Slashdot Mirror


New Overtime Rules Have Short Shelf Life

rwiedower writes "So the House just voted to scrap the new overtime rules that went into effect August 23. The vote was 223-193. Were the new rules designed to shaft IT workers from getting overtime? Or were they merely designed to streamline outdated rules?"

501 comments

  1. Not Scrapped Yet... by Kr3m3Puff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you actually read the article, it says that the House only put an admendment into the Spending bill and that the Senate might very well remove it before it gets to the President. So it is far from scrapped, so don't go looking to your boss for your overtime yet...

    --
    D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
    1. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the house can do very little by itself

    2. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Phillup · · Score: 4, Funny
      so don't go looking to your boss for your overtime yet...

      Found the solution to that a long time ago:
      They pretend to pay me. I pretend to work.
      ;-)
      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    3. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Squareball · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I look to ONLY my boss for overtime... not the government. No government should have a right to tell my boss what he must pay me or not pay me. My employment is an agreement between me and my employer. It is a contract I enter into with my employer. The government has no right to interfere with this.

      So yeah, scrap the law, get rid of all of these types of laws. Get the government out!

    4. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The senate can't just "remove it". If the senate passes a version without this amendment, then a committee is formed with people from both wings and they work out a compromise.

      Then that bill has to be passed in both the house and the senate.

    5. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      IOW, my god is profit and I only worship it?

    6. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      They pretend to pay me. I pretend to work.

      They pretend that some indian is better than you, you pretend to go hungry... =)

    7. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      About your sig.

      You do know that 99% of the D's voted for it, don't you? Both sides love the law.

    8. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, you said it. This is all nonsense. I thought this kind of thing was what unions are for (at least in theory *cough* *cough*). It's just like minimum wage laws. People think you can crank up the minimum wage and the money just materializes out of thin air. Somehow the idea of people losing jobs because of it, as well as paying higher prices (which hurts most those very people the law is supposed to help) doesn't seem to cross their minds. Meanwhile, laws make it harder and harder to get rid of employees without risking legal action, so the employees you are paying more for go down in quality, because there's less incentive to be productive and/or compete. Our communist friends took this to its logical conclusion but apparently could never see that its failure was inevitable.

      I can appreciate that low income employees don't have much leverage, but I'm so sick of hearing the endless litany of regulations being passed. How long will it be until the rules are so complex that no one can understand them all and law enforcement can prosecute people at random because everyone's guilty of something if you look hard enough?

      Oh, wait, that's already happened.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    9. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is not true. Safty concerns cause governments to regulate working hours. You want bigrig truck drivers on the road 16-20 hours at a time, falling asleep and causing accidents? You want to work with a 12 hour shift forklift operator who's getting tired making mistakes handling heavy skids?

      IT is not immune either, the more time at the keyboard the quicker your wrists will degrade. You don't want the state to have to pay more for your, and everyone elses, medicare just because you worked 2 hours more a shift for 25 years, do you?

      Safty First.

    10. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      hmm, republican congress passes amendment that removes the provisions, evenly divided senate..I think that they will pass it.

      Democrats were raging against this provision. to not pass it would be stupid.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    11. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by b!arg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's easy to say now. Try back in the early 1900's or for that matter in other developing countries today. Take your libertarian crap to Easter Island.

      --

      Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
    12. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
      Then that bill has to be passed in both the house and the senate.
      And then they gotta bust Shrub's veto... assumine the "Grate" Communicator is still in office when it comes up.
      --
      Yeah, right.
    13. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
      People think you can crank up the minimum wage and the money just materializes out of thin air. Somehow the idea of people losing jobs because of it, as well as paying higher prices doesn't seem to cross their minds.

      People think if you pay employees less and less that food and rent will just materialize out of thin air. Somehow the idea of people not being able to pay rent or buy food because of a low minimum wage doesn't seem to cross their minds.

      Personally, I'm a tough love kind of guy. I say that if you can't afford to pay your employees a minimum wage that is also a living wage, you don't have a valid business model and are just using up resources that other businesses could better utilize.

      I can appreciate that low income employees don't have much leverage, but I'm so sick of hearing the endless litany of regulations being passed.

      That's why we don't want this regulation passed. The government shouldn't be able to tell me that I don't have a right to bargain for overtime pay. That's what this regulation would do.

    14. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by kevlar · · Score: 1

      How many IT workers get paid overtime?! If its that common, then anyone on salary is being screwed.

    15. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by br00tus · · Score: 1
      Get the government out? What is the body that determines your boss owns a piece of capital, and you don't, or more precisely, has the right to expropriate surplus value ("profit") from any worker who valorizes a piece of capital.

      In other words, you want the policemen to come in to enforce this relationship where you can expropriate profit from anyone who uses certain capital, in fact you demand it because without the policemen at your disposal there is nothing determing who takes from who in valorizing a piece of capital. The person claiming the right to expropriate profit from capital is the one who needs the government, workers don't.

    16. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, what if your boss, and all the other bosses, say, "work overtime for free." Or, what if, companies like walmart LOCK THEIR EMPLOYEES IN to get them to work overtime for free?

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    17. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well in a Libertarian society you actually have property rights. So having an industrial age job isn't necessary to feed and cloth your family. As long as you can have a little plot of land, some rain and some sunshine. Obviously we don't want to go to an agricultural society with a barter system, but it does give you leverage. Nobody should feel like they have to take a job or starve.

      But with property tax, business licenses, sales tax, etc the way they are. It's basically impossible for an impoverished person to set up a tent and start a business selling home grown eggplants and cucumbers using the few dollars in capital they got from panhandling.

      If you obviously are unable to work, then you can fall on the safety net of one of the many providers of aid (churchs, benefit groups, individuals, etc).

      I'm not so sure Libertarianism can be easily reguarded as "crap", when it wasn't the reason for the collapse of the socioeconomic system in chile during the industrial revolution.

      If you're wondering what the parent is refering to. Try this article on Anarchism in Chile. Or possibly he was refering to the book After Worlds Collide. Which is either socialist tripe or a fair warning of libertarianism and capitialism.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    18. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 2, Interesting
      My employment is an agreement between me and my employer.

      That is very true. However, employment laws are written in the spirit of ensuring that that contract is followed by the employer. An employer will almost always have more leverage than the employee and is more able to bend the contract.

      I agree a government should not set the terms of the contract. A government gives such a contract the force of law.

      -phantom of the opearting system

    19. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Umm, glass doors, hello? Anyone can get out of a Wal-Mart if they really want to. I'd love to see a night-manager trying to explain that one to a cop.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    20. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by bahwi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, that's proven to work well. There would never be overtime pay, ever again.

      I can see it now, "I want overtime for working over 60 hours a week!"

      "I can get someone for 70 hours a week without overtime, you're outta here"

      Because, you know, we never would have had those laws if we never needed them.

      The government is an extension of the people, the corporations influence it a lot, but in the end, it is an extension of the people. If these laws were completely unnecessary, we would never have needed them in the first place.

    21. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by afidel · · Score: 1

      I've worked several hourly IT jobs. One paid over $50K/year in the midwest with some light overtime. Currently I work as a conslutant so overtime is nothing more than extra billable. Since I make 1/3rd of my billable in commision it doesn't make sense for me to kill myself in overtime unless I really need the $ for some reason. I have never worked salary for a company where I didn't have a stake and never will, it's just asking to get screwed over by a boss who sees your overtime as free labor.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    22. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by akajerry · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Well democracy can be though of as the ultimate union. The people of this country, through their elected representatives, voted themselves certain minimum requirements in their employment contracts with all employers. Among some of these requirements are minimum wage, unemployment insurance, overtime, family and medical leave, etc.

      Even in the most union freindly environment, which certainly does not describe the current state of employment law or the enforcement there of, is it not possible for all workers to belong to a unions; the growing number of self-employed are a good example. Thus the government needs to set some levels of protection for these workers who do not have sufficient bargining power by themselves or through collective bargining organizations.

    23. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      For me minimum wages work out pretty well. I live near the border between Idaho and Washington. Idaho has a minimum wage of $5.15. Washington has a minimum wage of $7.16. So the prices for things where I live in Idaho are lower. But I can work in Washington and make more money to spend on those lower priced items. I was still annoyed to return to my parents house in central Idaho and find that the price of gas at $1.80, where I live it's $2.10, stupid west coast hippies.

    24. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Squareball · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked it was 2004 not 1900's. So what you are saying is that since in your mind Libertarian ideas wouldn't have worked 100 years ago they can't work now right? Tell that to the people in 1776 who said that their form of goverment wouldn't work in Europe but would work if they tried it in America. That lasted a good 150 years before the peopled voted it out in favor of watered down democracy. We weren't a democracy and now we are and sliding towards socialism which is just slavery to the masses. I personally like the idea that I own me and everything I create and all of my ideas.

    25. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Gannoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Umm, glass doors, hello? Anyone can get out of a Wal-Mart if they really want to. I'd love to see a night-manager trying to explain that one to a cop.


      Manager: "Look all of you other employees, when the cops come, you'd better tell my side of the story or you're all fired, and since WalMart has put all the other stores out of business around here, you won't find a job AND despite the fact that you could theoretically sue us, you can't afford to be out of work for a month and/or lose the medical insurance for you and your children for a possible payoff 4 years from now."

      Oh, but that won't happen here right??? Because I read a web site once that explained that if I didn't pay taxes everyone would be happier and golly it makes sense because taxes suck and poor people are lazy.

    26. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      I've been "overtime exempt" since some time back in the 80's, both in England and the USA. Last time I was paid overtime was during a Multics upgrade that went tits up. We scored 2 weeks overtime over one weekend for that fiasco...

    27. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      The job market has a way of regulating it's own minimum wage, assuming there's not an oversupply of workers. Companies who choose to pay at the low end of the scale have a hard time getting quality employees. If they care about hiring good people, they have to make their salary offers reflect that. Many business owners have learned the hard way that severely underpaying workers will eventually impact the company in a very negative way and by the time they try to fix it, it may be too late.

      However, if the company is hiring minimum wage grunts to perform a job function that nearly anyone could do (flipping burgers, scrubbing toilets, etc) then a worker's chance of making more money is pretty slim, so they must move on to something more skilled to gain an increase in pay.

    28. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Somehow the idea of people losing jobs because of it, as well as paying higher prices (which hurts most those very people the law is supposed to help) doesn't seem to cross their minds."

      Mmmm. That's an interesting theory. Luckily it's also very easy to test. Throught the last couple of decades the minimum wage has been raised quite a few times. According to your theory after each raise in minimum wage there should be an increase in unemployment and an increase in inflation.

      Well I have been alive for the last couple of decades and I certainly don't remember such a corrolation so perhaps the economy is more complex then your theory suggests. Why don't you do some research and see what happened to the economy after minimum wages were raised. You might find the results surprising.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    29. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      Yep. Most of the places I have worked have the policy "We do not pay overtime." It's just a reality of EMPLOYMENT at this point. I love the few people who are doing fantastically well who seem to think all of us wage slaves have this magical ability to negotiate a contract in a terrible job market.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    30. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by node+3 · · Score: 1

      So yeah, scrap the law, get rid of all of these types of laws. Get the government out!

      We already tried that, it didn't work out so well.

      "Saint Peter don't ya take me 'cause I can't go,
      I sold my soul to the company store."

      You can either have a government which proscribes similar contracts you might "enter into with my employer", or a society where such contracts are the only real option for many.

      I have a hard time understanding people who ask for the right to be oppressed. Maybe it's because they dream of becoming the oppressor? Or maybe they've been taught "slavery is freedom".

    31. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How long will it be until the rules are so complex that no one can understand them all and law enforcement can prosecute people at random because everyone's guilty of something if you look hard enough?

      Slippery slope is a fallacious argument.

      That argument is identical to "It's cold, but don't turn up the thermostat, or next thing you know we'll all be cooked!" which ignores the fact that an equilibrium is often reached around 65-70 degrees.

      "Judges can't show the 10 Commandments? Next thing you know they'll sneak into your house and take your Bibles!"

      "Gay marriages? Next thing they'll demand the right to marry their pets!"

      Give me a break.

    32. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      While I generally agree with your ideology, it's overly simlistic.

      I like the .simplistic .sig to go with the simplistic ideology. Just make it a simplified slogan instead of a statement fully representative of the way you think. That's what .sigs are supposed to be.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    33. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      But with property tax, business licenses, sales tax, etc the way they are...

      Okay. Let's say without...where do you get that plot of land?

      In yesterday's capital-based society, you had to have money to get land. In the day-before-yesterday's land-based economy, you had to have land to get more. In today's economay, you have to have information to get more of anything. In any case, how do you propose someone without any of the above get a "little plot of land"?

      I agree that nobody "should" feel like they have to take a job or starve, but that doesn't change the fact that they do have to, at least in a capitalistic system. "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" sounds like what you're advocating--except that that's a Marxist philosophy, totally contrary to what most Americans (claim) to adhere to.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    34. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, if the company is hiring minimum wage grunts to perform a job function that nearly anyone could do (flipping burgers, scrubbing toilets, etc) then a worker's chance of making more money is pretty slim, so they must move on to something more skilled to gain an increase in pay.

      Except that those more skilled jobs get outsourced to other countries too. The result is simply fewer jobs, for lower pay.

    35. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      About your sig.

      You do know that 99% of the D's voted for it, don't you? Both sides love the law.

      Does that somehow make it a good law?
      Have you considered what this law [the so-called 'PATRIOT' Act] allows our government to do?

      Okay, torture is legal as long as we claim the victim is a "terrorist", a term which we define. Fourth-amendment rights are forfeit as long as the victim is a "terrorist". etc. Please to be explaining how this is a good thing.

      No, I don't like the Democratic party. I just happen to think the Republican party is worse. Let's say, down with the two-party system, up with a revolution--but in the meantime, I'll go with Kerry, if only for the sake of change.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    36. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      just like the losers that cry that they cant find any competent employees yet refuse to pay more than $8.50 an hour.

      guess what... you pay very little then you get very little.

      Unfortunately a requirement of being management or even a business owner does not include being smart in any way.

      Here's a relevation for all of you. If you pay your people more, threy do better work for you and stick around. I know it's a CRAZY concept to pay someone what they are worth instead of trying to screw your employees so you can make an extra 1% on your cash-flow this year...

      remember without your employees, you are absolutely NOTHING. get THAT through your head.

      posting anonomous so my idiot boss does not know it is me.

    37. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      I'm still exempt from Overtime laws.

      Fsking Pennsylvania! (State law specifically exempts IT workers.)

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    38. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by ph1ll · · Score: 1
      No government should have a right to tell my boss what he must pay me or not pay me... So yeah, scrap the law, get rid of all of these types of laws. Get the government out!

      Yeah! Let's have children cleaning chimneys again! Gee, if those little tykes didn't want to do it, they'd have got a job else where, right?

      :-P

      I'm only part joking. To say the government has no role in employment law is to ignore how far we have come in humanitarian treatment of employees and invites regression.

      <ducks>

      (Though, of course, I am not saying that an overweening goverment is good either...)

      --
      --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
    39. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The minimum wage has risen very gradually, at best keeping up with inflation. A lot of Democrat-types would have it be doubled. THAT would have a big effect.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    40. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by phuturephunk · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as we're at it, dispensing of all these pesky 'laws', how 'bout we take away everything that OSHA has fought for over the years because of the need to protect workers.

      *Takes deep breath*..mmmmm, I love the smell of molten PCBs in the morning, makes my lungs delightfully liquified. :)

    41. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Tiroth · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Without access to the debt markets, virtually no one could afford the initial investment to buy real estate.

    42. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by ph1ll · · Score: 1
      Meanwhile, laws make it harder and harder to get rid of employees without risking legal action, so the employees you are paying more for go down in quality, because there's less incentive to be productive and/or compete. Our communist friends took this to its logical conclusion but apparently could never see that its failure was inevitable.

      So did our Scandanavian friends and... Oh, wait! their GDP per capita is higher than America's...

      Hmmmmm.... <scratches chin> Maybe there is more to this "economics" thing than I thought...

      --
      --- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
    43. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      But with property tax, business licenses, sales tax, etc the way they are. It's basically impossible for an impoverished person to set up a tent and start a business selling home grown eggplants and cucumbers using the few dollars in capital they got from panhandling

      Well the less taxes that there are, the worse the education system is, the worse off roads are, less social security, and the wider the gap between rich and poor.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    44. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Predius · · Score: 1

      I believe the federal law has language to the effect that it trumps state laws where it provides the employee more protection. IE if the state says no overtime for you, but the federal law says you get OT, you get OT.

    45. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by myside · · Score: 1

      Great sig. I'm thinking of changing mine to: All I know about Bush is that my dog was still alive when Clinton was in office. Damn Bush to hell.

    46. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      So you want the government to set a minimum wage and overtime pay rules for people who are self-employed? Damn, I guess if I can't make enough profit to pay myself enough, the government's going to have to fine me and I'll have even less money to pay myself. Aiyeee!

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    47. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been in that situation, and all I had to do was find a non-load-bearing wall, and smash my way through it using a fire extinguisher..

    48. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      Well that's referred to as "kidnapping" (holding a person against their will).

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    49. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Following your logic, Washington DC should have the best schools in the country since they spend so much more per student than almost any other city. The truth is the schools are among the worst in the country. How do we fix this situation? I suspect your answer will be to raise taxes and spend more money on the schools. Throwing more money does not work when the system is broke.

    50. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by djlowe · · Score: 1

      Most of the places I have worked have the policy "We do not pay overtime."

      And the sad part about that is, in the US, at least, there is a difference between being "salaried", and "salaried - exempt". The former classification is requires overtime pay, the latter does not.

      The requirements for exempt status vary from state to state, but tend to be quite rigorously defined in terms of pay and job duties. For example, in New York, one of the requirements is that the position be mostly administrative/management. So, a typical technician or programmer wouldn't qualify.

      Try telling that to your boss, though. One of the quickest ways to become persona non grata with an employer is to point out the labor laws in your state, and note that your employer isn't in compliance.

      I've held technical positions for nearly 25 years, and only recently discovered that I only had one job during all that time that could have been considered exempt. I was never paid overtime, in my former employers' minds salary = no overtime, regardless.

      And the reason that I now know this is that I helped my brother get overtime pay from a former employer. They made him work for 4 months straight without a day off, 12+ hours a day, with no overtime because he was salaried. They thought that they could get away with it, and knew he was desperate for a job (he'd been unemployed for almost 6 months at that point, and had largely consumed his savings to keep his family fed and bills paid). To their dismay, the NYS Department of Labor made them pay overtime for all the time he worked, and unemployment as well, because they deemed that the only reason that he'd been fired was for complaining about being overworked.

      The best advice that I can offer is: Learn the labor laws in your state and make sure that your employer is in compliance. If they aren't, you'll have to decide what, if anything, you are going to do about it. If you're happy with your job, and your employer isn't abusing the overtime, it might not be worth it to complain.

      But, employers that use salary as an excuse to get more work hours from employees for no additional pay generally tend to have other nasty habits, too.

      In any event, I advise that salaried people keep track of their work hours, breaks, etc. Keep a log at home, update it faithfully. Make notes about the days you work overtime, and why. Sure, it's a hassle, but it is worth it.

      This is especially vital if your company bills their customers for your time. If you work overtime on a job for a customer, you can bet your employer is billing overtime rates (or should be - a company that will habitually let their technical employees work overtime on a job for no additional charge is either foolish, greedy(1), lacks time/project management skills, or all three).

      If the amount of unpaid overtime becomes egregious, you can potentially use it to justify a raise. Or, barring that, a reason to seek other employment.

      There's nothing disloyal about being aware of how much time you work, especially in a service industry. If your employer is billing a customer for your services, then you *should* be aware of how much time you're billing, at what rate(s), so that you know that you're paying for yourself and helping your employer make a profit as well.

      Regards,

      dj

      (1) Before I get jumped on for saying that: Greedy in this sense: The employer wants the money billed, knowing that since they don't pay their "salaried" employees overtime they don't have to bill their customer an overtime rate to compensate... which makes their services more appealing when compared to another service company that does.

      Believe me, it happens. I had one employer that did this explicitly: Server upgrades/migrations would take place on weekends, to minimize customer downtime. Rather than bill this at an overtime rate as a premium service that required the person doing the work give up all or part of a weekend, they billed norm

    51. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by jjhall · · Score: 1

      I agree with your overall point, but your closing statement is overly broad. In the case with overtime, minimum wage laws, and child labor laws, you are correct for the most part. Those laws were specifically generated to solve a problem. The people as you said didn't want 7 year old kids to work in dangerous factories for pennies per hour. The people didn't want to be forced to work 80 hour weeks without an increase in the hourly wage, in order to give the employers an incentive to hire others to reduce the levels of overtime.

      However, many laws are not passed because of a need. Take the DMCA for example. That is one law that was added to the books, strictly because of corporate influence, that is absolutely not needed. The existing copyright laws provide for protection from pirating software, music, movies, books, and whatever other copyrighted materials they can pirate. The DMCA provides more confusion (how many invalid takedown notices have been sent?) and restrictions on other activities that are not needed. As an example, if I build a device to do something, say it is to measure the quality of a video stream. Someone figures out how to pirate video with it, now I have to worry that I have created an "infringing device" even though I have never used it for that purpose, intended for it to be used for that purpose, or maybe even considered it was possible for it to be used in such a way.

      I'm sure there are clauses in the labor laws as well that are unnecessary, confusing, and downright backwards, but in general they were created for the good of society because of a genuine need. But be careful in making broad statements such as "If these laws were completely unnecessary, we would never have needed them in the first place." There are more unnecessary laws on the books than you can shake a fist at. The more broad the statement is, the more chances there are of having holes in it.

      If you need more examples of unnecessary laws, look up some of the laws listed in those "Crazy laws" type of books. For example, in Idaho, it is illegal to fish for trout from the back of a giraffe. I'm sure there was a specific case where one person was doing that (at the zoo maybe?) and they created a law to prevent it. But how "necessary" was that law?

      You are correct that, at least in theory, no laws are created without the express need of the people. In practice, however, that does not seem to hold true.

      Jeremy

    52. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      If the company has to pay for the liability of having their drivers overwork, increasing the odds of damage and injury, increasing their expenses due to damaged inventory and equipment, lost time, and needing new or replacement help for the worker in the hospital because you can't work the rest of the workers any more as it is. They'll work out safety procedures on their own. Many companies are focused on safety because it saves money, not so much because it keeps OSHA off their backs.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    53. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of people who are nonessential in large companies. They fill a role that could be automated in under a week. When the role doesn't need to be done by a person for any reason other than to keep headcount up, any headcount is just as good as any other headcount. This is the core philosophy behind many outsourcing movements.

    54. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by lew3004 · · Score: 1

      That is exactly why I hated contract law in college. The terms "reasonable" and "consideration" are EXTREMELY prevalent, which makes law enforcement (by a judge or third party) ambiguous at best through interpretation of the clause in question. Every Q&A (or exam for that matter) I put my head on the chopping block and questioned the "correct" response; often by citing precedence, however I was always shot down by those 2 little words. I can honestly understand why the "little man" loses in contract law negotiations....the higher paid lawyers often know the judge, who himself was once a contract lawyer. Interpretation, be damned!

      --
      I still can't get the screen shots of Castle Wolfenstein for the Apple IIe out of my head.
    55. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Well the less taxes that there are, the worse the education system is, the worse off roads are, less social security, and the wider the gap between rich and poor."

      I dunno...we're throwing more and more money each year at education, but, it doesn't seem to be getting any better. I think the problem is more complex than that. First, there is no discipline in schools...or not enough. Too much time is spent each class day trying to keep order. Kids didn't talk back to teachers 'back in the day' as they do now. Much of the problem is with parents that don't raise their kids correctly, to respect authority, rules, etc.

      They just keep raising taxes all the time down here...and fees. Yet, the roads still get worse. I don't know where the money goes, but, certainly not into the roadways. New Oreans is ONE BIG SPEED BUMP.

      Social security? Won't be around when I'm ready for it...I'd much rather take my money I waste on that and invest more for my future...put it in my 401K...I'll take my chances.

      Taxation isn't a bad thing totally...it is needed for things that are good for the public, but, it sure seems to be wasted and mis-targeted. Why not revamp how the school dollars are spent, and use it to pay teachers $60K+ a year? You'd sure attract more qualified and dedicated teachers. Make school a privlidge and not a right....if you are a troublemaker...3 strikes and you're out...would keep from holding down bright and average students to the lowest common denominator. Maybe give the outed ones a 2nd chance a vocational school....

      But, taking my hard earned dollars in a wealth redistribution system is not the answer.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    56. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by tweakthis · · Score: 1

      If you depend on the benevolence of your pointy-haired boss and believe in the superiority of your solitary bargaining power over collective action then you deserve to suffer the consequences of that naivete. Some day you will face the fact that you are merely a cog in the machinery called the labor market. Some highly educated tech worker in China or India will end up doing your job for pennies while you agree to work 80 hours a week without any protection from the big evil government. Good luck! I wonder whether you actually have an enforceable employment contract (very few professional do). Those promises that bosses make are often not enforceable. More likely, you are an at will employee whose salary is subject to unilateral changes with your only recourse being resignation. And even if you have a writted, enforceable contract, it is the big bad government that makes it enforceable.

    57. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Darnocobra · · Score: 1

      I've read through these comments and surprised that no one has mentioned profit sharing. I am salaried and generally put in about 50 hours a week. So while I get no overtime for those 10 hours, we do have a really good profit sharing program that makes me not mind staying those extra hours. To get the job done right and on time so that their isnt any downtime is important because it ends up costing me money.

      --
      Pinky, Are You Pondering What I'm Pondering? I think so Brain, but "instant karma" always gets so lumpy.
    58. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      Hourly contractors get paid for all the hours they work. If you're willing to work hard and are really good at what you do, it may be worth considering.

      I've been a contractor for almost a year and a half now. The company doesn't have to pay benefits, vacation, etc for me. On the other hand, I get paid for all the hours worked. This is truly the only way to go in the current corporate environment. They want to create death marches piled one after another, fine, I'll bill for all the early mornings, late nights and weekends I work. Over 4800 hours in 1.5 years is a significant imposition into my personal time, but in this job market, it's a great position to be in financially.

      Salaried positions have their benefits as well. In a salaried position, I want the 60 hour weeks to be offset by the 30 hour weeks. Contractors don't get paid for the time they don't work. Both approaches have their pros and cons. You just need to figure out what you're willing to live with.

    59. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      less taxes that there are, the worse the education system is

      There are studies that show the correlation between how much money is spent per pupil and quality of education is very low, and some show negative. Some of the worst schools in america spend the most per pupil. Private schools uniformly do more with less money per pupil.

      the worse off roads are

      Well, again, here it's a matter of, without the government butting in, the most efficient transportation system would become dominant. Which is best? Rail, monorail, road, air? Let the market decide! Private companies, neighborhoods, and businesses could decide how to develop their transportation infrastructure. I do believe that government services has it's place, so I'll admit that allowing cities/states to decide is best. Why do the feds need to be in on it, other than for the interstate system?

      less social security

      Now, you have me here. Certainly, you wouldn't have the pyramid scheme that's headed for bankruptcy without a major overhaul and lessening of costs (less service anyway!) under a libertarian society. Instead, if you want to retire, you'd better sock away monies for later. Of course, how is this different for me now? Oh yeah, I'd have another 12.4% (6.2% from me, 6.2% paid by my employer) of my income available to invest as I will.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    60. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      each raise in minimum wage there should be an increase in unemployment and an increase in inflation.

      Well I have been alive for the last couple of decades and I certainly don't remember such a corrolation...


      So things cost the same today as they did "a couple of decades" ago???

    61. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Wow that's shocking. You are saying that prices increased even though minimum wage stayed the same and you had to raise minimum wage in order to keep up. That seems to be the opposite of what the parent was saying which was the rasing the miminum wage actually caused prices to rise.

      So apparently the correlation of the inflation and minimum wage is actually opposite of what the grandparent was saying.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    62. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Asterisk · · Score: 1
      Okay. Let's say without...where do you get that plot of land?

      In yesterday's capital-based society, you had to have money to get land.
      Actually during the era you describe, land was actually being given away for free. The governemnt still owns vast amounts of land in the US which could easily be privatised by giving lots to people in need.

      But the government doesn't do that today because their interest is in maintaining dependency on the state -- and by extension, maintaining the power of politicians -- rather than helping people become self-reliant and strengthening civil society. Doing that would put them out of a job, after all.
    63. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Phillup · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm completely aware that 99% of the democrats have no balls. They did it to save their paltry political careers.

      And, I'm aware that the Republicans put them in the position of having to do so.

      If I believed in hell, I'd wish them all a long time there.

      Don't confuse a statement against the Republicans as a statement for the Democrats.

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    64. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Asterisk · · Score: 1
      The people of this country, through their elected representatives, voted themselves certain minimum requirements in their employment contracts with all employers.
      That's funny... I don't remember giving "the people of this country" any sort of fiduciary power to negotiate private contracts on my behalf.
    65. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by kahei · · Score: 1

      ...which ignores the fact that an equilibrium is often reached around 65-70 degrees.

      Or, in the UK, around 15 degrees.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    66. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Asterisk · · Score: 1
      Slippery slope is a fallacious argument.
      Not in politics it isn't. Your analogy to the thermostat is flawed: thermostats aren't sentient beings with conflicting worldviews and goals. Humans are, and there are people at every extreme for any political question. A small step in the direction of a particular faction emboldens the extremists and enhances their ability to describe the world in accordance with their philosophy.

      Small movements that engage in gradual, incremental advances -- leveraging each move in their direction into another -- have generally had much success in the past, for this very reason.
    67. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Asterisk · · Score: 1

      The way it is now, it's more like this:

      Employee: "I want overtime for working 60 hours a week!"

      Employer: "No overtime. You work 40 hours."

      Employee: "But I need the money! I'd be willing to work 60 hours at my normal rate, even."

      Employer: "I'd let you work 60 hours at your normal rate, but the government won't let me, and I can't afford to pay you overtime. Sorry. You can only work 40 hours."

    68. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My kid brother works at a fast food joint, and he gets $9 and change an hour--that's really good money for grilling meat! His employer isn't forced by the law to pay that much, but by the market.

    69. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      So what? If that other guy is willing to work 70/wk for the same price you're willing to work 40/wk, doesn't your employer have every right to choose the lowest price? Put another way: if Safeway has apples at 35c/lb. and A&P has apples at $12/ea., don't you have the right to choose the cheaper apples?

      When you buy apples, you are an indirect partial employer of the cashier, the store manager, to stock boy, the truck driver who delivered the apples, the crew of the ship who carried them across the sea, the guys who picked them, the farmer who grew them, the fertiliser company, the water company, the fellow who designed the irrigation system and so on & so forth ad infinitum. Why should you have more freedom in your employment of those fellows than your boss has in his employment of you?

      If someone is willing to do more work for less, he deserves that job more than someone who wants to do less work for more pay.

    70. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Well, there are more than one dimension to this.

      A lot of people are calling for significant increases in the minimum wage. This is where the real problems would occur.

