Google's Second-Class Citizens

theodp writes "Valleywag reports on a new caste system at Google, which will mean compulsory lunch breaks, two additional unpaid 15-minute breaks, limited OT, and e-clock punching for those reclassified as hourly workers starting April 1. Could be worse, though. Google also offers gigs through WorkforceLogic (the company that helped Microsoft deal with its pesky permatemps), which come with a guarantee of unemployment after one year. Guess that's what passes for the Best Employer in the US these days."

Comments

Hoogle

[Anonymous Coward]

Google, you're so hot. Everyone wants to work for you. They'll lay on their front and offer their backside to you.

That's fed law.

[Irish_Samurai]

That's the law. If you are classified as an hourly worker you MUST take at least a 30 minute lunch break and have a 15 minute break for every 4 hours you work. Overtime is also regulated in a similar way.

What a fantastic non story.

Re:That's fed law.

[Irish_Samurai]

Sorry, not Federal Law - its state Law, so mileage may vary. Although, the laws amongst the states are very similar.

Re:That's fed law.

[battery111]

Well, the only part of this that I CAN understand being upset about are the UNPAID 15 minute breaks. While it is google's perogative to make them unpaid, generally the 15 minute breaks (law mandates 10 minute BTW) are paid. Again, not illegal, but google has built a reputation for offering it's employees more. Anyone who has ever worked for an outstanding company that gave all kinds of perks is familiar with the google employee's pain. It sucks to have tons of cool benefits then gradually watch them slip away as the company grows and seeks to boost the bottom line.

Re:That's fed law.

[MontyApollo]

Often times in instances such as this, some hourly workers realize they are legally entitled to overtime pay and start thinking that the perks don't compensate them at the same level. Google is probably instituting these policies to avoid hassles with the labor board (or whatever it is called in California).

I've worked at several companies where they made everybody "salary" to avoid paying overtime, even though legally they were in the wrong. Some employee waits until he has a new job, then reports the former company and often recovers quite a bit of money as well as forcing the company to start paying overtime to everybody else entitled to it.

Re:That's fed law.

[nomadic]

That's the law. If you are classified as an hourly worker you MUST take at least a 30 minute lunch break and have a 15 minute break for every 4 hours you work. Overtime is also regulated in a similar way.

But not paying people for their lunch breaks isn't a requirement of the law.

Re:That's fed law.

[mastershake_phd]

That's the law. If you are classified as an hourly worker you MUST take at least a 30 minute lunch break and have a 15 minute break for every 4 hours you work. Overtime is also regulated in a similar way.

True, but every job Ive ever had paid you for those 15 minute breaks. Including working as a temp at the US Postal Service.

Re:That's fed law.

[dreamchaser]

I've worked as a hiring manager for more than one company, and I've rarely ever seen an hourly employee get paid for breaks. It's not a common thing. They get paid for the time they work, which is the essence of an *hourly* employee by definition.

Re:That's fed law.

[MontyApollo]

I think this goes back to the mandatory overtime pay issue. They don't want to pay overtime AND pay them to eat lunch.

Re:That's fed law.

[Irish_Samurai]

Did every one of those jobs have a labor union?

I know that the paid breaks as a postal worker did not come from the US Government being nice. They were a result of Postal Worker Unions negotiating benefits.

Labor Unions have forced a lot of companies into giving their hourly employees benefits not mandated by law.

Re:That's fed law.

[bladesjester]

My experience with regard to paid 15 minute breaks is the same as the grandparent's and none of those involved a union. Most of the companies I've seen just do it because, and this is just speculation, making people keep track of every time they go to the bathroom is horribly demoralizing and would lead to them losing talent.

Re:That's fed law.

[Profane MuthaFucka]

When I worked at McDonalds they gave you a sandwich (quarter pounder or big mac), a large fry, and a soda on your lunch break, which you got after 4 hours of work.

Re:That's fed law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats missing here is the story of what the perks of working for Google mean, and the contrast of these temp jobs.

Google, has catered Lunches and Dinners, hell probably even breakfasts and snacks whenever you wanted. All you have to do is walk to the Minimum, one per floor snack rooms for your choice of literally a hundred different, drinks and food stuffs.

Then there is the spend one hour a day doing what you enjoy for clearer or creative thinking later. And lets not forget the exercize balls and equipment, or the massage therapists on every floor.

The grumbling is probably coming from the fact that these perks are being waved in front of people who don't benefit from google's Philosophy but have to work next to it.

Re:That's fed law.

[j1mc]

Looks like Google is just re-classifying these jobs as non-exempt under fair labor standards act regulations. It's likely that Google did an audit of job duties and responsibilities, and found that these jobs should be classified as non-exempt under the law, and are making that adjustment. HR groups have to do that all the time, and California has some of the most stringent labor laws of any state, so Google HR is just doing what they need to do.

Having your job classified as exempt from FLSA laws carries with it a certain status, though. Employees like to be "salaried," and not have to fill out an hourly timesheet, even if filling out a timesheet means the occasional opportunity for overtime.

Re:That's fed law.

[Seraphim1982]

Well, if we're going to throw around anecdotal evidence:
I've never worked for a company that didn't provide at least one paid 15 minute break to its hourly workers.

Re:That's fed law.

[stratjakt]

State law, varies on the state.

In maryland, an employee has no right to any sort of break, sick time, vacation. Not even a lunch break - unless it's agreed to in the employment contract.

Most everyone is employed "at will", meaning you can be fired for no reason at all (except for federal statutes prohibiting firing based on race, sex, refusal to commit crime, etc).

The only exception here is employees under 18 are entitled to a 15 minute break (unpaid) for every 5 hours of work.

The only right an employee has is the right to quit.

Re:That's fed law.

[Tacvek]

That's the law. If you are classified as an hourly worker you MUST take at least a 30 minute lunch break and have a 15 minute break for every 4 hours you work. Overtime is also regulated in a similar way.

The article is overly negative. These labor laws are actually generally for intended for employee protection, not protection of the profit.

Take for example this quote:

.. ordered to take at least 30 minutes off for lunch so that they don't rack up billable time while grabbing a sandwich in their cubicle ...

The real reason for this rule is to protect the employees. It is really intended for people like foundry employees. The law makes the lunch break manditory so that the company cannot force employees to work through lunch and not eat. By being mandatory the company cannot coerce the employees into claiming they skipped the lunch break by choice, when in fact management told them that they would be fired if they did not skip lunch.

The breaks have a very similar reason. Now I admit that these laws seem broken. Google's hourly employees really have no risk ob being coerced into skipping lunch or breaks. It would be nice if Google would demonstrate that these changes are merely being made to comply with the law, by paying for lunch and the breaks. The fact that they are not is somewhat concerning.

Finally I will note that the requirement of receiving management approval for overtime does not seem to be for the protection of the worker. That one does exist only for the protection of profit.

Re:That's fed law.

[drinkypoo]

My understanding is that here in California you are required by law to provide a ten minute paid break for every four hours worked, and a half hour (optionally (ha) unpaid) lunch.

Re:That's fed law.

[Anonymous Monkey]

One time I took the 15min brake out of my time sheet and my boss (the director of finance, who did payroll) looked at it, sighed, and penciled it back in, and said it was less of a pain to do payroll that way.

Re:That's fed law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the DoL does say short breaks (read 5-20 minutes) are to be paid. (My source) So the 15-minute breaks should be compensated. The lunch break is even stated in federal law as being different and non-compensateable. This is a non-story, as has been said.

Re:That's fed law.

[Derosian]

I work as a Night Stocker at HEB, I get two paid 15 minute breaks.

Re:That's fed law.

[neersign]

Tomorrow there will be a story about "hourly exempt" employees at Google...because no other company has had them....EVER.

Re:That's fed law.

[bhirsch]

The FLSA does deal with a lot of this stuff.

Re:That's fed law.

[nharmon]

It's not a common thing.

I was an hourly employee for Wal-Mart when I was in high school. Our breaks were paid.

I don't think it is as uncommon as you think.

Re:That's fed law.

[rah1420]

they gave you a sandwich (quarter pounder or big mac), a large fry, and a soda on your lunch break

That's up to the owner/operator. During my McTenure, we got a certain allowance for food; so many cents per hour; that we could use (or lose) as we saw fit.

I never worked for a McOpCo (McDonald's Operating Company - read "corporate run") store so I don't know how they did things.

Re:That's fed law.

[UbuntuDupe]

That's because you probably work in a blue or Rust Belt state, where every economic exchange turns into a last ditch battle of the capitalists vs. the proletarians.

Elsewhere, as the other posters have pointed out, that's not the case.

Re:That's fed law.

[cayenne8]

"Having your job classified as exempt from FLSA laws carries with it a certain status, though. Employees like to be "salaried," and not have to fill out an hourly timesheet, even if filling out a timesheet means the occasional opportunity for overtime."

While I don't like that 'mandatory' lunch and break periods...I don't really see the gripe.

Since I turned to full blow contractor...that's the way I prefer it. No more working for 'free' ever. I never want to give my working time for free again, which is what you do on salary. If it makes them think twice before asking me to work OT...that's great. I means they won't be asking me unless they damned sure need it.

I'm willing to do my all for the job when needed, but, they're gonna pay for it. My free time is VERY valuable.

Now...I wonder if Google would let these people inc. themselves, and work for them on a contractor basis? That way, they could get great tax benefits, and if doing something like an "S" corp...could potentially reduce drastically their income that is subject to FICA, Medicare, etc...the 'employment' taxes....

Re:That's fed law.

[cayenne8]

"I've never worked for a company that didn't provide at least one paid 15 minute break to its hourly workers. "

Hell...just take up smoking and you get at least 3-5 breaks a day of about 5 minutes.

:-)

Re:That's fed law.

[asylumx]

two additional unpaid 15-minute breaks

I don't know about you, but when I was hourly, my 15 minute breaks were paid. I'm not sure what the law says, but as another poster pointed out, these kinds of laws are state laws, not federal. It's possible that Google is taking the "lowest common denominator" and applying it to all of their locations, since they have an office in Michigan now, where labor laws are quite strong compared to many other states. The summary doesn't give enough info to make sense, but there are some other rules that go into this.

