Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Takin' Care of Business and Working Paid Overtime

Posted by Zonk on from the i'll-buy-that-for-a-dollar dept.

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."

30 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Wow! by Sampizcat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow! A $27.5 settlement that gives $27000 to 800 workers? How do I get that guy to be my accountant?

    1. Re:Wow! by tomhath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The lawyer only took $5Million? That sounds kind of low.

    2. Re:Wow! by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

      More likely, especially given IBM's pay-out, is that the submitter left off an m (for million)...

      With Slashdot's crack editing staff? Unpossible.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Wow! by failedlogic · · Score: 2, Funny

      No accountant. Its a mistake by the editors. The settlement was $27,000 which was to be split up by 800 workers. The lawyer took $26,972.50 as a fee. So the workers have to split $27.50.

      Not satisfied?

      I am the accountant you insensitive clod! I have money that grows on trees.

    4. Re:Wow! by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You know....with the way the job market, and employee/employer relationship has changed over the last couple decades. I've acquired a new motto. "Never work for free"

      The days of the lifetime job and having an employer reward you for longevity , productivity, and loyalty are long gone. This is the reason, that I will never work again as an employee if I can help it. Contracting is the only way to go. I get paid for every hour I work. I will work my ass off...I will stay and do what it takes to get a project done on time in the crunch times, but, I WILL get paid for it. My time is too valuable to me. Often, I'd rather have time off for myself than get a small amount of OT.After all, the ONLY reason I work, is to allow me to pay for my lifestyle I enjoy...if I were rich, I'd never work another day in my life.

      I don't get time and a half usually....the govt. helped screw us IT guys on that years back, but, I make a good hourly rate...and straight time is good for me.

      But, really....isn't the sweat off your back worth something? Since I've made the jump about a decade ago...I cannot see why I EVER, EVER submitted to that. If you know that extra hours are a 'part of the job' like the article said...why would a sane person go in there to work for free unless they are just out of school, and trying to get that foot in the door.

      I'll tell ya....they aren't quite as anxious to keep you late hours and on weekends if they know they have to pay you, and when they do ask you, you know they really need you. There's nothing wrong with hard work, but, there is something wrong with not getting paid for you work. There is nothing wrong with time off for yourself....that, in fact is one of the most valuable things you have, your time....if they want to intrude on that, it must come with a price.

      It is your choice as to how you will spend your time, and how much it is worth.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Wow! by Fishead · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Wow! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
  2. Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws by JPriest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is true, after sticking it out working a 75 hour week for 12 months salary in the US, I nearly refuse to even entertain the idea of taking a salary position. I would rather make minimum wage and be paid hourly than ever do that again.

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    1. Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws by udderly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. These stories sound like the movie Office Space. There is no way that I am going to get used like that.

      I used to work for a Fortune 100 company and my boss worked a minimum of 90 hours per week. She came in at 5am and left at 7 or 8pm M-F. On Saturdays at least ten hours and a six-hour day on Sunday. When I figured her hourly rate, she was the lowest paid employee in the department.

      I don't understand this whole unpaid overtime anyway. If these companies are so bought into capitalism, then they ought to buy more of your labor when they need more.

    2. Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws by Venner · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >>I don't understand this whole unpaid overtime anyway. If these companies are so bought into capitalism, then they ought to buy more of your labor when they need more.

      Exactly. I always wonder how we've gotten to this point. Henry Ford, who made positively vast amounts of profit at the time, did so not only through efficiency and affordable products (i.e., he sold below even what the market forced him to sell at), but also by *doubling* industry wages for his workers and creating the standard 8-hour-a-day, 5-day-a-week work-week. He wanted loyal, efficient workers, and that's sure one hell of a way to get them.

      --
      A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
    3. Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws by pushf+popf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is true, after sticking it out working a 75 hour week for 12 months salary in the US, I nearly refuse to even entertain the idea of taking a salary position. I would rather make minimum wage and be paid hourly than ever do that again.

      That's easy to fix. When 40 hours rolls around, you get up from your desk, look at your watch and say "Looks like it's time to go home", and leave.

      They might fire you eventually, but they'll do that anyway, so there's really no loss.

    4. Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why did you work 75 hours per week? Were you kept there at gunpoint?

      Companies I've been with have tried shenanigans with me. I just didn't play along. I came at 9, I left at 5, and when the manager whined I ignored him. I didn't get fired because I did a good job, and had they tried they would have had an expensive lawsuit on their hands. I even had the president of the company call me one weekend, and I cut him off in mid-harangue telling him to get back to me on Monday.