      Regardless, I don't understand why the market can't solve this problem. Minimum wage laws are another way for people to get paid more than they're worth. That's the sad part, but if our education system was brought into the 20th century (leave alone the 21st) it wouldn't be an issue because people with better educations would be worth more as employees.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    71. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by davidl9999 · · Score: 1

      Overtime, yeah, ok...
      My boss (a real punk of a Univ. of Phoenix grad) told me once: "You knew when you started working in IT that you're exempt from overtime rules."

      Translated: I get to work 40 hour weeks for salary, then I have to regularly stay late, get up at 1am at least twice a week to fix some dumass developer's mistake and miss all sorts of family events without getting an extra red cent for my "dedication".

      And they wonder why I'm showing up late and leaving early now...

      This "highly paid professional" crap has to go!

      --
      (Yes, it's my Yahoo id) :P
    72. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd agree that the slippery slope argument is used in cases where it isn't warranted, but it isn't always untrue. The United States government, for instance, for the most part has fixed term limits on its "important" decision-makers. Every 2-4-6-8 years, a new person is put into office who then must make decisions on some of the same issues his predecessor decided, or else risk looking weak on those issues.

      If president #1 pumps x amount of dollars into war on y, you better be damned sure that president #2 is going to pump x+a amount of dollars into war on y, or else he's going to look like a soft, compromising bastard.

    73. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is your boss. You're working 90 hours next week, no OT.

    74. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      funding is just one piece of the puzzle of a good education system. they also need to be properly maintained, have regular performance evaluations, etc. California throws gobs of money into a bottomless pit of education funding. But despite that many schools are strapped for cash. Other states have schools receiving a reasonable amount of money but have little in the ways of performance evalations.

      The US spends on par (or in some cases greater) per student in it's schools than other industrialized nations. Including many western european nations. It's just that the structure of the system makes poor use of the money it is given.

      A popular republican and libertarian line is to have school vouchers. "bad" schools get fewer students and go away. Good schools grow and pop up, special programs are increased to give parents incentive to send kids to those schools instead. Competition can be healthy, especially in a system like the US education system where there is little central control over schools. The only real concern is that supply-and-demand might not react quickly enough so that a closed school would create a huge demand (because those students have to go somewhere). But successful schools might not have the capacity to accept students immediately and construction of a new building can easily take 9-12 months.

      Unless private companies are willing to purchase shut down schools and reopen them quickly, the system probably would not work well in the cases where a school is shut down in a poor urban district with a huge student body.

      Some people are against school vouchers because they don't want poor urban blacks going to their nice all white suburban schools. As if somehow a few black students will put a drain on the school and somehow harm the quality of the school. It's utter racist nonsense. (isn't that funny, republicans are often called racist, but they support school vouchers.)

      btw- if you aren't aware, school vouchers would include free transportation. although if you're far away you'll have to suffer a longer commute to/from school. Although I lived out in the country when I was a child and it took about 50 minutes to get home on the bus, I think people can handle a little bus ride.

      Anyways, back to the original point. It's one thing to have enough money, it's another to actually spend it wisely.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    75. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. So let's just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour so we can all be rich.

    76. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      >Minimum wage laws are another way for people to get paid more than they're worth.

      minimum wage laws, and worker protection laws are the only thing keeping us from being slaves to the company store.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    77. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      If that other guy is willing to work 70/wk for the same price you're willing to work 40/wk, doesn't your employer have every right to choose the lowest price?

      maybe the employer should only pay you in chits that are redeemable only at the company store. or, not pay you at all, or lock you in until youi "finish the job".

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    78. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 1

      shrubya hasnt vetoed any bill during his presidency.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    79. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have government control and regulate worker safty concerns than have the possibility where I may end up *dead* because some manager/dispatcher/driver thought it was a good idea to drive a truck for 20+ hours, fall asleep at the wheel and take out the car I'm riding in.

    80. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Regardless, I don't understand why the market can't solve this problem"

      If the market could have solved this problem it would have. Through history whenever minimum wages were left to the market the rich ended up owning the poor.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    81. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Hiring another worker is cheaper than than running the risk of having the driver exceed certain limits.

      The problem is that government control doesn't really control, it just means that the business commits a 'crime', has added expense in the form of more logging, paperwork, and general butt-covering.

      I'm just saying that overworking people to the point they're making mistakes isn't financially rewarding, and thus provides a natural limit.

      Besides, the odds are better on you getting creamed by a drunk driver in a SUV.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    82. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by KlomDark · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yah yah, whatever. If a business cannot pay their people enough to make a decent living, then they shouldn't be in business at all. Make money by selling product, not by fucking over employees who make the product.

    83. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Rei · · Score: 1

      I'll second this. The minimum wage wasn't raised once in Reagan/Bush Sr. It was raised multiple times under Clinton. On a year-by-year basis, the economy fared far better under Clinton. So, at the bare minimum, raising the minimum wage didn't *inhibit* the Clinton boom. At best, it helped the economy.

      One thing that the "if you raise the minimum wage, jobs will go elsewhere" crowd fails to consider is the fact that most minimum wage jobs are service industry - low paying jobs that provide a local service which cannot be done remotely. You can't just outsource burger flipping or maid service work. The jobs remain.

      The net effect is that there is a slightly higher price applied to such industries, which means that the burden is passed on to people of higher incomes who utilize the service industries more, and more money is injected into lower class spending. It's an economic equalizer.

      You can only take it so far, of course, or rates for higher-ranking positions will fall to the point where there will no longer be the incentive to "try harder" (one of the reasons for the failure of the Soviet system). However, we're nowhere near that point. On the other hand, we have a huge need to stop this gigantic wealth disparity in this country.

      --
      Santa Ana Winds: Like the Dustbowl, but with awards shows.
    84. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1
      Somehow the idea of people losing jobs because of it, as well as paying higher prices (which hurts most those very people the law is supposed to help) doesn't seem to cross their minds.
      Ah yes, The Theory.

      You see, contrary to what "common wisdom" says, inflation actually _drops_ when the minimum wage is raised. It has every time it's happened. Want to know why?

      Say you're company owner A. You know that the minimum wage increase will cut into your profits. Now, you could raise your prices to cover the loss.

      But wait! Company owner B is watching, and knows that if you raise your prices and he keeps his the same, he'll steal your marketshare, meaning your profits will drop.

      So, company owner A leaves his prices alone, and takes the hit to his bottom line, because a little less profit is better than a lot less profit.
    85. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by sjames · · Score: 1

      So what? If that other guy is willing to work 70/wk for the same price you're willing to work 40/wk, doesn't your employer have every right to choose the lowest price? Put another way: if Safeway has apples at 35c/lb. and A&P has apples at $12/ea., don't you have the right to choose the cheaper apples?

      Actually, there are laws about product dumping designed to keep the largest competitor from consistantly selling at a loss long enough to eliminate competition (and then presumably make it up through monopoly pricing).

      Minimum wage also prevents employers from effectively ripping us all off by depending on food stamps and other social programs to keep their employees alive when their wages won't.

      Another factor is that the employment market is already manipulated to maintain some unemployment as a way of keeping the economy more fluid. Since that also tends to reduce wages, those at the lowest levels deserve some compensation.

      Finally, if wages are driven low enough, crime will increase as unskilled laborers realize that they can't possibly work enough hours to live.

      Something to consider, the purpose of an economic system is to maximise wealth for everyone in it. If there are people who cannot prosper in the system, then it is failing.

    86. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The job market has a way of regulating it's own minimum wage

      Bullshit! Businesses have a way of doing the most and worst they can get away with to pay as little as possible. Take, for example, all the illegal immigrants hired by companies all over the country. Even huge companies like WalMart and Tyson (or was it Purdue?) are doing it.

      Companies who choose to pay at the low end of the scale have a hard time getting quality employees.

      The implication here is that higher quality workers will get the better paying jobs because the lower quality workers will be fired. But that isn't the case if the business owners in one area all won't pay above a certain amount. In which case, no employee, good or bad, can get a good wage. Or if they're the only company in a small town, as is often the case in the rural states. Or if, as above, they're competing with less than minimum wage illegals. And in highly populated areas, there's a never ending stream of really low quality workers. It's cheaper to keep firing and hiring low quality workers than hiring a high quality worker for more money, so what's the incentive to hire the higher quality worker?

      However, if the company is hiring minimum wage grunts to perform a job function that nearly anyone could do ... then a worker's chance of making more money is pretty slim, so they must move on to something more skilled to gain an increase in pay.

      And how, exactly, are they supposed to do that? If they don't have enough money to pay rent, they sure as hell can't go to school. And they aren't going to magically learn a new skill while working 12 hour days, 7 days a week flipping burgers.

      And why should a worker have to be highly skilled to get paid a living wage? There is lots of unskilled work that needs done. Why can't we pay a living wage to do it? Why must unskilled labor always cost little?

    87. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      It must be noted that at least some businesses (primarily those for which unskilled labor is a large component of their operating costs) increase their prices in response to minimum wage increases so it does have an impact on inflation.

      Basically this means that increases in minimum wage result in higher fast food prices. There's no reason to expect a 5% increase in minimum wage to cause a 5% increase in in living expenses for the lower class.

      The impact of minimum wage on unemployment is also largely overstated (and as you say, the numbers support this) because in some industries, demand for unskilled labor is largely inelastic. For example, in some industries, the cost of unskilled labor is dwarfed by other costs (maintenance of equipment for example). Another example is that the opportunity cost of not having enough labor may be too great to justify layoffs or changes in hiring practices. Still another example would be things like lawn service companies where the number of manhours to complete any given job is roughly constant and so, assuming that the company isn't paying any idle hours (and these sorts of companies generally don't), the cost of labor per job will be roughly constant regardless of the number of employees.

      All of that said, I feel that a national minimum wage is a rather crude tool for eontrolling the economy. I suspect a minimum wage varying by region based on differences in cost of living might be worth investigating (and in fact some states do have their own minimum wages higher than the national average, but I do not know if cost of living considerations influenced these policies).

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    88. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Well, you did.

      It was called an election, and when you cast your vote, you handed your politician of choice (provided he or she won, of course) the power to negotiate a great many private contracts "on your behalf".

      1. Some examples:
      2. Medicare/Medicaid (drug benefits, long-term care)
      3. Agricultural Subsidies
      4. Interstate Highway Construction/Maintenance
      5. Federal Insurace on Bank Deposits (FDIC)
      6. Unemployment Insurance
      7. Energy Administration, Land Mgmt. (e.g., Logging)
      8. Water Treatment/Sewage/Waste Removal
      9. National and International Defense (think: "Blackwater")
      10. Education (grants, and scholarships)
      11. Housing
      12. etc. . . .

      Like it or not, elected officials represent "we the people" and in this capacity they negotiate contracts with private industry in order to fulfill the needs/desires of their constituents. They send out RFP's, draft clauses, and sign your consent just as if you had provided Power of Attorney.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    89. Re:Not Scrapped Yet... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, the minimum wage rises occasionally, in substantial (percentage) jumps, to compensate for the more gradually rising inflation. Congress puts the minimum wage slightly ahead of inflation, buying some time, while inflation catches up and passes the minimum wage, which doesn't recover until years afterwards. The area under that curve of "one step forward, two steps back" is the difference in money, accumulated under the minimum wage, from inflated money in expenses. That's a substantial loss to the wage earner, accumulated by the wage payer.

      BTW, re: your .sig: lying is evil. Are you evil?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  2. I'm still waiting by chrisgeleven · · Score: 4, Funny

    For us Slashdot members who spend 40+ hours a week posting on Slashdot to qualify under these overtime rules.

    1. Re:I'm still waiting by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since you only have 93 total comments, how would that category apply to you?

    2. Re:I'm still waiting by codemachine · · Score: 1

      He must be a very slow typer, and not a very fast reader either. Not that it is nice to make fun such things.

    3. Re:I'm still waiting by JamieF · · Score: 1, Funny

      h... e... '... s... j... u... s... t... a... v... e... r... y... s... l... o... w... t... y... p... i... s... t... .

    4. Re:I'm still waiting by mcmonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can you type slower please? I cannot read that fast.

    5. Re:I'm still waiting by parliboy · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll add code that makes subscriptions expire 50% faster after the first 40 hours.

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
  3. It's All A Mystery... by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Overtime?

    Oh.... that's what employers expect you to give voluntarily!

    I remember years ago doing that, when I really loved my work and didn't care. Besides, I liked all the cool stuff I got to play with and the really neat server and top of the line PC on my desk with a spifftacular monitor and video card and even a cordless mouse. Then something happened, they realized I would do anything they wanted as along as I had the toys. Eventually I put in 16-18 hours days and began wrecking my health and I wouldn't qualify for any extra pay anyway because I was salaried, not hourly. The expectations piled up with the work load and I found I had scant time left to experience the joys of doing neat projects or learning new tools and languages after work, because I was burning out big time. Then they outsourced the jobs and said, "It was a good thing, win-win" Well, that might have been true because the contractor, if they signed me, wouldn't allow their employee to be treated like I had without them getting some really fat zorkmids for the above and beyond. I didn't sign with them and left.

    Now it's kinda back to the old thing, hourly and no budget for overtime so don't ask for it, but if something really does need to get done???

    BTW we don't have a lot of positions here where you'd get overtime or benefits for that matter as many are 4 hours/day, which even with a little overage wouldn't hit the 32 hours where benefits are required to be given. (Rhetorical question-<)The real puzzle is, why can't we find good workers?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      Lets see how close my translation is:
      You worked 16 hours days
      Got outsourced
      Work 4 hours a day
      Dont have benifits
      Not a good worker

    2. Re:It's All A Mystery... by ElForesto · · Score: 1, Interesting

      All of the recent court cases I've read have indicated that the courts are sympathetic to salaried workers that have to put in overtime, and they often find in favor of those employees. Still, IANAL.

      --
      There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
    3. Re:It's All A Mystery... by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not 4 hours a day, but many of the information workers we hire are and they do an awful job -- probably because for the minor pay they don't have much at stake.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:It's All A Mystery... by ozric99 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I wouldn't qualify for any extra pay anyway because I was salaried, not hourly.

      What does salary have to do with anything? If you work overtime, you get paid overtime. Why the hell do people work overtime if they're not getting paid for it? Is this some strange ass-ramming only USians get? What a terrible system!

    5. Re:It's All A Mystery... by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      It's not that they're sympathetic, so much as they are misclassified as exempt. There are strict rules on when you being exempt from overtime, being on salary doesn't do it all by itself.

    6. Re:It's All A Mystery... by mefus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Eventually I put in 16-18 hours days and began wrecking my health and I wouldn't qualify for any extra pay anyway because I was salaried, not hourly.

      If you have a record of your hours, I'd recommend a second look at the laws, as sometimes a company will tell you you are "exempt" when you aren't necessarily.

      If you are in a position where you are given general goals but don't set your agenda yourself and aren't responsible for it, you can make a case for yourself.

      I've seen it happen!

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
    7. Re:It's All A Mystery... by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      If you work overtime, you get paid overtime.

      Not for a "salaried" position in the USA. Typically, higher-responsibility jobs like management are salaried, as are many professional positions, like software development. If someone is lucky, they work for a company bound to 40 hours a week by contract, but others are not so lucky.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    8. Re:It's All A Mystery... by DrCode · · Score: 1

      The general idea is that an 'exempt' employee is doing mostly mental work, so the number of hours worked doesn't need to be kept track of like, say, a policeman. In theory, a software engineer will work extra hours when necessary, but will go home early if he managed to get his work done.

    9. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Chemical · · Score: 1

      Yes that's pretty much how it works in the US. If you are salaried, you are considered "exempt" from overtime. Salaried means that you get paid the same fixed ammount no matter how much you work, whether it be 10 hours a week or 100. Of course what ends up happening is that they shovel so much work on you to do that you end up having to work more than 40 hours a week to do what is expected of you, otherwise you get fired. What a great system!

    10. Re:It's All A Mystery... by beta21 · · Score: 1

      Having worked in numerous countries this is not something unique to the US.

      I suppose most people see it as flex time but it never works out in favour of the employee. Sometimes certain things have to be working by a set date and this requires late nights etc.

    11. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ---
      What does salary have to do with anything?
      ---

      Ummm... salaried (or exempt as opposed to non-exempt) positions by definition are paid a fixed salary. If you make 80K a year then your weekly, or bi-weekly paycheck is simply an installment on that annual salary.

      ---
      If you work overtime, you get paid overtime.
      ---

      I whole heartedly agree with you but unfortunately overtime for tech workers is virtually unheard of in the industry.

      ---
      Why the hell do people work overtime if they're not getting paid for it? Is this some strange ass-ramming only USians get? What a terrible system!
      ---

      You do it because often times its required to accomplish your job, and if you do not accomplish your job, you do not keep your job. Long work hours (a typical work week is fifty hours) have always been part of the IT/Technology world. I did not mind it when I was twenty five but as time wears on I personally think it sucks. Given the crappy market I do not think things are likely to change though, so I am considering alternative career paths. Something where I do not have to sit in a cube, wear a tie, attend endless droning meetings with total morons, and slave away fifty plus hours a week on a consistent basis.

      So far I have not come up with much, but I remain hopeful :-)

    12. Re:It's All A Mystery... by servognome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because there are some jobs that you can't quantify in hours. It's not like, spend 8 hours answering phones all day. How long does it take to invent something? How long does it take to manage? If I think about a problem at home can I charge my company?
      I don't mind salary system, some days I work more, some days I work less than 8 hours (usually work more, but I enjoy my job). Last week most of the exempt employees took off at lunchtime in anticipation for the holiday weekend. The hourly had to stay working until the clock hit 5.
      There are also situations where salaried employees get overtime because its the expection of their job, like supervisors for 12 hour shift employees.
      The system isn't all that bad, but it does require more from the employee to demand expectations up front (so they don't keep loading you with projects) and to ensure they are managing their own time wisely.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    13. Re:It's All A Mystery... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      Yes, just a theory. Then after you bust your arse, they fire you because you are burned out and cannot produce enough per day to cover your salary, because sales and marketing over-promise for cheap.

      Back on topic, perhaps some in congress are starting to fell like bush is a lame duck before his second term? Granted, just because the House has done so, and the senate will not, could be very, very interesting. Very unlikely to come out with a compromise in committee. So, the possibility exists that bush will have another issue to mess up before the election!

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    14. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In theory the salaried employee should be averaging 40 hours week too. The idea is that keeping track of overtime and undertime is more work than it is worth for certain kinds of jobs. It is illegal for an employer to consistently expect more than 40 hours per week from an "exempt" employee.

      However, in practice these salaried employees are often unaware of their rights, and in fact most of their management is unaware of the legalities of mandatory unpaid/uncompensated overtime. So, the effect is not just an ass-ramming but a group ass-ramming by all involved because none know any better.

      That's one reason I enjoy working contracts at a set hourly rate. My ass remains strictly one-way and if somebody starts thinking about doing a little construction to make it two-way, I can just take off with no feelings of guilt or remorse.

      Work once, paid once. Nice and simple.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:It's All A Mystery... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Salaried employees are expected to produce results, not produce hours.

      If I say OK...I'll be done with this design next Friday, whatever happens between now and Friday is (kind of) my business. As long as I deliver on the agreed upon date. If I dick off for the next week, and pull an allnighter Thursday night...I shouldn't be paid overtime for working thursday night.

      Of course...if I did that, my actual product would suffer, and eventually I'd be held responsible for the crappiness.

      That differs greatly from an hourly employee, who is expected to fill a chair doing a specific task for X hours per day.

    16. Re:It's All A Mystery... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      The last several post were the reason the companies lobbied for the rule change. The general intent was to clarify who was offically "salary" because there are far too many lawsuits..

      of course the Dept of Labor didn't ask the RIGHT question! "Why are there so many sueable cases to begin with?" The companies mearly lobbied they were being sued too much....the DoL failed to do their job for LABOR and see the wide scale abuse taking place...thanks George!

    17. Re:It's All A Mystery... by EtherMonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Salaried means that you get paid the same fixed ammount no matter how much you work, whether it be 10 hours a week or 100. Of course what ends up happening is that they shovel so much work on you to do that you end up having to work more than 40 hours a week to do what is expected of you, otherwise you get fired.

      No, that is not necessarily true. Whether you are exempt from overtime really depends on how much self-determinism and supervision goes with your job. If get to select your own assignments and deadlines, are essentially allowed to work on your own with little supervision, do not have to meet any production quotas or work on a rigid schedule, then you are probably exempt from overtime.

      However, if your supervisor assigns you projects with deadlines, or requires to you record your time and can penalize you for failing to meet a minimum quota, or you are required to be "at work" according to a fixed schedule, then you are probably NOT exempt from overtime.

      I suggest you read Overtime Pay Requirements of the FLSA before wrongfully concluding whether you are exempt or not.
      --
      --- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
    18. Re:It's All A Mystery... by hendridm · · Score: 1

      I get paid a salary at my job in the U.S. One of my coworkers, who qualifies under a different classification for some reason, does roughly the same job but gets paid hourly. I get $2/hour more than him. Granted, he qualifies for overtime, but I get the extra $2/hour without working any overtime. He has to work many extra hours just to make as much as me (2080 extra hours per month, to be exact). If he works more than that, yeah, he comes out ahead, but I'm happier because I get out of that shithole long before he does on an average day.

      I don't think this is unique amongst salaried positions. You get paid more because you might have to put in some long weekends...

    19. Re:It's All A Mystery... by EtherMonkey · · Score: 1

      It is illegal for an employer to consistently expect more than 40 hours per week from an "exempt" employee.

      If this is illegal, I'd like to know under which laws and what the statute of limitations might be. About seven years ago I looked into the issue and could find nothing to prevent my then employer from continuing to impose ridiculous deadlines that required 50 to 80-hour work-weeks for over two years.
      --
      --- A man with a briefcase can steal more money, than any man with a gun. [Don Henley]
    20. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I really love is working as a contractor. You bill less than 40 hours a week and somebody from payroll takes it from your sick or vacation time, but put in extra hours and it just sort of dissappears.

    21. Re:It's All A Mystery... by XO · · Score: 1

      I am REQUIRED in a management position to work at minimum 48 hours, and expected to work 50 to 52. (this is down from 54 previously)

      The new OT laws guaranteed me a base wage increase of almost 35% of what I was previously making, base salary.

      I am going to be PISSED if I have to undo that.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    22. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had my job outsourced by illegal aliens, I don't remember any IT people worrying to much about what was going on at the time.

      I have moved on, not as much money, bought a gun.

      Now it's your turn, no sympathy deserved or given.

      Fend for yourself!! It's the NEW American way!!

    23. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that's probably the clearest (hopefully correct ;) ) explantion for this bill that I've heard.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    24. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Well, I just spent 20 minutes in google looking for the place where I first ran into this a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, the FLSA keeps sucking up the majority of the hits and I'm not finding it there and the DOL's website is way too much style over substance right now that I can't find much useful there either (plus it gave me a headache).

      There is the possibility that I have confused exempt with merely salaried as well.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    25. Re:It's All A Mystery... by CptNerd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ---
      Why the hell do people work overtime if they're not getting paid for it? Is this some strange ass-ramming only USians get? What a terrible system!
      ---

      You do it because often times its required to accomplish your job, and if you do not accomplish your job, you do not keep your job. Long work hours (a typical work week is fifty hours) have always been part of the IT/Technology world. I did not mind it when I was twenty five but as time wears on I personally think it sucks. Given the crappy market I do not think things are likely to change though, so I am considering alternative career paths. Something where I do not have to sit in a cube, wear a tie, attend endless droning meetings with total morons, and slave away fifty plus hours a week on a consistent basis.

      So far I have not come up with much, but I remain hopeful :-)

      After 20 years in the IT field as a software developer, I found that consulting is the best way. I get paid by the hour for my expertise, and since I can get done in 10 hours what it might take a junior salaried worker 20-50 hours, it costs them less than hiring that junior worker full-time. They don't have to pay me any benefits, and I cover all my taxes/insurance/etc, and still come out ahead, since my hourly rate is easily $15/hour higher than my salaried rate would be.

      On those (extremely) rare times that a task takes extra work during a week, I get paid for each hour I bill. The best thing about my current contract, the projects are usually in the red, and they don't *want* me working long hours! I average 30-35 hours per week, and believe me, compared to my early years this is bliss!
      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    26. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Overtime?

      Oh.... that's what employers expect you to give voluntarily!


      Oddly enough, my employer reclassified virtually my entire department, save three managers at the top, as hourly workers back in June. This has caused endless complaints because of the rules that came along with it.

      1. All hourly employees must take a 15-minute break in the morning and afternoon.
      2. All hourly employees must take a one-hour lunch.
      3. Because of budget restrictions, all employees must obtain prior written approval (e-mail suffices) from their supervisor or manager for overtime.
      4. Anyone who works overtime without approval will be paid for it, but will be subject to disciplinary action.
      5. All employees are subject to random checks of their times badging in and out for arrival, breaks, and departure. Facility cameras are backups for those cases when an employee follows someone in or out, or forgets their badge.

      We used to be flexible on many things. We would get straight time for extra time worked in emergency situations, such as a crashed server that had to be rebuilt or when a critical patch had to be applied after-hours, but for the most part extra hours were worked without complaint based on the expectation that it was a common thing and that we were given some leeway in what we did with our time. We could stay late for personal training, for example. Now the online educational materials sit mostly unused because no one has the time to use them during work hours, and they're inaccessible to most users once we leave the facility. We could also stay late to explore options that were harder to justify during working hours. Now we take the safe approach to things because there's no time to look at anything else. Most common gripe of all is getting stuck in traffic (significant complaint here in SoCal) because almost everyone has to leave at 5pm.

      There's a suspicion that the employer had to pay out big-time for OT in some case, because the reclassification came before the new federal rules were put into place, but no one's been able to find anything on it. Personally, I'd love to get my salaried status back. Between the bureaucracy and the extra time in traffic, the OT hassles aren't worth it.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    27. Re:It's All A Mystery... by flacco · · Score: 1
      I am REQUIRED in a management position to work at minimum 48 hours, and expected to work 50 to 52. (this is down from 54 previously)

      what sweatshop hell-hole do you work in then?

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    28. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, you would think so, but in just about every case I've seen with salaried employees, they are expected to work overtime, work at odd hours, and yet still come in for an 8-hour workday. Lunch breaks are timed down to the half-minute, regardless of the workload being handled. The problem is that while many companies are enlightened enough to not harass employees like that, a much bigger portion DO watch the clock incessantly.

      The ideal is for a salaried employee to be able to negotiate an overtime scenario with their boss if it appears that overtime is going to become the rule, not the exception.

    29. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Gannoc · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, if your supervisor assigns you projects with deadlines, or requires to you record your time and can penalize you for failing to meet a minimum quota, or you are required to be "at work" according to a fixed schedule, then you are probably NOT exempt from overtime.

      That is SO incorrect. Standard working hours and deadlines do not automatically qualify you for overtime.

    30. Re:It's All A Mystery... by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. As a software developer, every job I've had has included assigned projects with deadlines. And I've always had to record my time. Nevertheless, I've always been FTE (full time, exempt), meaning that I've never been eligible for overtime except under very particular and rare circumstances.

    31. Re:It's All A Mystery... by canadian_right · · Score: 1
      Salary works ok for some jobs, if you are not expected to regulary put in longer than normal hours.

      I was once promoted to a salary position from an hourly. I then discovered this meant no overtime - so I quit working overtime. When asked why I wasn't willing to put in the hours any more by my boss I just told him that I don't work for free.

      But I can see where labour laws are needed to prevent abuse of employees who really need that job (4 kids, mortgage, etc...).

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    32. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software developers were exempt even under the old rules.

    33. Re:It's All A Mystery... by XO · · Score: 1

      it's retail. And I don't really care all that much, because I make a rather good income (enough to support myself, and those i am responsible for, and live relatively comfortably), and I don't really have anything else that I'd rather be doing between the hours of 9 and 8.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    34. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We french people like to import american concepts and improve them on the way. The trend here is that a software engineer will work extra hours when necessary, but there's no fucking way he'll go home early even if he managed to get his work done.

    35. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I also suggest that IF you are being screwed by your employer to take all your copies of your timsheets (you HAVE been filling out timesheets with time right? It's required, dont let them try and tell you you have to use and X.

      and take them to your local labor board. they will fry your boss and your bosses boss pretty damn hard without revealing who turned them in.

      It happened here. cost the company 2.2 million in back overtime and 500K in fines, and now they have to pay overtime to the salaried employees who are not exempt or increase their payscale to the point where they are exempt.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    36. Re:It's All A Mystery... by mefus · · Score: 1

      The last several post were the reason the companies lobbied for the rule change.

      Extra legislation is bloating our government. There is no need for the extra government you and "companies" asked for when all they need to do is comply with existing law and stop lying to their employees about their employment status.

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
    37. Re:It's All A Mystery... by akajerry · · Score: 1


      The system you are describing is flex-time. Flex-time is practically taken for granted in the tech sector, but many jobs, salaried as well as hourly have strict working hours. Also, some companies offer hourly workers flex-time; it's not just reserved for salaried workers.

      Interestingly most companies that offer flex-time find that absenteeism decreases and workers are generally more productive. If you know you're going to get docked for that 2 hours your late because you have to take the kid to the doctor you might as well call in sick, assuming you have sick pay benefits. My father was an hourly worker his whole life and in the summer time his company let them work 9-hours a day Monday-Thursday and half a day on Friday. To my father that was one of the best perks he got.

      Also, implicit in your statement is the concept of balance. You work ~40 each week, even though you might work 12 hours on a single given day. That's part of flex-time. The main point is that your effective hourly wage has not been compromised. On the other hand if you noticed in 6 months you were averaging 45 hours a week and 6 months after that 50 hours a week, but you don't get a raise in that time then your effective hourly rate has declined significantly. The question at this point is did you have a choice or did your employer coerce you into working the extra hours without more pay.

      Another thing you're mixing up is the difference between working 50 hours and getting paid for 50 hours vs. working 50 hours and getting paid a premium for the last 10 hours (time and a half). The overtime rules in question not only elminate the need to pay time and a hlaf they also eliminate the need to pay for the extra 10 hours at all.

    38. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Most commercial management requires hours like this. This is part of the reason that many don't want to be managers. They generally have to be there to open and close the store, and be on hand for any problems.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    39. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      This might sound subtle but:

      You were eligible for overtime. However, you were not guaranteed overtime.

      The federal government has rules that state that you must be paid overtime if you meet certain criteria. Most states have additional rules. However, if the company decides to pay you overtime on their own, they can. If you are in a union and the union contract with your employer says you get overtime, you get it. If you have a personal contract with your employer that says you'll be paid, you will.

      As an example, when I was a teenager I worked for a store that paid overtime for holidays even when they didn't have to.

      Don't sell yourself cheap. You might be replaceable, but that still costs money. Make sure that if you work salary you have some form of protection from "hour creep". Find a workplace that desires stability and doesn't want people who burn out after 3 months to a year. Heart attacks and such are expensive too.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    40. Re:It's All A Mystery... by UdoKeir · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of it depends on your local state laws. For instance, in Texas it's illegal for an employer to force a salaried/exempt employee to do unpaid overtime. But it is legal for the employer to fire the employee for refusing.

    41. Re:It's All A Mystery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not not only in America, it's the same in other countries (for what reasons ever, for example fear of unemployment if they don't work as much as the others in the company do).

    42. Re:It's All A Mystery... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      First this isn't "extra" legislation..it's a rule given by an executive department... one of the things the DoL is "there for" so congresscritters don't have to worry about "petty details".