If I were a google employee, the part that would bug me the most is that they are apparently changing some salaried employees over to hourly. Ouch, man.

I do agree that it's not very newsworthy, though, companies do this all the time.

Re:That's fed law.

[Jaknet]

Don't know about the states, but here in the UK the last 2 places I worked at you had to clock off and clock back on before and after each and every break.

Re:That's fed law.

[rhkaloge]

My mom runs a small day care center in Michigan, and her employees lobbied for an extra 15 min break per day (up to 3 instead of 2). It wasn't unreasonable, but my mom checked into what was required by law. Turns out for an 8 hour work day, Michigan law says you are entitled to NOTHING. No requirements for breaks, lunch, anything. Above 8 hours and it changes, but she had assumed she had to give her emploeeys something. I think she gave them the break anyway - cranky child care workers lead to problems.

Re:That's fed law.

[whoda]

HP gave us 'hourly workers' two 10 minute paid breaks every day. Lunch wasn't paid for, unless you worked swing-shift, then lunch was paid too!

Re:That's fed law.

[jp10558]

I think it must vary by state. In NY, I've worked quite a few hourly jobs and I've always had my breaks paid.

Re:That's fed law.

[CastrTroy]

But that's impossible, because Wal-Mart is the most evil corporation ever, they could never do anything good. :P

Re:That's fed law.

[CastrTroy]

We got half price food whenever we wanted it. Whether we were working or not. We also got a paid break after 4 hours. However they often scheduled people for 3 or 3.5 hour shifts.

Re:That's fed law.

[Rob the Bold]

I've worked as a hiring manager for more than one company, and I've rarely ever seen an hourly employee get paid for breaks. It's not a common thing. They get paid for the time they work, which is the essence of an *hourly* employee by definition.

I guess no one thought to check up with the Department of Labor Compliance Assistance office. And as a "hiring manager," you really should be familiar with this stuff:

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/topics/wages-other-b reaks.htm

From the summary:

. . . if employers do offer short breaks (lasting about five to 20 minutes), federal law considers these short breaks time for which employees must be compensated.

Re:That's fed law.

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I like to take non-smoking breaks with my smoking co-workers. It gets me out of the building, and it's only fair that I get to take the same 3-5 minute breaks.

Re:That's fed law.

[Pink Tinkletini]

Clearly Google should take a principled stand on this issue. If the authorities ban them from doing business in the U.S., they'll only be hurting themselves, and at least Google's honor will remain intact.

Or does this reasoning only apply to laws decreed by people with funny skin colors?

Re:That's fed law.

[OrangeTide]

The mandatory breaks are there to protect the worker. And by making them mandatory rather than voluntary it protects the employer as well because there can be no dispute as to if there was some "arrangement" made or not.

Working an 8 hour day, and getting paid extra for working long hours. and being limited on the number of hours you work (forcing a business to hire more people to handle the work load) is a GOOD thing.

Getting paid a set salary, then working tons of hours is labor abuse, in my mind. Because if you don't like it, your only choice is to complain and get fired for not being a "team player". happens all the time.

Re:That's fed law.

[delinear]

That's exactly right - I've worked as tech support in a call centre where pretty much every second of your working day had to be accounted for. You had to "wrap up" and be available for the next call within 5 seconds (this includes writing up all the notes from the call in case the customer called back - which explains why people often have to explain their problem 10 times to different people), if you spent too long on toilet breaks or were more than 30 seconds late logging back on after lunch or when your shift started, all these things would be noted. There was a team responsible for monitoring everyone in the call centre to ensure they were all logged in and available to receive calls at all times - if anyone was not available this team would call up their team leader to go check it out.

The morale was terrible - everyone wanted out, even the team leaders and middle management. Every Thursday the local paper would carry the jobs section and at least 2 out of 3 people would have a copy at their desk. Staff retention was poor, and retention of the very skilled was even less, which led to awful service for the customers, but the company seemed to be in the business of answering large volumes of calls, not actually resolving issues.

Something as simple as a little flexibility in the workplace and being paid for breaks which the company doesn't have to pay you for can make a hell of a lot of difference. Productivity goes up, effectiveness increases, people remain with the company so the knowledge base and skill sharing increases. It doesn't take a lot to make your workforce largely happy, but similarly it doesn't take a lot to piss them all off - if companies focused a little more on this fact and a little less on the bottom line margins they'd probably find their profits would *shock* increase!

Re:That's fed law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you get them, you can still be paid for them though. Microsoft does. It's really not very nice of Google to not pay for breaks.

Re:That's fed law.

[Kristoph]

It is a state not a federal law. Anyway, you MUST have a break, but nothing says you cannot be paid for one. The issue here - the story - is that the employee's are going to get 5 hours less per week in pay for the same amount of time at their desk. If I took away that much pay from you would you not be upset.

Google is clearly hurting their employees with this. Perhaps if they were not raking in cash I might understand but given their margins this is just plain self-serving.

]{

Re:That's fed law.

[MasT3quila]

hmmmm... 5 breaks * 5 minutes * 5 days a week * 50 weeks a year (cause you get 2 weeks off) That's 13 8 hour days a year!

Re:That's fed law.

[cayenne8]

"While that may work for you, salary jobs are quite nice for those of us working 30-35 hour weeks."

They I would put it to you, that you are one of the RARE ones. A salaried position 'should' work that way...you work a little more when needed, but, when work is finished early, you should get to leave a little early.

I find in most cases today, that is not the case. As a direct employee...they expect you there as much OT as required, but, would laugh your ass out the door if you didn't want to show up on Friday because you'd done everything that week, and were more than caught up.

That's a main reason I saw that really fueled my desire to contract....

Re:That's fed law.

[PitaBred]

As opposed to, you know, surfing slashdot during the day.

You can't be "productive" 100% of the time, because otherwise you wouldn't get anything done at all. Humans != machines. We're significantly smarter (well, at least some of us) and that price is paid by being less than perfectly efficient in some ways.

Re:That's fed law.

[PitaBred]

That's not doing good, they're just complying with the law ;) Don't ever confuse the two.

Re:That's fed law.

[smithmc]

  Did every one of those jobs have a labor union?

No. When I was in high school I worked at a Friendly's restaurant. My 15-minute breaks (every 4 hours) were paid, the 30-minute lunch break was not. The same when I worked at a non-union job in a warehouse over the summer during my college years. (The warehouse floor was unionized - Teamsters - but the admin jobs were non-union, and everybody got the same deal regarding breaks.)

Re:That's fed law.

[Seumas]

Of course, the law is rather meaningless. When I was starting out in the industry, I had to work an hourly job and while I was paid for 40 hours, I almost never took a lunch or a break and I easily put in 70, 80 or more hours per week every week.

You could speak up and take your breaks and lunches, but then you look like a slacker when people see that you are not in your office, but everyone else is there. It's the same thing about working late in salaried jobs. People can put in the hours required and paid or they can put in endless hours so they are always seen busing their ass... because if you're the one NOT doing it when everyone else IS you're going to be paying for it in the long run when decisions about your future are made.

Re:That's fed law.

[smithmc]

  My experience with regard to paid 15 minute breaks is the same as the grandparent's and none of those involved a union. Most of the companies I've seen just do it because, and this is just speculation, making people keep track of every time they go to the bathroom is horribly demoralizing and would lead to them losing talent.

No, they do it because it's the law. (At least in New York, anyway.)

Re:That's fed law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I turned to full blow contractor... So, uh... what are your rates and availability?

Re:That's fed law.

[PitaBred]

And I worked for Chipotle, so I could pretty much eat for free whenever I wanted ;) I have a lot of respect for the way Chipotle runs it's restaurants, having worked there both as a supervisor and a regular employee. There's a reason they keep their workers around and have a lot less churn than at other McDonald's type places.

Re:That's fed law.

[klept]

And of course we know the law is written in the best interest of it's citizens. Besides blaming it on the Feds absolves Google of any responsibility for treating it's employees decently.

Tell me something, Mr. Lawyer, if Google has longer lunchbreaks and gives these "temps" better working conditions then mandated by the "generous" Fed laws, are they then violating the law? Or could it be that some people at google just dont care about this classification of workers, and dont really consider them human beings?

Most of these employers, like Microsoft, have put themselves in a position where no competent person uless they come from some starving third world country would want to work for them. Right Miguel- a rl person at MS that thinks it's wonderful and can not write a simple declarative English sentence and who tried to hype some of Microsoft's junk by stealth on Slashdot one time.

Re:That's fed law.

[Coward Anonymous]

Woa there cowboy! The law (federal or state) stipulates this as a minimum. The law doesn't say you can't pay your workers on their breaks , give them more breaks or be lenient with OT. Google is applying the absolute minimum necessary according to the law - pretty much what your average mall shop stooge gets.

Re:That's fed law.

[Sparr0]

Actually, the relevant laws where I live say the employer has to offer the breaks, not that I have to take them. I much prefer to put in 8 hours straight, with possible restroom breaks, than 8.5 hours with a gap in the middle or worse.

Re:That's fed law.

[Anonymous Coward]

California state law is very epmloyee friendly.

The following link explains the criteria execised to determine exempt vs non-exempt status.

http://www.trinet.com/HR_resources/HR_library/non- exempt.htm

The computer professionals section is on the bottom, the potential impact on IT organizations is especially intersting to ponder.

Re:That's fed law.

[Irish_Samurai]

I never said they couldn't pay them. I just stated that these were legal standards.

Re:That's fed law.

[Achromatic1978]

Similar things happened in Australia (particularly in construction) - unions tried to force "compulsory membership", arguing that non union members benefited from the changes they lobbied for.

Sad thing is, in construction in particular, they've been able to effectively enforce this, one way or another.

Re:That's fed law.

[MMInterface]

I have never seen what you are describing. It can't be that uncommon. I know hourly workers at MS get 2 - 15 min paid breaks. In practice they get as many paid breaks as they want so long as their work flow isn't horrible. Lunch and breaks aren't even really tracked for hourly workers and if your boss asks you to go out to lunch; thats a 2 hour paid lunch (hours and food) all in the name of team building. Maybe its a Washington State thing, but even when I was an hourly worker, I got 2 - 15 min breaks at every company I have worked for and they were paid breaks. They even told us we had to take them.

Re:That's fed law.