      Yet I survived three rounds of layoffs. Obviously they liked me.

      I'm sorry, but if they scammed you into working 75 hours a week through mere words, you're a patsy.

    5. Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws by udderly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I always wonder how we've gotten to this point.

      Greed and overweening pride. Greed on the part of employers; overweening pride on the part of employees who accept a title instead of what they are due (money).

      So many people I know are in this position of being forced to work unpaid overtime and are constantly bitching about it. But I think that a lot of them get off on it because they think that it makes them feel like they have an important job. I actually think that it makes them unimportant--if their time was so valuable, you'd think that they would get paid for it.

      Others act like they *have* to because they need their high salary (even though the hourly rate sucks) to afford their lifestyle. Then you look and see that their family of four lives in a five bedroom, 3.5 bath, 5000 square foot house. Often they say that they're "doing it for the kids," as if their kids wouldn't rather actually see their parents once in awhile instead of having stuff.

      Ooops! Looks like I went off on a rant. Sorry.

    6. Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Minor point: they're not about capitalism per se, they're about exploitation (which, if you're a Marxist, amounts to the same thing).

      Important point: I've always thought that the best argument for paid overtime is that it encourages management to use people more efficiently and prevent burn-out. If my boss can get me to do the work of two people for the pay of one, he'll do it even if it means I'll do a lousy job because I'm tired, hungry, and overworked. On the other hand, if it's going to cost him what he'd pay two and a half employees working normal hours, then he might as well hire another person and let us both go home at 5pm. We'll both get him more bang for his buck since our comparatively shorter days mean we'll have plenty of time to rest, unwind, and have enriching personal lives that drastically reduce workplace stress and increase output. That way, the job not only gets done, but it gets done better and in less time.

      In summary: paid overtime isn't just to award employees who go beyond the call of duty; it's to punish management for losing its focus on efficiency in favor of short-term savings.

    7. Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In IT (at least in software development) chronic overworking not only decreases efficiency, it actually makes projects be even later than working only normal working times.

      In the software development process, there's a negative feedback loop that affects the productivity of those developing the software. It goes like this:
      - Those that constantly work long hours get more tired
      - Tired people do more errors (bugs in the code, bugs in the design, incorrectly documented requirements)
      - Fixing the extra errors consumes a disproportionatly big ammount of time - the problem has to be found (sometimes only on production), then tracked down to the root cause and then fixed (which in the case of design/requirements errors can include re-writting huge sections of the code).

      I my experience from working both 8h/day and 10/day, the total daily productivity (as measured by requirement features successfully implemented) of those working 10h/day is actually lower than those working 8h/day. In other words, it takes more time to develop and deliver and application that fits the client's requirements if developers work 10h/day than it would if they work 8h/day.

      From what i've observed, a similar effect might also be in play in other intelectual professions:
      - From what i've seen, overworked managers are less organized, tend to forget things more easilly and do not as easilly recognize important information than those managers that work more reasonable work hours. In practice this means that they will make wrong decisions, will not make decisions on time or will not pass on all the necessary information to those that execute their decisions which results in a lot of fires and a lot of time and work (by the manager and also by those under his/her management) spent putting down the fires.

      From my experience working in several countries, both with and without chronic overworking i believe the fault lies with two factors, often in conjunction:
      a) Bad managers. These are usually people that are not experienced enough to realize that the negative implications of overworking in intellectual occupations and thus keep demanding long working hours from those they manage (and often themselfs) under the wrong impression that more-hours-at-work = faster-results. Also, management errors often result in a lot of extra work on the development side (say, for example, because a "simple looking" new requirement from the customer was blindly accepted) which means that in practice everybody in the group is pressured into overworking to cover up the incompetence of the manager. One can often spot this kind of managers, even during a job interview, because they are more disorganized and relly heavilly on giving soft rewards (examples: the team's night out; "ultra-flexible" hours; extra relaxed clothing standards).
      b) Consultancies doing fixed priced projects for external customers. They sell a project to do "something" for $x. Bad estimations, incorrect requirements, time lost waiting for things (examples: interface specifications from the client; hardware required for the project), time lost due to issues in the choosen technologies - all these things mean more time spent working in the project. If the extra time is payed then the profit goes down. Making people work more hours seems at first sight to be a way to "keep on target" without extra costs (as to why this isn't true, see explanation above).