      As far "complying with existing law and stop lying to their employees..." What rock have YOU been living under for the last 4 years? That's the whole point of electing a REPUBLICAN president like Bush...so they can change the rules they don't want to follow... get it... BAD HIPPY/REDNECK people want to change the law to allow freedom for "military weapons" and "pot" ...GOOD BUSINESS people want to screw their employees out of 30%+ of their pay!

    43. Re:It's All A Mystery... by mefus · · Score: 1

      I like the way you put it... wish I'd seen it earlier.

      But... I don't poke smot. Makes me ill most of the time. :(

      Guess that makes me a redneck.

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
  4. They did it in Ontario too by ShawnX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It happened in Ontario in 2002, they took away IT professionals ability to get overtime and other exceptions and nobody seemed to have cared :(

    If anyone is in Ontario, is a geek, and in IT we must repeal the 2002 regulations putting IT into slave labour jobs!

    --
    Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
    1. Re:They did it in Ontario too by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If anyone is in Ontario, is a geek, and in IT we must repeal the 2002 regulations putting IT into slave labour jobs!

      May be difficult to do. When I was last in Toronto, the largest city in Ontario, you could have easily convinced me that it was in Asia. You know, where people are willing to knock themselves out for a fraction of what workers in the west expect. Heck, some of the imigrants probably see an opening for an IT job and one of their family or relatives is on the next flight from Bombay, China, Philippines, Indonesia or wherever.

      Toronto is a cool place to visit, it's like a little bit of everywhere wrapped up into one city, but you have to wonder how it affects the politics for those canadians who have deeper roots in Canada.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:They did it in Ontario too by Demanche · · Score: 1

      I'm in Ottawa, I had no idea about this..

      I've gotten overtime in my position as System admin and Dialer Anaylst.. they hate giving it but I did get 1/2 hour over time last time i actually did go over 44 hours.

      That being said.. anyone in Toronto care to post an example of a common IT job that doesn't pay enough? I'm kind of curious how Ottawa compares.

      --
      Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
    3. Re:They did it in Ontario too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good riddance to the (neo)conservatives, who did this to you. They made a mess of Ontario and left it with a huge debt. They deserved the trouncing they got in the provincial election.

    4. Re:They did it in Ontario too by ShawnX · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
    5. Re:They did it in Ontario too by ShawnX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Specifically:

      (3) Part VII of the Act does not apply to,

      (b) an information technology professional. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4 (3).

      Exemptions from Part VIII of Act
      8. Part VIII of the Act does not apply to,

      (l) an information technology professional. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 8.

      Read the act, it says it all there :(

      --
      Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
    6. Re:They did it in Ontario too by Demanche · · Score: 1

      Really odd, I never knew this.

      Most of my previous employeers were just really keen on not approving overtime.

      Would this apply to technical support agents ?

      --
      Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
    7. Re:They did it in Ontario too by canadiangoose · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I spent nearly 2 years as one of only two techies for a small consulting company just West of Toronto. We installed and supported computer networks and telephone systems. We worked with everything short of datacenters, from 20 computer law firms with Norstar key systems, to mutli-site VPN and VoIP linked convergant networks with over 2000 nodes. The other technician was married with 2 kids, and was also my boss, so he was only really a technician part-time. He was also had very little knowledge of the telephone systems, so they were my responsability. I spent my time working 16-18 hour days (I even endured a few 36-hour shifts), on call 24-7 with a mandate for 4-hour on-site response time.

      After we installed a couple of large telephone systems, including one multi-site hospital, I decided that I was sick of being the only tech on call. I asked my boss to hire another tech, but he refused and instead tried to negotiate my salary down, so I quit. Months later, unable to find another technician with the training needed to support the unusual French telephone systems we had installed, the company went bankrupt.

      While I was working there, I got a raise from $12.50 to $16 per hour. I was payed for 35 hours of work per week, no overtime.

      I have since found much better work. Don't think that all jobs in Toronto are quite so terrible, but you asked for examples, and this seemed appropriate.

      --
      Never eat more than you can lift -- Miss Piggy
    8. Re:They did it in Ontario too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debt is the answer to bloated government, much to the dismay of you socialists.

    9. Re:They did it in Ontario too by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      >> Would this apply to technical support agents ?

      No technical support agents are not exempt, but product specialists (level 2/3) are according to my employer.

    10. Re:They did it in Ontario too by niteice · · Score: 1

      So...the Ontario lawmakers basically thought that IT guys would work for whatever low benefits as long as they could still play Solitare?

      --
      ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
    11. Re:They did it in Ontario too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, my friendly A. Coward, seems to be strategy of the U.S.'s neo-conservative government. It's really quite an elegant scam. They keep spending as much as they want whenever they want and if any real conservatives complains they simple tell them that they are going to run up the debt so high that government must eventually shrink.

    12. Re:They did it in Ontario too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a job interview yesterday for a systems technician position with a company in the Toronto area. The salary sounds really good, plus they offer benefits, and time and a half if you work overtime. From what I understand this is a rarity in the IT world nowadays, so I hope I get the job, :-)

    13. Re:They did it in Ontario too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I am in Ontario too, working for a Canadian subsidiary of a US Multinational company that developed IT solutions.

      I am in a miserable situation, since the US Corporate Head Quarters decided that outsourcing is going to be the way to do business, and a large part of the software development we do here in Canada will go to India.

      It has been two years now, and we have parallel development in many areas of that application. Young Indian guys keep coming over for six month 'knowledge transfer', only to resign after they go back. The entire testing team has left the Indian outsourcer.

      My boss have made it a point that I should work for free, because I am a 'senior guy' and because 'this is not a 9 to 5 job'. Speaking to others in the group, they have been told that by their managers as well, work for free. He has the Ontario law on his side, as well as market conditions, and a new bos (the director for the group) who is an ex-Dot-Com-bust-startup guy, keen on overworking everyone.

      It is a death march we know we are walking, because we will not have jobs in a year or two, and we are being overworked to handover the application to India. They only need us for the time being, and later it is bye bye.

      Sad, but true ...

    14. Re:They did it in Ontario too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      System admin and Dialer Anaylst.

      What's a Dialer Analyst?

    15. Re:They did it in Ontario too by JPyObjC+Dude · · Score: 1

      This one cost me thousands.

      I basically don't get 1.5 time anymore unless I work 54 hours a week. With a family, this is not possible :(

      I for one will vote this down, however I don't think that the Ontario government will listen.

      Ontario - the sweatshop capital of Canada.

    16. Re:They did it in Ontario too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't the liberals promise to repeal that law in the last election? That is the only reason I voted for them.

  5. IMHO by Auckerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If technology workers unionized, they could use collective bargining to get overtime via contract. Funny, one mentions unions to tech people and the techs cringe. My how workers view of themselves has changed.

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
    1. Re:IMHO by ElForesto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I usually hate unions, but tech workers are one of those places where push has gone way past coming to shove. IT workers have been abused terribly for a very long time and we can only take so much abuse before we get fed up. So long as the membership isn't compulsory, the union sticks to JUST negotiating labor contracts and the workers keep a sharp eye on both the company AND the union, it just might work.

      --
      There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
    2. Re:IMHO by alcmena · · Score: 1

      Agreed. My dad was fired a few years ago for scetchy reasons from a firm. Had there been a union it never would have happened. Unions do have their place, and they're not all bad.

    3. Re:IMHO by garcia · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe you think it would work. It wouldn't. I'm in a Union. It hasn't done shit for me since I joined nearly two years ago. Fuck, the Governor of MN wanted to give us a *PAYCUT* I suppose the Union avoided that...

      We don't get raises for another year at least. We had to pay more for our insurance co-pays. We had to have a restructuring of medical facitilies you can attend for certain co-pay levels. We had to pay more in dental... My personal favorite is that I fear striking. You know why? Because when you strike you don't get fucking paid. Perhaps everyone else can afford their mortagage while they are on strike but I couldn't. I have reserves and all that but it wouldn't last long enough for it to be benficial for me to save a couple bucks on a co-pay.

      So fuck the Unionization. No one supports you when you go on strike because they are out of work or getting paid shitty. The Union doesn't pay your full salary while you're on strike so bills don't get paid.

      That's my .02

    4. Re:IMHO by JesseL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think most technology workers (myself included) are much too individualistic to ever see much benefit it unionizing. Most of us would rather negotiate on our own terms without letting a middle man in on the deal. Many of us have witnessed the other downsides of unions as well.

      Pricing themselves out of jobs.
      Promoting mediocrity.
      Antagonising non-union workers / coercing people into joing.
      Attracting organised crime.

      (waiting for the pro-union flames)

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    5. Re:IMHO by Brento · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If technology workers unionized, they could use collective bargining to get overtime via contract.

      Yeah, and it would have saved us from overseas outsourcing! After all, look what it did for the steel industry!

      The steel industry's dying? Oh, well, look how it helped manufacturing!

      No...no, wait, I mean textiles! Look how it saved textile industry workers!

      Help me out here, somebody...

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
    6. Re:IMHO by Paster+Of+Muppets · · Score: 1

      It's been mentioned before.

      --
      Due to lack of disk space this user has been discontinued
    7. Re:IMHO by RubberChainsaw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What benefits would employer-hostile unions provide when our jobs can be easily shipped over seas? Manufacturing plants are much harder to move than IT call-centers and programming teams.

      --
      I welcome our new 99% overlords.
    8. Re:IMHO by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Well, bush has helped the number of union goverment workers grow. ;->

    9. Re:IMHO by Kenrod · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mod this "hilarious"

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    10. Re:IMHO by Our+Man+In+Redmond · · Score: 2, Informative

      Consider though that tech management (I mean the ones at the top of the ladder) has made the tech workplace palatable to workers without unionization by providing good pay, good food, good benefits, fun toys and the like, thereby providing a disincentive to unionization. Why should we unionize, they might argue, when we have the things a union would fight for, and we don't have to have the union to go with it? Especially when if we did decide to unionize management would start saying that they couldn't afford all of the perqs they currently provide if they had to meet the nut of a union contract.

      This attitude is starting to change, though, thanks to globalization, outsourcing, the new overtime laws, (lack of) job security and the like. Groups like Washtech are working to make high tech employees aware of the issues they face and the benefits of unionization.

      --
      Someone you trust is one of us.
    11. Re:IMHO by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So break up your union, watch half your friends get fired, then bend over and take a 50% paycut.

      Unions and striking are about standing up to capitalists who have disproportionate power, and unions help prevent the middle class from becoming the lower class.

      If you don't like being in a union, find a job with less troubles.

    12. Re:IMHO by garcia · · Score: 1, Troll

      So break up your union, watch half your friends get fired, then bend over and take a 50% paycut.

      Do you mean the people I have to deal with on a regular basis that make my job more difficult because they don't do theirs? Your own job depends on theirs and your attempts to educate them and their supervisor about about their refusal to work are ignored. Real nice.

      Unions and striking are about standing up to capitalists who have disproportionate power, and unions help prevent the middle class from becoming the lower class.

      Unions are about protecting people who don't do their fucking job and making sure they continue to get paid for it. Maybe it's not that way in the Industrialial Unions out there but it certainly is that way in the professional union I belong to.

    13. Re:IMHO by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh please... compared to what other comparable sector?

      You mean all the 24 adn under tech workers making way above average salaries for their area?

      Or you mean the school dropouts on their first tech job who feel "abused" because they are the only tech guy and have to work long hours.

      To form a union you need a bunch of people in the same boat with common interests, who are willing to pay money in order to collectively bargain... and I'm sorry, but the "tech" field is WAY too broad and varied, not to mention still re-defining itself, to be unionized.

      Further, to unionize, you need a shop that hires enough people to make a difference... many tech jobs where people complain have exactly one , maybe two or three, technical guys who are always complaining.. now if those one, two, or three guys can't get together and come to terms with their employer, a union has NO extra power to help.

    14. Re:IMHO by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What benefits would employer-hostile unions provide when our jobs can be easily shipped over seas? Manufacturing plants are much harder to move than IT call-centers and programming teams.
      When steel workers strike, steel prices go up a bit.

      When manufacturer workers strike, we don't get as many new clothes.

      When IT workers strike, no one gets their email, and your CEO's blackberry stops working. Think digital Project Mayhem.

      Which would cause the most reaction in your company?
    15. Re:IMHO by msoftsucks · · Score: 1

      Unionization is the first class ticket to non-competitiveness. Literally all unionized industries in the US have become obsolete. Companies that are forced to accept unions are on the verge of bankruptcy. Lets look at some of the industries shall we...

      Telecommunications - Unions have pretty much locked us into a system that is totally obsolete. While Japan and other countries are implementing state-of-the-art telecommunications systems, our system is relegated to 1940's technology.

      Textiles - unions have pretty much killed this industry in the US. Times were when the US was the king in making reasonably priced clothes. Now, all clothing is made outside the US.

      Automotive - The UAW has pretty much killed the industry that America invented.

      Airline - The pilots union has caused many of a carrier to declare bankruptcy. Even now, 3 major US carries are about to go down this path.

      Teachers - The teachers union has been the sole reason why the K-12 schools in the US are so bad. Where the teachers union doesn't have any influence (universities), US schools are a cut above the rest.

      Construction - The cost to build per square foot is double than the rest of the world due to corrupt unions. In addition, we are no longer building anything innovative, or using new materials or technique that may improve construction.

      There are many more such examples. Let's face it, unions are bad, bad, bad for the US, it employees, and its economy. Unions were a solution for the 30's, 40's and 50's. But they are not the solution for the 21st century.

      --
      Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
      Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
    16. Re:IMHO by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that good pay, good food, good benefits, fun toys and the like have been missing from most IT jobs for about 4 years now. That's why people like http://www.ortech.org/The CWA are going after tech workers with a vengance. ORTech.org is the link, this is the first time I've been lazy enough to try the URL tag instead of an Anchor tag.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    17. Re:IMHO by Kenrod · · Score: 1

      Tech workers cringe because the mere threat that IT workers may unionize sends employers scrambling to move work offshore. If a serous movement started, the jobs would be gone before the first votes are held.

      Most high paid IT jobs are salaried or contracted. This leaves the relatively low-paid, little experience IT worker, the $10-$20 an hour guys. How much bargaining power do you think these guys have?

      Unions drive up the cost of labor but provide nothing in return to employers. In fact, the threat of strikes makes Unionized labor even less valuable. This would obviously be a serious inducement to outsource IT work. Do we really need to give employers another reason to outsource? The threat of Unionizing would help stregthen the move to outsourcing.

      Unions provide some benefits to employees, but at a cost - Union dues and the loss of independence.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    18. Re:IMHO by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what is the solution for the 21st century? Can you give us a way to fight back against the corporatists that are trying to steal middle class pay and middle class values away from us? What's the option? Violent Revolution? Sitting back and watching ourselves have a lower standard of living than our retired parents? Working for Chinese minimum wage at 24 cents an hour? Do you have a solution, or just more problems?

      I know a lot of anti-union folks don't believe in class warfare- but face facts, the corporations have gotten together and unionized in the form of the WTO, and have fired the first shot across our bow. Are we going to let them get away with it?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    19. Re:IMHO by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      So what is your solution to outsourcing? Creating hidden trojan malware that fails if they fire you? Learning language after language after language so that you can stay ahead of the bright kid from India Institute of Technology who is willing to work for 1/10th your salary? What is the solution?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    20. Re:IMHO by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      your union sucks, it's just that simple.

      good union gets it's members good pay even if the workers could be replaced by just any jock from the street. fuck, one summer i was working at the papermill mowing lawns and got some 10 euros per hour(I consider it ridiculous pay for such a job - even in finland, and that was starting pay), just because i was working inside the factory fences. of course even their union can't force companies to not shut down factories that don't make economical sense to run but they get pretty damn far.

      very few workers are precious enough for the company that the worker would have the ability to discuss his wage with the employer one-on-one, when you have even semi-working unions for BOTH the employers and the employees the discussion becomes more even(so that the terms are roughly the same through the field).

      tech workers like to think they're individual or some high shit like that(that were not commies or whatever), which of course some are and they can get the pay they want - but the majority are repleaceable mass. a good union doesn't even need to go on total strikes. unions give visibility and concentrate the power of many so that they can say: "we're worth this, these are the terms we want, what can you give us?".

      gotta hand it over to the usa corp runners though.. did such a good job on ruining the unions through lynching/bribing/corruption so early(pinkertons!) that nobody even wants them.

      sheep.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    21. Re:IMHO by theblacksun · · Score: 3, Funny
      "Unions are about protecting people who don't do their fucking job and making sure they continue to get paid for it"

      I think you're actually refering to university tenure.

      --
      Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
    22. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions.. "I'm not good enuogh for the current economy. My skills are obsolete and I am not worth that much to companies. LET'S STRIKE!"

    23. Re:IMHO by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      Depends on the union. Talking about longshoreman, I completly agree. Talking about a teachers union or the boeing engineers union. Its complete opposite. Just like businesses, some business treat their employees like shit(wallmart) and some treat their employees like valuable resources(cosco). There's good unions out there and there's bad ones.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    24. Re:IMHO by JesseL · · Score: 1

      So, how good is it for the rest of us when businesses are forced to pay every unskilled "jock from the street" that they hire a wage far beyond their real value as an employee? Doesn't that drive up costs for the business? This results in a greater likelyhood that the busniness will fail (how much is that job worth when the company is bankrupt?) and their products will become more expensive (everyone's cost of living goes up)?

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    25. Re:IMHO by Flower · · Score: 1
      You make the piss poor assumption that garcia is allowed to strike. While you may see autoworkers striking you aren't going to see that happening with teachers or air traffic controllers.

      Which brings up another point. Who is assuming that an IT union would be permitted to strike? All the government has to determine is that we are vital and then they'll just pass a law saying we can't strike. Without the ability to strike a union means absolutely nothing imnsho.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    26. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telecommunications - Unions have pretty much locked us into a system that is totally obsolete. While Japan and other countries are implementing state-of-the-art telecommunications systems, our system is relegated to 1940's technology.

      Japan's telecom industry is GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, and ten years ago it was ANCIENT.

      Did unions create worldcom and their malfeasance? Did unions run up a speculation bubble with too many players who built too much trunk and not enough last mile?

      Textiles - unions have pretty much killed this industry in the US. Times were when the US was the king in making reasonably priced clothes. Now, all clothing is made outside the US.

      By children and prison labor in the places that inspired the term "sweatshop" and haven't changed since. And actually, our textile industry does reasonably well, it's just contracted down to a more reasonable share (we were once the king of textiles -- no one can stay on top of an industry like that forever).

      Automotive - The UAW has pretty much killed the industry that America invented.

      Detroit is recording record profits. Ford is gobbling up Volvo and Rolls Royce

      Airline - The pilots union has caused many of a carrier to declare bankruptcy. Even now, 3 major US carries are about to go down this path.

      Are you aware that a large contingent of all airline pilots qualify for food stamps? That they are frequently made to work unsafe hours and told to lie about it or be fired? Airline mechanics on the other hand, they make bank (and have a hell of a union too). But while you're playing post hoc, why dontcha look at fuel prices and airline revenue charts and notice the inverse correlation. Must be those union oil workers.

      Teachers - The teachers union has been the sole reason why the K-12 schools in the US are so bad. Where the teachers union doesn't have any influence (universities), US schools are a cut above the rest.

      See my comments on pilots. But there's a grain of truth here -- your unbacked assertions being passed as argument does reflect poorly on critical thought skills being taught in schools ... All right, cheap shot. I've seen laziness in teachers unions firsthand, but I can also tell you that they're not nearly as powerful as the far right wing would have you believe.

      Construction - The cost to build per square foot is double than the rest of the world due to corrupt unions. In addition, we are no longer building anything innovative, or using new materials or technique that may improve construction.

      This one I can give you -- construction unions are corrupt to the core, and don't even serve the construction workers. Take a look at the price of steel and lumber sometime tho.

      Look, I'm as big a foe of corrupt institutionalized unions as the next guy, but if corporate boards get to organize and set rules for everyone, I don't see why the converse can't be true. Unions are the reason we're not working 80 hour weeks and kicked to the curb the instant we're injured. Perhaps it's just not the unions of the 30's, 40's and 50's that are a solution for the 21st century, any more than the management from that era is.

    27. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      yes, unions have been losing since reagan came into power. you can respond to this two ways:

      1. give up (i.e. bend over for management), or
      2. fight back (i.e. save your dignity, and your job)

      if you're going to look at union history, look at union history since the mid-1800s. you'd be very, very suprised how many benefits you take for granted today were won with the hard work and blood of unions back then. that was a tremendous victory, and you are still reaping the benefits from it.

    28. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You work as a RECORDS CLERK!

      Exactly which union do you belong to?

    29. Re:IMHO by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Funny, I've seen it happen with teachers several times in the school system that I grew up in.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    30. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't heard of a teachers' union attracting organized crime, but they certainly promote all the other negative aspects. The only good union that I know if with the one found in C derived languages.

    31. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course, when your job is cut you'll whine about those damn phb's, indians, or the president - anything but yourself.

    32. Re:IMHO by qpgmr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For the first time in 16 years in the field I find myself in a union (IBEW).
      Unbelievable:
      Since I have to be paid for overtime (call outs are double time) I'm out of here at 5pm, sharp.
      I've worked 55-75 hour weeks for so long I don't know what to do with myself.. Started working out, dating my spouse, developing non-work software again (shades of college).
      Guess what? As much seems to get done at this job, just as effectively, as the other work-till-you-drop places.
      Extra benefit: pointy hair boss' tantrums have limits. Distinct ones.
      Downside: No recognition for achievement, in bonuses/promotions from boss - but the Corp. actually does give special recognition/awards to poeple who make a difference..
      Having worked both ways, I'd really recommend everyone strongly consider what they think they know about unionization.

    33. Re:IMHO by johnlcallaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Give it a rest. I remember interviewing a prospect a few years ago (before the .bomb) for a Unix admin position. She had two years experience, most of which was building servers using Solaris jump start. She expected a starting salary of $70K in Portland Maine.

      After I stopped laughing (not really), I told her that she did not have the experience or skills to command such a salary and that $40-50K was more realistic. She was very indignant and said she could get that much in Boston

      Maybe she could, I don't know. Many tech works have been abusing their employers for years demanding high wages for minimal skills. When starting Java coders fresh out of college command $50K sallaries (or more), something was wrong.

      Tech workers drove the jobs overseas, and contributed to their own overtime problem because they got too expensive.

      Tech people with skills and experience can still command $100K salaries. The only common thread in someone's long list of low paying, thankless jobs is themself. If they can't find someone to pay them what they are worth, maybe they aren't worth it and should look into something else, increase their skills, or accept it.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    34. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teachers go on strike regularly across the US. The Courts would have to agree that IT workers were vital. Just passing a law isn't enough. And if the IT workers struck, other public employee unions would likely back them up by refusing to cross picket lines. It isn't as hopeless as you seem to think. But then again, few things worth having are free. If you aren't willing to fight for your rights, don't expect to keep them.

    35. Re:IMHO by Frogbert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are at least some tech jobs that can't be outsourced you know.

      No one is going to send their computer overseas to get it fixed, no one likes ringing up an indian call centre to get their mouse working again when they can call someone to come over and fix it.

      Hardware doesn't install itself you know, viruses don't remove themselves.

      Network cables don't magicaly worm their way through walls and networks don't subnet themselves.

      Desktop support can't be sent overseas and without it (ie. strike) companies can go to the shitter pretty quickly, especialy during the next sasser outbreak.

    36. Re:IMHO by renehollan · · Score: 1

      Try making the mortgage payments on strike pay.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    37. Re:IMHO by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1
      Garcia,

      I am in the same union as you. I hold the Governer and the do-nothing legislature at fault, not the union. The government wanted a bigger slice of your check, and the union went to bat for you. How much do you think 'ol Guvna Tim would hand out in real world raises if there was no union (here is a hint - think of a negative number). Sure striking sucks, always has, always will. But when the last strike loomed I polled my fellow IT folk and found out that most were seriously considering crossing the picket line. "You Fools!" I said, if there is anything that can bring the state to it's knees it is when the servers come to a grinding halt - us IT folk have more power than any other subgroup.

      Blame your real boss, Tim, not the union, without the union there would be less in your (and my) paycheck.

      Sera

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    38. Re:IMHO by Flower · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 30 years ago I saw teachers striking too but that isn't happening in WI now. Salary is capped and teachers cannot strike by law. Sick outs are a possibility but you had better not want to retire as a teacher. If you participate and don't have 144 sick days accumulated when you retire health benefits are decimated. My wife's a teacher and what's happening with her union absolutely bewilders me.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    39. Re:IMHO by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you mean the people I have to deal with on a regular basis that make my job more difficult because they don't do theirs? Your own job depends on theirs and your attempts to educate them and their supervisor about about their refusal to work are ignored. Real nice.

      Perhaps you should consider that the devil you know is not as bad the devil you don't know. Before this country's organized labor movement, working conditions REALLY SUCKED. How would you like to go 9 hours without a meal, water or even a bathroom break for 7 days a week?

      Maybe putting up with a bunch of deadwood is the price you pay for not being physically tortured by your employer, just because he can.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    40. Re:IMHO by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      I'm in OH, not WI so YMMV, but I haven't been out of there all that long. I graduated in 1998 and the last strike i saw was my senior year. In fact, I got to see a whole lot of what was going on for that one, because my father was the AFL-CIO president for the area at the time. In all probability, it varies from state to state since that sort of thing is run by the state board of education.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    41. Re:IMHO by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...

      Telecomms: What exactly do you think we are missing? Cell phones? Broadband? Don't think any of those were around in the 1940s.

      Textiles: Anyone can make textiles. So everyone does. At $1/day wages or less. It wasn't the unions that killed the textile industry in the US. It was cheap overseas labor.

      Autos: I've was just given a Chevy by my 92 year old aunt. Trust me on this one: it wasn't the unions that killed the US auto firms, it was managers and engineers who couldn't figure out how to design and build a car that worked.

      Airlines: I used to work in IT for an airline. Airlines live and die more often based on fuel costs and passenger loads than unions. But when fuel costs go up, the first thing management wants to cut is wages.

      Teachers: Schools in the US are falling apart at the seams because no one wants to pay for them. The teachers are not responsible for school districts that don't care if the student teacher ratio is 40+:1 or that the roof leaks or that the library has no books. Would you like to teach 7th graders at a yearly starting salary of $26K? And universities in the US do have faculty unions. They are called the Faculty Senate.

      Construction: 1st Class office space looks very different today than it did 30 years ago and is much more energy efficient.

      Bottom line: Your examples suck.

    42. Re:IMHO by Throtex · · Score: 1

      Wow... I thought I was the only person on here who saw things this way. You rock!

    43. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, java coder (and c, c++, perl, lisp, assembly, and a few other odds and ends) check
      Right out of college (well, 6 months), check
      $50K sallary, check.

      Granted I have experience from working during school as a sys admin, but my current position is as a programmer. Those days aren't quite over I am afraid.

    44. Re:IMHO by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Hmm, looking at all the problems we are having, I think networks do, do all that by themselves... sigh!

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    45. Re:IMHO by johnlcallaway · · Score: 0

      I am curious. My first job as a COBOL/NEAT3/UPL/FORTRAN programmer about 25 years ago paid $18K. Allowing for 3% inflation per year, that is about $37K now. I couldn't afford an apartment by myself, drove a 1976 Nova, had a hard time making electricity and phone payments, and used a box as a dining room table. No overtime, and I remember one month we put in about thirty 12 hours days straight because of a bank conversion (an unusual occurance, and the bank did provide pizza and other items to make all the work tolerable. It was fun for the first 3 weeks, but I digress.)

      Now, this is very important and I really would like a dialog about this. What salary would you need to live like that? And if you think living like that is a crock straight out of college for 3-5 years, why do you think you deserve more?

      Some math ... A $40K salary would net about, oh, lets say $1800 (assume 45% taken out for taxes and benefits). $1000 apartment in Phoenix split two ways is $500. $75 for electricity (split two ways). $300 for a car payment, plus $150 for car insurance. Broadband and IP phone is another $50 apiece (we are geeks, aren't we??). That leaves about $725/month for food, gas, and student loans for one person. I could live on that very nicely, and maybe even afford to buy one of those dining-rooms-in-a-box at Walmart.

      Now, this is very important and I really would like a dialog about this. If you think living like that is a crock straight out of college for 3-5 years, why do you think you deserve more?

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    46. Re:IMHO by subterfuge · · Score: 1

      All of the things you list can be [and are]outsourced to lower wage paying tech support firms rather than kept in-house. An outsourced job does not have to go overseas in order to cost someone a paycheck.

    47. Re:IMHO by br00tus · · Score: 2, Informative
      What you're implying is completely ridiculous, and you obviously know nothing of either the steel or the textile businesses.

      What you imply about unionized textile jobs moving overseas is the most ridiculous because virtually none of the textile jobs moving overseas were union jobs. North Carolina has been the hardest hit state for textile outsourcing, and North Carolina is also the least unionized state in the country. This covers almost all of the North Carolina textile business as well.

      As far as the steel business, outsourcing has had very little effect on the industry. The automation of steel plants has contributed much more to steel jobs lost than outsourcing. Automation has been what has led to the decrease of steel jobs (with the same amount of steel output), with outsourcing having little to no effect.

    48. Re:IMHO by sfjoe · · Score: 1



      What techies really ought to do is become CEOs. After all, THEIR pay has gone up several hundred percent over the past few years.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    49. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After investing a 100k on an education you expect something, and living like a hobo for 4 years or maybe 5 if you are like most people. Especially when you look at the business people who partied through college were not working 70hr weeks and come out making $75k. The intelligent people need to be rewarded.

      Also your calculation forgets the girlfriend tax of a bazillion dollars. Lets see flowers $50, meals out-$30, movies-$25, gifts-upwards of a few hundred all things that are somewhat important. Or for the single person out of college the going out to bars tax of at least $50-75 a weekend.

      Hey usually the salary is better than 40k but not by much kids out of a good school are looking for like 65-75k which is not unreasonable.

    50. Re:IMHO by zogger · · Score: 1

      outsorcing is only killiong itself, it's relatively huge shoirt term profits. the reason is very simple, when you remove a good paying middle class job you remove that person as a consumer for the stuff you want to bring back and sell from overseas. You are seeing it now, this )precarious) economy is credit based, it's not based on actual ownership, and they've about milked that kitty dry. The proof of that is prime rate lending, they had to drop it to ridiculous to even keep up the credit binge. If people really were gaining so much more from all the offshoring of blue and white collar jobs, there wouldn't be a need for 30 year home notes and interest only loans and 60 month car loans, would there? Ya, people are buying more, there's more gadgets out there at walmart, but it's getting a little past shaky-O clock with that noise now, and credit can only go so far. The CEOs and wall street are actually killing the goose that laid the golden egg, the huge US middle class that took generations to build up. There's enough remnants still that people will debate the decline is happening, but it is, every sign points to it.

      protectionism-root word = "protect". A large nation like ours needs to be economically vertically integrated, not just a service economy consisting of a few wealthy people and a lot of serfs waiting on them. Fedualism is just "wrong".

