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 Or were they merely designed to streamline outdated rules?"
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.
For us Slashdot members who spend 40+ hours a week posting on Slashdot to qualify under these overtime rules.
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
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.
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
Unions: Helping The Lowest Common Denominator Advance!®
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Reduce the need to pay ANYONE overtime, and shaft IT workers. Typical big business lobbying.
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
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.
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.
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
Do you think there would be an increase in skill level or a decrease in skill level because of "union protection" ?
-Randy
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Well, I guess that's a lot better than wronging your rep...
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
"creating" jobs?
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!
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
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
lord knows some of them need wringing...
I left my rep.
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.
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.
"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.
You'll have to work overtime to find one.
That ain't liver; that's beef kidney!
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
(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.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
great post!!!
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
:P
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.
...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.
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.
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
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.
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.
>>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.
Check out this site for the actual rules:
p ay /main.htm
:)
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fair
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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"
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?
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.
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.....
is maybe the only excuse posible to use in order to avoid working extra hours ..
.. and the number of days have gone up to 5.
:-)
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
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..
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.
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.
Safty First.
And spelling second.
Sony ha
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.
..since the American worker produces more than
400 times what he/she did in 1980
WTF are you talking about ?
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
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.
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.
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.
you can.
it depends on the amount of KY jelly your boss recently bought.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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.
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.
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.
TruePunk | Games
if i were to start my sentences with capital letters, would i have the credentials to be condescending?
;)
Yes.
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.
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.'"
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:
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.
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.
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.
The second source didn't show up. here it is.
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 ??
I'm trying to think of *any* case I ever heard of wherein IT workers were eligible for overtime.
Nope, nothing.
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.
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
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
Most employees at Walmart don't have health insurance.
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.
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.
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
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.