[Blakey Rat]

It's kind of pointless to debate this unless we know which state you both are in. Some states require paid 15-minute breaks, some states don't. There probably wasn't any union involved, I would wager you were just working from different state laws.

Re:That's fed law.

[AutumnLeaf]

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't realize that "salaried" often equivocates to "exploited." It's the last "golden handcuff" whose shine hasn't worn off.

Re:That's fed law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I turned to full blow contractor...that's the way I prefer it. No more working for 'free' ever. I never want to give my working time for free again, which is what you do on salary. If it makes them think twice before asking me to work OT...that's great. I means they won't be asking me unless they damned sure need it.

I totally agree. Working as a salaried employee is, at least in the Valley, the equivelent of handing your employer a blank check to draw upon your time. When 12 hours of your day is worth as much as 8 hours of your day to an employer, how much time do you think your manager is going to want you to put in? I'm usually not a Google fanboy but, in this case, I'm siding with Google. Not everyone needs or wants to be a salaried employee.

Re:That's fed law.

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Only problem there is I'd have to be a competitive biker to eat there more than once a week - those burritos are heavy!

Re:That's fed law.

[AutumnLeaf]

You missed my point.

I wasn't complaining about my situation. That's you projecting your disagreement as a problem with me or my character. Which, I resent. But, your misguided post speaks for the problems I perceive with your neural net.

Unless your use of the 2nd person was the "royal 2nd person."

Regards.

Re:That's fed law.

[rnturn]

Michigan must expect that everyone knows about those special NASA diapers.

Re:That's fed law.

[Some_Llama]

"5 breaks * 5 minutes"

So you're saying the person who takes 5*5 minute breaks during their work day is less productive than the person who takes 2*15 min breaks?

Somewhere a Vulcan just exploded.

Re:That's fed law.

[SETIGuy]

Having your job classified as exempt from FLSA laws carries with it a certain status, though. Employees like to be "salaried," and not have to fill out an hourly timesheet, even if filling out a timesheet means the occasional opportunity for overtime.

Having never seen a company that would actually let an employee fill in overtime on their timesheet, I wouldn't whether it's better to be hourly or salaried. There seems to be little difference in practice.

Regardless of the law, at most companies it seems understood that overtime will be compensated with comp time, and that the comp time will never actually materialize. Complaints about the system may be given at your exit interview.

Re:That's fed law.

[StarvingSE]

No, I wasn't ragging on you... apologies. It was "you" in the general sense.

Re:That's fed law.

[StikyPad]

Hell...just take up smoking and you get at least 3-5 breaks a day of about 5 minutes.

I assume you're referring to the breaks from smoking where you go back inside for a few.

Re:That's fed law.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Governmnet/Postal Service is not covered by the _State_ laws that require breaks. That's why the postal workers used union negotiation to force the Postal Service to give them breaks.

Of course, all the state laws that require breaks are also thanks to unions, who have to continue to lobby to preserve such protections against business. Non-union workers benefit as well as union workers.

Re:That's fed law.

[TheQuantumShift]

Laws vary from state to state and job type to job type. But I do like how this radical new un-Google-like system starts on April 1st...

Re:That's fed law.

[kjart]

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't realize that "salaried" often equivocates to "exploited." It's the last "golden handcuff" whose shine hasn't worn off.

I'm both salaried and get paid overtime - Canada (at least certain parts of it) is nice that way.

Re:That's fed law.

[sumdumass]

Depends on what you do or who you work for but when I took smoke breaks, I had to make sure everything was caught up to the point I could slack for 5 minutes and nothing would be behind enough to effect anyone.

I would say 5*5 minute breaks would be almost as productive as an employee who didn't take any breaks at all. I'm not sure how the 2&15 minute breaks work. I never worked were I had them. It has always been a situation were If your taking care of business, you got to do things, if you weren't then you didn't.

Re:That's fed law.

[sumdumass]

I worked with a kid like this once. We complained to him about it and he said it wasn't his fault, they placed the designated smoking area so far away and then used some old injury as an excuse of why it took so long to go smoke and come back.

The company was afraid to do anything because of the American with disabilities act. They were pretty sure they needed to make reasonable accommodation's for his handicap and they couldn't limit his privileges because of his disability.

Re:That's fed law.

[sumdumass]

He must have worked there after Wallmart lost the lawsuit over changing employees time cards and cheating them out of comp time.

Re:That's fed law.

[drsquare]

Actually I've never heard of any company cutting your pay during breaks. It's not your own time if you're at work is it?

How are they going to check you're on a break anyway? It's not like they have cameras trained on you. And what do they define as a break anyway?

Re:That's fed law.

[drsquare]

Well, then maybe that restaurant should have got a union, I get half an hour's break every two hours, paid.

Re:That's fed law.

[networkBoy]

My employer regularly pays OT.
I've declined salaried positions because I make more as an hourly than I ever would salary.
-nB

Crybabies

[Azghoul]

Sounds like a bunch of damn crybabies to me. Waaaa waaaaa, I'm hourly! Give me a break.

Re:Crybabies

[daeg]

I'm sure I speak for a lot of the IT industry in saying: I'd love to be hourly! Man, If I got paid a flat rate for the hours I actually worked, I'd be rolling in cash--almost literally.

So, in short to Google workers: STFU & GBTW!

Re:Crybabies

[GundamFan]

Exactly... I'm "hourly" (full time and permanent but not "salaried" per say) and I do just fine, I like being compensated when my work invades my personal time.

Re:Crybabies

[Short Circuit]

So are you going to be handing down Justice to them, Raz?

Re:Crybabies

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "per se", not "per say".

I hope that helps, have a nice day.

Re:Crybabies

[dwayner79]

Actually they don't want to be given a break. That's the point of the story.

Re:Crybabies

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how people like the parent poster actually come off as bigger crybabies than those they complain about..

Re:Crybabies

[OldeTimeGeek]

In California, breaks aren't something that the employee gets a choice in.

California labor code requires employers allow one 30-minute lunch break (unpaid) and two 10-minute breaks during an eight hour day. Whether an employer pays the employee during the short break is up to the employer (most do), but not allowing breaks at all will generally result in a law suit.

Re:Crybabies

[GundamFan]

Yeah, I always have trouble with that one, thanks.

Re:Crybabies

[mgblst]

You are part of the problem then. The fact that people like you keep working in bad condition, means that bad conditions will continue. If you all left, then things would improve.

There are plenty of great positions for people who do actually work. The only people I have met who put up with bad positions, are the ones who are lazy and don't actually do much work, or the ones who are lucky to be working in IT at all.

Re:Crybabies

[Anonymous Coward]

> Give me a break

Well, if you insist. Which kneecap?

Re:Crybabies

[LordKronos]

Waaaa waaaaa, I'm hourly! Give me a break.

No problem. How about 15 minutes. I'll even throw in another one in 4 hours.

Re:Crybabies

[Azghoul]

Okay, now that was funny. :)

Re:Crybabies

[dickeya]

What the hell are you talking about? Part of the problem? He simply made a comment regarding getting paid hourly as opposed to being on salary. For those of us with a clue it makes sense. Get paid for what you work instead of a flat rate.

Re:Crybabies

[daeg]

Oh, I never said my conditions were bad at all. I am, in fact, extremely well-compensated, both with money and other benefits (fully paid healthcare, for one). That doesn't mean that I don't work hard for what I get, though. I enjoy my job, though, and it lets me work on open-source projects--paid!

I don't stay in jobs that mistreat me, like my prior few jobs. One was an extremely screwed up startup company that changed the scope of my work every week (and even made me change programming languages 75% through the prototype, and change database servers 2 months after launch for no reason at all). The other was working for Gannett (GCI). The group I worked with had their profit *double* in 9 months (and not like a $10 to $20 thousand double... add a few more zeros), largely due to my changes/skills... and my likely raise was a shy over the inflation rate, with no bonus, with rising health care costs eating up even more than my raise.

I agree with you for most positions, especially if people have been there a long time and continue to get mediocre compensation. If you're at the same job for 6 years and aren't compensated well, you obviously don't care, or cannot afford to care (familial obligations and the like), or are in an extremely small market, e.g., a local city government or small country position.

[/blog]

Re:Crybabies

[evilgiu]

Now... Forgive me the off-topic, but the above was a beautiful example of perfectly civilised social behavior.
Wish more of /. was like that.

Re:Crybabies

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK YOU ASSLICK

Re:Crybabies

[mgblst]

Ok, thanks for the extra information, my rant was misplaced. I am having a bit of trouble with my current workplace, it seems the people who used to work here (and one who still does), put up with a lot of shit, included being treated badly and asked to do a lot of support as well as development (this was not spelt out in the interview). I won't put up with the same level of shit that they do, I have made my position clear to management, and am currently leaving this position for a much better position (at my old workplace).

Best Employer

[LoudMusic]

Since when does being 'the best employer' mean you have to let your employees walk all over you? Pay them what they're worth, send them away when they're done.

Re:Best Employer

[bladesjester]

The only thing I can say is that I really hope you aren't running a business, because if you are, you have a great deal to learn.

As a business, you're not just paying employees to do work. You're paying them (in the form of money, benefits, and culture) to do work for *you* instead of for your competitors.

It's about more than money. It's also a matter of respect. Tick off your workers enough, and they'll go to work for someone else.

Re:Best Employer

[Bacon Bits]

"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." -- Henry Ford

Libertarians will kindly note that Henry Ford died in 1947.

Re:Best Employer

[yellowalienbaby]

Right - To be honest, whenever I've seen 'hourly workers work, they tend to fiddle their hours as much as possible - I've been one for 10 years and have always made a point of not doing precisely that.

The point being, in this article I think the introduction of timecard stamping is the perfect way to stamp out the 'always stick in 8 hours work, regardless of wether you turned up at 10 and went home at 4" attitude.
 
..I've been activley encouradged to do this by the agencies that I procured the work through - I assume it's because they get a slice of what I've been earning before I see it.

Re:Best Employer

[illegalcortex]

"When the powerful Jew is at last traced and his hand revealed, then comes the ready cry of persecution and it echoes through the world press." -- Henry Ford (from The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem , ISBN: 978-0765315526)

Re:Best Employer

[Bacon Bits]

"The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation ... until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country." -- Woodrow Wilson

Many of history's greatest men would not have their beliefs be entirely welcome today. Ford, at least, was simply a businessman.