    51. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooooh your network just went down? Thats a shame. That is 250 an hour min 4 hours to get it fixed. Oh you did sign this contract that you would come to us first didnt you. Oh how nice of you... My boy will be there around 4PM. Yes I know its 5AM. But we are awfully busy. OH you want us out faster? Well its 500 an hour for speed service as per the contract you signed. Oh and 6 hour min there. Yes the guy we sent out last week to fix it will be RIGHT out.

      You laugh? Ive SEEN it...

    52. Re:IMHO by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Hey. I'm in the IBEW too! Ecept I am not inthe Eletrical field. Sure, I get paid for overtime, but I alos get the privilege of working 6-12 days in a row as well. One needs more than one day off a week. But hey, I get two raises a year NOT based on performance and I don't pay for health insurance.

    53. Re:IMHO by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Unionization is the first class ticket to non-competitiveness. Literally all unionized industries in the US have become obsolete. Companies that are forced to accept unions are on the verge of bankruptcy. Lets look at some of the industries shall we...

      What a fucking bunch of crock that post is.

      Telecommunications - Unions have pretty much locked us into a system that is totally obsolete. While Japan and other countries are implementing state-of-the-art telecommunications systems, our system is relegated to 1940's technology.

      Never mind that the Bell System was gutted when it was exploded to satisfy a whimsical theory that monopolies cannot be good, even though that Theodore Vail managed to build what would become the best telephone network through the judicious use of a enlightened monopoly, that is, enlightened in order to assure universal service .The resulting pieces eventually fell prey to a bunch of self-satisfied entrepreneur who gluttonly fed upon their equity while raising local phone rates and aggressively cutting back employment so that the service reached a nadir that is only equalled in the most squalid turd-world countries, thanks to a diseffected workforce who no matter how hard they bust their arses, get shafted in the long run.Whatever capital that could have been available to raise the technology above 1940's levels was instead squandered in dubious ventures and quest Well, thanks to global trade agreements that give free entry to substandard goods produced by slave-labour. Again, you're putting the blame on the workforce where the clear culprit is distributors and stores whose only interest is the fattest bottom-line.

      Automotive - The UAW has pretty much killed the industry that America invented.

      Have you actually seen the utter CRAP that was built by the US automotive industry in the 1970s??? Oversized, gas-guzzling cars who broke down in a blink built by an industrial complex that was so sure of the superiority it assumed thanks to incredibly fat bottom-lines, yet was, like a dinosaur, too stupid to notice the swifter-moving oriental car manufacturers who produced exactly what the sacro-sanct market wanted: economic cars that did not break down every two weeks. It is not the automotive workers who decided to build what the public did not want, but the executives.

      Airline - The pilots union has caused many of a carrier to declare bankruptcy. Even now, 3 major US carries are about to go down this path.

      Bullshit again. When the aviation industry was deregulated 25 years ago, the USA airlines had together the youngest airliner fleet of the earth. After 25 years of senseless cut-throat competition (and quiet cartels), the USA have the oldest airliner fleet of the earth, thanks to money spent on buying other companies instead of newer airplanes.

      Oh, so sorry, I'm stupid. It's the pilots unions (and let's not forget the machinists, too) and not management who decided NOT to buy better airplanes instead of other airline companies.

      Teachers - The teachers union has been the sole reason why the K-12 schools in the US are so bad. Where the teachers union doesn't have any influence (universities), US schools are a cut above the rest.

      You're talking out of your arse. It's not the teachers unions who have deciced to cut back school funding so the big fat arses who send their offspring to private schools not only pay less taxes, but don't see their children out-competed by children of poorer families. After all, the p

    54. Re:IMHO by flacco · · Score: 1
      Unions are about protecting people who don't do their fucking job and making sure they continue to get paid for it.

      i see the "divide-and-conquer" implants are working well.

      seriously, please... this is practically grade-school level analysis. that's not what unions are about.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    55. Re:IMHO by flacco · · Score: 1
      Who is assuming that an IT union would be permitted to strike?

      "Dat's a nice little CRM server you got dere, boss. It would be, like, a real shame if somethin' happened to it and you couldn't deliver to your customers no more. I'm just sayin'... things happen, ya know? Like, let's say I'm all weak an' worn out from too few vacation days, an' i type in a wrong command... No, I'm just sayin', dat's all..."

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    56. Re:IMHO by johnlcallaway · · Score: 0

      Hmm....Tuition at most public schools are in the 4-8K a year range. If you had any brains you got at least 5-10K worth of scholarships. Regardless, 4 years nets to less than $50K if you live with your parents. My college tuition was less than $1000 (went one semester and dropped out because I couldn't afford it, got my various employers to pay for it instead over the next 10 years, it's called tuition reimbursement)

      How can you expect someone to pay you more than you are worth to them because you made a bad investment in yourself?

      So, I ask again, why are you worth more than $45K a year?? Especially when to an employer a college degree isn't worth any more than a 2 year trade school degree. Smart people are worth it, someone being churned out by a degree program ain't....I mean isn't. I've seen good and bad people come out of all types of schools, so what school you went to doesn't mean crap to me.

      Hey ... if you can get a $65-75K job, go for it. But if you can't, don't blame anyone else but yourself. You have to compete with the other 10 gazillion cookie-cutter degree boys out there, some that are willing to work for $40K a year, the $10K a year off shore workers, and the $30K a year Canadians.

      Guess who I hire? No, not the $40K a year one. The one that is smart and clever and has good people skills and knows when to dress well and can work under pressure. That one I'll pay $75K a year (plus a bonus) because s/he is worth it. That one will work 60 hour weeks when needed because the rest of the time they can leave early or come in late. There are a few companies out there that treat employees well, you just have to find them and be worth it.

      As to your girlfriend tax, it's called living within your means. Try flowers from the grocery store ($10), not buying popcorn and soda at the matinees ($6.50 times two), and thoughtful gifts instead of expensive ones (framed photo of a special occasion $10, poem written on the back of a restaurant receipt describing the night, $0). Romance wins their hearts for the long run. Bribery is just a way of getting a BJ that night <Old man smile>

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    57. Re:IMHO by flacco · · Score: 1
      Pricing themselves out of jobs.

      if unionization were universal, then a union in one organization would not be a competitive disadvantage against one without a union. union leadership would be invited into corporate planning sessions and become partners in the business, instead of workers being treated like disposable objects. union leadership could then go back to their membership and say "no, seriously, people - we *do* need to accept a pay cut / layoffs / whatever this time - we've seen the numbers." true, management would have to spread their wealth around to the rank and file a bit, but that's bad *how*, exactly?

      Promoting mediocrity.

      if you mean that the daily workplace experience would be a less suffocating, fear-filled exercise in ass-sucking - yeah, that's probably true. and if you mean that management would be less able to indulge itself in little power trips and temper-tantrums, that's true too. it's not all about productivity - self-respect and quality of life are important too.

      Antagonising non-union workers / coercing people into joing.

      i think i'm ok with non-union workers in a unionized workplace; but there can't be preference given before-hand to workers who would agree to remain non-union. they should be able to choose after being hired whether or not the union offers them benefits for their dues.

      Attracting organised crime.

      my instinct is that organized crime in unions is actually *advantageous* to management, since crooks cut deals without really caring about those whom they represent. as an added bonus, it tarnishes the image of unions in general.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    58. Re:IMHO by flacco · · Score: 1
      There are many more such examples. Let's face it, unions are bad, bad, bad for the US, it employees, and its economy. Unions were a solution for the 30's, 40's and 50's. But they are not the solution for the 21st century.

      this has virtually NOTHING to do with unions, and everything to do with the cost of (barely) living in the third world compared to modern, industrialized societies.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    59. Re:IMHO by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Your budget is incomplete and optimistic. Some items are conspicuously missing (medical expenses, grooming, clothes) or dramatically optimistic (car insurance for a twenty something male). Your assumptions about student loan debt are simply out of touch with reality. Private schools are remarkably expensive and public schools tend to raise tuition as fast as the law will allow (much faster than general inflation).

      The economics of a college educated employee simply should be such that they don't have to live like Laverne & Shirley. College is quite an investment of time and money and the end result should reflect that.

      The basic economics of these situations should not discourage people entering the professions.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    60. Re:IMHO by killjoe · · Score: 1

      It may not have saved the steel industry but then again while the industry was alive the workers were paid pretty good. Who's to say the steel industry would have been saved if they paid everybody minimum wage? Even minimum wage can't compete with chinese labor. Unless of course you wanted the steel industry to pay two dollars a day like the chinese workers get.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    61. Re:IMHO by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ...more overly optimistic assumptions:

      a) assume that living with the parents won't interfere with school.
      b) assume that your parents live within commuting distance of any CIS school.
      c) assume that your parents live within commuting distance of a cheap publc CIS school.
      d) assume that everyone else isn't competing for the same set of scholarships to offset student loans.
      e) Ignore significant costs like BOOKS.

      Based on point e alone you sound more like a college dropout than someone that managed to con an employer into paying for their education.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    62. Re:IMHO by killjoe · · Score: 1

      That's not really true is it. Just because you are on strike that does not mean the email server magically stops working or the router magically stops routing.

      Trust me you are just as disposable as the steel worker. MS even touts that on their TCO studies. They say you can grab just anybody off the street to run exhcange. You don't need an expensive sysadmin.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    63. Re:IMHO by msoftsucks · · Score: 1

      Japan's telecom industry is GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED, and ten years ago it was ANCIENT.

      I agree, 10 years ago it was ancient. But currently, 2 Japanies companies have revolutioned that country. In Japan, the telecommunications companies are bringing fiber to the last mile. Yet here, it literally takes 4 weeks to provision a copper landline from Verizon. And fiber to the last mile is just a dream. Japan has one of the highest levels of broadband penetration. Yet, here in the US Verizon is touting its expensive 256K DSL as "high speed". In Japan, they have all the latest wireless features (and get them first), yet here in the US we still can't seem to get affordable wireless data capabilities. The situation with Worldcom is with just one company. In the US, we're supposed to have competition. What about AT&T, RCN, SBC and a half dozen other companies out there? No. There is a common factor. Its call the CWA (Communications Workers of America). This union is totally responsible for stalling any innovation in the US telecommunications sector.

      By children and prison labor in the places that inspired the term "sweatshop" and haven't changed since. And actually, our textile industry does reasonably well, it's just contracted down to a more reasonable share (we were once the king of textiles -- no one can stay on top of an industry like that forever).

      If it does so well, when was the last time you saw the "Made in America" label on a clothing? Its been many years for me. If we're doing so well, why do we have so many closed factories? The textile union was unwilling to compromise. They were unwilling to introduce automation, streamlined processes, or any method to reduce costs. They were totally inflexible. Well, the owners of those factories could only do one thing. Move those jobs out of the country.

      Are you aware that a large contingent of all airline pilots qualify for food stamps?

      I don't know where you are getting your numbers for this. A pilot who has an average of 500 flight hours will make $150K US. The average salary in the US is around $40K. These labor costs are way too exorbitant. Granted, fuel costs have gone up, but they've gone up for everyone. These are fixed costs and nothing can be done about that. Yet there are airline companies out there that are not only making a profit, they are thriving. How are they doing that? I'll tell you how. They got the labor costs under control. They pretty much told the unions to go f- themselves. They instituted systems, processes and methods that streamlined their operations in all areas, from maintenance to operations.

      Detroit is recording record profits. Ford is gobbling up Volvo and Rolls Royce

      Ford may be making record profits. But over 85% of the parts for a Ford car are actually made overseas. In places like Mexico, Canada, China and India. Only the final assembly is done in the US. Why? Because once again the unions have fostered an environment that is restrictive and uncompetive.

      I've seen laziness in teachers unions firsthand, but I can also tell you that they're not nearly as powerful as the far right wing would have you believe.

      It's not laziness. Its a system that is totally broken. In NY US, it literally takes 5 years to fire a teacher that has been accused of sexually abusing their students. All the while getting paid not to teach. What does it say about a system that even when a teacher commits a crime, they can't be fired? Firing and hiring decisions have been taken away from the principles (the teachers bosses). This year, the NY public school budget was $12 Billion US. The mayor is proposing to increase that to $18 Billion US for next year's budget. Yet, out of all that money, only a measley $10,000 per child gets to the classroom. The bulk of the money goes to the union for non-work administrative jobs. The amount of administrative overhead is so much that if the school department was an actual business, it would be in bankrupt

      --
      Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
      Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
    64. Re:IMHO by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I see your a member of the AFLCIO. sorry but those are the breaks with a weak union. I miss the days of the UAW and going with my dad on strike at the Oldsmobile plant and watching the men on strike flip over the car of one of the Executives because he was so amazingly fricking stupid as to try and cross a union line with over 1000 angry men in it. when you see a SEA of workers vocally angry and news crews all over you KNOW that something is going to get done.

      Here-in lies the problem. Back in the 70's people actually DID something. today when the unions go on strike there's 5-12 people out front while all the other lazy assholes are home drinking beer and watching tv.

      If you went on strike and EVERY EMPLOYEE showed up on the picket line for their shift things would certianly be different.

      It's the strength of your union and the backbone of it's members.

      an IT union??? what would they do on strike? post troll on slashdot?

      union's only work when they can severely affect the company or workplace, and give out really big black eye's in the press about that company/workplace.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    65. Re:IMHO by mwlewis · · Score: 1

      living like a hobo for 4 years...business people...making $75k

      Which business people were these? Having a business undergrad degree, I don't recall anyone doing this right out of college, unless you want to count people who went to work for the family business. Besides, the life described wasn't "living like a hobo," it was living a modest life. You have to have priorities, and if your priorities are going to bars, then you'll have to sacrifice other things. If you can't live as a single person on ~$37K (OK, maybe not in NYC) then you seriously need to reevaluate your life.
      --
      JOIN US FOR PONG!
    66. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got a lot of tapes, there, Colonel. It'd be a shame if someone was to set fire to *them*...

    67. Re:IMHO by bludstone · · Score: 1

      So, she should move to boston.

      Except, well, shes not factoring "cost of living" into her little equation.

      Boston is expensive.

      --

      no .sig
    68. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so Microsoft IS our friend!!

      If it wasn't for all their handy crashes and lockups, nobody would need techs in the West!

    69. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions and striking are about standing up to capitalists who have disproportionate power, and unions help prevent the middle class from becoming the lower class.

      My BS meter just pegged.

      Here's a free clue, union leaders are *just as* corrupt and power hungry as the corporations that they're "opposed to". Striking has nothing to do about standing up to the evil capitalists, it's about staying in power and controlling the pension fund.

      Oh, and another "joy" of being unionized... uniform pay scales. Sounds great, right? Until you realize that it's based on seniority and that a slacker will get paid exactly as much as a hard worker. Why work hard if you're going to get the same union-mandated pay raise at the end of the year as the slacker in the next spot over?

      And the bullshit about "preventing the middle class from becoming the lower class" has nothing to do with unions. It has to do with the fact that:

      a) In the past, it was cheaper to use unskilled labor locally because transport costs were high and the manufacturing base wasn't available overseas. Any job that you can be trained for within a few weeks of on-the-job orientation is not skilled labor. People got spoiled by being paid large wages for unskilled labor.

      b) It's now cheaper to manufacturer a part overseas, in a cheap labor climate, with lax environmental regulations and weak employee laws, and then ship it back. And stupid, short-sighted Americans will *buy* it because it's cheaper then home-made goods. IOW, you made your own bed, now you get to sleep in it.

    70. Re:IMHO by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      Another thing an IT union could do, much like electrical, plumbing, and carpentry unions, is to make sure people in the industry have the right skills. My brother-in-law is a union carpenter, and he spent a year just cutting boards for 12 hours a day until they felt he was ready to get up on the scaffolding and swing a hammer while dangling over highway traffic.

      I think an IT union would be able to make sure that kids coming out of school have skills that matter.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    71. Re:IMHO by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'll comment on this as a person who doing this.

      I make $35k/yr, graduated from college in Dec '03 and I just did some personal finance math yesterday. After paycheck deductions (healthcare, soc sec, ESOP, taxes, etc), I get $962 every two weeks.. which is roughly $2080 every month.

      I am renting a room in a house in the Newport News/Hampton/Langley Air Force Base/NASA area of Virginia. I pay $500/mo and it includes my utilities (electricity, phone, cable tv/internet, etc). We bargained and the landlord washes the dishes (she owns the house) and I cut the grass.

      At the end of each month, after rent, car payment, insurance, cell phone, gasoline, groceries, and my health club membership (subsidized by my employer), I have approximately $960/mo spare.

      $820/mo. That's enough for me to buy a second car on top of my current car and motorcycle. Hell that's enough for me to rent another place to live. (I use it to pay off "post college / pre employment debt").

      I only have two friends who make more money than me straight out of college and they are in the northern Virginia area (outside of DC) with insane costs of living (which after using the salary calculator on homefair.com shows they only make $900/yr more than me).

      You know what I think? I think I live like a king. I can eat out whenever I want. I can go clubbing whenever I want. Basically, I can do whatever I want. Before this job I was in a job that was about $17k/yr and I couldn't do anything. In fact I was selling things just to be able to afford going out.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    72. Re:IMHO by l4m3z0r · · Score: 1
      When for the most part someone can be trained to do the tasks your talking about in 10 minutes I'm hardly excited about taking such low skill jobs.

      Network cables don't magicaly worm their way through walls and networks don't subnet themselves.

      I hardly classify this as a tech job as when companies have this done they hire electricians. Now the guy who designs the network infastructure and tells those electricians what they need to do by sending them specs and plans doesn't have to ever come onsite. So that could be easily outsourced. And since most network management is done remotely, somebody in India, pakistan or iraq could take care of all net config on the switchs/routers.

      Desktop support can't be sent overseas and without it (ie. strike) companies can go to the shitter pretty quickly, especialy during the next sasser outbreak.

      I know where I work you get an email from the head IT guy when new defs come out, you click on the link it installs the new defs and then it runs the virus scanner on scedule as usual and will clean you right up. Since all our IT guy does is send emails, I'm confident someone in india could do that. This method works very well, no one has been signifigantly infected with a virus here in a damn long time.

      Furthermore, when someone calls the help desk with a problem the first thing they ask is, Did you run spybot/adaware and your AV client? If not then do that and call back. We expect our employees to handle those simple tasks. Furthermore most of the desktop troubleshooting that does take place is via a support call to dell/ibm/apple depending on what machine your working on. The tech gets walked through the process each time by the support agent on the phone. Again something a monkey could be trained to do in 10 mins.

      I guess what I'm saying is that I don't care that help desk stuff will still be available, help desk is a 0-skill job. What I want is to make sure that my programming job is going to be around, since it requires a specialized skillset and can command high wages.

    73. Re:IMHO by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Ehhh even not living with your parents you can live pretty well at college if you're smart about it. Move to the state you plan on attending college at six months in advance, get a job and earn residency. That'll cut the tuition at most state institutions down to 1/4. I've been living fine on my own the past three years, and if my broke ass can do it anyone can.

      And I think your "con an employer" statement explains more about what's wrong with you than anything else. He didn't con anyone, he convinced his employer he was a good investment.

      I'm sorry, but no college degree makes you deserve anything but a job interview, and probably not even that in most place. Saying "I spent $100k, I deserve better!" is a load of tripe. Meanwhile I'll walk in, make a good impression, and hold out for $30-$35k and a good benefits package and work my way up from there.

      Failing all else, if a college degree makes you so much damn better than the other guy, start your own business and pay yourself what you think you're worth.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    74. Re:IMHO by Xel · · Score: 1

      Striking isn't to make a few bucks, its to make a statement, to stand up and let people know you won't be bullied, and you're not alone. If you can't pay your bills, then maybe you should cancel the cable, stop smoking, switch to generic toothpaste, clip coupons, postpone that vacation and eat ramen for a few weeks. The poor sods that built the railroads had to put up with a LITTLE bit more than you, so quit your whining.

      --
      "Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines."
    75. Re:IMHO by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      >> And I think your "con an employer" statement
      >> explains more about what's wrong with you than
      >> anything else. He didn't con anyone, he convinced
      >> his employer he was a good investment.

      These days there are very few companies that allow for the sort of longevity that makes college tuition a positive ROI.

      A college degree certainly makes you "better than the other guy". It makes you more than just a pulse. It usually involves some non-trivial effort, possibly in the relevant problem domain.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    76. Re:IMHO by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1
      A college degree certainly makes you "better than the other guy". It makes you more than just a pulse. It usually involves some non-trivial effort, possibly in the relevant problem domain.

      But how does it make you entitled to anything? And I don't know, I've seen my fair share of BS Degrees... And I don't mean Bachelor of Science...

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    77. Re:IMHO by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      Real world cases. My daughter is going to be a vet. She is living with me for 4 years. Tuition at a public school (ASU) in a pre-vet course is $5K/year. That is $20K before books, etc. I doubt if her books are more than another $1K/year. (She will not need ANY student loans because her dear ole dad is using half of her current child support to pay her tuition. Any scholarships she gets will be used to defer anything I pay until she goes to vet college.). 4 years of graduate tuition at CSU is another $20K, off campus. Know what starting pay for a vet is after 7-8 years of college? $30K. I guess that's the difference between going to school to get rich and going to school to learn something you love.

      College tuition at Miami University (Oxford Ohio) was $600 a semester 25 years ago, or $1,200/year. 3% inflation would put that at around $2,500. That school now charges about $10K for Ohio residents. I couldn't tell if that was on-campus or not, but I think it is. 4 years at that school is $40K w/o books and such. Way below the 100K spouted earlier.

      As to my budget, it is real world. Medical expenses are part of the 45% deduction out of your paycheck. I have spent a total of $75 so far this year on co-payments, and I'm 45 years old. As to grooming and clothes, its about living within your means, i.e. going to a barber every other month instead of a stylist every other week, getting clothes at Kohls or Target instead of Macys and Nordstroms. And my son, who was 17 and lived with me paid $150/month for car insurance in Portland, Maine two years ago. Something about being a good student, not getting into accidents and driving a POS instead of a new car kept the cost down.

      BTW ... after bills, my budget for personal expenses (food, clothing, gas, etc.) is $700/month. I go out for lunch almost every day ($5-$10), dinner once or twice a week (OK, IHOP visits once or twice a month) and buy my clothes at Kohls. My god, I spend about $35 a month on average on all my clothes and wear dress slacks and collared shirts every day. I cut my own hair because I don't have that much.

      Your expectations are unrealistic. You expect an employer to owe you something just because you worked hard and got a degree. That is not reality, reality is an employer has a budget and needs to get work done, and will hire who he can afford, and will complain about not being able to pay $75K a year for the good people.

      I have hired several people who do not have a degree, and are still in school. I did not see any difference between their skills and the grads. I do see a difference in people that have been working for 5-10 years though.

      Now, you claim that the economics of a college educated employee says they should not live like S&L. Why?? Why am I obligated to pay you a higher salary just because you went to a private college? Part of starting out is this little thing called paying your dues. No one is obligated to pay you a high salary simply because you can't keep your costs down.

      Or, looking at it another way, if you were willing to spend $100K and are in debt to your eyeballs instead of finding ways to keep the costs down, maybe you don't have enough common sense to warrant my hiring you. Doesn't sound like anyone I would like to have creating a project budget.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    78. Re:IMHO by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true tech elitist. "My skills are are real skills, but yours are crap." The sure fix to snobbery like yours is to hand you these "0-skill" jobs and let YOU handle them. Make sure you scan those network cables after you pull them, chump.

      In fact, we may as well hand these tasks to you to do, since Sanjay Agrupta in Dehli can apparently do your oh-so-skilled job for at most 1/3rd your pay. Think of it as cross-training for the day when you won't be able to program anymore at any price.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    79. Re:IMHO by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the trap that companies fall into when they outsource. Some salesweenie who had golfed and drank with them, manages to get the stupid bastard executives to sign on the bottom line. Boom! Then the company starts paying through the nose for every exception that those goddamn drunks didn't think of when they were staggering around the golf course and bars. They end up nickel-and-dimed. My employing bank outsourced me to some scumbag "IT solutions" company, and decided to do the same thing ... signing a FIVE YEAR contract, right off. What idiot signs on for such a long term for doing such a thing the first time? Now I laugh everytime some memo comes out of the bank *and* the solutions company, about either controlling events like server failures and missing metrics. Stupid bitches. It's even happening so early that I am salivating over the idea that the exec bozos who arranged all this aren't going to justify their bonuses. There aren't going to be any bonuses; the expenses just during the 1st 6 months are going to blow those away. Har har!

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    80. Re:IMHO by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      A few years ago the teachers had a strike in my town (near Chicago). So needless to say, I disagree...

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    81. Re:IMHO by TaliesinWI · · Score: 1

      Consider:

      The fact that unions were needed 100+ years ago to improve conditions does not necessarily mean that said conditions will return overnight if unions were done away with or severely scaled back. Society is different now.

    82. Re:IMHO by chitownIrish · · Score: 1

      "Construction - The cost to build per square foot is double than the rest of the world due to corrupt unions. In addition, we are no longer building anything innovative, or using new materials or technique that may improve construction."

      You act as if all of the country had unionized construction. Most commercial construction outside major cities and most residential construction anywhere is non-union to some degree. So if there is such a big difference in construction cost, its not coming from union labor.

      " In addition, we are no longer building anything innovative, or using new materials or technique that may improve construction."

      What is the rest of the world building that we are not?

      I once saw a newspaper article (circa 1990) about a skyscraper being built in Hong Kong. They were averaging about one fatality a week. But they were using innovative steel tubes instead of I-beams, so I guess it evens out.

      "Unionization is the first class ticket to non-competitiveness."

      I disagree. I was a union Ironworker in Chicago for 11 years and I would put the quality and speed of our work up against anyone in the world. Assuming, that is, that everyone survives the project.

    83. Re:IMHO by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      That's not really true is it. Just because you are on strike that does not mean the email server magically stops working or the router magically stops routing.

      If you set things up right, it is absolutely true. Not right in the sense of a properly set up system, but right in the sense of a system configured with this on-strike precaution.

    84. Re:IMHO by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I agree that unions have had a positive effect overall on labor in the past. But, unfortunately they have not changed with the times. Globalization is a reality, even though ugly at times. The unions are not doing themselves, their members, and the companies they work for, any good by artificially restricting efficiency. The 21st century is going to be marked by those companies that are the most nimble, the most efficient, and the lowest cost.

      Sounds like we need to kill the globalists then- they're worse terrorists than al Qaida. But once again, what's your solution to prventing the parasites (investors) and predators (C-level executives) from stealing the productivity of the working class? You're long on problems, but very short on solutions, it seems. Agreed- standard union tactics reduce efficiency- so what's the solution for the 21st century, as you put it?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    85. Re:IMHO by msoftsucks · · Score: 1

      I think that being an ironworker takes some mean guts to get up on those "sticks" at those dizzy heights. But lets face it, the last "new" innovation was 20 years ago when ironworkers stopped using rivets and switched to bolts. No new ideas, no new ways of raising steel. Yet the Japanese have introduced idea after idea. The new way of raising "sticks" is via an automated factory crane which lifts itself after installation of each floor. This is totally automated, reducing the amount of labor, cost and time. For every 3 months of construction steel going up in the US, it takes the Japanese 1. This technique has been used extensively in Japan for the past 5! years, yet it has yet to appear here in the US. And if you think that this technique is unproven, guess again. It was used to build Taipai 101 in Taiwan, the current largest building in the world.

      Now lets contrast that to the US. We had a great opportunity to show our abilities and make a statement with the construction of the new Freedom Tower to replace the World Trade Centers. We argued, we fought, we compromised. The final design is as inspired as milk toast. It doesn't claim the tallest building title. Even the outline of the building is uninspired. It doesn't get much better than Manhattan to build the tallest building in the world. Underneath, you have solid bedrock. You can't ask for better conditions. Yet we settled for this crap because we've lost our edge. We've settled for mediocrity, because that's what unions do. Where was the outcry from the ironworkers saying to the terroists f- you? We're going to build the tallest building in the world. Where was the spirit that built the Empire State building in 6 months? Where the ironworkers were raising 1 floor a day? We've lost our edge, and unions are part of the reason why.

      --
      Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
      Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
    86. Re:IMHO by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I grew up in one of the 'lower rent' parts of the country, where students would look at starting wages in places like California, Chicago, and New York and start salivating. Until I pointed out how much more expensive renting/owning a place was, the higher prices in the stores, and such so that the cost of living was quite literally more than double. They would be better off with a 30k job close to home, vs the 50k job in the city. Where I am now a $100,000 house has 4-5 bedrooms, 2-3 baths, and quite a bit of lawn. In the good area. I saw an old two bedroom going for $25k (it did have a number of problems).

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    87. Re:IMHO by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      As long as the position isn't low-skilled, workers have power. If your job skill is in demand, employers realize that if they aren't willing to pay competitive wages, that they will either get a bad worker or one not skilled enough. You do have to be careful of creep, but if you're good, you should be able to get a job somewhere. Learning a second field can be a great help too.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    88. Re:IMHO by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Once you add in shipping (steel's heavy), and some of the quality benefits, yes it can compete.

      There's an airline company that's experiencing this bad right now. The union workers are threatening to strike, even as the stock plummets and allegatios of bankrupty go around.

      Too often the Unions miss the boat and strangle the golden goose.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    89. Re:IMHO by chitownIrish · · Score: 1

      Ok, I've got to call bs on almost everything you said.

      "For every 3 months of construction steel going up in the US, it takes the Japanese 1."

      Documentation?

      " But lets face it, the last "new" innovation was 20 years ago when ironworkers stopped using rivets and switched to bolts."

      Well, rivets went away about 40 years ago, and there has been plenty of innovation since then. Post-tensioned concrete, Bolts with a spline on the end that twist off when the nut is torqued to the right value, specially compacted subsoil that can have footings poured in it without forms, etc. If you percieve a lack of innovation, perhaps its because the technology has matured. And you have no proof that construction unions have contributed to the supposed lack of innovation.

      "The final design is as inspired as milk toast. It doesn't claim the tallest building title. Even the outline of the building is uninspired."

      This is the fault of construction unions? There's a union official somewhere saying "no, that building would be too high"? If you're upset at the final design, fine. But blaming the construction unions for that is like blaming your mechanic because your car's engine is too small.

      "We've lost our edge, and unions are part of the reason why."

      You're entitled to your opinion, and unions are far from perfect, but they have helped millions of people in this country, including myself, to live a better life.

    90. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not simply low skill levels that place one in a vulnerable negotiating position. It is the easy availability of replacements. For example, if there were a glut of available, oh say, computer programmers, then computer programmers would start getting the shaft.

      Sure, there will always be the exceptional employee that doesn't have to worry about getting the shaft. But more often than not, that is the kind of situation where the guy has unique skills, but not necessarily "higher" skills than other better-than-average employees in the same field.

    91. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It definitely looks like there are a lot of IT employees that are totally clueless, but somehow have managed to get such high salaries during the boom that they have ridiculous expectations.

      However, this also makes it more difficult for genuinely skilled employees (10x or more productive than the pretenders) to distinguish themselves for all the overly-self-promoting people. A few years ago, anyone could take credit for "working on" a project, regardless of whether they were a help or a hindrance to a project. The guy who worked several months on something I scrapped and replaced in a couple of days with something far more functional got credit for "working on" the project as much as I did - luckily in my case, it was a small company the ultimate difference was that I kept my job and he didn't, but if the company had gone under, we would've got similar references!

