Slashdot Mirror
Takin' Care of Business and Working Paid Overtime
theodp writes "About 800 CA-based Siebel employees who held the job title 'software engineer' or 'senior software engineer' stand to pocket $27,000 each from the proceeds of Siebel's $27.5 settlement of an overtime dispute. And while IBM's 32,000 techies won't make out quite as well, they'll still divvy up $65M in OT pay that IBM's shelling out to settle a federal class action suit."
I believe it's per person.
Every time I read a story like this it makes my alch^H^H^H^Hblood stream boil..... Here in Beautiful British Columbia, the provincial government in 2003 changed the labour laws so that "High Technology" companies DO NOT have to pay overtime (to an insane point). This was done so as to appease to the Asian investors (a lot out here !).....the ones whose work ethic is something like "you live with your wife but you marry the company" (an actual quote from someone I tried to get a job from a couple of years ago !!). I'd love to move to "greener" pastures, but there ain't none this time of year....they're all white (snow) !! Fsckin' asshole government.
It really has nothing to do with who took over Congress as to why this was settled. This is common practice by companies large and small that they classify non-exempt workers as exempt and screw the employee out of overtime. The typical employee moans about it but never bothers to do anything about it. It is a simple as placing a phonecall (well, not quite that simple) to the Labor Relations Board http://www.nlrb.gov/ . Most employees I suspect are non-exempt. I have done this several times with positive outcomes for myself and co-workers. Typically, If you mention the thought of calling the NLRB to someone in HR/accounting the problem will mysteriously go away.
IBM already pays for overtime, depending on what your job role and level are. I'm in a 24/7 server hardware support center and as far as I know everyone but management level is paid for any overtime. The field technicians get overtime like crazy. I'd like to know just where these guys worked and what they did.
Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
That's exactly where I am at right now. We had the habit of working up to 60 hours a week for crunch time, and not get paid for it. It was all fine and dandy until I was at the in-laws house talking to my father-in-law. He used to be a logger (running a chainsaw in the bush) and almost kicked my ass when he found out I was working for free. He put it into a good perspective for me. Ever since I worked here, I was told that the plan is to give us bonuses once things get going. What a joke. My new philosophy is "pay me, I work. Otherwise I am going fishing." We haven't got to a crunch time yet, and I am eager to see what happens when I say "no".
Free. I was working for FREE.
Remember-- this is *until* you develop any kind of chronic medical condition.
Then you may become uninsurable *and* you won't get the negotiated rate at medical facilities any more. So it's a double whammy.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
(warning: wall of text, but please hear me out)
i'm the payroll coordinator for a medium sized company so i know a thing or two about overtime law and salary vs. non-salary.
truth be told, being "salaried" is not a relevant issue. the relevant issue at hand is classifying whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt status. so what do these two classifications mean you ask yourself. the basic theory for these two classifications depends on how employers derive productive (production being a generic term referring to making money for an employer) value from their employee.
in the case of non-exempt employees, employers derive value from an employee from the TIME the employee invests to increase production for the employer. for example, say that you work for a burger joint and it's the end of the week and you're about to clock out and go home because you're going to hit 40 hours. however, the manager asks you to stay 5 extra minutes to flip the 20 burgers on the grill before you go home. is the company better or worse off for having kept you for 5 extra minutes? the argument would be that the company was better off as you aided the efficiencies of production by ensuring that the burgers were properly cooked and ensured that there were no customer complaints.
in the case of exempt employees, employers derive value from the SERVICES that an employee provides. these services have NO PERCEIVED time value and employees can expect to receive the same amount of pay whether they work 20 hours or 40 hours in a week. for example, let's say a you're a doctor at a hospital and the hospital pays you $7500 every time you perform a tonsilectomy (i don't know how much a doctor would charge for a tonsilectomy so the number is arbitrary). it normally takes you 1 to 1.5 hours to perform a tonsilectomy. now, let's say you ended up with a particularly difficult tonsilectomy and it took you 5 hours to do it. the hospital does not have to pay more than $7500 because it took you longer to do a tonsilectomy. it's a service that you provide with an amount that has already been agreed upon.
if you want it simple and easy, exempt employees get overtime and non-exempt employees don't.
so what does being "salaried" have to do with exempt vs. non-exempt status? absolutely nothing. an employee can be classified as non-exempt status and still be paid a salary as long the employer pays the employee for any work past 40 hours so time would still have to be kept for the employee. however, an employer CANNOT EVER, in any way, shape, or form, pay an exempt employee hourly.
now, in the u.s., there are hundreds of thousands of pages worth of laws and court orders in local, state, and federal governments that protect non-exempt employees from abuse by employers (and much less protecting exempt employees). among those hundreds of thousands of pages are rules that differentiate exempt employees and non-exempt employees. one thing a government agency does when it comes in to audit an company's employee status is that it ONLY EVER audits employees that are classified as exempt. if an agency comes into audit a company that classified ALL of its employees as non-exempt, they'll wish a nice day and walk right out. the reason being, and i'm sure it's already obvious given what the topic is about, is there is a hell of a lot more potential for abusing employees classified as exempt than employees classified as non-exempt.
so the best way to derive how an employee needs to be determine an employee's status is the job description of the title you are working under. this is actually a legally binding document. you guys probably got it when you got your job, glossed over it, and put it away where it's out of the way but in the grand scheme of things, this is your evidence of proving whether or not you should be paid overtime. in fact, when a government agency comes into to audit a company's employees, they'll ask for 2 things: a list of all employees with status and job title and all job descripti
If you are in California you can't be arbitrarily classified as salaried, nor can you voluntarily become salaried. Basically, there are two categories that can be salaried. 1. You must be licensed to legally work in your field, e.g. doctor or lawyer. 2. You are a manager and are directly responsible for at least two subordinates (no tricky crap like three guys managing each other). There is NOT a classification based upon a high salary. That loophole was closed many years ago.
If you work in a different state, you're probably screwed. If your employer is based in a different state, they must still follow California law for workers based in this state.
Other important labor points in California:
There is no such thing as use it or lose it vacation time. If the company won't give you the time off to use it, they must still pay you your vacation time.
A credit check of a prospective employee can NOT be required and can NOT be a condition of employment (positions requiring a government security clearance being an exception).
California is a right to work state. Non-compete agreements are generally unenforceable.
IANAL.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Hi, It's me again, AC. Just to update. The Labor link I posted was wrong. Too much of a holiday weekend I guess. The link should have been to The Department of Labor http://www.dol.gov/ . The problem is with the broadly written wording of the FLSA:
"For the FLSA section 13(a)(1) exemptions to apply, an employee generally must be paid on a salary basis of no less than $455 per week and perform certain types of work that:
* is directly related to the management of his or her employer's business, or
* is directly related to the general business operations of his or her employer or the employer's clients, or
* requires specialized academic training for entry into a professional field, or
* is in the computer field, or
* is making sales away from his or her employer's place of business, or
* is in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor.
FLSA Section 13(a)(17) exempts hourly paid employees who perform certain types of work in the computer field if they are paid at a rate of not less than $27.63 per hour.
Exemptions are determined based on each specific employment situation. Job titles alone do not determine the exempt or non-exempt status of any employee. "
Even though the law states that job titles do not matter, the droolers in management still believe that it does.