    8. Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      (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

    9. Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws by blackchiney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think before you use that in a court you might want to check that line with a lawyer first. In a proper court of law. You'll have to convince a judge the hours required were within reason. Like working 90 hours a week for one week of the entire year due to an extraordinary circumstance. That's where IBM and Siebel got hammered. Their extraordinary circumstance became normal business practice. Putting the customer first only looks during interviews and employee orientation. If you can't manage to keep a project on time with a reasonable (40hrs/wk/employee) timeline than you might have to rethink who is doing the manageùent.

  3. IBM overtime by kyrre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this mean IBM will start paying for overtime in the US now? How about Europe? It is a bit odd that it is the US branch that pay for overtime first. European laws seems to be a bit more on the Employees side in such cases. I am wondering how IBM got away with this in all those years.

    1. Re:IBM overtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:IBM overtime by rholliday · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
  4. Now if only.. by ari+wins · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If only we could get the *Mart(s) of the world to stop firing people for having 2 minutes overtime. Just saw it happen this week. Unsafe equipment, ignorant bosses, and corporate mandates aside, I think it's quite silly for someone to lose their job for trying to stay and make sure it's done right. Should get even more interesting, with corporate instituting a uniform and taking over scheduling soon(at least in my store, in Michigan. A few thousand miles from Home Office).

    --
    Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
  5. Re:I used to be an IBM Software Engineer by udderly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone salaried worker making 80 grand who works 80-hours every week should find a job more to his liking or start a union, not complain about unpaid overtime.

    No kidding. That's less than $20/hour. You wouldn't need to go to college to make that. Both of my high school education brothers-in-law make way more than that and are home in time for supper.

  6. Re:I used to be an IBM Software Engineer by udderly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...but there are still some dyed-in-the-wool attitudes where people don't think you have done a good day's work unless you are staying late...

    This is how employers pit employees against each other to milk them for free labor. If employee A wants to get ahead, he's going to put in an extra half-hour. Employee B also wants to get ahead so he decides to outdo employee A by working an extra hour. And so on and so on. And then, in the end, the boss' lazy nephew or some other politically-connected individual--who rarely puts in more than 35 hours per week--gets the promotion.

    And what are employees A & B left with? Heart disease and diabetes from eating crappy convenience food, getting no sunlight and no exercise. Some bargain.

    I worked in a union workplace for many years and thought it sucked, but I have to admit that it's probably a good thing that the unions are there.

  7. Similar situation by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I'm in a similar situation. My company recently re-evaluated their classification system for employees. Now everyone, unless you are a lowly field tech, is in a salary position. They do pay out bonuses but conveniently enough they forgot to mention that it wasn't going to be considered "pay" but instead would be considered a "bonus" which means that they won't pay any of the taxes on it. You, the employee are left paying about 45% of it out to taxes yourself. Likewise since it's a bonus and not part of your pay they don't include it in their end-of-the-year calculation for profit sharing and instead only calculate your profit-sharing off of your base pay. They didn't give me a choice when I had my review. It was either sign the paper and switch to salary or else. In their words the salaried position "was the only position available" to me.

    This is a very small IT community. There aren't a lot of IT-related jobs that don't have something to do with my company. At some point even if I did leave this job for another in the area I will likely work for or with one of the people that I believe is causing these problems at my company. I don't particularly want to move to a new market. I'm hopeful that the people causing the problems at this company will leave. However, having been in a similar situation before I know that the chances of that are slim to none. In the mean time my medical and financial health suffer.

    Since we're talking about OT, maybe someone here can explain to me what our position is (by "our" I mean all of us in IT) thanks to Bush's changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 2003. My understanding of his pro-employer changes to the FLSA mean that I can now be classified in such a way to prevent me from being eligible for OT. If that's so then how are these 2 lawsuits proceeding? The Sieblel article says 2000 to 2005 but my understanding is that 2004 and 2005 and the last 5 months of 2003 are times when OT wouldn't have applied. I'm assuming that's why my company decided to re-evaluate their position on job classifications. Comments?

    1. Re:Similar situation by rossz · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
  8. Henry Ford Quote: by Howzer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Henry Ford said:

    There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.

    We've completely forgotten that last bit over the last 50 years.

    If you want to take these "radical" ideas of ultra-capitalists further, and get even wilder with a true "Free Market" -- compared to the joke we have today -- you also might like to note that shareholders are entitled to exactly one thing: a share of the residual profits. They are NOT entitled to tell buinesses how to run, nor to demand that residual profits be maximized. This whole idea of "shareholder value" is completely broken, and is anti-competitive and anti-innovation (and I mean real innovation, not the Microsoft kind). Look it up.