      The "bubble" resulted in far too many people being credited "job experience" based on no real achievements, and now it's impossible to distinguish between genuinely good people and bad ones (I now face this dilemma in the position of an employer; it's very difficult to hire genuinely good people).

    92. Re:IMHO by CptNerd · · Score: 1
      The "bubble" resulted in far too many people being credited "job experience" based on no real achievements, and now it's impossible to distinguish between genuinely good people and bad ones (I now face this dilemma in the position of an employer; it's very difficult to hire genuinely good people).

      Oh, the bubble had little to do with that. I graduated in '84 with a guy who had no clue (don't know how he passed the courses) but had a line of patter so smooth he got hired to a quality research firm. This guy could sell Accidental Death and Dismemberment insurance to monks, but he was let go when the company found out he was useless.

      Around '91 I was interviewing people for a C++ Unix position, and talked to this one guy who said he had 2 years of C++. Turns out he had compiled a "Hello, world" program in C using Visual C++, and kind of "inflated" that "experience." That one was easy, but he'd gotten through two levels of checking by HR and by the project leader before I talked to him.

      I've often thought about setting up a service to "pre-interview" candidates for companies, to weed out the technical chaff, but unless you have HR experience, no one is interested. Too bad for them, I suppose.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  6. All of the above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't you get shafted and streamlined at the same time?

    1. Re:All of the above by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      you can.

      it depends on the amount of KY jelly your boss recently bought.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. Unions by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unions: Helping The Lowest Common Denominator Advance!®

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    1. Re:Unions by An.+(Coward) · · Score: 1

      You misspelled "Unions: The People Who Brought You the Weekend.®"

    2. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually God brought you the weekend. The unions expanded it to include Saturday.

    3. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people I work with who think like this are usually single 20 (or more pathetically 30 or 40) something dorks who wear Farscape shirts to work and who have no social life outside of playing Everquest, and whose entire self-worth is wrapped up in the idea that they're the best programmer in the world, and tower over other programmers in terms of skill as they tower over other Everquest players in terms of levels or whatever. These people usually aren't even among the better programmers out there, although they spend all day complaining about how lousy everyone else is. Having to work with someone who has no life and derives all sense of self-worth from there soi disant amazing work skills which are superior to every one else's is extremely annoying.

    4. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually, they expanded it to include Sunday. Then some people decided they liked Sunday better as a sabbath.

  8. Designed to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reduce the need to pay ANYONE overtime, and shaft IT workers. Typical big business lobbying.

  9. Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only IT workers that I know of that earn hourly wages, and get OT pay as a result, are computer store employees. I guess some interns I know would qualify as well. I think we need a slashdot poll: when was the last time you got overtime pay for an IT job?

    Instead of designating workers as "professional" under the new law and avoiding OT pay, companies can currently just pay a salary. The only difference is that companies will no longer be able to shaft low income workers.

    --
    You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Salary is a joke though. Seriously. Supposedly i'm a salary employee, and can put in 40+ hours, but about when it's slow and I only want to put in 20 hours? No dice... I have to sit and post about it on slashdot...

    2. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Our+Man+In+Redmond · · Score: 1

      I was getting overtime as a contract agency employee to various outfits around Seattle as late as last year. Thanks to raises I've pretty much priced myself out of the overtime bracket, though.

      So I no longer work overtime.

      --
      Someone you trust is one of us.
    3. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm a salary employee who averages around 40 hours a week. When it gets really busy I sometimes work as many as 60 hours. My employer knows this and gives me an extra day off after putting in a long week. It's been slow lately so my boss has allowed me to leave early the past few days. In return, when it gets crazy around there I won't mind having to stay around late or coming in on a Saturday. It's all about having a good relationship with your employer.

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    4. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      I am salary and get OT pay. BTW, the rules just say that you don't have to give OT. They say nothing about taking it away or making me getting ot is against the law.....but many companies may interpret it that way.

      --

      Gorkman

    5. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get payed $33/hour for overtime work from a temp agency that placed me at a BIG financia company. I work under IT, Info Sec acutally, but the actual work I do doesn't really have much to do with Com Sci which is what I have a degree in. Sure we use a lot of big CS words and work with software and stuff but it's all more data entry than anything else.

      Anyway my point is that I used to hope to get a full time job but now with the sucky full time people get, I don't really care ... 55-60 hour weeks for me translate into making the same amount of money that a 6 figure full timer brings home.

    6. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Colazar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Instead of designating workers as "professional" under the new law and avoiding OT pay, companies can currently just pay a salary.

      That is actually not true. It is entirely possible to be paid a salary, and also earn overtime. (The calculations get a little funky though.) At least under the rules *before* they got changed.

      Your job had to be classified as Exempt from overtime, and that determination is made on a number of factors, including whether or not you supervise anyone else, and whether you have control over the time, manner, and place of how you perform your job.

      If you are Exempt, you are hired to do a job. If you can do all facets of the job (including communicating with who you need to communicate with, and meeting all your deadlines) working at home, in your pajamas, from midnight to 1AM every day, then that's all you have to do. If, on the other hand, you are required to be onsite from 8AM to 5PM everyday, just because they want you to, you are probably not exempt, even if you are making a "salary". (Again, under the old rules.) They just try to convince you (and themselves) that you are.

      Every employer I have ever had has lost a Labor Dept case for classifying someone as exempt, when they really should have been paying them overtime.(None of these cases involved me, and most happened right before I was hired on.) This means that they were always very clear about informing their employees what they could ask, and what they couldn't, cause they didn't want to have to go through it again. It is my belief that *many* people have been mis-classified, and should have been entitled to overtime, but never realized it. Which is doubtless why the rules got changed.

      And BTW, I am not in IT, but I am a CPA, which is often classified as a "professional" that need not be paid overtime. I do, at the moment, receive overtime pay, though.

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
    7. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by nizo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does taking home "free" pens from work count as overtime pay?

    8. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by IronChef · · Score: 1

      The only IT workers that I know of that earn hourly wages, and get OT pay as a result, are computer store employees.

      There are a lot of temps here at Microsoft who are elibigle for OT.

    9. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by clamatius · · Score: 1

      From "The Dilbert Principle", under "Virtual Hourly Compensation". As with so much of Dilbert, the specifics may have dated yet the principle remains the same.

      "If you have a home computer, say goodbye to purchasing your own diskettes... The only practical limit on the number of diskettes you can steal is the net worth of the company you're stealing from. Your company will go broke if you steal too many diskettes. Nobody wins if that happens. That's why moderation is the key. After you have enough diskettes to back up your hard drive, and maybe shingle your house, think about cutting back."

    10. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Even when I was an intern, I was never eligible for OT. What I find very disingenuous about the entire debate is the AFL-CIO ads telling everyone they are going to lose overtime. Usually someone on another non-tech message board will post the drivel and get all worked up about it. However, the changes in the law don't apply to those in unions or blue-collar hourly positions. Explaining that is like trying to talk to a brick wall.

      I guess it's frustrating that people will believe some piece of BS chain letter when they can just go to the source and read the damn rules themselves. That's the beauty of the web: you can look up the legislation as written and make your own decisions instead of relying on someone else to tell you what it means.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    11. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the points of this legislation was to expand OT eligibility for low paid salaried white collar workers. Looks like the ones that need it the most are getting screwed by the unions. What a shocker!

    12. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At my job, depending on which company you work for, they do pay overtime during intense work periods (i.e. scheduled weekend work and 24 hour operation periods), even to the salaried employees. It is a multi-company government contract, and only 2 or 3 of the companies out of about 8 don't pay overtime to salaried employees. Hourlies usually get 1.5x, while salaried earns straight time after 80 hours on the pay period (2 weeks). I think we salaried people average 200-300 hours paid overtime during a year. I personally made $8K O/T last year. My friend this year is about $15K above base salary, with 4 more months to go...

    13. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by LuxFX · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's all about having a good relationship with your employer.

      Having a good relationship with your employer is fine if they are sane/considerate/sensible/rational.

      I used to work for a guy that wasn't. His name is Neil. I'm not hiding his name, because he still owes me $2,000.

      I would pull in the 60 hours weeks, and instead of that translating into "boy, David went above and beyond this week, he needs an extra day this weekend" Neil translated it to "sweet, David is a sucker, I wonder if I can get him to work even more"

      I ended up quitting, and to 'replace' me Neil pulled in an intern from a local college. There wasn't anybody left in my department except this intern, so he technically wasn't interning under anybody. But by still calling him an 'intern,' Neil reasoned that he didn't have to pay him. And whoever this guy was, he kept working there as an intern without getting paid. So Neil let everybody else go and brought in more 'interns.' Soon it was just Neil and his intern harem, and the only paycheck the company wrote had "Neil" on it.

      Neil is the kind of employer that takes advantage of IT workers. And I've heard the same story from other people about other companies. I'm glad you have a good relationship with your employer, but it takes two people for a good relationship. And, I'm sorry to say, but from my experience your employer is a diamond in the rough.

      --
      Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
    14. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      yep, that's YOUR job their after right there... As soon as this straightens out, they'll be HAPPY to bring you onboard for 40 hours straight time pay...but of course the SAME work hours!!! That 60% pay cut is gonna hurt!!!

    15. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      Well, the low limit was $250 a week [~$8.50/hr]! I know many small resturant/mall store managers working 60 hours a week for that salary!!! it's particularly popular in the Pizza business... often the drivers make more than the store managers!!!

      Let's put it this way, the situation is SO bad that the new limit of $450 [`$11/hr] is STILL less than paying these people OT!!!

    16. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      but there are many non-union employees in the same jobs...more than that it's now a heavy negotiation point for the companies that you work at... when the NEXT union contracts come up there's going to be HUGE backlash...

      Many police and nurses fall exactly in this group, some are union but just as many not. They are paid hourly because they work hourly...tending patients or "walking" the beat... Many local govts are actively engaging in union breaking...I know my town has been for years. This is just more ammo to fuel the fire. Realize that the "flat" pay for these jobs is only about $35k for cops in my area and $40k for nurses [after 4 years of college and 5+ years experience!]....now the workers make about 1/2 again [50-60k] that much due to OT and are horribely understaffed already working 50-60 hour weeks... That takes most of these jobs from being "happy" middle class [house, 2.5 kids, dog, & soccer mom] to legally qualifying for food stamps doing the same job and having the same life!!!! I guess that's OK... After all, we all know the corps are footing all the tax bills so far...**right**.. Hint...if you make less than 50k [household] with a wife and kids you don't pay sqat for taxes...far less than you consume...it's the 60k+ crowd that really pays the taxes...and you just cut THEIR pay!!!!

    17. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by man_ls · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of when the State of Florida tried to impose a $0.01c/LB tax on sugar, to be paid by the sugar producers, with the revenue (around $433M) to be placed into a fund for environmental restoration, to fix damage caused *by* the sugar producers.

      They successfully confused the issue by making it seem like Joe Taxpayer would be responsible for his share of the $433M and the proposition was voted down.

      *sigh*

    18. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I work for a company that architects, designs, and writes custom software systems. I'm considered "Exempt", and my employer is not obligated to pay me overtime. They will, however, do so to encourage us to work long weeks when the need arises. They have a 5-hour "gate" policy (they don't pay OT for hours 41-45), but if it's "authorized" (often that means "does the PM have any budget for it" plus "do we really need to make that deadline?") hours 46+ can be paid OT at your equivalent hourly pay or comp time (your choice). I typically work 40-50 h/wk, on occasion up to 90 (nice check that week, bought a DSLR).

      The OT is not available if you're a manager, but is available to almost all non-management positions.

      So yes, there are employers in the IT world that give OT.

    19. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by LoadWB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had a similar, happy arrangement with the company for which I used to work a few years back. I was part of a two-man administrative team, with a support team of up to five people. I also single-handedly built up the on-site consulting arm of the business. I was almost completely autonomous in my work, so long as I produced and things continued to work, everyone was happy. Being a some-what supervisory position, I had pretty flexible hours, and reasonable access to our servers and Internet resources.

      In exchange for practically unlimited run of the place, I was expected to be available in the event of emergencies. Which in many cases I was right on top of right before or immediately after something happened, mostly because I had a lot of personal investment (time, reputation, curiousity) in the setup anyway.

      And it was a fun symbiotic relationship between myself, technology, and my managers.

      Until one day the insufferable prick, micro-managing shyt-head supposedly VP of the company took exception to my sometimes showing up a couple of hours past business open, or leaving on a half day. Mind you, this might be after having spent 20 hours of the previous day at the office, or on a several days project, and NEVER leaving the office unoccupied or without coverage.

      He insisted that I begin to log my hours to make sure I was conforming to a proper work day. I told him right then and there that if I did so, he would wind up paying me a LOT more money, and HR warned of potential problems from labor department over the question of over-time and no lunches. His insistance persisted, and I decided that it was time for me to go on salary.

      Why? Simple. I went on salary and began working standard work days. I arrived at 9:00am, and left promptly at 6:00pm. Sometimes 8-5 instead. If a project needed to be completed the same day and 6:00 rolled around, I left whether done or not. I felt that my prior investments in the company had gone unappreciated and for naught, and without further reciprocation; if my bosses were so conerned about me abusing the company, why allow the company to abuse me?

      And that was that. A happy IT worker who, on meager pay, ensured that a business was always functioning, even using his own spare time to help grow the business by adding personal experience and knowledge to become used by the company to expand services -- no more.

      There were a lot more thing involved in this than JUST the surface things here... there were the constant abuses and unreasonable requirements of employees as well. Once this insufferable prick left, things got a lot better, but never fully recovered.

      A number of people in upper-management will (and have) looked at this situation and called me a spoiled primadonna. So be it -- but my shit worked, and whenever it broke, it got fixed. In return I accepted very minimal pay relative to my peers in the industry, and only requested unobtrusive uses of server and network resources. It was never about the money until this jack ass made it that way.

      As my own business grows, I look forward to being able to provide a open environment like that to my employees. Like at the old place, certain employees are well-suited to a strict 8-5/9-6 job, so I will have those roles filled nicely. But behind the scenes, the thinkers, tinkerers, and fanatical workers who maintain the framework will be happily accomodated in manners best fitting their investments.

    20. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one of the most unintelligible posts on Slashdot ever. none of the types of jobs you describe are covered by the changes. If you get food stamps at $35K, your area is fucked up.

    21. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only IT workers that I know of that earn hourly wages, and get OT pay as a result, are computer store employees.

      My last position was in IT Asset Management, consulting, traveling around the U.S. to major clients. I was paid hourly, and also earned a lot of overtime. I was paid overtime to sit in airports, drinking at the bar, and all my meals, hotel rooms and entertainment. If I only worked 40 hour weeks, my pay would have been $46,000. Thanks to overtime I was making over $76,000/yr...

      Oh yeah, how you ask? I negotiated. There was an offer in the $50,000 range for a salaried position, but I said "No way". That extra 26,000 more than covered any benefits that I wanted. (Even after the taxes that "Joe" is too stupid to appreciate. [see previous liberal bliss post, "Joe"] )

    22. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the joys of living in Europe. We're paid hourly. We're in an economic slump (it seems my company always is), so we can't get paid overtime unless there is a serious deadline. But, we can take flextime days/hours.

      The nice thing is, I have time to do things like, read, take up a hobby, learn a language (spoken or computer), make love to my wife, watch my kids play soccer. If I didn't have government protection, my company would demand that I'm here 80 hours a week.

      So, I'm going to go enjoy living right now, not working.

      Bye

    23. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by metlin · · Score: 1

      Only if you sell them ;-)

    24. Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put things simply - having a good relationship with your employer is a very rare luxury. Most people don't have that privilege.

      Personally, I currently do, which I'm very happy about, but it's partly due to the fact that it's a small company that I own a significant percentage (more than 5%) of.

      In general, I can sympathize with people who work for employers who are willing to exploit them in any way possible - and those employees and employers are the ones legislation is intended to address. In far too many cases, the relationship between and employee and an employer is vastly unbalanced, which is why either unions or general legislation can become necessary. Personally, because of the potential of corruption in unions, I prefer general legislation.

  10. overtime imagination by SalMoriarty · · Score: 1

    one of the stipulations of the overtime regulations that if you used imagination in your job, you wouldn't get overtime.

    i don't know about most of you, but i imagine i'm enjoying myself at work everyday. i guess i wouldn't have qualified for overtime.

  11. It's for the managers... by tajmorton · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...who have to deal with IT geeks reading Slashdot more than 40 hours a week. Dammit, I used to be able to make money reading slashdot. I'm gonna right my rep!

    --
    Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
    1. Re:It's for the managers... by phraktyl · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna right my rep!

      Well, I guess that's a lot better than wronging your rep...

      --
      Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
    2. Re:It's for the managers... by ozric99 · · Score: 1

      lord knows some of them need wringing...

    3. Re:It's for the managers... by adjusting · · Score: 1

      I left my rep.

  12. Change of Image for Geeks by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

    Let's say the IT world gets unionized on a large scale...in about 20 years, after the bloody and violent struggles, there will be movies made about us - just like what happened with the Teamsters.

    Who knows - one of us here will one day be portrayed by Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Ray Liotta, or Al Pacino!

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    1. Re:Change of Image for Geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows - one of us here will one day be portrayed by Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Ray Liotta, or Al Pacino!

      So you're assuming we will have invented time travel by then, and will be able to pluck young versions of them out of the past?

    2. Re:Change of Image for Geeks by Frogbert · · Score: 1
      in about 20 years...

      ....Al Pacino!

      Whilst I belive Al Pachino's acting is great I find it hard to believe he could pull off a up and comming techworker at the age of 84...
    3. Re:Change of Image for Geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah...cool....intelligent people being played
      by "hired muscle" types and illiterate jock douche bags.

      Maybe it just me, but I just don't get how any well read person can look up to mafia/gangster types. Brute force and intimidation are hardly "geek" tactics...unless you work for Microsoft....(hoooo!)

  13. Thats Crap by SavedLinuXgeeK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its just because the IT field is an esoteric area and easily targeted. You never hear people try to pass legislation to prevent the plumbers from making overtime, etc. Even though they get a good deal of money per hour, and I'm sure a great deal in overtime. Its basically pick out a job that most people don't understand, and feel they get paid too much. Doesn't make sense to me.

    --
    je suis parce que j'aime
    1. Re:Thats Crap by garyok · · Score: 2, Funny
      You never hear people try to pass legislation to prevent the plumbers from making overtime, etc.
      That's because there's only a very limited number of people that'll put up with being called at midnight to put their hand in other people's shit. Nobody want to be seen alienating plumbers (or whores), because they never know when they'll really, really need them.
      --
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
    2. Re:Thats Crap by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nobody want to be seen alienating plumbers (or whores), because they never know when they'll really, really need them.

      During the recent democratic national convention in Boston there was a small, haphazardly organized attempt by the local sex industry to convince their clients during that week (i.e. a bunch of convention delegates) to support legalization of prostitution.

      The plan was to wait until their clients were, "thorougly commited" to their current activities and then stop and say that they just couldn't go on because of the moral dilemma the current situation presented -- here they were participating in a clearly illegal activity with one of the people responsible for making it, or at least keeping it, illegal

      Well, I haven't heard of any new bills to legalize the sex industry since the DNC ended, so I suspect the clients end up promising anything to keep the girls in bed, but then 'forgot' all about it afterwards.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Thats Crap by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are a load of people who want to be plumbers, in the UK at least. They get paid shitloads of money and are in high demand because there aren't enough of them. Apparently there are huge waiting lists to get onto plumbing courses, and countless stories of people with degrees making shit money giving up and becoming plumbers instead.

    4. Re:Thats Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the post you replied to, it would seem that plumbers are perhaps a better example than sex workers, since plumbers have a constant demand, and reasonably consistent pricing.

      Plumbers, in fact, earn a pretty decent living - in a study here (in an unnamed European country), it was found that a plumber would earn more total in their lifetime than someone with a PhD, if you considered the cost of obtaining and years that could've been spent working in order to get the PhD, on average!

      When it comes to sex workers, there are many different levels of pricing, some of which are based on desperation. In countries where it's illegal, the portion of desperate (and thus most likely to ignore the law) practitioners is disproportionately high, and the ones who want to do it in a properly organized, decent way, are at a disadvantage.

      Personally, I absolutely support the legalization of prostitution, not because it's a service I'd wish to have for myself, but because it improves the position, both legally and socially, of those practicing it.

  14. If IT workers were to unionize...... by ARRRLovin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do you think there would be an increase in skill level or a decrease in skill level because of "union protection" ?

    --
    -Randy
    1. Re:If IT workers were to unionize...... by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      i have always said the reason that IT sucks it the lack of unions. you NEED a large body to stick up for the workers, employers aren't go to do it, if it wasn't for unions we would still be in the days of children working down coal mines and being paid 1 cent a day. that mentality has not left the world, and until IT groups form a union things will continue to get worse in the IT sector.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  15. Streamline the shafting of ALL workers! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Under the new overtime rules, a factory worker could be denied overtime pay merely if his employer sent him to a seminar for training.

    As an attorney, I have no problem not getting overtime pay when I work over 40 hours per week. I didn't spend 7+ years in school to spend my work day looking at the clock.

    But anyone doing drudge work should certainly be paid overtime for more than 40 hours per week.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:Streamline the shafting of ALL workers! by pla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As an attorney, I have no problem not getting overtime pay when I work over 40 hours per week.

      Overtime pay? No, I don't care about overtime pay. I'd gladly take straight pay for my hours over 40.


      I didn't spend 7+ years in school to spend my work day looking at the clock.

      Nor did I do the same to leave home and return in the dark every day. Oh, how I miss lying on the quad basking in the sun, rather than needing to take a walk down the hall just to tell the current weather.


      But anyone doing drudge work should certainly be paid overtime for more than 40 hours per week.

      ...Because, after all, we chose to go to college and have a "real" career because of our strong aversions to free time, right?


      As an attorney

      Had you not made that statement, I would consider you a troll.

      Everyone, regardless of what they do, deserves to get paid for their labor.

      As soon as my company tells me "Hey, y'know, you do your job twice as fast as average, so we'll let you only put in 20 hours for the same salary", I'll consider it fair. As it stands now, performing twice as well as most of my coworkers means I get twice the workload (and have twice as much motivation to read Slashdot for four hours of my work-day)...

    2. Re:Streamline the shafting of ALL workers! by madstork2000 · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't a lot of attornies have billable time per quarter hour or is it tenths? I know that not all lawyers bill clients directly, but it seems to me that a great-many lawyers do look at the clock, at least every 15 minutes.

      -MS2k

    3. Re:Streamline the shafting of ALL workers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lawyer who does not watch the clock is obviously not in private practice.

      I bill per quarter hour. That seems to be the norm.

  16. Huh what? by kasek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The 223-193 vote in favor of blocking the rules defied the White House. A threatened veto applied to veto a massive spending bill, now on the House floor, if it contains any language tampering with the rules that took effect Aug. 23.

    am i the only one who thinks this is worded very strangely....cant really understand what it is saying. bush is threatening to veto a veto? they are vetoing a veto? or there is only one veto?

    real confused on that one.

    1. Re:Huh what? by LuxFX · · Score: 1

      The 223-193 vote in favor of blocking the rules defied the White House. A threatened veto applied to veto a massive spending bill, now on the House floor, if it contains any language tampering with the rules that took effect Aug. 23.

      am i the only one who thinks this is worded very strangely....cant really understand what it is saying. bush is threatening to veto a veto? they are vetoing a veto? or there is only one veto?


      I agree, this is a crap sentence. But I think the problem is that they are using 'veto' first as a noun, then as a very in the space of four words.

      'A threatened veto (noun: a veto) applied to veto (infinitive verb: to veto) a massive spending bill'

      --
      Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
    2. Re:Huh what? by VoidWraith · · Score: 1

      First one's a noun, second's a verb. Odd, yes, but it works out. The rest of that sentence isn't very clear, basically its saying they want to veto it if it contains "any language tampering with..."

    3. Re:Huh what? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      They passed an rule to add the blockage to another spending bill...because right now it's just an "executive rule" buy the dept of labor... the prez is threatening to block the whole law if the wording stays!

    4. Re:Huh what? by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      am i the only one who thinks this is worded very strangely....cant really understand what it is saying. bush is threatening to veto a veto? they are vetoing a veto? or there is only one veto?

      Well Bush nominated Kerry and Edwards, but Edwards won the power of veto competition and took himself off the block, and so Bush had to put Daschle on the block. Tune in Saturday night for the live eviction ceremony.

    5. Re:Huh what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it should be "A threatened veto applied [in order to] veto a massive spending[...]"

  17. nonfree labor market by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Overtime is in shorter supply than regular time, after the government applied the labor equivalent of "overfarming" constraints as a "40 hour week". Corporations buy labor, so they want the government to fix the market prices. They'd rather have no minimum labor price, but $5.15:h is acceptably cheap, and a low ceiling for illegal laborers.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:nonfree labor market by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      but OT is already a great deal for most companies...after all it's "on demand" work hours from existing trained employees for the flat 1.5 hours of pay...benifits are already figured in the 40 hour "regular" pay. While the first 40 hours pay of a $15/hr employee is more like $35 to the company after taxes and benifits, the OT time is just $23.50 per hour...that's a 40% savings per labor unit...

      Most business owners are basicly cheap bastards...I know every week my old boss demanded 10-20 hours OT/weeks from the production workers [on no notice at going home time] to get the widgets out on time because HE overbooked ["help the business"...or else], but he swore up and down the next week when he wrote the checks for their fair pay they EARNED! OT is a "standard" contract...just like any other business has...this is just one side trying to take advantage of the economic situation!

    2. Re:nonfree labor market by Dasein · · Score: 1

      If the labor market prices were "fixed" in favor of corporations, you'd expect corporations to buy more labor at the artificially low cost. This would cause a shortage (as opposed to scarcity). (Think gasoline in the late 70's under the federal price controls).

      That's clearly not the case as tech employment is still down.

      --
      You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
    3. Re:nonfree labor market by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Informative

      In a market vacuum, your balance might work. But today's low demand for tech labor comes from a combination of many complex factors, including the increasing productivity from automation, the mobility of much labor overseas where there aren't labor price controls, the lack of motivation for any really compelling new tech, and mostly the general malaise of the American worldview, reflected in its economy. Even the foreign labor competition is complex, as it reflects subsidies by governments investing in transferring jobs from America, as well as taxes and other synthetic economics. Deriving the constraints from your logic and current conditions is not so clear at all. But the demand by management for unpaid/nonbonused overtime, instead of the existing rules that require premium payments for it, are very simply and obviously challenges to a labor market constraint, as is the controversy surrounding any rise in the minimum wage.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  18. IT workers are beyond unions. by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unions protect themselves, not employees. A long time ago they did actually protect employees. Now they are all about self preservation and big fat checks to union operatives. A friend of mine is in a union shop, she pays the equivalent of ONE HOUR PER WEEK in dues. What does it get her? She gets to watch lazy good for nothings keep a job they don't deserve or work for. Is that the kind of place you want to work?

    Professional and Union do not belong in the same sentence. If your worried about overtime then don't switch to a job that doesn't have real responsibilities and real deadlines. The people who put the most "overtime" in are already exempt, they are the small businessmen who provide the majority of jobs across the country.

    If you think your employer is being unfair THEN LEAVE! The economy is no where near as bad as when the tech sector crashed. If your immediate skills are not valued then LEARN SOMETHING ELSE. No one is going to get you a job, especially a president or contender.

    Its your responsibility to act. Do it and quit whining. Whining just makes you miserable and annoys the others who are having to put up with you.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Be sure not to whine when you get laid off for being too old even though you have better skills than the guy from India who replaced you. Don't let us hear about you filing any age discrimination lawsuits either.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by clifyt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Depends on the union.

      Unions are all about politics like anything else. My father has served as a district president for his union as well as grievance officer, both for several years.

      He is one of those kinda of people that want to do the right thing and fuck everything else...before he was grievance officer, folks would just fight to keep *ANYONE* on board. Guys have a drug problem, well thats not their fault they showed up fucked up...we'll go on strike if you fire him. After, he made sure the slackers got fired because folks like that only made his job harder.

      It got to the point, several of the idiots actually tried to organize against him, but they were already out of the union as they were no longer employees...and the others were such slack asses they couldn't get their act together. He was reelected several times to this postion even though it was not what he wanted to do (and was in fact campaigning for the guy running against him in his last position) before he finally had to tell them if they put him on the ballot again, he'd resign if elected.

      Unfortunately, many others want the big votes. They go about it by trying to win too many friends. Those are the ones that get elected nationally. I don't think the nationals do shit for unions...most of it is organized crime, IMHO. But at the lower end, there are unions that actually do some good and help folks out that need it, and help get rid of the idiots that don't need to be there. I know there were a few cases he did support the case of the idiot, begrudgingly, but that was because the supervisors didn't have paperwork...and that was just prudent common sense to keep everyone else protected.

      Professionals and unions in the same sentence? I don't know. I never liked the idea of unions, but as a tech worked continually fucked over in my day job simply because I'm working for the gov't -- making less that some janitors because they put in the time and organized -- I am starting to rethink this. Why not. As professionals, we could do it fairly and not have to organize ourselves like say the steelworkers so where the union is set up as if everyone was fucking morons...they aren't, but the union wants to control them and pretends they are just as the management does. Us being pros mean we might be able to come up with ways not to let organized crime get involved and to streamline it where it has secure and honest voting while protecting only our interests and nothing else...

    3. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by jafac · · Score: 1

      What does it get her? She gets to watch lazy good for nothings keep a job they don't deserve or work for.

      . . . to be fair, my wife works in a decidedly NON-union shop. (WalMart, where their internal budget for spewing anti-union propaganda to employees totals $2 million a year). She sees MANY lazy good for nothings keep their jobs they don't deserve or work for.

      I agree that Unions, by and large, today, are corrupt organizations designed mainly to take a cut of what workers earn in return for, being placed in a position of political influence, for themselves. But the concept of Unions in of itself shouldn't be confused with how they're being implemented today.

      Winners compare their achievments to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

      . . . yeah, as long as the "winners" set low enough goals for themselves. "look ma! I didn't crap in my pants today." "Gee junior! You're a winner!"

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    4. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by Daikiki · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine is in a union shop, she pays the equivalent of ONE HOUR PER WEEK in dues. What does it get her? She gets to watch lazy good for nothings keep a job they don't deserve or work for. Is that the kind of place you want to work?

      As a lazy good for nothing I can answer that question with a resounding YES.

      --
      I want the fire back.
    5. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unionizing will only speed that process up, make sure that incompetent receive undeserved raises, and you will pay someone who does no real work to arrange this for you. Damn...what a deal!

    6. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I don't think the nationals do shit for unions...most of it is organized crime, IMHO. But at the lower end, there are unions that actually do some good and help folks out that need it.

      Sounds like government in general to me.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by demachina · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "If you think your employer is being unfair THEN LEAVE!"

      That only works if there is a labor shortage. With outsourcing dramatically expanding the labor pool and a never ending tide of illegal immigrants cratering wages for manual labor in the U.S. there is a near inevitability that there is going to be a huge labor surplus in the U.S. There probably already is though the government cleverly drops the long term unemployed out of the unemployment rate and labor statistics.

      Employers are astute enough to know when there is surplus labor. They dream of it and pay their politicians to make it happen (which is why politician look the other way and allow massive illegal immigration and promote out sourcing). When the labor surplus arrives most greedy businessmen cut benefits and salaries, and praise be their profit margins go up. There are a few smart businessmen that value and nurture good employees but they are few and getting fewer.

