get them.

I'm not saying unions are bad, they have done a great deal for our country's workers throughout the years. I just see this as one of those issues that has more to do with government than it does organized labor. Certainly an IT union would tell us all to vote these guys out. I don't want to get into a political debate so everyone should make that decision on their own.

The best thing to do in this situation is to ask google one simple question: how do I register to vote?

--
-= Why can't I add 'Anonymous Coward' to my list of Foes? =-

The law doesn't mean you won't get overtime pay .. by scharkalvin · 2004-04-21 07:59 · Score: 2, Informative

It only means that your employer isn't in violation of law if he doesn't offer it. It is still legal for you to have in your employment contract that you WILL be paid for overtime. Just as because the minimum wage law sets a minimum pay rate doesn't mean that you will actually get paid at that rate, this law doesn't mean you won't get overtime pay.

Unionized IT == Me leaving the field by hagbard5235 · 2004-04-21 08:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

The day IT unionizes I'm out of the field. Unions tend to trade high demand, high productivity, high skilled workers for benefits for low skilled, low demand, low skilled workers.

My one experience with being forced to unionized was when I was a grad student, and it almost halved my salary. You see the typical TA stipend for Physics grad students is much higher than the typical TA stipend for English grad students. This is primarily due to the chronic undersupply of qualified Physics grad students to TA courses. But in the union shop where I went to grad school the union demanded that all TAs were paid the same rate. Net result: I was making half what I'd be making anywhere else. The university wanted quite badly to pay Physics TAs more, because they were having the devils own time recruiting, but the union wouldn't let them.

If IT unionizes there will be a great sucking sound as the talent moves on to find new fields, and people will look back and wonder why high tech just stopped innovating all of a sudden.

Not just IT workers & Something you can do by beforewisdom · 2004-04-21 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

This bill is not just about IT workers.

There is also something you can do about it.

The link below is a web form that will send a letter protesting the bill. It is a very SHORT form.

http://www.saveovertimepay.org/index.cfm?ms=google

Steve

Clinton Added The Exemption In 1996 by vickir · 2004-04-21 14:48 · Score: 3, Informative

The exemption which allows employers to exempt computer professionals earning over 27.63 per hour from overtime payment was added to the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1996. If memory serves, that puts it right square in the Clinton Administration. It's a good idea to check out the facts before you throw rocks. :-)

Re:some slight corrections by stripes · 2004-04-22 07:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Try to come up with a free market reason for paying a living wage,

There isn't one, but there is a free market reason to not pay a living wage except to people who can do work with that much value.

Assume for the moment that minimum wage is $7.75, and that McDonalds fry flipper get payed $8.00 and a living wage is $10.00. Now assume the mimum wage is pushed up to $10. Does that make the fry flippers happy? They get $10.00. Instant raise! Cool! Except...

The prices on anything produced with labour that use to be cheaper then $10 will go up. The prices of things dependent on those things will go up, and so on. That $10 may end up buying less then $8 did. That is standard economic answer A. Standard answer B is we find a way to make that labour cheaper, like cut any employe benefits, or hire illegally cheap labour. Then there is answer C: discontinue the product or move it somewhere cheaper (not likely with fries, but it could be for other things, it happened to USA based clothing companies). There is also answer D: increase productivity, for unskilled tasks this may be with a machine of some sort.

So we end up either with a fry flipper that makes $10 that buys as little as the old $8, or a fry flipper that is unemployed (and thus not making 20% less then the "living wage" but 100% less!). It also eliminates a sub-living wage job for people that don't need a living wage! (people living with their parents, or with some other type of support who only want to a little "spending money")

Slashdot Mirror

IT Workers Not Eligible for Overtime in New Rules

206 of 1,068 comments (clear)