Re:Best Employer

[illegalcortex]

The point of me posting that quite is the claim should stand on it's own, not on the authority of the person speaking it. People put far too much stock in the opinions of recognizable historical figures.

Re:Best Employer

[guruevi]

It seems to me, a lot of businesses remember that quote only up till the comma (,)

Re:Best Employer

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but one should give credit where it's due else be accused of plagiarism.

Re:Best Employer

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yeah, he was also a union buster, but he made cars affordable and did a lot of good things for the country. Hell, even Hitler was responsible for VW and the Autobahn.

Re:Best Employer

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Historical trivia: the KKK started as a Civil War veteran's club. SImilarly, MADD started as a group attempting to raise awareness of drunk driving.

Remember when

[elrous0]

Anyone remember when a worker would just go in, get hired by a company, and work for them? Now it seems like everything but the most professional jobs are getting outsourced either oversees or to temp, staffing services, and contractor agencies.

How many people here still work for companies where the secretaries and janitors (sorry, don't have the inclination to use the newer politically-correct terms) actually are full-time, fully-vested, non-contracted company employees? I'm praying there are are least a few of you who do.

Re:Remember when

[UbuntuDupe]

No offense, and not to rock the boat or anything, but who cares? My uncle works as an independent contractor. He gets hired to do jobs, and after the job is done, he's "guaranteed unemployment". He doesn't get vestiture in every organization he ever does work for. So what? What's so sacred about that?

Re:Remember when

[servognome]

Now it seems like everything but the most professional jobs are getting outsourced either oversees or to temp, staffing services, and contractor agencies.

Don't forget replaced by machines; I'm sure many slashdotters are responsible for people losing a job.
It might suck for the person losing the job, but in a macroeconomic sense improved capital efficiency isn't a bad thing.

Re:Remember when

[sashapup]

Let's play this one out a bit. You work for a company that makes widgets. Your company is really really good at making widgets. Janitorial services are definitely not the forte of anyone directly responsible for the normal operations of making and selling these widgets.

Why add an in-house service that you're obviously not good at when there are plenty of local janitorial service companies that you can contract out to and be more capable of at least telling whether or not the contracted company is doing a good or bad job at it?

Note, I do know that it's harder to tell on some things whether the contracted company is doing a good job without internal working knowledge. But janitation... pretty easy to tell that the toilets, bathrooms, carpets aren't being cleaned.

Re:Remember when

[Canthros]

I don't even see how this is relevant, but I wonder if Google's policy wrt temps isn't just that, if they aren't willing to hire you after a year, you're probably not worth keeping around?

Re:Remember when

[Gr8Apes]

My last 3 companies (including current) and my wife's last 5 companies regarding secretaries. The janitorial staff is a mixed bag - night crew is contracted across the board. Day time janitors are generally employees.

In only rare cases were they vested employees similar to individual contributors.

Re:Remember when

[cdrudge]

How many people here still work for companies where the secretaries and janitors (sorry, don't have the inclination to use the newer politically-correct terms) actually are full-time, fully-vested, non-contracted company employees? I'm praying there are are least a few of you who do.

Where I work almost all secretaries are full time, fully vested employees with pension and profit sharing. We have some maintenance staff that is also the same way. Most of the day to day cleaning or major facility projects are handled by outside companies.

Re:Remember when

[EngMedic]

How many people here still work for companies where the secretaries and janitors (sorry, don't have the inclination to use the newer politically-correct terms) actually are full-time, fully-vested, non-contracted company employees? I'm praying there are are least a few of you who do. I do! .. Then again, we have 56 employees total, 90% of which have a technical degree of some sort (including the CEO, he's an EE). Go small r&d business!

Re:Remember when

[Dan Ost]

Every time I've been involved in replacing manual work with some sort of automation,
nobody has ever lost a job. However, they do get less overtime pay now.

Re:Remember when

[Mr. Underbridge]

Anyone remember when a worker would just go in, get hired by a company, and work for them? Now it seems like everything but the most professional jobs are getting outsourced either oversees or to temp, staffing services, and contractor agencies. How many people here still work for companies where the secretaries and janitors (sorry, don't have the inclination to use the newer politically-correct terms) actually are full-time, fully-vested, non-contracted company employees? I'm praying there are are least a few of you who do.

In part, you can thank the well-meaning labor laws passed in the last 30 years that
1) basically make it damn near impossible for an employee to fire anyone for cause, and
2) put the burden of the government's failed social programs onto employers

In addition:
3) It's much easier for managers to hide financials from upper management and board of directors when using contractors, salaries are hard to hide.
4) It's a popular way of doing 'try before you buy' - companies don't want to be stuck practically forever with an underperforming employee, so they want you to do contractor or temp status for a few months before signing you on as an employee.

For good or bad, there are a lot of reasons companies use contractors. And as you're seeing here, it's not limited to the low end of the totem pole - I've seen six-figure contracting jobs (and been offered some). Personally, I'm not interested in that sort of thing. Especially when any relocation is involved - no way I'm moving across the damned country for a 3-month tryout.

Re:Remember when

[pete-classic]

Where I work the only contractors are in temporary positions. (I.e. QA Engineers working on a big push to get a product out the door.) If they were hired they'd just be laid off in a few months.

We just lost our receptionist, and I think we're using temps 'till we find a keeper.

But all in all, I'd say it DOES still exist.

-Peter

Re:Remember when

[Nalanthi]

All of them at my company. Of course I work at a government contractor. The janitor that takes out my trash has a higher security classification than I do.

Re:Remember when

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously because I work in the HR department of a large company.

He can also blame the limited time of a contract on the contract workers themselves. In today's legal environment, a company pretty much has to explicitly limit the amount of time a contractor can work with the company. If a company keeps contractors on indefinitely, it opens itself up to the contractors suing the company for benefits. For example, contractors at Microsoft sued for stock options (which were only given to full-time employees, not to contractors) claiming that, since the contracts were open-ended and since they'd been working with the company for more than a year, the contractors were de-facto employees. Basically, a few contractors got greedy and ruined it for everyone. Furthermore, companies would MUCH rather be able to use employees instead of contractors, the average per-hour cost of even a low-level professional contractor is on the order of $100/hour to the company. Contracting companies tack on huge fees above and beyond what the contractor actually gets paid. Employees, on the other hand, average around $50/hour cost to the company and that includes the cost of providing benefits. The only reason companies use contractors rather than simply hiring the people and then deciding after the project if they want to keep them is because of restrictive labor laws that make it virtually impossible to fire someone.

The other issue, of course, is that a company can face MASSIVE fines if the Federal Government discovers that their FLSA (i.e. "hourly" and "salaried") classifications are incorrect. There is, quite simply, a gigantic legal risk to a company if they pay a salary for positions that the government classifies as hourly. Many states add additional restrictions on this in the form of mandatory breaks, etc. California is by far the most restrictive state, in fact, many companies simply refuse to have large-scale operations in California because of those laws.

People can complain about this all they want, but the companies aren't driving this, the government is.

Re:Remember when

[Sammy76]

Well, one reason is overhead. If you need full time janitorial services, and choose to hire a contractor, you are going to pay the going rate + contractor management + contractor profit. The nice thing is, its a fixed cost that goes away as soon as you drop the contract, but (unless the company is hiring at sub-standard wages, which can be possible with illegals etc) those one-time costs can be higher than just hiring someone in-house.

Anyway, how much expertise is really needed to do janitorial work? In a small company, you can hire a single person that does the job well and independently. In a large company, hire a small division of custodial staff that self-manages themselves. It's well within the reach of most companies.

Re:Remember when

[cayenne8]

"He can also blame the limited time of a contract on the contract workers themselves. In today's legal environment, a company pretty much has to explicitly limit the amount of time a contractor can work with the company. If a company keeps contractors on indefinitely, it opens itself up to the contractors suing the company for benefits. For example, contractors at Microsoft sued for stock options (which were only given to full-time employees, not to contractors) claiming that, since the contracts were open-ended and since they'd been working with the company for more than a year, the contractors were de-facto employees."

Well, that does explain why many companies are apprehensive about hiring 1099 contractors directly. However, if the contractor would just incorporate themselves, and do the contract as a corp. to corp rather than as a 1099 'employee' relationship....this type of situation is easily avoided.

By doing c2c, you can work that contract for quite a long time, and not have to worry about the issues of benefits, since the person contracted is working for the corp, and not you.....

Yeah...those MS 'contractor' bastards almost ruined things for the contracting circuit....but, if you incorporate yourself as described above, you can eliminate the problems.

Re:Remember when

[elrous0]

It probably WOULDN'T be such a big deal if we weren't on the verge of a HUGE health care crisis (speaking of the U.S. only here, but I'm sure there are some other countries that are facing similar issues). If some fundamental things don't change in the way we approach health care, we could well be looking at a time where it's virtually impossible for someone outside of a large company structure to be able to afford health care or health insurance in the U.S.

So we could be approaching a time when being a contractor means you have no health insurance and could easily be bankrupted by a single illness in your family. That's not good.

Re:Remember when

[UbuntuDupe]

Hold on: are you talking about health insurance, or health insulation? Insurance means "paying a relatively small amount to hedge against catastrophes". "Insulation" means "getting someone else to nominally cover your costs while really just hiding them".

Since you're talking about the immense risk contractors supposedly have of being bankrupted by illness, you must be talking about the former. However, if that's all you want to buy, it's actually very cheap. If the policy is high-deductible and only for major expenses, *and the state you live in allows these kinds of policies*, it's very cheap. $100/month, tops. Contractors can afford that. Every contractor where I work can afford health insurance qua insurance, very easily in fact.

The problem is that in many states, *in order* to buy the catastrophic coverage, which *is* a necessity, you have to buy all kinds of other mandated benefits, including doctor visits (which is like a car insurer paying for oil changes).

So the problem is only that people are legally prohibited from buying affordable insurance. And even if that weren't the problem, why is it a good idea to concentrate all the costs on the people who are stupid enough to hire workers?

Re:Remember when

[Anonymous Coward]

Not I.

