Slashdot Mirror
IT Workers Not Eligible for Overtime in New Rules
bjarvis354 writes "The San Diego Union Tribune is reporting that the Department of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao unveiled new rules that seem to specifically target IT workers and other white collar workers for exemption from overtime pay. The Oneonta Daily Star claims that 'According to new exemption tests, the employee isn't guaranteed overtime pay if primary duties involve office or non-manual work,' and 'Computer employees are not guaranteed overtime pay if they make $455 a week, or if their hourly rate is $27.63. Affected employees include computer systems analysts, programmers, software engineers or anyone with a similar title.'"
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.
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.
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
Another astounding success in the Bush Administration's No Billionaire Left Behind program.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
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.
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!
In other news, the Department of Labor is experiencing strange outages with their network, website, and all IT related systems.
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...
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?
That probably refers to people making at least $27.63/hour who do not work enough hours/week to break $455.
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"
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
Computer workers do not qualify for OT if the following applies:
p ay /fs17e_computer.htm
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/fair
--
$tar -xvf
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
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.
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.
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
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.
"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?
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.