      American workers are going to really suffer in the near future, more than they already are. It is good you praised unions from the early 20th century. If it hadn't been for them everyone would be working 7 days a week 12 hours a day for poverty wages. It took violence to break greedy businessmen who thought thats all workers deserved. Without unions and with a labor surplus workers may well start marching back to the dark ages.

      Unions did turn corrupt for the most part, it was to bad, but all big institutions corrupt, government and political parties included. But its also true business and the Republicans, starting with Reagan in particular, have worked hard to destroy them.

      The disappearance of unions and the pressures of outsourceing, globalization and illegal immigrants are going to destroy the middle class in America. The U.S. is going to end up 95% poor and 5% filthy rich like most 3rd world countries. In the news today, Los Angeles is already there. The majority of people in LA are now functionally illiterate.

      If your in the lucky 5% you wont care either. You will drive in to a gated community next to the golf course and just not care.

      You might think you are just going to retrain and be immune I think you are wrong. Unless you have skills that can't be outsourced, or you have the benefit of being born affluent so you land in the 5% you simply wont be able to compete with workers and wage rates in China and India.

      When manufacturing cratered they said retrain for IT. When IT got outsourced they said retrain for biotech. When biotech moved to India they said....

      --
      @de_machina
    8. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Professional and Union do not belong in the same sentence."

      So teachers shouldn't belong to unions or are they not professionals?

      What about pilots? Aren't pilots professionals? Aren't nurses considered professionals? Should they not have unions?

      What about professional sports? Should there be no NHLPA or other professional sports unions? Maybe they aren't really "professionals."

      Try looking at http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/unions/ and see how many of those unions are representing professionals.

      Unions aren't just for tradesmen and unskilled labor. Should the OPEIU (http://www.opeiu.org/html/index.html) not exist?

      Maybe if your exposure and education about unions extended beyond typical anti-union rhetoric, you might understand that not all unions are designed to protect the lowest slug worker, to negotiate wages, or to protect workers.

      Unions exist to represent the collective desires of a group of workers. That collective desire can be anything. Trade unions and professional unions usually have very different needs. Apparently, you're only exposure to unions has been trade unions and you've never bothered to learn anything more than that about unions.

    9. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      First of all what makes you think you are a professioinal? Traditionally professionals have been licensed by the state. People like doctors, lawyers, professional engineers etc have to pass rigorous tests before they can practise their profession.

      You are just a laborer like any other. There is no significant difference between you and a plumber except for the fact that the plumber probably needs some sort of a license and bonding.

      Secondly professionals have the most powerful unions in the country. It's just that they call themselves unions, they prefer the term "association". The AMA and the Bar association regularly sit down with the president, congress and your governor office and write down legislation which then gets dutifully passed by your so called representitive.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    10. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by clifyt · · Score: 1

      Who's to say if I'm licensed or not? You don't know my qualifications nor do you know the qualifications of anyone else here.

      Secondly, unions do a lot of their own qualifications -- its how they keep their bargaining chips in place.

      For instance, with the university, I research and design testing methods -- I'm a techie as I'm generally the one having to put it into computer form and do all the adaptive natures of these things -- but along with this, I do a lot of field work such as giving honest to goodness paper and pencil licensure testing.

      A month ago, I gave Level I and II of a pipefitter's test. Actually a lot more complicated than the average person would think. When you are working in a refinery and need to tap a hot pipe full of hydrogen, you need folks that know what they are doing. The fact was, the test was given in a union hall and was designed in part by that union.

      These guys are professionals. Just because they don't put on a suit and tie doesn't make them any less of a professional. So yeah, I'm proud to say there are little differences between what I do and what a plumber does -- we both are professionals. And other than the stink, I'd probably want to be friends with a plumber before I was friends with a lawyer any day :-)

    11. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      If your immediate skills are not valued then LEARN SOMETHING ELSE.

      First, you need money to learn something in any way that an employer would like. It costs money to go to school. Yes, you could get loans, but then you need to pay them off.

      Second, without experience, you're bloody unlikely to find a job, particularly in this market.

      Unlike what most politicians say, retraining is *not* the key to personal prosperity.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    12. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be sure not to whine when you get laid off for being too old

      Which has nothing to do with unions and everything to do with being a protected class of employee according to Federal Labor Laws.

    13. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by tgd · · Score: 1

      Is it because of the loss of jobs that the majority of people in LA are functionally illiterate or is it because the wealthy are having one or two children later in life, and the poor are cranking out a dozen or more at a young age?

      The skewing of the statistics in the US is just as much about population growth as economics.

    14. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "Who's to say if I'm licensed or not? You don't know my qualifications nor do you know the qualifications of anyone else here."

      In what state do you have to be licenses to program or to maintain a network? NONE. In what state do you have to be licenses to pull wire and hook it up to a fusebox? ALL. I am pretty sure you are not licensed.

      "Secondly, unions do a lot of their own qualifications -- its how they keep their bargaining chips in place."

      Do they have to pass state or federal tests to practise? Do their work gets inspected by state and federal officials? Do you?

      "So yeah, I'm proud to say there are little differences between what I do and what a plumber does -- we both are professionals."

      Great. A society without proper plumbing is nowhere I'd want to live. I am in no way denigrating the lumbers who as I have said before are actual professionals who have to get certified before they can practise. Unlike your typical geek. Oddly enough these days the plumber actually makes more money then your average geek too. Maybe that's due to them being unioninized.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    15. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      According to the courts, the Federal Labor Laws do not exist in this situation. Sun won their case, as did IBM and Intel. It's already been decided. Old Americans are no longer a protected class of employee, and haven't been since 2002.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    16. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      Professional and Union do not belong in the same sentence.

      In most cases (and in the sense you speak) neither does Professional and IT or Programming or even Engineering. Get it through your heads that the only professional trades are the ones that actually have liability for their mistakes (beyond the amazing invisible hand of the marketplace) - think Physician, Lawyer, Accountant (and I'd disagree with Physician in HMO, Lawyer in large law firm, and Accountant in Big 5 firm at that) - and you'll understand why Union does go together with occupations like IT and Programming (and Engineering in most cases).

      --
      That is all.
    17. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true- that's just the FUD that the management would like you to believe, to keep you from forming a union and striking (a strike ALWAYS hurts the employer FAR more than the employees- because your paycheck is only a small fraction of your true worth to the company unless you are a C-level executive. That's why they can afford to pay the C-level guys MILLIONS more than they pay you, it's just a giant ponzi scheme).

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    18. Re:IT workers are beyond unions. by demachina · · Score: 1

      A major part of it in LA is its a city thats been overrun with illegal immigrants and they were mostly unschooled in their country of origin. Most don't speak English so are obviously illterate in English though the blurb on the news said most weren't literate in any language. The bar for literacy in the study wasn't high either, it was read a bus schedule, fill out a job application or read directions on a prescription, things fairly essential to basic living.

      A key reason the U.S. is turning in to a third world country is because the third world is moving in to the U.S. unhindered. The Department of Homeland Security could close the border if they wanted to, they have the technology and could get the money, but like I said business and politicians LIKE illegal immigration. It is a huge pool of cheap labor who have no rights and are easily exploited. If you actually cut it off America's economy would crater because the U.S. is totally dependent on it for maids, manicurists, dishwashers, janitors, gardners, farm workers and just about every other form of menial labor.

      --
      @de_machina
  19. What about comp time? by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Funny

    What about the Bush plan to replace the 50% increase in pay for each overtime hour with comptime on a 1 hour to 1 hour basis. You know, the comp time that you could only take if your employeer agreed.

  20. What I haven't Figured Out is? by mbrod · · Score: 3, Informative

    Who is the person/people who came up with the idea to do this?

    and...

    What groups will this have an impact on? Nobody I know who makes over 100k is hourly. Doctors? Yah right.

    1. Re:What I haven't Figured Out is? by drfreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doctors do get overtime pay, they just get it by different rules. If they work more than 40 hours a week, well they don't get extra for that, but they are allowed to add extra charges for a prolonged office visit when they bill insurance.

    2. Re:What I haven't Figured Out is? by br00tus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Some of the people who came up with this idea were the ITAA, a lobbying group funded by Microsoft, Intel, IBM and other companies.

      The employers have their heads together figuring out how to screw over IT workers, I think IT workers getting together to protect our interests is a good idea as well. You can take your pick of which group, Washtech, Techs United, the Programmers Guild and so forth. The CWA in New York has meetings were people come together and discuss things. The important thing is programmers and admins get together with each other and find a way to protect our interests, just as the owners do in the ITAA and such organizations. These organizations are already out there so check them out.

    3. Re:What I haven't Figured Out is? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Nurses, firefighters, police, X-ray techs... tool and die, cnc, drafting... midrange office workers, research assistants....auto mechanics, pilots, aircraft mechanics... and pretty much all of the remaining IT sector.

      Many many people at the top of these professions can clear 100K at fortune 500 companies even though the base pay top out only $25-30/ hour. Note: these are people that WORK all day...walking the beat, tending patients, drawing prints, building machine tools or installing computer hardware...these aren't "office" jobs...the companies are billing by the hour here!!! [the corps just don't want to PAY by the hour!] They work THAT much OT...routinely in these professions OT can be 50%+ of ones take home pay!!! But that's earned...but trying to make kids and mariage happen while working 60-70 hour weeks... [7 day weeks for 6 months straight, skipping vacations for 2-3 years...] Many of these people work longer hours than most 3rd world'rs do!

      it's the middle class ...hard work and long hours for good pay and a nice life...it's what AMERICA is all about!!!

  21. Overtime, what's that? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Serioiusly, I don't think I've gotten overtime pay approved for any job I've had since getting my college degree- including those jobs where I was on a Salary, carried a pager 24 hours a day, and worked 70 hour weeks.

    If anything, I'd like to see the rules changed to be MORE inclusive- anybody getting a paycheck should have benefits if they work over 32 hours a week and overtime pay for over 40, regardless of who they are and what they do. Even managment deserves this.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  22. This would be Bush's first veto. by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of all the crap passed in the past 3.8 years this would be the first thing that Bush vetoes, if he follows thru with his veto threat.

    That should tell you something.

    1. Re:This would be Bush's first veto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presidents don't pull out vetos lightly. First of all, they're "knifing the baby", in that they're killing bills that have provisions that they probably wanted passed. Pulling out a veto when your own party is in power is NOT a good way to get support ... tho what's the GOP going to do, endorse kerry? Seriously, what it will do is make senators and house caucuses more likely to demand a lot more concessions next time the president wants to push a policy issue. Basically, it's an escalation, and the president is outnumbered. Getting a veto overridden is really humiliating as well.

    2. Re:This would be Bush's first veto. by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Even if he does veto it, it will be be put right back in front of him again. The overtime bill doesn't just affect IT workers. The majority of licensed healthcare workers get paid by the hour and face losing compensation under the new rules. I and many of the people I work with have been writing our representatives expressing their displeasure and asking them where they stand on the issue.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    3. Re:This would be Bush's first veto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tells me that his party controls congress.

  23. Veterans got screwed anyway by Joe+'Nova' · · Score: 1

    March 30

    That explains if you're a vet, you get overtime for regular pay, gee, how nice!
    I'd like to explain how I feel with a brick, sideways, in a not pleasant place, Bend over Mr. Bush..whats good for us is good FOR YOU!

    --
    This mind intentionally left blank.
    The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
  24. Intended vs practice by magarity · · Score: 1

    Or were they merely designed to streamline outdated rules?

    In all fairness to the politicos many well intentioned laws are twisted around when put in practice. For a recent example, see: McCain-Feingold

  25. who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid american politics only belong on /. if we can have the rest of the world's politics as well. I, for one, don't give two shits whats happening in the so called "land of the free". (I laugh at that one)

    1. Re:who cares by LighthouseJ · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, then don't come back. I'm sure I can speak for a lot of people when I say you won't be missed, Coward.

    2. Re:who cares by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I don't think Slashdot is really all that US-centric in politics, the graphics notwithstanding. We get a lot of YRO stories about Blunkett's latest schemes to install a totalitarian state in Airstrip One, and quite a few about Australia's bloody awful proposed trading agreement with the US, which seems to be the international version of 'pick up the soap'. We also had a whole lot of coverage of the abominable EUCD.

      It's really just that the US is owned by corporate interests to a greater extent than most of the rest of the allegedly free world, and so leads the way in innovative new ways to be evil.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  26. hmm... by Spacechip · · Score: 1

    "creating" jobs?

  27. Note the change in focus by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When overtime pay was first instituted, it was an attempt to compensate employees in cases where their employers forced them to work long hours. In a sense, it was designed as a disincentive for employers to overwork their employees -- taking time away from their families, burning them out and increasing the potential risk for injury etc. Not only would employees have to be paid for overtime hours (not always a given, in the past), but they'd actually have to be paid more than their regular wage.

    Now look at how this measure is being cast. We want to give employers back their right to overtime pay because they need to work longer hours to make more money. In other words, we're not voting down this reduction in overtime because we think our working people are overtaxed and already work longer hours than any other country in the civilized world (they are). We're voting it down in affirmation of Joe Sixpack's right to work longer hours so he can put food on his table. Meanwhile, what has the government been spending your taxes on lately? My, what a wonderful system we have.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Note the change in focus by Colazar · · Score: 2, Interesting
      When overtime pay was first instituted, it was an attempt to compensate employees in cases where their employers forced them to work long hours. In a sense, it was designed as a disincentive for employers to overwork their employees -- taking time away from their families, burning them out and increasing the potential risk for injury etc. Not only would employees have to be paid for overtime hours (not always a given, in the past), but they'd actually have to be paid more than their regular wage.

      Exactly. It was all designed as an incentive to hire more workers, instead of to work your existing workers harder. Since it's not working that way anymore (because the cost of benefits make it more expensive to hire new workers than it used to be), obviously we need to *raise* the overtime rate to rebalance the equation. Like to 175% of base pay.

      I *think* I'm being facetious...but I can never tell for sure.

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
    2. Re:Note the change in focus by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      try %250 would almost bring it in to balance...it's that much cheaper to work an employee an extra 10 hours a week than pay to hire another one!! In short, people work 20 hours of OT [at 60% of "real" pay, accounting for benifits] to help the company out....and that's not "good enough" for the corperate bastards anymore!

  28. This is a HUGE election year by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Most politicians just want to ride it out for a few more months. None of the really devisive issues are coming up for a vote now. The new OT rules will probably piss off just as many people as they will make happy. For every one who loses OT, someone else is going to gain OT.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  29. And people wonder why ... by psychopracter · · Score: 1

    I don't want to go get an MLIS (Master of Library Information Science). (I work in an academic library.)

    Moreover, while everybody keeps talking that I could make more in the public sector (and this will be especially true after I get an MS in MIS) I'm damn glad that I'm a state employee with an hourly wage job described by law, and which can only be reclassifed according to a procedure outlined by law.

    And since our Dean just decided we'll be open on 3 state hollidays, I'm making time and a half on those days, while all of my tenure track professional salaried colleagues don't make a cent extra.

    It's time for private sector IT people to union up. (I mean, I personally view one of the perks of my job as being the damn near iron-clad descriptions of what I can and cannot do and what I must be paid. Because of these rules, I [and thousands of others] am safe, not sorry.) a Union will do the same for IT staffers and pros.


    --
    OS X:*nix for the real world.
    1. Re:And people wonder why ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to disagree here. I don't think that IT people necessarily have to Union up. In fact, I would rather we didn't.

      As a staunch Capitalist, I believe that contract negotiation is simply another part of doing business. You are selling yourself, and you want the best price you can get for yourself.

      Personally, When I was still working <i>for</i> people/companies I have never accepted an employers first offer. I would always negotiate for overtime, extra vacation, comp/flex time, bene's from day 1 etc (in addition to 20% more than watever thier 1st offer was). And no employer who has ever wanted me hasn't played ball. Of course, I have the skills to back the demand and that helped.

      I guess my point is this. The only people who EVER want unions are people who don't think thier skills are worth thier rate to thier employer (or to another employer). That is pure fact. People with excellent skills can negotiate anything they want (though they may have to learn how to negotiate first)

      My 2 cents.

    2. Re:And people wonder why ... by mhollis · · Score: 1

      The single reason why people "union up" is unfair treatment by employers; seeing their employees as cyphers and creating a hostile work environment

      While unions do negotiate for pay, I know of several that allow their members to negotiate "personal service contracts" to up their pay. The issue unions are most concerned with have to do with the work environment and work rules, not pay.

      So I guess if one is a member of a union, one is not a "capitalist." One thing everyone must sign in order to join any union in the US is a statement that indicates that the person is not a member of the Communist Party. Quite frankly, I think that the requirement that one sign that kind of a statement is a violation of the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment but it does strongly suggest that union members are not "commies."

      So, if you are a member of a union and you are not a Capitalist, what are you? Unionist?

      I agree that I have always been able to negotiate better pay for my services than any union but in a hostile work environment, I generally had no voice. I just did what I could to evade most of the nastiness.

      --
      Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  30. Karl Rove has his fingerprints on this... by barfy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is about presidential politics. The new overtime rules was a target for the dems, and was gaining some sorts of traction. Republican house all of the sudden gets a vote to roll back the rules.

    Problem solved. There is always after the election to bring the rules back...

    1. Re:Karl Rove has his fingerprints on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > This is about presidential politics. The new overtime rules was a target for the dems, and was gaining some sorts of traction. Republican house all of the sudden gets a vote to roll back the rules.

      Victory for the Dems, with even many republicans repudiating their own candidate, Kerry can gloat, all Bush can do is either slink away or press for a bill that's been successfully cast as very unpopular.

      HOW does this help Bush? Did he simply make a phone call and have the provisions tabled? Hardly -- he's the one waving the veto pen around!

    2. Re:Karl Rove has his fingerprints on this... by theblacksun · · Score: 1

      It could have been Rove, he's a deadly sneaky guy with a large sphere of influence in the GOP. Bush can't veto it because he has to keep face for his conservative base.

      --
      Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
    3. Re:Karl Rove has his fingerprints on this... by barfy · · Score: 1

      Ok, first, this has to get to the floor. This does not get to the floor without Republican support in a lot of places. Because, the house is currently Republican control.

      So why, would this happen? It would be a win for the Dems,Right?

      Well, Presidential politics is more about the threat, than the actuality. The President can be peeved for his core that the Congress wouldn't let him have this, and just look how unfair this is for business etc... He gets to have the issue in his camp as unsettled. A plus for him in motivating the base.

      On the Dem side, they've won. The issue for them doesn't exist anymore. As this issue had been gaining traction which results in momentum which results in votes, they have to mo pulled out.

      Sometimes in winning a war, not only do you not fight all battles, sometimes it is the battles that you chose to lose that makes all the difference.

      Karl Rove runs elections on innuendo, bluster, bluffing, and boasting. And it is not important whether anything is true or not, the more unverifiable the better. And if there is a pesky verifiable truth that is getting in the way, make the truth go away, give it up without much fight, make the issue go away. Then continue with the fantasy.

      Karl makes Maitlin and Carville look like playground punks when it comes to methodology for winning an election.

    4. Re:Karl Rove has his fingerprints on this... by will_die · · Score: 1

      If you actually cared about the topic, instead of wanting to make some small childish political remarks you would see that thoses who benifit the most are thoses that are on the poverty line.
      Over 1.3 Million new people now qualify for overtime, and the ones that loose it are being paid $100,000.
      If you want to take it into politics check with Sen. Tom Harkin and his comments in the Aug 11 Chicago Sun-Times that said that under the new rules 2,000 workers at Sears Roebuck would loose overtime, when in the actuallity Sears and Roebuck said it was 2,000 workers who would not start receiving overtime.

  31. Idiots. by Dirtside · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Were the new rules designed to shaft IT workers from getting overtime? Or were they merely designed to streamline outdated rules?
    Right.

    Because those are the only two possibilities.

    For those of you keeping score at home, this is known as a false dichotomy, one of the classic logical fallacies. Basically, you present two options as if they are the only options, when in reality there are one or more other possibilities. A classic example is when a lawyer asks a defendant, "Did you murder John, or do you expect us to believe that he shot himself?" when there's the obvious third possibility that someone else killed John. (Assuming John was found dead of a gunshot wound.)

    A third possibility about the overtime rules, and the most likely answer, is that they were the result of a complex miasma of conflicting goals, much like most of politics. Of course, most people seem to feel a need to simplify these complex situations into some kind of simple either-or choice. Which is retarded.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    1. Re:Idiots. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      The problem is, in politics, there are usually a significant number of groups who deliberately muddy the relatively simple situations in much more complex ones.

      I'm not saying that this is the case here. In fact, I don't know much about this case at all but since you want to paint those who favor simplifying situations ( although it may not always be appropriate) as retarded, I am curious to know what your opinion is of those who deliberately muddy the waters to suit their own agenda.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:Idiots. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      no, the issue was brougt up by corperate lobbiests because they are breaking the current former rules so badly 75% of them are in real danger of being sued at any time a lawyer wants some quick cash! This cause for rule change was entirely corporation driven...it was only obvious to the rulemakers to raise the minimum...they could probably be held criminally liable if they didn't at least account for 25 years of inflation in the new rules!

      From reading various articles directly on the Dept of Labor's site, it's clearly obvious the intent was to make "current industry practice" formally legal not to look out for the "worker".

    3. Re:Idiots. by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      The problem is, in politics, there are usually a significant number of groups who deliberately muddy the relatively simple situations in much more complex ones.
      I don't know if I really agree with this. There are rarely simple situations in the world; I'm sure this is true some of the time, but I believe that most of the time, situations arise which have complex backgrounds to begin with, that are made more complex by the nefarious (or even simply pigheaded) interference of multiple groups with mutually exclusive goals.

      People then try to simplify things into a convenient sound bite, and even if the original situation WAS simple, the simplification is rarely on-target.

      I'm not saying that this is the case here. In fact, I don't know much about this case at all but since you want to paint those who favor simplifying situations ( although it may not always be appropriate) as retarded, I am curious to know what your opinion is of those who deliberately muddy the waters to suit their own agenda.
      Assholes. :)
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  32. They did it in BC too!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have also done this in British Columbia... my employer has the act posted on the Cork Board by the lunch room.

    1. Re:They did it in BC too!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are still allowed to eat? You know the act removed your right to eat.

  33. Unions protect themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unions protect themselves, not employees

    Very true. My wife was forced to join one this fall. She has $90 in dues taken out every paycheck. Worst of all, the union takes her money and gives it to President Bush's re-election campaign and there is nothing she can do about it. In fact, she was chewed out about supporting a presidential candidate other than what the union is backing. They even gave her a sheet instructing her on who to vote and made it clear her compliance is an important part of her career growth.

    She asked the union people about the law that says you can have your dues that are used for political purposes refunded. They laughed and told her the law doesn't apply to them. I looked on their website and they tell the IRS they don't do anything political, although they donate very large amounts nationally to one of the two political parties.

    Oh... did I say Bush? My error. The union is the National Education Association (NEA) and the political party they exclusively support is the Democratic Party, and its candidate Kerry. And people think Halliburton is evil.

    1. Re:Unions protect themselves by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      It seems like every time someone brings up a union, someone else simply says, "if your job sucks get a new one." I guess it's my turn. If your wife's job sucks then she should get another one and stop bitching. There are probably lots of private schools that would hire her. They probably don't pay as well but she wouldn't have to join a union. If she looks hard enough, she can probably get a job teaching at some sort of wierd religious academy and know that everyone in the building supports her political views.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    2. Re:Unions protect themselves by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      And this is why unions are losing their political power. They only support Democrats, who take their votes for granted. Republicans ignore unions since they will never get the union vote no matter what. Who in government is looking out for unions? In other words, why has unions' power been getting progressively weaker over the years?

  34. It doesn't matter we'd get shafted anyway by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most IT workers I know are salaried workers. Meaning you got paid $X per year, divided up into weekly or biweekly payments. They could overwork you 80 hours a week or more, and you couldn't complain or else they'd use that At-Will Employment law to let you go. All other IT shops I knew about were the same.

    That is, unless you were an entry level IT staffer on an hourly basis, and then overtime had to be approved by management before you could work it.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:It doesn't matter we'd get shafted anyway by Transfan76 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why is it so hard for people to understand that just because you earn a salary doesn't mean you're not entitled to overtime. Under the previous rules and the new ones, a certain salary is PART of the requirements. You have to meet ALL the requirements before an employer can deny you overtime. It's a if you make this much AND you do this job AND this, then the employer does not have to pay you overtime. But if you make this much AND NOT this AND that, then you are entitled to overtime. This is something that has been taken advantage, employers brainwashing their employees to believe just because you earn a fixed salary you aren't entitled to overtime. So keep track of your hours, and if they fire you, sue for your overtime.

    2. Re:It doesn't matter we'd get shafted anyway by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      This is a formal rule to strip away a lot of those suits. That's specifically mentioned in the DoLs reasons for changing the rules. IT does get specifically singled out still with the "$27/hr rule" in addition to the other new changes. mostly it allows companies to classify a HUGE percentage of "skilled" jobs as "exempt"... the DoL even mentions professions like Police and nursing [cause you gotta go to school]... where conditions are already "near slave labor"

      Like i said in a post above, it's an attept to make "current industry practice" formally legal instead of looking at the horrible abuse going on. the "comp time" provisions are horribly underwritten with almost no attention to ensuring workers rights to USE them!

    3. Re:It doesn't matter we'd get shafted anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They could overwork you 80 hours a week or more, and you couldn't complain or else they'd use that At-Will Employment law to let you go.

      It amazes me that IT professionals allow themselves to be treated this way. Here is the worst scenario that could possibly happen from this:

      Empoyer: Well, they just passed this new law. Looks like we won't be able to pay you overtime anymore.

      You: Yeah. Guess we'll have to boost the salary a bit to compensate. Say $15k?

      Empoyer: Actually, we don't have any budget for pay increases this year.

      You: Sure you do. You paid me just over $80k last year with overtime. You'll pay me $80k again this year. No worries.

      Empoyer: Well, I'm sorry. It just doesn't work that way. You'll just have to get used to not getting paid for your overtime.

      You: Fair enough. I'll have my letter of resignation on your desk before I leave tonight. Say next Friday for my last day?

      Have some dignity, people. You are more valuable to your employer than you think.
    4. Re:It doesn't matter we'd get shafted anyway by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      In the USA they have laws that specifically target IT workers as being exempt from over-time. I tried to get over-time pay, but then I worked for lawyers that screwed me over more than one way.

      Sure I could have quit my job, and not taken unemployment benefits as a result, but I have a wife and child to support. We can't just eat rocks and dirt, you know.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  35. Steel Industry by theblacksun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The steel industry would be dying in the United States reguardless. If it was not unionized the workers would be getting paid that much less, working that much more, and the benefits would be even fewer. A steel worker's job is incredibly uncomfortable (read: hot as hell), demanding (blast furnaces often run 24/7 on two 12 hour shifts), and dangerous (large machinery, liquid metal, you do the math). Without unions watching their asses the grunts could easily get screwed, and it would make it that much harder for the families of the men to get compensation if they're an accident. The point is this: this is the kind of job you either get paid a good bit to do or you send to X third world country to someone who will take whatever job they can get no matter the risk.

    --
    Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
  36. biggest shaft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just shafting the people farthest down on the latter so that the higher ups can continue to run their businesses and maintain profits even though Bush is allowing the economy to be gutted via out-sourcing and tax breaks to the top 1%.

  37. I didn't bother to actuall read the article but... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...I think that the French Suck, Linux is cool, SCO is evil, Bill is Daryl's bastard father, Old SW is good, New SW is bad, New old SW is Lucas getting greedy, IPODs are a great way of pissing off the RIAA but not the MPAA by breaking the DMCA. Let's SPAM IRAQ, and George is a twinkee.

    Oh,, and so I don't get modded as off topic by a humorless basement troll, I just typed up all that nonsesense while at work, and on the PAYROLL, BABY! Woohoo! Change the law all you want, I can still goof-off better than anyone...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  38. So much claptrap in one post by theblacksun · · Score: 1
    Show me evidence of the correlations of all of the above.

    However I must take a particular stab at your construction assertions. Ok, US build per square foot is double the rest of the world. The average US income is also a lot higher than the rest of the world. Is it really that odd that services like constructions would be scaled towards accordingly? Your comments about innovation and materials: are not the engineers responsible for that? Last time I checked they weren't union, unless you go to Europe.

    --
    Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
    1. Re:So much claptrap in one post by msoftsucks · · Score: 1

      Contractors have much leeway in how they build what the engineers have specified. Each approach has different material and labor savings. The construction unions have pretty much laid down the law and basically killed any labor savings. I'll give you one example. In the painting industry, you have different methods of applying paint. You can brush it on, roll it on, or you can spray it on. With a brush it will take you 4 hours to complete a wall. With a roller it will take you 2 hours and spraying will take you 1/2 hr. If you are paying a painter $50/Hr to paint the wall which method would you prefer to use? You would want him to use spraying. It gives you the best quality in the shortest amount of time. Yet, union rules state that spraying cannot not be used. Why? because there is only so much work available and if it can be done quicker you don't need as many painters. Union memership drops. Union doesn't make as much money, union is not as powerful, and union leadership doesn't have slush funds that they use to live in luxury. All the things that make unions strong are mutually exclusive with all the things that reduce cost, improve quality and speed development time. The unions act in their own best interests which are not in line with these 21st century concepts.

      Now you are a building developer. You have hired architects, engineers etc. to help you design a building. You have a set budget. So now instead of trying new concepts or designs, you decide to take the standard approach. Why? because so much of your budget is spent on these labor inefficiencies that there is no money to try anything risky. Look at any building built in the US within the last 15 years. They are standard tube steel and glass construction. Yet overseas you see some really impressive structures.

      Now this set of cost economies are occuring in all unionized industries. They become fat, inefficient, and impose ridiculous restrictions in order to keep their membership large. Name me just one, one US industry that is unionized that is dominating the world market. There aren't any.

      --
      Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
      Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
    2. Re:So much claptrap in one post by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And yet with the opposite point of view, you have companies like Sun bribing the courts to let them terminate older employees so that they can bring in younger ones from India, which is also inefficient because you have to train all the new workers.

      So what is YOUR solution to the predatory class taking advantage of workers?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  39. what in the heck does that mean? by T.Hobbes · · Score: 1

    unions are simply formal organizations which represent the interest of workes wrt management. they recognize that all workers have a common interest, and work towards that common interest. this is why unionized shops have better pay, benefits, job security etc. than non-unionized shops.

    1. Re:what in the heck does that mean? by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what in the heck that means. It is very simple: every unionized place I've ever visited has the braindead employees advancing and getting paid just as well as their better co-workers. Unions reward mobthink and are completely unfair, i.e. better performance is not necessarily met with better rewards in a union environment.

      Perhaps that is why techs hate unions. By and large we are logical people that can see that the key to better working environments and better pay is a better grasp on your skills and making yourself more valuable.

      Unionization in the tech field appeals only to those schleps that got into computers because everyone told them "it's a lucrative field." The people that love working with computers and are naturally good with them and have honed their skills would do well to repel unionization.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    2. Re:what in the heck does that mean? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Southern-fucking-Bell Baby!!!