    .
  9. Re:This is retarded by zuiraM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have obviously not worked in a place where you felt compelled to work overtime for some reason or other (in my case it was to save the jobs of other people there). Once you've been pulling a fair bit of it, you start losing perspective and things get a bit crazy. It starts out with you trying to help out a bit by putting in some extra hours for free, and ends up in exploitation. And management should be held accountable when it crosses that line, because then they haven't been minding their jobs, and instead have just been floating along on their laurels because of someone else being generous/kind.

    In the end, you make a decision not to put in any more unpaid hours ever again, hopefully before you burn out. Everyone loses out.

    Holding someone accountable for their actions is usually the only way to make them do what they should be doing. In this case, management should have been putting an end to their excessive reliance on unpaid overtime a long time ago, which they didn't, so they are being held accountable. Fair enough.

    Either way, reliance on unpaid overtime is a bad business decision. If you budget with their overtime, then when these workers put their heads together and decide to pull the plug on said overtime (which they're well within their rights to do), you lose big.

    Of course, long term use of overtime doesn't work unless we're talking pure grunt work here; the loss in productivity per hour just isn't made up for in terms of net productivity. Especially since the productivity per hour doesn't recover immediately upon cutting the overtime.

  10. This is not good for US techies by crucini · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every time employers in the US get in legal trouble due to having employees, the pressure to outsource or offshore increases. We have an absolute infestation of laws, lawyers and lawsuits in the US, convincing everyone that he's been wronged.

    The risk of hiring employees in the US is already high, and cases like this are driving it higher. When the risk and overhead per employee goes up there is less hiring, and more conservatism in hiring, which means the applicant with anything odd on his resume gets summarily rejected.

    I often see slashdotters complaining that companies won't take a chance on them; the company demands skill X and the applicant thinks he could learn X in no time. Well suppose they hire you and you don't learn X? How hard is it to fire you? In the US, a fired employee has many ways to sue.

    If we continue down this road, we'll end up like France, where it's almost impossible to fire someone. Students there recently protested against a proposed law that would let employers fire them within the first N months. Needless to say, they have high unemployment.

    You can't have your cake and eat it too. Stronger employee protections mean higher unemployment.

    As for crazy overtime, everyone should do it for a few months at least, to find out what it's like and find his own limits. After that, you learn to probe for this when interviewing for a job. My last several jobs have all been about 40-45 hours per week, plus rare crunches.

    1. Re:This is not good for US techies by crucini · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Here's a question: why are you advocating that not only should someone get shafted on unpaid overtime...

      I am not advocating that someone should get "shafted". But government interference in employer-employee relations is a two-edged sword. Personally I have no desire to sue my past or future employers over things like this. If I feel I am being treated unfairly, I'll explain my position. If they don't fix the issue, I'll leave. Those who do pursue these issues hurt the economy and the job market for all of us.
      ..., but then have job insecurity to boot?

      Job security by government fiat is not a good idea. It has a chilling effect on the employment market. Imagine if cell phone carriers had "job security". You sign up for Verizon, and then you can never "fire" them unless they do something horrible. This would cause:
      • Angry customers feeling trapped and sharing horror stories.
      • Poor service by carriers who feel "fireproof"
      • Reluctance to sign up for cell service by those who don't have it. You want to research very carefully before making that lifetime commitment.

      If you have never hired an employee with your own money (I have), it may be hard to understand the employer's perspective. However it is crucial that you understand. Employers are not just magical money faucets. They are people and organizations trying to accomplish specific goals with limited resources. Hiring an employee is a big and scary decision.
  11. Am I the only one... by Darth+Liberus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...who finds that I work LESS as a salaried employee than I did as a contractor? It used to be that they paid me for the work I did; now they pay me $X dollars a month plus $Y dollars a year not to leave them - and all because I'm really the only person who knows enough about the project to explain what needs to be done and how to do it to the contractors, and because I'm the only person who is willing to show up when something goes wrong at 3am... but nothing ever goes wrong at 3am simply because every decision I make includes the fact that if I fuck up I'm going to have to show up at 3am while the contractors dream about collecting their next paycheck.

    Have fun working hard; I'm enjoying my 35 hour workweek and 2 hour lunches.

    --
    Beauty is just a light switch away.