And it makes me uncomfortable. Those people contribute to our success too and they should get to share in our success.

Google has a contractor lifeguard watching over the in-place lap pool (which holds one person and creates a current that you swim against). Here is a guy who is responsible for making sure Google employees do not die -- literally safeguarding the companies most valuable assets -- but he does not get to share in Google's success.

Yes, I know, the truth is these things are dictated by supply and demand. That lifeguard position does not require any special lifeguarding skills. He can be replaced by any one of many thousand people with lifeguard certification in the Bay Area and as such his ability to negotiate a higher wage is limited. Still, I would have an uneasy concience being a Google employee with a 2nd class employee responsible for my very life. Enough so that I do not think I could take advantage of that particular perk.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes rose-colored glasses are constructed out of money.

After all

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone must work to compensate the 20% of time every employee can waste in preposterous projects.

Time to Sell the GOOG stock..

[tgatliff]

This is the best indication that their money machine has run out of ink... :-)

Anytime a company starts to watch internal costs this close it means that they are having problems getting gross incomes to rise.

Re:Time to Sell the GOOG stock..

[eck011219]

Indeed, but keep in mind the scale we're talking about -- Google may have just noticed that it's making only stacks of money now, not big steaming piles of it. They'd be smart to cut costs NOW instead of waiting for crisis. I doubt they're about to fold.

Now on the other hand, I think pissing off your employees may well reduce motivation and productivity enough to offset much of the savings (particularly in a creativity-driven place like Google). I know they're the hourly folk, and I know it's federal law (though the law doesn't say anything about where they have to eat -- if they want to eat at their desk and are thinking about work while they do, I think that's still okay by law). And it could well be that we're talking more about grunts than creative types. But I can't imagine that it's worth the savings to have your entire support staff grumbling and calling your decisions "retarded."

It seems like such a strange morale killer that I wonder if they're cracking down now so they can respond to employee wishes and retract it all later to great fanfare. I'm not typically a conspiracy theorist, but this one seems so different from how Google is rumored to operate.

Re:Time to Sell the GOOG stock..

[kestasjk]

The best indication? How about getting a financial report? They are a public company, you don't need to look for signs.

Re:Time to Sell the GOOG stock..

[MagusSlurpy]

You mean like WorldCom?

Re:Time to Sell the GOOG stock..

[tgatliff]

Keep in mind I am not talking about a collapsing company... Google has a solid business model, but has always been plagued with only having only one main source of income... Also, GOOG's net margins has been up to this point about 26%, which is better than even Microsoft.. With net margins in the billions, they should not have to worry about "little" items such as employment... If they do, then it would indicate that they are watching it more closely rather than focusing on expanding their business...

Also, as far as waiting for the financial report, GOOG does not give future guidance, and is definitely known for this "vague" reporting. For example, what is their fraud click rate on their partners program? Your guess is as good as mine, because they do not report this their 10Q or 10K. This in spite of many industry analysts saying that the number could be as large as 20% click thru rates.

In short, Google is a good company and has made allot of money for stock holders, but tomarrow is what is important from an investing standpoint, not yesterday....

Re:Time to Sell the GOOG stock..

[tgatliff]

Yes I agree that being proactive on reducing costs is good, but this is not traditionally the personality of Google because they did not have to in the past...

Keep in mind that Googles net margins are quite high... When a company has billions in net margins with analyists saying gross earnings will rise about 75%, this employment change is rather odd...

With this change, I suspect they are now indicating that their gross % rise will slow.. Of course if they gave some yearly guidance on this issue, it would help to end speculation, but they wont..

Re:Time to Sell the GOOG stock..

[maxume]

Another factor could just be scope. If you have 500 employees that do stuff, and 50 that help them do that stuff, you don't have to worry a terrible amount about the 50; when you have 50,000, the 5,000 are a different deal. The article talks about this policy applying to people who approve ad words buys; there isn't a huge benefit associated with making those types of jobs 'long term', and it probably pays to be able to scale them up or down easily(being able to eliminate a couple of thousand positions doesn't really save them much on a billion, but not having that flexibility doesn't appear to gain them much either).

I too find the prospect of huge amounts of click fraud a great reason to be skeptical of the stocks future; combined with chasing a smaller and smaller portion of the overall advertising market(they can only get 100% of it right?), I'm not sure they can keep their PEG where it needs to be to keep even the people willing to buy it today happy.

Re:Time to Sell the GOOG stock..

[delinear]

It's more than just the effect on these few employees, or even the ones who work with them who may be affected by their morale. Google has got where it is today in part by offering an excellent search service, but also in part by having kudos amongst people in the know. There's a kind of awe that surrounds the company and its attitude to its workforce. Too many stories like this and the shine starts to fade, people realise it's just another global mega company with an eye on the bottom line. It's hard to see anyone usurping Google for a while yet, but when goodwill is so cheaply bought, why take the risk? A lot of companies would kill to be as highly regarded as Google, they should milk that for as long as possible.

Yeah .. that's how it works.

[ahknight]

If you're hourly, it's a federal requirement to take at least a 30 minute lunch break and get two 15 minute breaks during an eight hour day.

The year-long contracts thing has been done-to-death in the employment world, especially in tech employment. This is nothing new or special, either.

Re:Yeah .. that's how it works.

[Omnifarious]

Well, what's new is that google is doing it.

Re:Yeah .. that's how it works.

[daigu]

The fact that it is a common U.S. business practice doesn't make it right or even smart. I'll bet that setting your business up for mandatory yearly turnover is a good way to lose a lot of intangible value - incomplete projects, lost knowledge, limited worker involvement/productivity, etc. The intangible value is exactly what people looking at the short-term bottom line miss.

Then again, I'd also bet that Google knows this but is using hourly workers as a way to fill the gaps that are created by their explosive growth. If you are committed to hiring good people but have more work than the staff you have can do, you have to have a mechanism for dealing with the work load.

If you don't take care of the people that make business possible - your employees, you eventually are going to sink your business. Nowhere is this more true than in businesses that rely upon the ideas of their employees - such as the tech sector.

Re:Yeah .. that's how it works.

[2short]

It's not a matter of setting up your company for mandatory yearly turnover - most of your employees are not going to be on this plan in any case. But in a large org like Google or the big university where I had such a job, you will periodically have projects you want to hire someone to do, but that you don't want to add a permanent position for.
  In the job I had, I was called a "casual employee" - the sub-sub-department that hired me didn't have to go through getting aproval to expand their headount; they could just pay me out of their genreal operating budget and I could start the day after they decided they needed me. But to keep such expedited procedures from getting out of hand, the total number of hours I could work under this system was limited to a bit less than a years worth of full time. It seemed like a pretty good deal for all sides at the time.

Re:Yeah .. that's how it works.

[doce]

According to the Federal Dept. of Labor Website:

Federal law does not require lunch or coffee breaks. However, when employers do offer short breaks (usually lasting about 5 to 20 minutes), federal law considers the breaks work-time that must be paid.

Some states require breaks for hourly employees generally, while others other single out Retail employees for this treatment.

Re:Yeah .. that's how it works.

[vtcodger]

***The year-long contracts thing has been done-to-death in the employment world, especially in tech employment. This is nothing new or special, either.***

I could be wrong, but I think the one year thing has to do with the risk that if a company employs a "temporary worker" for too long, the state and federal tax folks may (quite reasonably in many cases) decree the "temp" to be an actual employee ... and come looking for missing SSA, medicare, disability, unemployment, etc payments. ... and maybe a fine for failing to cover the employee for workman's comp. And the newfound employee might then turn around and sue for missing benefits.

Personally, I think that it'd be simpler, and better management in the long run, to only hire temps for temporary jobs. But what the hell do I know?

Re:Yeah .. that's how it works.

[psychokitten]

Actually, no. The federal requirements for giving employees breaks and a meal period are as follows:

That's right - there's absolutely no Federal law at all guaranteeing workers any breaks at all during their shift. The Federal guidelines for breaks and meal periods are just that - GUIDELINES. There ARE a few rules in there however, such as breaks shorter than x period of time (20 minutes, I believe,) are not classified as 'meal breaks' and thus, have to be paid.

All labour laws regarding breaks and lunches come at the state level - and in fact, the majority of states actually don't have ANY laws regarding giving breaks and meal periods to employees, there's really only two reasons everyone takes it as a given that you get them in jobs: 1. It's tradition and 2. Unions. If you live in a state where there aren't any laws regarding breaks/meals (like my own Oklahoma,) and don't have a contract or Union contract stipulating otherwise, your employers well within his rights to come up to you and say "Hey, we've decided you're not getting lunches or breaks anymore, sorry." and the only recourse you have is quitting.

Gah

[Alioth]

Since when is offering temporary jobs a terrible thing to do? If you apply for one, you know _up front_ that it's a temporary position. It's not like they are baiting-and-switching anyone.

Re:Gah

[winkydink]

When you do it in a systematic way to avoid hiring employees as regular, full-time workers to avoid paying benefits. MSFT lost a big lawsuit in the early '90's over this. A little research with your favorite search engine should give you the background.

Re:Gah

[UbuntuDupe]

I'm always confused as to why people get outraged over this. Remember, they're not worth hiring if they have to provide some additional mandated benefit. Yet most workers would prefer the extra hours, even if the benefits wouldn't attach. So instead, they end up taking two part times jobs, neither of which pays benefits, even though either employer would have been willing to provide the same hours as both together.

So, explain to me how that's better than working at one place for the "full time" hours but no benefits?

Re:Gah

[AusIV]

I agree, I was kind of scratching my head on that one. As a college student, the past several jobs I've had were times I knew I'd be available for x amount of time. I've gotten jobs every summer break, every winter break, and one spring break - employment for three months, three weeks, and one week respectively. I knew I wasn't going to be available after that time, and I didn't want to mislead my potential employers.

It's easy to see a college student being available for such periods of time, but I can see other times temporary positions would also be practical. If someone is only going to be available for a year, it's probably best for both parties if they're in a job intended for someone who will be around a year. If I were desperate for a job, and Google was offering a one year position, I'd certainly keep in mind that it was a one year position, and I might hope to prove myself and get rehired after the year was up, but I'd hardly fault Google for only needing someone for a year - so long as they're making it clear up front.