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    3. Re:what in the heck does that mean? by madcow_ucsb · · Score: 1, Troll

      Better conditions for the union members, everyone else be damned. I suppose I'm just ignorant, but most of my union experiences are something along the lines of this:

      (At some random trade show)
      *Drive up with van to giant but empty unloading area of convention center - the big drive-thru thing in the front, not the loading dock in back..we know that's off-limits*

      Security Guy: You can't come in here.
      Us: But it's the unloading area...
      Security: No it's a "loading area". No UNloading allowed. Union rules...

      *park van in garage two blocks away, put all our crap on a cart to roll in, reach front door*
      Security Guy: Whoa, you can't bring that in.
      Us: Why?
      Security: Only union guys can push carts. If you can't hold it in your hands, you can't bring it in.
      Us: Uh ok, so can we get the union guys to take it in?
      Security: No. They can't do that.
      Us: Mmmkay...

      *Spend next 45min using 3 guys to guard the piles over the two blocks between the garage and the convention center and as we take each item one by one across the whole convention center by hand*

      Maybe it's just me, but that convention center thing happens every fucking time and it pisses me off to no end. I mean, I'm all for making sure the cart-pushers have their jobs. But what's the point of having unionized cart pushers if they won't push the goddamned carts????

      Most of my other encounters are similarly pedantic (i.e. a picture falls off the wall, but nobody can put it back because only a unionized drywall worker is allowed to use a hammer on the wall and none is available for a week)

    4. Re:what in the heck does that mean? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      My advice:

      1) Think up of a nifty union name
      2) Print up some official looking membership cards
      3) Tell the guard "We are Union Members!" (they didn't say which Union).
      4) Ignore guard and push cart (or unload van)

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  40. BS? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    "Or were they merely designed to streamline outdated rules?"

    The thing about bullshit speak is that it only works on stupid people..

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  41. Who really wins.... by TastelessGarbage · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you are wondering whether employees or employers are the bigger beneficiaries from the changes, try to identify a business or trade group that opposes the changes.

    You'll have to work overtime to find one.

    --
    That ain't liver; that's beef kidney!
  42. not really by Trepidity · · Score: 0, Troll

    Unions are about the incompetent people taking a cut of the competent people's paycheck.

    A good example are teacher's unions. If you have skills that are in demand, like chemistry or physics or math, you could command a higher salary than if you have skills that are not very much in demand, like social studies. However, union contracts do not permit school districts to pay the chemistry teachers more, despite them having more useful and in-demand skills.

    Similarly, union rules do not permit very good teachers, even those who win state- or nation-wide awards, to be paid more. The school must pay each teacher solely according to their seniority: bad teachers who have been there for 30 years get more than good teachers who have been there for 5 years.

    If you got rid of teacher's unions altogether, you'd see science educations in our schools improve dramatically overnight. I personally know several science teachers who have left teaching because of that nonsense (including one who was taken to court by the union because she refused to join it, and union membership is mandatory).

    1. Re:not really by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      In what state was that - some states are right to work states and a union can't force you to join.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  43. Blacklash from health care by Recovering+Anonymous · · Score: 1

    If this bill does get canceled it will probably be from a backlash from healthcare workers, nurses especially, not IT that causes it.

    --
    There's no shame in being a pariah. -Marge Simpson
  44. Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by stomv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    (Too late for mod points)

    Overtime laws exist because businesses wanted them. It came with the 40 hour work week. You see, unions were strong and getting stronger 100 years ago. They were winning 35 hour work weeks. Management pushed for labor protection laws in an effort to cut their losses to unions and to undercut the labor machine by giving them some of what they wanted.

    It worked. Labor unions maintained influence, but haven't been nearly as strong as they would have been had management not made concessions country-wide in the form of overtime laws.

    So... you can thank management for overtime laws, circa 100 years ago. Methinks if overtime laws disapeared, you'd see a surge in union membership... something that I doubt you'd be very interested in.

    1. Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by XO · · Score: 1

      Due to these new laws, I just received a 35% increase in my base income.

      I do NOT want it repealed. NO NO NO NO NO.

      *emailing all Senators*

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    2. Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow. What's your job? My guesses:
      • The guy in HR in charge of cutting personel expenses?
      • The lobbyist who got that law passed?
      • The lobbyist behind this new law to repeal it?
    3. Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Utter bullshit. While your statement is largely correct, the sentiments presented are hugely misrepresenting.

      100 years ago, unions and businesses were at each other's throats. Both sides acted like asses.

      Businesses asked for overtime rules because they were getting overrun and had to make a tactical decision. They made a hell of a smart one. Government had to make a choice or allow the trade infrastucture to collapse. That doesn't mean businesses/management WANTED them as you claim but rather were forced given union practices and the times.

      You're definition of wanted is the same as saying a nerd wanted a beatdown when he asked for it but where you conveniently omit that he/she was presented the choice of the quarterback wailing on him versus the entire football team going at 'em.

      What you ARE correct in is that in implementing what amounted to a legislated policy, they staved off union power to this day. But that was a GOOD THING. Since you colored your post plainly, I'll color mine--businesses enacted overtime rules to prevent further absurd mob violence by unions and to restore trade to continue, a peace which has largely stayed to this day and which we take for granted.

      What you conveniently leave out is that union power was largely precipitated by threat of violence, not peaceful means or economic will. Disrupting business activities included circling workplaces to block transportation in and out, as well as threatening violence against strikebreakers (e.g. Colorado train bombing), uncrossable picket lines, and paying off public officials.

      This is not to say business or the government had the moral high ground. Ridiculous practices and unreasonable antics were carried out on that side, including use of national guards, militias, etc. But neither side was exactly having rational, heated sit down talks either.

      If unions or businesses pulled any of that shit today, we'd be shocked. Unions pressed businesses, businesses pressed government, now the result is taht we have intrusive overtime laws because the little boys couldn't sit down and work things out reasonably or non-violently.

    4. Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by XO · · Score: 1

      no, i'm in retail management.

      The new OT laws are basically worth a 10-50% income increase for anyone who REGULARLY works OT.. and they really don't fuck anyone who does the occasional OT either.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    5. Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're definition of wanted

      "Your".

    6. Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1

      It's been that way in TX for years. This is a right to work state and anyone...ANYONE...can be put on salary & not paid for overtime. The flipside was always that jobs, like IT where you know you do alot of OT, always paid more to compensate. I was wondering why everyone was freaking out over that bill when it went thru then realized it was all Democrats & it was just an anti-Bush thing that would blow over. I'm like this guy...I love getting paid more $$ even when I don't do the OT.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    7. Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by XO · · Score: 1

      This is even better: This law guarantees salaried employees OT as well, excluding the standard high level management and computer industry exemptions.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    8. Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Simple answer in my case. My motto is: "I don't work for free".

      I'm working now as a contract employee for Govt. projects...but,they're trying to bastardized this set up...to where the US pays the company contractor rates...but, shop tries to pay us as employees, not the contractors we are. We still get straight time for OT...but, they're trying to get many of us to go salary...these rules would just help that along I'm guessing.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So, have your employer's profits risen 35%? I doubt it. How will he pay for you and everyone else who just got a 35% raise? Perhaps he'll need to lay a few folks off--that would hardly be a good thing, no?

      A 35% raise does no good when one loses the job entirely.

    10. Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unions cropped up because workers had no other recourse. What is mob-like violence to you is more like rebellion-like violence to the weak people that were being forced to work 60+ hours a week in hot steel plants. Companies want to run people into the ground for pennies and then fire them before they can get retirement or health care. It still happens today, but it's been put on the back burner because people will tolerate being pushed around so much.

      I couldn't even read all your post because it's the most idiotic stance I've seen anyone take. You say it's OK for businesses to treat employees however they want because it's an agreement, but when they take the only avenue of recourse, that's bad. If employees would have been treated with respect to begin with, they wouldn't have sought to form unions.

      We are sitting on the edge of the same kinds of things happening again. US still has terrible working conditions compared to Europe, and the more they become conscious of the fact that companies can survive just fine with out those two extra weeks of work, they will demand the same. The increasing rift between the top 1-10% of wealthy individuals and the majority of the population will only serve to prove that point.

  45. Union Political Contributions and "Right To Work" by holt_rpi · · Score: 1

    Well, if she's a union member, that's likely true - an association you join voluntarily would probably have the presumed permission of its members to spend their dues however its leadership sees fit.

    However - if your wife resigns from the union and becomes an agency shop member, she would be able to not only demand the "political" percentage of her money back, but also the proportion of her dues spent on organizing other employees into new union shops.

    It is illegal (even in a "closed shop" bargaining unit) to force people to join the union or coerce those who choose not to do so. A "happy medium" is what many refer to as the "fair share" employee, who pays for the cost of collective bargaining and grievance representation but not union organization and political campaigns. A quick google search revealed this FAQ that looks pretty succinct but correct.

    For more on your rights NOT to join or support a union any more than necessary, check out the National Right to Work Foundation. The National Labor Relations Board also has lots of great material available online.

    Also, remember that you don't have to be a unionized employee to gain protection under the Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Any employee acting in concert with another (or others - called "concerted activity") for the mutual aid and protection of employees is protected from unlawful interference in their choices to act collectively.

  46. Competent employees don't need unions by micron · · Score: 1

    I will start with my union experience.
    In high school, I was a checker in a grocery store. I joined the union. I paid full dues, but I received no benefits from the union because I did not work enough hours (no medical, eye care, strike pay, etc). I could not get more hours, because I did not have enough seniority.
    I worked hard. As a reward, the night managers would let me do more interesting work on the computer system, or stock groceries. (at least it was a change of scenery). That stopped when someone from the stocker's union complained.
    I was up for a merit promotion. Got the promotion only to have it revoked due to union complaints about lack of seniority. (I actually have documentation from the union to prove this)

    My union experience, basically it protects people who don't like to work from people who do. I have no time for them. They are powerless. Look at the US manufacturing sector for proof.

    Now, I am in the computer industry. I thrive well in the merit system. If I don't like the situation, I leave. This forumula has worked well for me for the last 14 years. I never completed college, and I am paid extrememly well.

    Moral to the story: if you are good at what you do, you don't need a union.

    If you want to be in this industry, it is going to require life long learning and a lot of work if you want to protect your job. A union will not help you.

    1. Re:Competent employees don't need unions by flacco · · Score: 1
      Moral to the story: if you are good at what you do, you don't need a union.

      the moral of the story: i'm really excellent, and the top, say, 5% of excellent people should band together with me and be real excellent and fuck the non-excellent people.

      see, the problem with your system is that it's only good for the top 5% of excellent people. and if the other 95% - you know, the sub-human slackers who aren't as excellent as you - aren't looked out for in the system, all kinds of bad things happen.

      so get over yourself. these kinds of threads always fill up with "i'm so incredibly marvelous, and it's *so* hard to soar with the eagles when i'm surrounded by all these turkeys!" messages.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    2. Re:Competent employees don't need unions by micron · · Score: 1

      You miss the point entirely.

      In any situation, you have two options. 1) complain about being victimized or 2) do something about it.

      You are responsible for your success. Your company is not looking you for you, neither is your boss, and certainly not the union.

      The earlier you come to grips with this, the better you are off.

      If you want to slack, then just get familiar with being a victim. No one promised you something for nothing.

    3. Re:Competent employees don't need unions by flacco · · Score: 1
      In any situation, you have two options. 1) complain about being victimized or 2) do something about it.

      excellent idea. if management unjustly "victimizes" me, i fully intend to bring it up with the union.

      You are responsible for your success.

      why would someone expect their union to be "responsible" for their success? a union has a fairly well-defined role in the worker-employer relationship, and being responsible for one's success isn't part of it.

      Your company is not looking you for you, neither is your boss, and certainly not the union.

      actually, the union is looking out for me. it leverages my value - ie, what i get paid - by unifying it with that of my co-workers. it makes sure i have some recourse if someone in management has a bad day and arbitrarily decides to fire me. it collectively negotiates retirement benefits, health benefits, and other benefits on my behalf.

      it provides fairness and added security to my life. for this, i pay them a small amount of cash out of each check to cover expenses. sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

      The earlier you come to grips with this, the better you are off.

      i'm pretty open-minded, you just haven't made a very persuasive argument.

      If you want to slack, then just get familiar with being a victim.

      what makes you think that i want to "slack"? i work pretty hard, both at my day job and at my moonlighting pursuits. meanwhile, my workday is less fearful and frustrating, since i know that the ego/whims/napoleon complex of my direct supervisor are at least somewhat tempered by the knowledge that he or she will have to justify such actions to a review board.

      No one promised you something for nothing.

      and i haven't asked for it.

      i have to say, your post doesn't make much sense to me, but it does indicate that you carry a lot of psychological / philosophical baggage with regard to unions.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    4. Re:Competent employees don't need unions by micron · · Score: 1

      In your previous post
      "see, the problem with your system is that it's only good for the top 5% of excellent people. and if the other 95% - you know, the sub-human slackers who aren't as excellent as you - aren't looked out for in the system, all kinds of bad things happen."

      That is the content that I referred to when I made my comment that if you want to slack, you need a union to protect you.

      I do disagree with you when you suggest the union is looking out for you. I believe that Unions convey that idea, and maybe some Union bosses have this intention. When companies depended on local labor sources, Unions had some negotiating power because they represented the local labor force. In todays global economy, companies can (and have) picked up shop and moved it elsewhere. This rendered the unions and the local labor force effectively powerless. If you need examples, take a look at the Auto, steel, and textile industries. Unions drove wages to the point that companies found it more economical to export raw matierials, manufacture them over seas, and then pay duties to sell them back to the US market.

      What power do unions really have then? I don't see any.

      So, the union can still ask its members to boycott these companies for closing their local factories. Last time I checked, the boycotts against Wallmart are not causing Wallmart any grief.

      My experience with unions has been bad. I have no problem admitting that. I also know that the global economy is creating downward pressure on wages. I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but I don't see unions creating a viable option either.

      As far as a union protecting me from a bad boss goes; I have found it just as effective to leave the group or company. No good comes from a bad boss, and it takes to long too let someone else remedy that situation.

  47. Some goodies from the article... by laddhebert · · Score: 1
    "Industry observers see it both ways, indicating that while IT pros may have less opportunity for extra pay, no company is going to risk losing a good tech worker over a few overtime hours and will make up for any losses if necessary."

    Yeah..where have they been????

    "I think companies will make up for it in different ways," he said. "Today, it's about what you do. It's the quality of the work you do and how much you do."

    *cough* *cough* bullshit! *cough*

    I look around at work and at some of my previous jobs and I have to say, this just isn't true. Not true at all.

    I see this as another way that The Man is sticking it to the little guy..again. Overtime for some people is what makes the difference. Take that away and you cut into a significant portion of their monthly wages.

    -L

    --
    Don't Panic.
    1. Re:Some goodies from the article... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      Like another poster far up said, "it's a class war" the middle class hasn't figured it out yet! Most of these professions make "good" money for a single person for the straight pay...but it's not enough to afford a home or family on alone. So in effect we've LOST a lot since the 70's when 1 job was enough for most households. OT is what makes "jobs" into "middle class lifestyles" for many people. The "suits" look at the average pay for workers and see the big checks they write and want to "quit" not needing the hours, but writing the checks!

      Without OT most of these careers put the middle-class families back into qualifying for food stamps!!! It takes $50k to "comfortably" raise a family in a nice house with new cars in the drive and sports for the kids. People like me can live in a smaller house, buy cheap used cars, and hold the kids back...but it doesn't contribue to the big corps bottom lines.... Want to see um get WORSE...just wait and see!!!

    2. Re:Some goodies from the article... by laddhebert · · Score: 1
      You're right, it takes at least a minimum of 50k in a city where the cost of living hasn't shot through the roof. Add:

      1) The extra 600-800 per month for daycare , since your wife needs to work also

      2) The extra 200 bucks a month the mortgate company sprung on you because they miscalculated your insurance and escrow last year

      3) The extra 75 bucks more to your mortgage to cover the increase in local property taxes

      4) the extra 700 bucks a month to add your wife and kid to your insurance because your body shop consulting firm doesn't want to foot the bill for decent insurance coverage

      Yep, that has pretty much cut into ALL of my geek toy spending...I used to have my own lab at home with various UNIX workstations ranging from Sun's to obscure xterm servers. Just the other day my wife and I were trying to figure exactly what changed since our quality of life hasn't exactly gotten any better, but it sure has gotten much more expensive.

      -L

      --
      Don't Panic.
    3. Re:Some goodies from the article... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      are you my wife....

      just kidding!

      sounds just like my situation last year...almost to the $$. Except that my Wife has been one of the "laid off" so she got to experience one of the "new jobs" that pay less than 5 years ago for the same thing. It acually has ended up cheaper for her not to work and cut corners at home. My "real" household income actually went DOWN every year for 4 years except this one. That was AFTER we had the children & bought the house because we thought things were "stable"...haha!

  48. I need to get into politics!! by thewickedmystic · · Score: 2, Funny

    WOW!

    Get nothing done and get paid for it!
    Get something done and still get paid for it!
    Undo something that has already been done and GET PAID FOR IT!!

    That's it, I'm running for Mayor(tm) this next term!

    --
    "Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority." - Dr. Who
  49. Living under a rock. by Hej · · Score: 1

    "I just don't believe a company's going to say to a good tech worker, "You're making $75,000, now you're going to be at $50,000 because you wont' get overtime..."

    Just like no company would risk a good tech worker by outsourcing their job to India, or laying him off and hiring a fresh college grad for half as much money.

  50. The Senate mandated a 30 hour week in 1933, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Senate passed the 30 hour week in the Black bill in 1933. The idea was wildly popular for obvious reasons. However, FDR axed it.

    Actually, since the American worker produces more than 400 times what he/she did in 1980, I think a raise of SOME kind IS in order! But, instead, we are destroying our own prosperity by not sharing the benefits of automation and IT with the non-executive workforce. People won't be able to buy our products without jobs or money!

    hahaha...

    But, lets face it.. It's quite probable that many (most?) jobs will go away for good within the next few years. Machines work so much more efficiently than people. If you were a business, would you emply people you didn't need? I didn't think so.

    A 30 hour week would give us a few more years to ponder our future and our priorities.

    If we can't cope with the changes I wonder what we will do?

    'Outsource' all the millions of homeless and increasingly bitter unemployed people to China?

    Make the remaining employed people work 80 hour weeks? 90 hour weeks?

    Start a hopeless war to kill most of them? Actually, that seems like the most likely outcome, if history teaches us anything.

    I don't think that most people realize the situation - How many jobs, both manufacturing AND service, do you know of that are *really* creative jobs? -

    Jobs that can't be done cheaper by somebody in one of the dollar a day countries, or by an expert system - (a machine) ?

    Very, very few!

    Its the calm before the storm...better enjoy it while you can! :(

    We could create a golden age.. or an absolute hell for ourselves...

  51. No one wants to loose? by minion · · Score: 1

    Industry observers see it both ways, indicating that while IT pros may have less opportunity for extra pay, no company is going to risk losing a good tech worker over a few overtime hours and will make up for any losses if necessary.

    Thats a bunch of bull. Maybe a small IT shop won't risk it, but large corporations with 50 > software drones in their employ will gladly get rid of some higer paid employees (who are getting OT), so they can shift market demand to younger programmers willing to work for less wage because they have large education loans to pay off, and are happy to just have a job.

    --

    -- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
  52. Joe by helleman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

    All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

    Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

    Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

    Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

    Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

    Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark)

    He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

    He turns on a radio talk show, the host's keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".

    1. Re:Joe by Rahga · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards."

      I'm sure that the vast majority of the $40 per month I pay on my water bill goes to quality control.

      "His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised."

      Goodness knows that libreals know more about prescribing safe medicine than my doctor does.

      "All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too."

      Yeah, because if that wasn't the case, my employer would have to divert money from my paycheck into a health insurance plan.

    2. Re:Joe by Rahga · · Score: 1

      I accidentally managed to get the text box to submit, but I think I've made my point. Diehard political wanks will always take far more credit for claims they make about positive changes than they really deserve.

      I'm sick of politics. Liberal or conservative, the only real difference between the two is how they attempt to redistribute wealth and at what ammounts. The changes they claim credit for simply reflect the way money gets spent. I'm paying for my clean water, medicine, health coverage, social security... Politics only determine how much I get back and how much money I can keep of what I earn. :P

    3. Re:Joe by flacco · · Score: 1
      I'm sure that the vast majority of the $40 per month I pay on my water bill goes to quality control.

      part of it, i suspect. i would imagine that the rest of it is used to deliver water to your house. wtf is your point?

      Goodness knows that libreals know more about prescribing safe medicine than my doctor does.

      no, but i bet libreals know how to pass legislation that helps ensure that you're not playing russian roulette when you select a doctor.

      Yeah, because if that wasn't the case, my employer would have to divert money from my paycheck into a health insurance plan.

      insurance is all about distributing risk. you pay a little bit into a pool so that you, along with everyone else, is protected from death and/or catastrophic financial impoverishment in the event that you should draw the short straw.

      now grow up, use your mind a little bit, and look at both sides calmly and with some humility, instead of indulging yourself with all the imaginary slights and burdens that society has foisted upon you.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    4. Re:Joe by Rahga · · Score: 1

      You didn't get it. My point was that "This is what the liberals have done for us, can't you see this?" theme of the "Joe" post was overdone. Liberals didn't make my water clean and, belive it or not, the suggestion that they've done anything to protect me from taking a chance on a bad doctor... nothing could be further from the truth. Liberal policy in health care will bring us closer and closer to Canada's situation, where a mass exodous of doctors is crippling their government's ability to provide health care soon after it started.

      now grow up, use your mind a little bit, and look at both sides calmly and with some humility, instead of indulging yourself with all the imaginary slights and burdens that society has foisted upon you

      You are pretty condescending for someone who can't be bothered with details like starting a sentence with a capital letter... "grow up"? "some humility"? Check yourself.

    5. Re:Joe by flacco · · Score: 1
      You didn't get it. My point was that "This is what the liberals have done for us, can't you see this?" theme of the "Joe" post was overdone.

      of course it was, for effect. that doesn't invalidate the main point of the post: that many of those who trash "liberals" benefit directly from "liberal" policies, along with everyone else.

      Liberals didn't make my water clean

      actually, they did. the environmental situation now is far better than it was in, say, the 1970's. that's a direct result of "liberal" environmental legislation.

      and, belive it or not, the suggestion that they've done anything to protect me from taking a chance on a bad doctor... nothing could be further from the truth.

      i can think of a lot of things that would be farther from the truth, but the original point was drug safety, not bad doctors. you can't convince me that Walter Broadwinkle, MD, is more effective at drug quality control than the institutions we currently have in place for that purpose. sane doctors *rely* on drug safety controls. if you don't want those benefits, the philipines are just a plane-ride away.

      Liberal policy in health care will bring us closer and closer to Canada's situation, where a mass exodous of doctors is crippling their government's ability to provide health care soon after it started.

      meanwhile, here in the US, the number of people without health insurance practically equals the population of canada. and, details aside, all the other industrialized countries have somehow managed to cover their citizens. all of them. except the US.

      i don't advocate one particular health care proposal over another, but i'm pretty sure we can do better than we're doing now.

      You are pretty condescending for someone who can't be bothered with details like starting a sentence with a capital letter...

      if i were to start my sentences with capital letters, would i have the credentials to be condescending? consider this: capital letters are often unnecessary, add keystrokes, and can cause you to contort your hand position in some cases - and that's bad for you.

      "grow up"? "some humility"? Check yourself.

      i will try harder in the future.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    6. Re:Joe by Rahga · · Score: 1

      if i were to start my sentences with capital letters, would i have the credentials to be condescending?

      Yes. ;)

    7. Re:Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      insurance is all about distributing risk. you pay a little bit into a pool so that you, along with everyone else, is protected from death and/or catastrophic financial impoverishment in the event that you should draw the short straw.
      A recent Towers Perrin survey found that workers will pay 20% of health care premiums. If I had a family I would be paying $400 per month minimum. That means my employer is puting up 1600 per month for me. Thats almost 40% of my total pre tax check that I could be getting. But I don't have a family, so do I get that $1600 in my regular check? No, I am part of the "pool" thta helps out the other people. Wow do I feel special, I can't imaging how I could do a beter job of helping my community with that $1600, can you.

    8. Re:Joe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

      Realy? I thought we had people eating meat for thousands of years before liberals came up with regulations. In fact the first documented meat processing standards (which where very strict) where implemented at the request of Yahweh about 3000-6000 years ago.


      Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills.


      Joe sees that at the current tax rate he loses 28% off the top to the feds, 8% to the state, and at least 8% on each purchase, for a direct tax rate of 44%. Then Joe finds out that his employer also pays another 15% for his workers comp,unemployment insurance, and social security. This brings Joes tax rate up to 59%. Joe also knows that there is no way in hell that social security will actualy be their when he needs it because those careing liberals (and to be fare, the conservatives as well) have spent every single dollar of the Social Security reserve on "necessary programs". That means when it comes due it will have to come straight out of his childerens pocket.

      So lets recap Because of all the wonderful programs that he recives Joes check for $1000 is reduced to $410. Now Joe can pay for his fanie may loan on his home, because he now qualifies as poor, and in need of assistance. Wow Joe feels happy that he is so blessed. Don't you?

      Oh and that farm of his dad's? When Joes Dad dies and literaly leave him the farm (assuming Dad dies some time after 2011), the federal government will take up to 50%, and some states will take also up two 50% of the gross value of Dad's estate. You know because they took care of all the important infrastructure. Errr, wait we paid property taxes each year to cover those, but they did something I am sure to deserve a 100% stake in everything your dad earned (with his affter tax money mind you) over the course of his life.

      Don't like my tax numbers look at TITLE 26 - Subtitle B - CHAPTER 11 - Subchapter A - PART I - Sec. 2001.

  53. Couldn't have said it better!! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    great post!!!

  54. 2080 hours a MONTH?! by FlyingOrca · · Score: 1

    Man, that's tough. 2080 hours is a whole YEAR at 40 hours per week, so that's some seriously heavy... hey, wait a minute! ;-)

    --
    Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
    1. Re:2080 hours a MONTH?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, my bad. Month = Year

  55. Didn't the 40 hour week come after a previous law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't the 40 hour week come after a previous law mandating overtime after someone worked a 50 hr week?
    I think so..

  56. Devils Advocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As small business owner let me play devils advocate for a minute.

    When I pay one of my few staff I expect them to work as hard for the company as I do. If theres a lot of work to be done, they're gonna stay late and not get paid extra.

    The idea of overtime for it workers just screams stupid to me.

    I dont mind setting up an hour bank, with the employer able to say when you'll take days off but overtime pay is just silly.

    Only thing that overtime would allow for is slacking employees to slack off on their tasks early in a project knowing that they will get overtime when the project dealine nears to make up the slack. Its just absolutely retarded.

    If you're on salary you're working for the benefit of the company if you're not willing to work the required 25-70 hours a week to get the job done you should go work in a blue-collar trade where theres x units of work equals y value to the company. IT just doesnt work that way and thats what these regulations are trying to deal with.

    If your boss is an ass (read you stay till 5 even if you have nothing to do or are way ahead of schedule) then quit however.

    A decent employer will assign reasonable tasks and deadlines and listen to employees on what is required. If an employee tells me it will take x hours to do this. Then thats what he gets. If he works hard and gets it done in 1 day instead of 6 then he should get 5 off.

    Goal based projects with reasonable deadlines and decent staff should eliminate the need for overtime completely EVEN if you often have to work 60 hours a week.

    1. Re:Devils Advocate by WillRobinson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I dont normally comment much, just make funnies, but this time will be an exception.

      When I pay one of my few staff I expect them to work as hard for the company as I do. If theres a lot of work to be done, they're gonna stay late and not get paid extra.


      Thats ok, as long as there is some ballance, such as when theres slack time, you tell them to get out of there. I also expect developers under me to work hard to, if im working hard, thats my responsibility to divide up the work properly.

      Only thing that overtime would allow for is slacking employees to slack off on their tasks early in a project knowing that they will get overtime when the project dealine nears to make up the slack. Its just absolutely retarded.


      In your example above, it looks like the employies are not being supervised properly. It is also not the responsibility of the employee to makeup a schedule that the employer underbid or underestimated.

      A decent employer will assign reasonable tasks and deadlines and listen to employees on what is required. If an employee tells me it will take x hours to do this. Then thats what he gets. If he works hard and gets it done in 1 day instead of 6 then he should get 5 off.


      Programming for over 20 years, I have only seen this work once. As there is always a next project. That can be started on early. Or maintance on existing apps.

      Goal based projects with reasonable deadlines and decent staff should eliminate the need for overtime completely EVEN if you often have to work 60 hours a week.


      Thats ok if your salary justifies working 60 hours a week, or it was made up front that you would average 60 hours a week. If you were beaten down in price, and told the average programmer works 45 hours a week, then its not.
    2. Re:Devils Advocate by Bargeld · · Score: 1

      >>When I pay one of my few staff I expect them to work as hard for the company as I do.

      You have several good points, but the assumption above is sufficiently off-base that I have to call BS on you.

      "Work hard", absolutely. Work as hard, in terms of hours invested, as the owner of the company? No way. Not unless you're compensating them with equity in the business.

      I think you're forgetting that business owners reap substantially more reward from the time they put into their enterprise. It's absurd to _expect_ employees to consistently detract from the quality of their personal life...which is ALWAYS more important than any job...for no particular reward.

      (And I do realize that, to one degree or another, that's in line with some of your other comments as far as how you treat your own staff. But the original statement remains worthy of re-consideration.)

      --Bargeld

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone. But they've always worked for me." --Dr. Hunter S.
    3. Re:Devils Advocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let me clarify a few points.

      Only thing that overtime would allow for is slacking employees to slack off on their tasks early in a project knowing that they will get overtime when the project dealine nears to make up the slack. Its just absolutely retarded.

      In your example above, it looks like the employies are not being supervised properly. It is also not the responsibility of the employee to makeup a schedule that the employer underbid or underestimated

      Its not about supervision so much as it is about being able to trust the timelines an employee gives for a project. Ultimately without having lots of good help and the ability to train them instantly on your application (impossible new hires take months to get up to speed) then there are no solutions. You cannot go and fire people for having unreliable deadlines because they're trying to force an overtime situation.
      Lets get this straight, programmers are smart, clever and often dubious types. If they can abuse a flaw that will make them a lot of money, they will. And while you're right, when the cats away the mice will play i'm no PHB and im not gonna babysit programmers. Im not gonna go say that coulda been done faster cuz what good would it do.
      True the need for overtime wages is a two-way street, if the employer compensates fairly and expects reasonable things then the employee should be willing to work the hours required. The number of hours needed to get the job done varies and ultimately comes down to your dedication to the product.
      Ive worked with the 9-5er's who never stay late and in this economy its totally infeasible. No shop can stay competitative if they cant meet deadlines and no shop can estimate deadlines 100%. The net result is there is often that final push to get a project done on time. And that goes for all deadlined industries.
      If i were to pay overtime for such I know for a fact that the first 60% of the job would be done slackassed and then the deadline pressure would come, and we'd have to talk about overtime etc. The net result is the employee makes out like a bandit and the employer screwed.
      The majority of businesses are small businesses. I dont take home that much more than my top employees.
      The question is who is better equipped to handle the situation. The government, mandating the rules which in 99% of small business circumstances results in the employee simply going home because theres no budget for overtime and the company suffering. Or the company owner/employees who can negotiate a fair division of profit and the hours to be worked. Imo GWB is correct if you make over x amount (23k is probably low) then you dont need overtime and you're just gluttening off your employer saying i dont give a rats ass about this project or its deadlines. The not my problem employee.