Some of the other practices mentioned here might be a little bit more unfair to employees, but I'd hardly call offering temporary jobs a sign of a bad employer.

Re:Gah

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, the employer IS NOT willing to hire them for all the hours, plus benefits. It doesn't matter what the employee wants to do.

Most employees would rather work 1 place, full time, with benefits, but the only thing offered is the 1 year contract jobs.

(You can still say, 'So go somewhere else that will hire you full time, Google isn't forcing you to work there.' and I'd agree with you, but that isn't the point of the post you replied to.)

Re:Gah

[Alioth]

But they aren't doing what Microsoft were doing, and even a superficial look at the linked article shows that. Microsoft were hiring permanent temps as it were. Google are being up front that these are temporary positions, and therefore, it is highly likely that they are just that: temporary positions, not permanent jobs masquerading as temporary positions. What happened to innocent until proven guitly? Where's the evidence that Google are doing this to avoid paying benefits? There is none. The entire story is hot air.

Re:Gah

[tompaulco]

The Microsoft thing was just plain stupid. The only thing I could fault Microsoft with was if they deliberately misled people into believing that MSFT would pay them benefits, take out their taxes or some other thing. Of course they did reclassify some people from employee to 1099, but if it was explained what this meant, and both parties were happy with it, then what is the big deal?
My guess is that the IRS is the big deal. Probably these 1099 people were not doing quarterly estimated taxes, and maybe not paying taxes at all, thinking that perhaps 1099 was akin to "under the table", which it is not. Rather than go after all the individuals, I could see the IRS pushing for legal remedies to try to get the natural consolidator of 1099 income (MSFT) to make the people be employees so that MSFT could withhold taxes.
But to me, it is just stupid. If I want to work at a company on a 1099 basis for 100 years, and the company wants me to do so, there should be no reason why that business relationship cannot be done.
I have a corporation, and when I was acting as a consultant, the stupid MSFT deal was making my client nervous as I had been there over a year. Hello! I have a corporation, for fscks sake! A genuine corporate Tax ID. I pay myself salary! I withhold taxes! I pay unemployment insurance and workers comp. I have general and professional liability insurance!
All of this brought on by a totally different situation at MSFT that should have been a non-issue anyway.

Re:Gah

[Procyon101]

There is much competition in the software contract market. I've worked in it for years. I am at work right now.

My job will end in about 9 months time. During those 9 months I am being paid hourly. I choose to work with a contracting agency that provides me full benefits comparable with what I would get as a full-time employee (not quite as good, but pretty damn good benefits.) I get a slightly higher pay per hours worked than the salaried full time employees, but I work a bit less (both because I prefer to, and because I'm more expensive than salaried employees, so the company prefers I work only when I need to.) If the company really likes me, they might make an offer for full time in the next 9 months... I'll probably turn them down. At the end of my year, I must take 100 days off before working for THIS company again. I will use that as my vacation time, and cash out my paid vacation for a free 2 weeks pay, then I will probably hunt and peck the job market, seeing if there is anything interesting going on, and run my small software company during that time. With the software market being what it is, I can be working within 2 weeks maximum, even without this company I am at now being an option. When the 100 days is up, I can choose to hunt around this company for a position that really sounds interesting to work on for another year (The work environment at this particular company is very nice, so I'm a bit partial to coming back.) My 401K is fully vested with corporate matching through my contract company... as long as I work for them for any amount of time in a 5 year period, it will continue to remain fully vested, so that's no issue.

It's really not as bad as you make it out to be. I very much like my situation. I make a solid 6 figure income (when I decide to work year round), get as much time off per year as I'd like to take with no hard feelings, I get variety in my work, jumping to new projects yearly, or coming back to the same one if I really like it. You make it sound like I'm getting screwed royally, but I think it's at least as equitable a situation as full-time salaried, if not a leg up.

Re:Gah

[winkydink]

There's a whole, formal set of rules in the US that determine how you can classify a worker. Some of it has to do with withholding tax or liability for unpaid withholding tax, and some for preventing trying to use accounting sleight of hand to classify employees as temps to make your books look better. I used to know this "chapter and verse" but it hasn't been that relevant for me for some time. A quick google on "rules for determining temporary versus employee" returns over 1 million results, if you wish further information

smells fishy...

[pjr.cc]

something about the date makes me think it could actually be a whole lot worse ;)

Oh come on...

[milamber3]

I'm sure Google needs the ability to hire workers who will not spend 20% of their time on passion projects and who they can set to a fixed schedule. Not everyone at a large company will have the kind of work ethic that they enjoyed when it was still a smaller workplace. This is not some awful evil thing they are doing. It is the natural progression in the growth of a large company.

Re:Oh come on...

[ClosedSource]

Why should we believe that the work ethic of early employees would be better than those who come later? I've worked both at startups and large established companies and I haven't seen any significant difference in the dedication of workers.

Re:Oh come on...

[iabervon]

The people specifically mentioned in the article are approving AdWords buys. I think Google was probably not benefitting much from these particular people working on side projects (like approving initial cell phone customers?) 20% of the time. I'd like to see an article about people doing data entry for Google, who are happy about the opportunity to spend part of their time entering the data they want to enter, but I suspect that would only appear in the Onion.

Re:Oh come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is the natural progression in the growth of a large company" sounds rather incongruous next to "Don't be evil".

Re:Oh come on...

[magixman]

The phrase "work ethic" is probably a poor choice but I agree with your point. In a small start-up, even the most junior worker has a chance to see the fruits of their work have an effect but as a company grows this becomes harder.

I see the move to non-exempt workers as being significant going forward and maybe indicative of Google's direction. Many options Google may choose down the road could become people-intensive and require a more significant customer service component. The result would be many more jobs that are transactional in nature and that would need to be executed in a cost effective and competitive fashion. Google could afford to keep their current crop of "transactional" workers in the elite "exempt" category but could not afford to do so if thier numbers dramatically increase as could be the case depending on the company's direction.

Re:Oh come on...

[milamber3]

Ok, so let me set a scenario for you:

Small company has 10 hand picked employees to start out and set up some great idea. Each employee was selected for what they could do and evaluated stringently. These guys get some 20% of their time to develop pet projects that may or may not end up helping the company out in the long run.

Now the company takes off and they have 1000 employees, some of which are hired under those same practices and therefore should have the 20% time to spend on pet projects. BUT, now that they have huge offices, HR centers, call centers, etc. there is a need for people to work on things that are not mission critical. Positions that do not exist in a small startup model. These workers do not need 20% of their time to work on pet projects and while the call center guy or HR person may be able to use 20% of their time to create something it is much more likely, by nature of their work that they wont.

A second, very simple argument to support my earlier post could be that there are some people in this work with really good work ethics and some people with not so good work ethics. When hiring a very small amount of people (e.g. 5) it is easier to avoid the latter type of person but, when it's 1000 people being hired by multiple managers you have to assume some portion will slip through. Thus, the need to restrict some, but not all, employees.

Duh, it's the law

[throatmonster]

There are fairly strict laws about who is allowed to be an 'exempt' employee (exempt from hourly labor laws). Most of Google's administrative staff aren't going to qualify. They have to be put on the clock, and paid overtime if they work more than 40 a week. There are benefits to being an hourly worker.

Re: Duh, it's the law

[Black Parrot]

> There are fairly strict laws about who is allowed to be an 'exempt' employee (exempt from hourly labor laws). Most of Google's administrative staff aren't going to qualify. They have to be put on the clock, and paid overtime if they work more than 40 a week. There are benefits to being an hourly worker.

Yes, like not being 'exempt' from overtime pay.

Re:Duh, it's the law

[jconley]

Ok, lets make this clear

Hourly and Salary do not equal exempt or non-exempt

Houlry/salary is the way an employee is paid.

Exempt/Non-exempt determines if an employee is eligible for overtime.

You can be an salary/non-exempt employee. You get a fixed weekly salary, and overtime based on work over 40 hours (or 8 hours/day based on your state)

You can also be an exempt hourly employee. Exempt/non-exempt status is based on goverment regulation, hourly vs. salary is based on employer choice.

Re: Duh, it's the law

[macsimcon]

In California, you cannot be salaried for more than 40 hours per week, and an employer must compensate you for any overtime worked over 40 hours per week. Most employers either do not know this, or feign ignorance, and so the vast majority of employees can always sue for overtime whenever they feel like it.

The Wage Orders in California determining who is exempt and who is not are very strict, and deal with accountants, attorneys, physicians, people working in Hollywood, etc. You can still be classified as exempt even if there isn't a wage order governing your profession or vocation, but there are several tests which your position must satisfy, and it must satisfy them all.

Obviously, those who are covered by wage orders do not get paid overtime in any event. You can hire an attorney for $40K per year and work them 120 hours per week, and it's perfectly legal in California.

Re:Duh, it's the law

[Anonymous Coward]

However, Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) of the FLSA provide an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, and other similarly skilled workers in the computer field who meet certain tests regarding their job duties and who are paid at least $455 per week on a salary basis or paid on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour.

...taken from the US Department of Labor.

To do the math for you, a salaried employee in computing can be exempt if their equivalent hourly rate is $11.38/hr.

One above the Lowest Common Denominator?

[grudgelord]

What does it say about corporate employment in this country when Google can slide down the slope and still remain more desirable than almost any other employer out there? This doesn't sound like Google did an analysis of their employment practices so much as a "Consulting Firm" did an analysis and recommended a series of cost cutting measures, which begs the question, "Why is Google suddenly concerned about small matters like a paid lunch break when they weren't before?" Financial trouble?

Re:One above the Lowest Common Denominator?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "raises the question", not "begs the question".

I hope that helps, have a nice day.

Re:One above the Lowest Common Denominator?

[grudgelord]

Damn! I fell into the trap of common parlance. You are quite correct that "begs the question" is improper usage in this context.

Thank you for pointing this out. I have learned something today.

Re:One above the Lowest Common Denominator?

[bberens]

Google's stock boom is over. That's not to say that I'm necessarily speculating that the price will drop, just that the boom is over. Those stock options for new hires are going to become less and less valuable as the stock price plateaus. Reorganizing the compensation of employees could be used to a) cut cost or b) compensate employees with cash instead of other benefits. Many employees simply want money instead of benefits. Often times these people enjoy being contractors. Just because a company wants to make you hourly instead of salary doesn't mean they want to pay you less, it means they want to pay you differently.

hit the throne

[bigwavejas]

the porcelain palace and your ps2 and you can relax for hours. make sure to grab the luxurious handicap stall.

Re:Starting date: April 1.

[Klaus_1250]

Perhaps it is because I'm European, but, isn't this just some misplaced 1ste April Fools joke? I mean, if it was serious, they'd never would have picked the first of April as a starting date.

What;'s Funny is..

[NotFamous]

I'm staring at a Google ad on this page. Priceless!

Re:What;'s Funny is..

[Gr8Apes]

Please turn in your geek card on your way out. Real geeks don't see ads.

what did you really expect?

[tecie]

This is a public corporation. They're in this to make money.
If the rest of the industry can do this, then so can Google.
Loyalty on either side of the employer relationship means nothing.
I worked as a contractor (glorified temp) for a well known tech megacorp for years. If I learned anything in that time, it's that this trend is only going to get worse until something happens that causes a serious shortage of qualified people. Such an event would be serious labor law (as well as exchange rate) changes in India, Brazil, Eastern Europe and China. Only then will it swing so far into favor of tech workers that we'll be able to start demanding things again, like job security.
Unfortunately, that's unlikely.
My best advice would be to hone your skills and continue learning so you become an invaluable resource at your current or future company. The upside to it is, if you're in this industry because you genuinely enjoy your skill, then this should not be a big change.

Re:what did you really expect?

[Russ Nelson]

This is a public corporation. They're in this to make money.

I guess it's too much to ask for people to not be idiots before they post, but c'mon. Only certain types of jobs are exempt from hourly labor laws, and the mandatory lunch break and two short breaks are FORCED on Google by the government. This has NOTHING to do with Google being a public corporation or trying to make money. All these "worker protection" laws just screw the workers.

Happened here

[PIPBoy3000]

It used to be that where I work, everyone in our department was exempt. The catch is that for a few folks, they were treated like hourly employees (strict work times for the help desk staff, for example). Eventually someone complained and certain jobs were reclassified as hourly.

In general, I don't think it made much of a difference to people's salaries. Certain Help Desk staff had their schedules adjusted to prevent overtime. Hourly people had to record their times. What's strange is that there was a loss of prestige of sorts. Hourly employees weren't considered as "professional" as exempt employees. It wasn't major, and I don't think anyone mentions it now, but it was a cause of grumbling at the time.

Re:Happened here

[Irish_Samurai]

What's strange is that there was a loss of prestige of sorts.

That's a really interesting point. I think the loss of prestige is a major factor of grumbling. Although I cannot determine if being classified as hourly is the source of the issue or if the rank and file hourly archetype is to blame.

At every company I have ever worked for, the hourlies rarely took any initiative to change anything. There were always plenty of complaints from this group, but rarely were there any potential solutions offered.

Was this a side effect of being an hourly worker? Did they feel they had no leverage or voice to influence change? Did they feel that their job classification put their jobs on a precipice and rocking the boat might get them fired?

Does being classified as an hourly worker limit your growth potential in a company? That varies by company to company, but I can understand how the perception might be that it would. I can see discontentment arising out of having a ceiling thrown on your career ladder, even if that ceiling is just a perception.

Re:Happened here

[ballwall]

Speaking from my own experience, it was very hard to get the time as an hourly worker (I don't miss those days) to get the time to work for change. Generally you're hourly because you're doing some mundane task. (In my case taking calls on a help desk). In situations like these there are usually metrics in place to determine if you're doing a 'good job' (which is code for not necessarily being good at your job, just doing more than X of task Y on day Z).

In these types of positions it's hard to work on change because any time not doing your day job impacts your metrics. And you could work past your normal hours, but only if you're allowed overtime (we weren't). Or you could do it on your own time, but why would you want to help a company that won't pay you to do it?

In the end I had to take a risk and let my numbers fall (and work on my own time), hoping that I'd have something to show for it when actually confronted about it. It paid off for me, and got me the hell out of there, but it could have easily gone the other way.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Re:Happened here

[oldwindways]

I find my self in an interesting combination of these two cases. While I am a salaried employee, my company primarily works on government contracts. This means that we need to account for our time down to the closest 1/10 of an hour as per US law. It makes for an interesting dynamic in the work place. Occasionally it also results in your manager telling you that you need to take a few days off since you have logged too many hours. Or of course the same situation could result in mountains of unpaid overtime, but such is reality.

Re:Happened here

[lmnfrs]

The leverage to voice or influence change is nice. But the main problem is that hourly contractors are expendable. They're long-term temps. The company wants so badly to save money that they make hiring managers get contractors instead of employees so they don't have to provide benefits. The 12-month mark rolls around and you're let go, because they're afraid the IRS will get on their backs if a person is contracted for a long time.

Bye-bye! We hope you are in need of a job 6 months from now when we're willing to contract you again!

Re:Happened here

[tompaulco]

I find my self in an interesting combination of these two cases. While I am a salaried employee, my company primarily works on government contracts. This means that we need to account for our time down to the closest 1/10 of an hour as per US law.

Salaried employees working for consulting firms often end up with the worst injustices. After all, if they work overtime, the consulting company brings in BILLABLE DOLLARS, but they don't have to pay the employee anything. Obviously, this tends to make the consulting company try to get as much overtime out of you as possible.

Another situation is when the consulting company bills you out at a daily rate, and the client company usually figures they paid for a day of your time, so you need to be there for one 24 hour day in order for them to get their money's worth out of you.

Re:Happened here

[PitaBred]

That's why my girlfriend's company has profit-sharing and project-based bonuses set up, and ours is starting to do so in the 3rd quarter here (we're still a pretty small startup, growing pains and all). It's not an untenable situation, but it could easily be.

Re:Happened here

[aeoo]

At every company I have ever worked for, the hourlies rarely took any initiative to change anything. There were always plenty of complaints from this group, but rarely were there any potential solutions offered.

Was this a side effect of being an hourly worker?

Well I can tell you that where I work, I am salaried, but there is pretty much 0% chance for me to influence anything of any importance at my company (a worldwide leader in our industry).

In fact, more than one of my coworkers with higher (and sometimes significantly higher) job titles have tried to discuss some changes, and basically were blown off at best, or at worst, told straight to their face that "they're not smart enough to be talking about such things", only not in exactly those words. And I'm talking about changes that we're absolutely qualified to suggest because they fall completely (100%) within our domain of expertise (but we had to ask because they do require some, even if minimal, buy in/commitment from the upper layers of management).

So, my anecdotal evidence is that being salaried does not whatsoever improve your stake in the business. Salaried employees can be, and I believe, mostly are just as disenfranchised as hourly employees.

Re:Happened here

[CAIMLAS]

There's nothing really strange at all about that loss of prestige. If you're required to report the minute-by-minute actions of your day to get paid for work you did, then you're being micro-managed. It is a demotion. It should pay more as a result; it's one more responsibility the employee has to base his or her day around, regardless how small it is.

For a 'professional' job, reporting your hours CAN be quite stifling to your work flow, particularly if it's a job where you perform creative tasks - like programming or design.

Re:Happened here

[FLEB]

For a 'professional' job, reporting your hours CAN be quite stifling to your work flow, particularly if it's a job where you perform creative tasks - like programming or design.

Amen to that!

(Still need to write up those timesheets for the last... err... month. Salaried, but it's a billable-time business.)

Re:Happened here

[Slashdot Parent]

Bye-bye! We hope you are in need of a job 6 months from now when we're willing to contract you again!

What's wrong with that? I like repeat clients. You already know their business and culture and can be effective that much more quickly.

Of course, you're not sitting on your behind during that "6 months" or whatever. You're working for another client or working another stream of income. One time in between clients I managed to buy 5 properties.

Of course, if you are the type to sit at home and play WoW, this is not a good field for you.

my problem with the Google work environment ...

[boxlight]

The problem I would have with the Google work environment is that it all appears to be geared to getting you to spend as many hours as possible at the office.

That is, the free food, and fun corporate events are all nice and everything; but my sense is that in return you're pretty much expected to work extremely long hours, to make your job your life.

IMO, it's extremely important -- crucial even -- to have a separate work life and home life. Work hard from 9-to-5 but then drop everything and go home, spend the evening with your wife and family. Forget about work and come back fresh the next day. Google doesn't seem to emphasize that. It appears when you work at Google, you work there 24/7. I don't think that's necessarily a healthy approach.

Still -- looks like a very fun place to work. If you are allowed to go home at the end of the day. ;-)

boxlight

Re:my problem with the Google work environment ...

[Tacvek]

The problem I would have with the Google work environment is that it all appears to be geared to getting you to spend as many hours as possible at the office. That is, the free food, and fun corporate events are all nice and everything; but my sense is that in return you're pretty much expected to work extremely long hours, to make your job your life. IMO, it's extremely important -- crucial even -- to have a separate work life and home life. Work hard from 9-to-5 but then drop everything and go home, spend the evening with your wife and family. Forget about work and come back fresh the next day. Google doesn't seem to emphasize that. It appears when you work at Google, you work there 24/7. I don't think that's necessarily a healthy approach. Still -- looks like a very fun place to work. If you are allowed to go home at the end of the day. ;-)

I'm wounding if perhaps you have conflated cause and effect. It seems possible that Google has many employees who are basically workaholics. They enjoy their job, and don't mind staying late. Could it be that Google is just catering to its employees desires, rather than trying to entice workers to become workaholic?

Re:my problem with the Google work environment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, that is my dilemma now. I have been in the software industry for 10 years now and have become more and more frustrated with the fact that most the employers I have work for expect my life to revolve around them(seems to be getting worse over the years)....There always seems to be deadlines that require OT and weekends. This situation makes it difficult for me to participate in events outside of work the require participation on a regular schedule. I am expected to drop my life outside of work when someone snaps there fingers...I'm wondering if there is a SW job out there that offers a predictable schedule, or will at least work with my personal schedule. I don't mind the occasional weekend, but it always seems to turn into months, even being expected to work 3rd shift!

Re:my problem with the Google work environment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been a software engineer for about 7 years, and I started at Google a year ago.