      Work hard", absolutely. Work as hard, in terms of hours invested, as the owner of the company? No way. Not unless you're compensating them with equity in the business.

      I think you're forgetting that business owners reap substantially more reward from the time they put into their enterprise. It's absurd to _expect_ employees to consistently detract from the quality of their personal life...which is ALWAYS more important than any job...for no particular reward.

      As the owner of the company I dont get that much more money than my top employees. (Profit margins dictate how much employee salaries are.) Yet im expected to work 90 hrs a week with no extra benefit, but the employee 40 hrs and scream overtime at 60?
      To the resale/retire point, not many businesses work that way in actuality. In IT there are few mom and pop shops where you just sell control to another entity. In reality the value of the company is in its staff. The rest is computers etc that will be outdated in two years if you speak to material assets. Even though my business returns consistent dividends to myself and the other shareholders, the va

    4. Re:Devils Advocate by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Thats ok, as long as there is some ballance, such as when theres slack time, you tell them to get out of there.

      Well, that's just it. PHBs who love the slogan 'work to the job, not the clock' never seem happy when people bugger off at 2pm on a quiet day.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  57. I've said that before... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ...in other discussions on this topic. IT in general has awesome power in this nation. A national uniun with enough members in enough industries/places would have the power to actually force the ending of all outsourcing and H1B visas with just the threat of a strike.That's just one for instance. Think of a controlled y2k bad news scenario, and that's the potential power a national IT union would have.

    And people saying unions are teh evil-think about it, global industry already has their own "unions", they have industry organizations and a LOT of back room collusion and high level bribery to politicians that goes on. They want the monopoly on organized power, and go way out of their way to keep it, and to keep people faked out they are better off "on their own".

    The biggest thing with unions to keep them honest and effective and to not get greedy and self defeating themselves is to NEVER allow a dynasty of union "bosses", that's the first and easiest way they become corrupt. Stay away from hoffa or reuther-ism type dynasties. Learn from history is the best advice. Unions can be good by skill and luck or bad by design and implementation if you fail to learn from history where previous unions went bogus.

    Folks might want to check some of the fine print on the new draft law provisions as well, last I read there were some interesting details in there concerning IT folk.

  58. Re:Do We Favor Offshoring or More Overtime Pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If looking at the consequences of separate policies (anti-offshoring, pro-overtime) and trying to make coherence out of it makes me a troll so be it.

  59. 2 stoopit by Master+Bait · · Score: 1

    Why not 'debate' the issue before it is implemented, rather than after the fireworks?

    --
    "Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
    --Tom Schulman
  60. Calling BS on this one by TexNex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From IT Managers Journal
    "Efstathiou agreed that while most IT workers would not be eligible for OT under the new rules, employers are likely to make up for any potential losses in salary or higher hourly pay."

    I don't know about the rest of you but, I've never worked for a corp that decided to raise my pay because I worked a lot of "unpaid" hours. Hell most corps think compensation is something they have to hide from the IRS or its something the employees must give for the privlage of working.

    "Efstathiou said some workers, such as sysadmins providing 24/7 datacenter support, may be hurt by the new rules, but added the biggest impact may be for employers when economic conditions improve."
    "The law itself will serve to accelerate and exacerbate turnover and will impact employers more than employees," Efstathiou predicted. "That costs a fortune."


    How is it going to affect the employer when most techs are unable to leave their jobs because there aren't any jobs to go to. Oh, my bad, he said "In the future, when the economy is better". Sorry, before the bubble burst it was possible to jump jobs with a reasonable expectation that there was another job waiting. That is not common in the IT world today nor will it be again simply because of the amount of IT workers competing for that same job.

  61. I've been wondering about this by hooqqa · · Score: 0

    WHY!!?? not start overtime at 20-30 hours a week and let ppl have their lives back and create more jobs. Money is only worth what most ppl have - ppl aren't going to starve over something like that.

  62. Overtime equals... by mhollis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hear and understand the comment of the small business owner with respect to not wanting to pay overtime. He wants his employees to work hard just like he does.

    And so if they work just as hard as he does and he sets them up on a salary basis as exempt workers, do they get to sell part of his company when they retire? Do they get a portion of the proceeds of his sale of the business? Do they get a portion of the company when his son or daughter inherits it?

    Obviously not, so their investment in the company's well being is lower. And the small businessman only has one incentive with which to motivate his employees to work as hard as he does, money.

    Paid overtime is money. And lots of people across the US are living (at least partially) on their overtime. Which says something about what has happened in our society since the 1930s and before (which is where the right wing of the Republican Party wants to return us). It used to be possible to buy a home and raise children with one income. Now couples need two. And single people need overtime in order to do the same.

    But the real reason why the government took issue with this ruling of the Bush administration is that when a worker makes overtime, so does the government. Essentially, what Bush is doing with this ruling is he is setting up for an even larger ballooning of the federal deficit because workers making more than subsistence income may easily be exempted from overtime pay and that middle-class segment of America pays the most taxes.

    To a certain extent, moderate Republicans will vote with Democrats on this issue because they want to win re-election and it's hard to face an electorate when your opponent claims you just caused everyone to take a pay cut. And some conservative Republicans may be wooed on this issue if they are budget deficit hawks. The article seems to suggest that the Senate won't pass the amendment. Lets hope they do.

    I make around $100,000 yearly and greatly benefit (as well as does my State and the Federal Government) from my overtime pay. Under the DOL's ruling, I'd be forced to take a pay cut to around $87,000 yearly. And that means the difference between living comfortably (in the NYC area) and having trouble paying bills.

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  63. Regular hours would still be paid by Scud · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check out this site for the actual rules:

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

    And the toll-free number: 1-866-4USWAGE

    Looking at this quote (taken from the fairpay site) it appears that we will only be out the half part of the time-and-a-half. Nowhere does it say that you would not get the straight time portion for the hours that you worked.

    The FLSA requires that most employees in the United States be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek

    I checked with my ex-wife, and she agrees that this is the correct interpretation of the rules. Whether the DOL agrees or not is a different thing...

    For me it's academic, so far I have managed to maintain my goal of zero hours of OT for the year :)

    John

    --
    I dream in binary.
    1. Re:Regular hours would still be paid by Scud · · Score: 2

      Ah, dumbass me, I meant to say that I checked with my ex-wife who is the head of HR at her company

      Stoopid.

      --
      I dream in binary.
  64. BUSH SAYS: I will veto this by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 1

    You're right they aren't scrapped, and they won't be, there is no super-majority to override GWB's veto, which is already promised.

    1. Re:BUSH SAYS: I will veto this by jridley · · Score: 1

      If that's so, then this rider is just a poison pill to stop the main bill from passing.

  65. Nothing when compared to British Columbia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Exclusions for high technology professionals
    (effective October 24, 2003)

    1. Meal Breaks. (You can't eat)
    2. Split Shifts (completes the shift within 12 hours of starting work)
    3. Minimum daily hours (0 Hours)
    4. Maximum hours of work before overtime applies (Unlimited, No Overtime)
    5. Hours free from work (0 Hours)
    6. Entitlement to statutory holiday (No Holidays)
    7. Statutory holiday pay (No extra pay)

    I think that you are still allow to go to the washroom, although it doesn't explicity say that you still can.

  66. 32 hour week solves many problems... by Christ0ph · · Score: 1

    So, it makes sense to make the overtime threshold 32 hrs/week, rather than eliminate overtime, because it won't make any difference in the long run anyway, (re- jobs being lost to business process automation) and in the short term it will create millions of jobs. The Black bill in 1933 passed the Senate and almost was made law, but we traded the FLSA for it. Now, with this change in the overtime laws, it seems like the social contract needs re-evaluation.

    1. Re:32 hour week solves many problems... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Maximum work hours are a function of human physical limits, not macroeconomics (except as macroeconomics measure those limits). Just like child labor laws. Overtime bonuses account for the variability among humans, some of whom can work longer, even though most can't.

      It doesn't make sense for economic thresholds to be set by the slow, corrupt Congress. It does make sense for thresholds to be set by collective bargaining, except that American organized labor has been crippled by generations of government pressure, internal corruption, and a lazy/complacent population. Perhaps current trends in labor outsourcing and decentralized communication will reinvigorate American labor organizing. Or maybe a nation of slackers will never work a fair day's labor for a fair day's wage.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  67. In an ideal world, yes by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
    In the real world, unions become entities unto themselves. To do what is best for the union rather than what may be best for the individual workers or the company.

    "No, you can't fire this guy. He is in the union."
    "But he's an incopetent screwup."
    "Too bad. He's in the union"

    1. Re:In an ideal world, yes by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Happens with any large organisation. It's basic darwinian evolution. Entities that make their continued existence their primary purpose are more likely to survive. As a result, most long lasting organisations have no purpose other than the continue to exist.

  68. The no overtime pay result backfires by 3seas · · Score: 1

    I seemed to noticed at the company I work at, that they have decided to keep overtime to a minimum for everyone.... OR IN OTEHR WORDS:

    If the Bosses can't benefit from overtime than nobody below them will get overtime, cause they don't have any incentive to stay around past 8 hours.....

  69. Got to collect the kids at school .. by klang · · Score: 4, Informative

    is maybe the only excuse posible to use in order to avoid working extra hours ..

    I live and work in Denmark and our working conditions are a bit different from the American.

    From the first year I worked (as a programmer) I've had 5 weeks vacation every year. With 3 days extra off to "take care of the kids". The last part has been changed so people without kids can have days off as well .. and the number of days have gone up to 5.

    I do not get paid for doing extra hours, unless I have a specific agreement (from time to time) with the company. Extra hours, "within reason" are included in my salary. So, all I have to do is having an excuse to go home at a reasonable hour every day, thus avoiding extra hours. (dificult at times but it works)

    Fair?

    Well, the company pays my IBM T30 (a few years old now), my DSL line, my land line, and my mobile phone (usage on all included).

    Dental and Health is taken care of by the State and my overall taxes last year was 45%.

    I am not a member of the union, but benefit from the deals they strike anyway. If the company piss on me, I have to let them, unless I become a member and have the union piss back..

    Something rotten in the State of Denmark?

    not really.. :-)

    1. Re:Got to collect the kids at school .. by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1
      I visited Denmark a few years back and was really impressed. Clean streets, happy, multi-lingual people. (I was able to carry on a conversation in English with a five-year-old!) And very, very low stress levels. People seemed to work when they wanted to, not because they had to.

      If it weren't for the fact that Denmark will be underwater in 50 years due to the ice caps melting, I'd love to expatriate to there.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    2. Re:Got to collect the kids at school .. by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      Exact opposite in the US. I had to work 60 to 80 hours a week since my company didn't have enough money to hire another developer(Maybe because execs where embezzling money which we later found out). Every vacation request I put in was denied. Hell they took new years day and our independance day off the vacation days. When I eventually found a new job. Good ole america.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    3. Re:Got to collect the kids at school .. by klang · · Score: 1

      Shit, will the country be under water in 50 years?!? Now I'm getting stressed! :-)

      Well, as a lot of the ice caps are actually owned by Denmark (Greenland is a danish colony) I am sure somebody will start exporting clean drinking water, thus reducing the impact on the melting process .. well, it could happen ..

      No, seriously, I think the world has more serious problems to solve in the next 50 years than one small country disapearing into the sea! Holland or the Nederlands do have quite a big area below sea level, so the solusions are not unknown.

      The multi-lingual thing .. yes, it's a small country we have here, so we sort of have to be able to speak to the neighbours. With this being Europe all the neighbours talk different languages. English is taught in school from 4th grade (age 9-10), German from 7th grade (age 12-13), French/Spanish/Italian can be chosen in highschool (from age 17)

      Fiveyear olds speaking english is amazing, and with influence from tv (not dubbed), parents, friends etc. it's not unheard of.

    4. Re:Got to collect the kids at school .. by klang · · Score: 1

      I hope you have better conditions at your current job!

      Sometimes I find it amazing that companies are so short sighted.. working somebody to the ground will acomplish nothing. A shorter workweek with time left over to som sort of private life will produce a better quality of work.

      The last couple of years I'v booked my vacation (with the airline company) BEFORE I've asked my boss permission to go! He knows, that I woun't go if it's critical to the company that I'm there. Freedom with responsability if you like.

  70. *sigh* Wage Slaves and their Union Masters by thelizman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Folks, this was a golden ticket to easier work hours, but a bunch of labor union politicos and leftist nutjobs had to go and fuck it up. So now, instead of working and hour and half later each day for a week, then taking Monday off next week, I have to use up my sick time to play hookey and catch that Slipknot concert. THANKS YOU DUMB FUCKING LIBERALS!

    1. Re:*sigh* Wage Slaves and their Union Masters by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      WHAT???
      How did the proposed legislation enforce your employer to allow you to work when you liked as long as you made the hours up ??

    2. Re:*sigh* Wage Slaves and their Union Masters by thelizman · · Score: 1

      Judging by your question, you didn't understand what I was getting at.

      The proposed legislation allowed employers to give me flex time without penalty over a two week period instead of one. As it stands now, every hour I work over 40 hours in a week is paid at double overtime. However, if I work less than 40 hours the next week, I don't get paid any less of an hourly rate. By allowing hours to be tabulated over a two week pay period, my employer (and I) have greater flexibility in structuring my hours.

      So here's the deal. Under current labor rules, if I go to my boss and say "hey boss, can I work a few hours extra this week, then take monday off? I want to skip next monday so I can go to a concert 300 miles away Sunday night." He turns around, punches keys on a calculator...72 hr x 18 $/hr + 8 hr x 36 $/hr = $1296 + $288 = $1584....as opposed to 80 hr x 18 $/hr = $1440....so to let me go to the concert, he has to pay $144 more than if he said no. Under the revised rules Bush supported, if I wanted to see that concert, my employer would pay no additional wages for the same amount of work over a two week period, and so long as I didn't slack off in my quality of work (aka short-timers disease), he'd have no objections to letting me go.

      That's what flex time is about. Companies currently offer flex time and comp time to employees in order to allow them greater flexibility in their work schedule as a perk. But those companies who do so pay alot more, and many have stopped offering these perks to employees because the additional expense makes them less competitive. This also puts alot of working familes at a disadvantage, because parents who want to attend school functions, or have to take their kids to a doctor, can't make up the lost time unless they get it inside the same work period.

  71. Libertarians please read by Qrlx · · Score: 1, Troll

    I just wanted to share this message to the Libertarians who read these pages:

    Libertarianism is a very convenient political philosophy to have if you live in a country with abundant natural resources, plenty of land, and the world's largest military to maintain the hegemony.

    In other words, if the cards are already stacked in your favor, yeah a "free market" is a good thing. Nevermind the slave labor who built this country or the former inhabitants who have mostly been ethnically cleansed.

    For every winner, there's got to be a loser. Libertarian reader, you are like George Bush: Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

    Thank you for reading.

  72. What's second? by Skadet · · Score: 1

    Safty First.

    And spelling second.

    1. Re:What's second? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      And stupid insults over simple typos third.

    2. Re:What's second? by Skadet · · Score: 1

      And an insult to the insult rates where?

      He did it not once, but twice. Is proper spelling too much to ask? I'm not insulting his point, because it's quite good. However, I don't think it's too much to ask that people spell correctly. Come on now.

  73. That would be too simple. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    In my experience it works like this:

    - I am asked to do something by Friday, I say OK.
    -Then I am asked something else.
    -And then more.

    Until it becomes patently obvious i am being demanded too many things for the time I should be working.

    What to do? Kill yourself to get it done?

    Nope. Work your hours and do as much as you possibly can, keeping records of what you did and what was demanded.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:That would be too simple. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Start saying no

      Start up some sort of system. Something like 3 lists. Priority 1 (done immediatly), Priority 2 (needs to be done), and Priority 3 (non-critical). If you can, estimate time required per task, and when it needs to be done. Make the management realize that you can't do it. If they want you to work longer, see about making them pay for it, or hire another person, or assign duties elsewhere.

      In many areas the job market isn't actually so bad that a good worker can't get a job elsewhere. Make sure though, that you know the hours expected if you're going to go salary.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  74. Re:The Senate mandated a 30 hour week in 1933, but by joss · · Score: 1

    ..since the American worker produces more than
    400 times what he/she did in 1980

    WTF are you talking about ?

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
  75. I would be damned. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I will do something else before that happens.

    You are the master of your destiny, unfortunately the master in a ship is perhaps the people with the most serious responsbilites.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:I would be damned. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I will do something else before that happens.

      Good luck being able to forsee something happening halfway across the world.

      You are the master of your destiny, unfortunately the master in a ship is perhaps the people with the most serious responsbilites.

      The last 4 years have taught me that we are all in a single ship- and that we've elected a total incompetant for a captain who is trying to steer us towards any iceberg available.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  76. A view from over the pond by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

    I don't really understand a lot of the points raised here - maybee it's because I'm from the UK but: Why are you all so anti-union isn't helping you fellow worker a good thing - collective bargaining and so on. If you need overtime payments then your job doesn't earn you enough - see my first point. increase wages and don't depend on the whims of your employer every month. Where are all your socialists? Don't give me any of the crap about 'if it's good for business then it's good for America' spread the wealth, poor starving Americans are good for nothing.

  77. If only it was this simple by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    That theory is based on the false assumptions that deadlines will still be based on an average 40 hour week, and generally that your employer won't start taking that unpaid overtime for granted.

    What happens in practice is that it starts being taken for granted. Even _if_ you don't work for a git who fancies himself a supreme ruler.

    The fact remains that business plans and deadlines get set by extrapolating what worked so far. If project X1 was done in Y days and for Z dollars, then project X2 will be planned by extrapolating the data from X1.

    It's not that they're evil, it's just proper management of resources. People are good at hiding behind such euphemisms.

    Basically if you put in 12 hour shifts 7 days a week to finish project X1... you'll be expected to do the same in project X2 too. And then in project X3 too.

    And then by X4, you'll be at the point where those 84 hour weeks aren't even seen as your undying loyalty to the company, but as the baseline. You're not the good guy if you stay 84 hours there, you're the lazy git to fire when you only stay 82 hours.

    Been there before. After a couple of years of, well, not having a life and being cheerful to work 7 days a week, and sometimes up to 16-18 hours a day, it got predictably taken for granted.

    I was also starting to get tired. And to get this nagging sensation that, far from being some exception to get one project finished, now projects were now planned to _require_ that kind of work. And any mis-planning will be extra.

    Then I started having surrealistic discussions with the boss.

    There was one project which was spectacularly mis-planned even for 84 hour weeks. Well, I was expected to do overtime to finish it. Overtime meaning: above the now "normal" 12-16 hours shifts!

    The boss threatened with all sorts of crap, up to some surrealistic threat to sue me for 1 million dollars damages if the project isn't ready on time. Of course, I knew too that there's no way in heck that would get more than a laugh in any court. But it left me with a very bitter taste.

    I ended up doing literally 24 hour shifts to finish that project. It was ready on time.

    By the next project, I explicitly requested that it be planned for a normal 5 day work week. I told the boss that I wanted to have the weekend free at least now and then. Or at least the Sundays, ffs.

    His answer? Quite literally: "Wth do you need free wekends for? You'd just sit at the computer anyway."

    When I insisted, he threatened with a pay cut if I don't work at least 70 hours a week. Apparently the whole business plan and offer to the potential client were indeed already _based_ on at least that.

    Needless to say, I don't work for that asshole any more, but it was an interesting lesson nevertheless: if you let people keep screwing you, expect them to take that for granted. Whole business plans will be made around you being the one screwed.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  78. Rovian fingerprints all over this by bushwahd · · Score: 1

    As far as I understand it, there are overtime laws on the books. Those laws were made by Congress. The Naked Emperor Chimpy has ruled (not quite another of his bone-headed 'Executive Orders", but essentially the same thing) that his Dept of "Making Other People's Labor Worth Less" should decree new 'rules' that essentially defy the existing laws (no activist judges need apply until AFTER the 's'election.) Now, amazingly, the Tom "Termite with a French Surname" DeLay-ruled House has managed to rush new 'legislation' to the floor in short order which even more amazingly would OVERTURN His Godhead's rulings! Gasp! So, I have to believe that the purpose of this new legislation will be to effectively water down the old laws to something that the media cannot understand well enough to explain to the unruly mob, but which wil generate some soothing soundbites that make the mob put down the torches and shuffle away (why was that 1984 Mac commercial so deeply frightening? It was the room full of slack-jawed zomboids: today's electorate). Then, the final kicker will be the pork that gets attached to the newly modified bill. Heck, they might even be able to attach PATRIOT ACT 2 to it, then claim it must be passed with a secret vote since so much of the new ACT is top-secret and not to be read by either the masses or the congresscritters.

  79. Simple dont work overtime. by blanks · · Score: 1

    Its that easy, if your company complains about you not willing to work over time (aka get shafted) tell them to either pay you more, or to give you salery, but dont for overtime, the extra bonus for working more then 40 hours is the main (if only) reason people ever work(ed) overtime.

  80. Relevance to IT by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    Seriously, do any IT workers actually get paid overtime? I've never known any programmers, DBAs, or sysadmins to get overtime and, esecially back when business was good, weeks were much, much longer than 40 hours. We used to joke that our salaries were approaching below minimum wage when you factored in all the unpaid overtime we worked.

  81. Exactly - here's a quote by Clansman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the Confederation of British Industry - from accountancyage.com

    "The organisation for business leaders has indicated that the minimum wage is working and would be happy to see it increased if the economic environment is right.

    The CBI's director general, Digby Jones, said: 'The minimum wage has so far been a success and it should not wither on the vine, so business supports modest rises if economic circumstances allow.'"

  82. Re:Union history slanted hard to the business side by ianscot · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You make superficial concessions to evenhandedness, but your post is radically skewed to the point of view of the businesses in that old history.

    The "ridiculous practices" you refer to in such a vague way are worse than any modern wannabe-conservative-think-tanker cares to even consider when she's speaking glowingly of the private compact between worker and company. You mention specific business responses to Union activity -- the national guard and so on -- but you fail to characterize the terms of employment ordinary people lived with back then. They were striking for decent, human working conditions. Lining up around a business trying to shut it down doesn't come close to what they were subjected to in the ordinary course of their jobs. The business magnates of the day made the same arguments that they make today when they face any economic concession: if we have to give people working conditions that aren't appalling, that'll destroy our business. To describe them as not having the "moral high ground" is a ludicrous understatement. I mean:

    ...women worked fourteen hours a day for a wage of less than five shillings a week. However, they did not always received their full wage because of a system of fines, ranging from three pence to one shilling, imposed by the Bryant & May management. Offences included talking, dropping matches or going to the toilet without permission. The women worked from 6.30 am in summer (8.00 in winter) to 6.00 pm. If workers were late, they were fined a half-day's pay.

    Annie Besant also discovered that the health of the women had been severely affected by the phosphorous that they used to make the matches. This caused yellowing of the skin and hair loss and phossy jaw, a form of bone cancer. The whole side of the face turned green and then black, discharging foul-smelling pus and finally causing death. Although phosphorous was banned in Sweden and the USA, the British government had refused to follow their example, arguing that it would be a restraint of free trade.

    That's about the "match girls' strike" of 1888 in Great Britain.

    Like it or not, the U.S. isn't a pure laissez-faire economy. And you wouldn't trade your life now for one in such an economy, unless you're a Rockefeller posting as an AC out of shyness.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  83. Re:The Senate mandated a 30 hour week in 1933, but by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

    He's talking about productivity increases. Productivity has skyrocketed in recent years, especially the last three. It seems people are willing to work more if they think they'll be fired.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  84. huh? by iceperson · · Score: 1

    In 1950 the minimum wage was 19 percent what it was in 1997 cite and in 1997 the value of a dollar was about 15.1 percent of what it was in 1950cite. I would say that if you laid a graph showing the rise in minimum wage over a graph showing the rate of inflation you would see correlation.

    1. Re:huh? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      So does increasing the minimum wage cause unemployment and inflation or not? You seem to be saying not.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  85. Opps... by iceperson · · Score: 1

    The second source didn't show up. here it is.

  86. Wotsit got to do with IT workers? by mwood · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to think of *any* case I ever heard of wherein IT workers were eligible for overtime.

    Nope, nothing.

    1. Re:Wotsit got to do with IT workers? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      check with your state.
      Many states have very specific rules about overtime, even salary workers can qualify in some instances.

      I looked into this a few years ago and found out that most my IT friends qualified, even though they were salary. There companies of course denied this, but once the state contacted there companies they got the overtime pay they deserve.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Wotsit got to do with IT workers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because for the FIRST time, computer workers and anyone who does "creative" work are catagorically denied overtime pay.

      I've gotten overtime before. If you didn't, you didn't work hourly ever before.

      But frankly, if you are not management, allowed management type decisions, you should get overtime, even on a salary job. Most people did not know or push for their rights.

      For people who argue against it, I'm surprised you're allowed to use sharp objects, as you'd cut yourself. Why the hell would you argue that people like yourself should not get paid for time worked fairly? Even if you'd work for free yourself, what the hell do you get out of arguing that others should as well?

  87. Re:IMHO MAPE = RAPE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The union is probably MAPE, the Mn Assoc. of Professional Employees. Look at history, in Minnesota MAPE was spun off of AFSCME as a wedge union to break up the power that AFSCME was gaining in the state. As a result MAPE is worthless and weak, contracts have consistently been weaker and its leaders aka Ben Dover and Philip McRack are basically worth less than the massive goon power of the AFSCME army. Yeah I was in MAPE, I dropped out after the first contract I saw.

    I would have never dropped AFSCME (one big union - the wobblies of government employees.)

  88. Silly argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " A lot of Democrat-types would have it be doubled. THAT would have a big effect."

    A lot of Republican-types want to have jesus made the national religion. Is that typical of the republican party?

  89. Math not a strong suit for you? by iceperson · · Score: 1

    Let me explain. The correlation coefficient between the increase in minimum wage and the decreasing value of the dollar is almost -1 which shows a pretty strong correlation between the two, or put simply, over the past half century the value of the dollar has declined at almost the exact same rate as the rise in minimum wage.

    1. Re:Math not a strong suit for you? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      You have to prove that the raise in minimum wage came first. The minimum wage could have been raised to counteract the weaking dollar.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  90. many IT staff should be getting overtime pay by geekoid · · Score: 1

    from an earlier post:
    check with your state.
    Many states have very specific rules about overtime, even salary workers can qualify in some instances.

    I looked into this a few years ago and found out that most my IT friends qualified, even though they were salary. There companies of course denied this, but once the state contacted there companies they got the overtime pay they deserve.

    The states I looked into required the worker to be salary AND have a 'managment' tital and responsibilities. They were very specific on what qualified as exempt. I found out that I had been denied overtime for years. Sadly the company the screwed me was bought, leaving me little recourse.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  91. but... by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1

    does "spend so much more per student" mean "spend so much more on a student"

    --
    between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
  92. Small edit: by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

    Most employees at Walmart don't have health insurance.

  93. Re:Vancouver visitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Around the late 90's I visited Vancouver, Canada from the east coast of USA by car. This being my first time to Canada, I got lost and stopped at a gas station. I asked for directions to the closest motel and was told,"I'm not from this area. I just arrived/got to Canada!". She was a recent imigrant from the Phillipines. Go figure, the first Canadian I met, just got there! Oh well, I finally found a motel by looking for the neon lights. It was the equivalent in Canada as a Howard Johnsons/Holiday Inn would be. I forget the name of the place now.

    Another story, is as I was about to enter Canada from Washington state, I stopped at the last rest stop. While there, some teenage Canadians had broken down with a camaro (US). A passing american said, "The only place I know of around here only works on foreign cars!" I had to laugh since here they were in the US with an american car and couldn't get it worked on. I hoped I wouldn't break down in Canada with my foreign (japanese toyota) car. As I left the motel, I headed north on the only road going north towards Alaska that was on the road map. I stopped to take a picture from a scenic overlook of Vancouver. As I continued up the mountain, I read a sign that said, "Warning! did you tell anybody where you are going!" I thought, "NO" I didn't. I don't even know where I'm going. I just point the car in the general direction and find out where the road goes. Needless to say, on the next switchback, the engine light comes on! I thought back to those poor Canadians stuck in the US and here I was now stuck in Canada with a foreign car. I drove to CAA (equiv of AAA) and found toyota. After 2 hours, they asked, "Do you have an appointment?" I said "NO." I thought it's good to know that NO matter WHAT COUNTRY or STATE one is in, you need an appointment. They said, the part will take 2 days but I only have 3 days left to drive 4.5k miles back home for work on Monday. They said it was ok to drive it til you get the part. The first thing I did in the US is -- you guessed it -- stop at a foreign car repair shop, toyota. They had the part, but couldn't get the error cleared. As I drove down the road, the light went out and hasnt occurred since.

    This reminds of the movie Vacation, where the guy destroys his car, and when he asks how much, the mechanic says, "How much you got!"

  94. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are plenty of instances of slippery slope arguments being proven out. Once upon a time, the US public was sold on income tax because it was only going to be applied to the rich. Yeah, we can see where that one went. That ignored slippery slope now affects all of us. And take a look at social security numbers. Social Security was sold to the US public against the outcries of privacy advocates by insisting that these numbers will only be used for taxation, not identification. My 1970-era Social Secutiry card even says, "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES -- NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" right at the bottom. Now, it's one of two primary means of identification in the USA. Yet another slippery slope, and we're all assumed to be guilty (of lying about our identities) until proven otherwise. How American.

    The fact is, the government is the one area where slippery slopes are not fallacies. We have enough evidence to show that the US government, when granted some power, will always extend that power right down the slope. Even if today's government officials are well meaning, today's government officials cannot promise what tomorrow's will do, and history has shown that tomorrow's officials will often choose to start the slide.

  95. The clapping just echoes... by theblacksun · · Score: 1
    The most of Europe is more unionized than the United States, and I believe it includes the "rest of the world" where the cost of building is "half" that of the United States. I still believe that's a bullshit statistic and you still haven't showed me otherwise.

    You do realize that there are contractors out there that don't use union workers, right? Why aren't they building on the cutting edge?

    And how about some evidence to support your claims, especially those correlations in your previous post.

    And $50/hr for a painter? Where the does that happen? From what I understand carpenters are towards the top of the wage ladder and their not near 50, least everywhere I've seen.

    Fact of the matter is it looks like you're just pulling all sorts of numbers and rhetoric directly from your ass.

    --
    Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
  96. OT: re: your .sig by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Whoops, wrong .sig. But your .sig is pretty bad, too. Most people in the world want a strong US President, agreeing with our rhetoric that security is mutual, our world is interdependent. Those "allies" and "partners" around the world are aghast at how Bush, as strong a president as a hurricane is a storm, is devastating our country that they respect, admire, and upon which we depend.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  97. Oh really? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    One of my previous employers told me that "IT people are 'a dime a dozen', we get 500 IT resumes a week. We can easily replace you with someone willing to work for almost half your salary, and that does not get sick." I suffered from a disability, and learned about the EEOC after 180 days passed after they terminated me for having a disability.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.