Of course it's great to have a separate work and home life. It's also very difficult to keep up a >50 hour work week without negatively affecting productivity or happiness in general. In no way or form does Google demand 24/7 attendance or disallow employees from going home. For that matter, i don't even know who would order me to stay at work later. If anyone had the balls to do that I'd quit.

Just for a data point (yes, anecdotal, I know) here is my typical work week:

• Monday and Tuesday: ~10am-7pm. Most of my in-person meetings take place on these days, so I try to keep normal hours. Also, dinner is served at 6:30. Sometimes I might stay another half hour or hour and have dinner with a teammate before leaving the office.
• Wednesday-Thursday: Noon to ~10pm. I try to get as much of my coding done, and this tends to be easier and interruption free in the afternoon and evenings. Since I'm staying late, I run my daily errands in the morning or sleep in and come in at noon. On some occassions I'll stay later than 10,
• Friday: Noon to 4pm. By Friday morning, most of the work I want to get done for the week is completed, so I want to relax. I'll sleep in a bit, and come into work just to check in with random people. There's a higher propensity for goofing off on Friday, but at the same time I'd rather just goof off at home, so I try to only stay for about 4 hours. At 4pm there's a TGIF session where they make announcements and serve up wine and beer. If it's interesting, I'll stay, but I'd rather get started on weekend plans.

Co-workers around me will sometimes have grossly different schedules. It's mildly annoying sometimes when you *really need* to get ahold of someone, but there is a lot of respect for the personal life of others and you learn to get by without always relying on others. There's no way in hell I'll call a co-worker's cell phone unless there is an extreme, dire, emergency.

Re:my problem with the Google work environment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you RTFA it says they enforce overtime limits...

Re:my problem with the Google work environment ...

[happyemoticon]

Dude, you need to watch Office Space.

"We require our employees to work 8 hours a day, five days a week."

"Okay, that's what I work. 8x5. Standard job."

"Well, yes, but that's the requirement. I guess you could say that's the bare minimum. Do you really want to be just doing the bare minimum?"

"I don't think I understand you. I'm doing 100% of what you require of me."

"Well, yes, and 100% is very good. But Joe is giving 150%. In fact, almost everybody in the office is giving 150%. Carl's doing 200%! Wow, what a great guy! Do you want to be the guy who's just giving 100%?"

"But that doesn't make sense. 100% is the target. Depending on how you look at it, it's the most I can give. If you're saying that 150% is 100%, then I'm giving 66%, and you're saying the default work week is 11 or 12 hours a day, six days a week."

"Oh, but we're not asking you to give more than 100%! It's your choice. We here at Acme are committed to a strong work-life balance. But do you really want to be the guy who's coming in last? It might not bode well for promotions, and if we have to downsize, it'll be the people who are just putting in maximum effort who go first, rather than those who are putting in superlative effort!"

Really, people who put in more than a default work week are hurting their fellow workers and catering to management's unrealistic expectations of workers who are effectively paid less than the minimum wage after you factor in their 120-hour work weeks. And when it comes time to promote, hire and fire, do you really think that the management droids are going to look at the fact that I am consistently more alert and efficient than my counterpart who works twice as many hours as I do, or are they going to, like the fictional manager above, just look at the number of hours worked and assume that the traitor works twice as hard as I do?

Re:my problem with the Google work environment ...

[Achromatic1978]

Not a bad creative effort, but Dilbert does it more succinctly, with an exchange between Catbert, Evil HR Director, and Alice:

C: We need to have a talk about your work-life balance.
A: Oh?
C: Yes, we've noticed you're putting in 80 hours a week. That's nearly half the week.
A: Yes, I'd been meaning to say...

C: NEARLY half! Give us some balance, you selfish hag!

A: Wow. This conversation got suddenly nasty.

Re:my problem with the Google work environment ...

[bertvv]

[...] spend the evening with your wife and family. Wife? This is slashdot, remember?

Re:my problem with the Google work environment ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is quite true when it comes to the engineering department at Google; however, try talking to someone in user support or sales, (especially one of those "red badgers") and I'm certain they will have quite a different story for you. Working unpaid overtime, and furthermore, being expected to work unpaid overtime (don't ask, don't tell), is commonplace among hourly employees. Google is great if you're part of the "upper class," but outside of engineering it's anything but eden.

I don't understand..

[zyl0x]

INAL, but I'm pretty sure Google is obeying the law here. Hourly workers are governed by a lot of employment laws that salary workers are not. The above-mentioned compulsory lunch breaks, as an example.

Is this poster complaining about Google, or are they praising? A news story is no place for excessive sarcasm.

Re:I don't understand..

[Rob the Bold]

Is this poster complaining about Google, or are they praising? A news story is no place for excessive sarcasm.

I'm not sure myself. Who is the second class citizen here: the guy reclassified as hourly who now gets overtime, or the "exempt" employee who can be required to put in as much unpaid overtime as the supervisor wants?

A lot of workers these days are classified as "exempt" from overtime because they are the "Network Backup Manager", or the "Administrative Assistant", or "Security Professional" or whatever. Put the word "manage", or "administrate", or "executive" in the title to make it appear that the position is actually managerial, administrative or professional. When in reality, they aren't a manager of anyone. If you look at their "office", they are clearly not "executive", and don't get me started on who gets called "professional" anymore. The whole idea is to pay them less than you would if they were hourly.

Re:I don't understand..

[Otter]

Is this poster complaining about Google, or are they praising?

I think the actual complaint is that workers who were formerly part of the Google perkfest are now punching a clock, not the mandatory breaks per se. The link is incoherent ("Retarted."?!?) and the submitter seems to have mostly repeated it.

April fool's

[Vlijmen Fileer]

April 1st, really ...

Re:April fool's

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like when GMail was announced. "Har har, everyone will think we're JOKING! But we're totally not."

Reclassified Though!?!

[Slipgrid]

The part that gets me is the reclassified as hourly. If I moved across the country to work for them, took a lower pay to do it, and then got reclassified, I'd be angry.

Re:Reclassified Though!?!

[jrockway]

Is it engineering where this is happening, or is it the cleaning staff? The article didn't mention that.

I doubt google would shaft their engineering department.

Re:Reclassified Though!?!

[plalonde2]

The article mentions at least one class of worker that was re-classified: the Adwords approval people. In a newspaper they would be the classified copy editors. It's a low-end job. I'm willing to bet Google isn't reclassifying engineers as hourly.

That's why I love my job.

[FatSean]

We work overtime when needed, there is alot of support for balancing work and life. Telecommuting is a big plus, as is flexible work hours. As long as I make netmeetings and conference calls and hit my targets, they don't care when I get the work done.

Re:That's why I love my job.

[boxlight]

> We work overtime when needed, there is alot of support for balancing work and life. > Telecommuting is a big plus, as is flexible work hours. As long as I make netmeetings > and conference calls and hit my targets, they don't care when I get the work done.

Thanks for the response. That sounds very reasonable, indeed. Where do I sign up? ;-)

boxlight

Re:That's why I love my job.

[hanwen]

Thanks for the response. That sounds very reasonable, indeed. Where do I sign up? ;-)

Try jobs@google.com

Re:That's why I love my job.

[FatSean]

I can't out myself due to my antagonistic political comments here, but it's a company that gets regular attention here on slashdot :)

Re:Starting date: April 1.

[slashbob22]

Could be based on an accounting Fiscal Year. For many organizations this is April 1 - March 31.

provide a citation please

[way2trivial]

cause it is not a federal law...

Re:provide a citation please

[ahknight]

If not federal, it's in a lot of states' codes. It's law here in Texas, and I'm fairly certain it is law in California as well, if it's not federal. It is extremely common, one way or another.

Re:provide a citation please

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, its not a law in Texas.

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/lablaw/paydaylaw_faq .pdf

Q: After what length of time do I need to provide my employees with a break/lunch period? Do these times need to be paid?
A: The Texas Payday Law does not address the issue of rest breaks or meal breaks. There is no current legislation in the state of Texas requiring an employer to provide breaks - they are optional. Work schedules, including breaks, regular hours and overtime hours, are left to the discretion of the employer and are usually based on the needs of the business.

zeroth class is IPO zillionaires

[peter303]

Sometimes there is distance between the few early IPO employees who you know dont really have to work for a living anymore and those who follow later.

Re:zeroth class is IPO zillionaires

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the dark side of IPO's: the have's vs. the have not's.

Google has some billionaires. You have many more people who are multi-millionaires. Some of them do the exact same job as the people going hourly - but they were hired pre-IPO. The Adwords worker who made a million dollars in stock options probably doesn't care so much about going hourly. Sure he might be annoyed and might leave the company, but he has his money. However, the new hire sitting next to him that's struggling to live on his $50K salary in Silicon Valley is probably going into depression.

I've been through this a few times. There is nothing quit like having a co-worker doing the same job as you who has collectively been paid 5000% of your compensation.

April first...

[Arielholic]

... early this year.

Re:April first...

[Anonymous Coward]

Had to be early to trick everyone. And look at these posts.. it certainly did.

PSSTT people that are yelling about this article its tagged *aprilfools*.

Isn't it quite normal ?

[BlueTrin]

In a capitalist model, if you are not happy, you are free to look for a better job somewhere else ? If you are not happy about the package they are offering you, you can just knock at some other door if you have valuable skills (or skills more valued by another company) ? I do not understand what the fuss is about ...

Re:Isn't it quite normal ?

[vidarh]

That only works in a market where all parties have full access to all information. Providing potential employees with information about how potential employers behaves is a vital part of that. Google has for a long time tried to portrayed itself as all saintly, and has had a reputation in some circles for being an amazing place to work - now some things have changed that might change that reputation, and hence people make a fuss. What's so hard to understand? If nobody made a fuss, a lot of people would keep raving about Google and some people might end up making stupid choices.

It is pretty hilarious that you drag out "a capitalist model" but ignore that spread of information is one of the most important parts of a well functioning market.

Re:Isn't it quite normal ?

[BlueTrin]

Yeah I am not implying that the article is wrong (like you just said, more information is better). It is just that alot of replies are quite negative and it surprised me ... IMHO just reporting it and saying that Google is not the place it used to be is enough to spread the information.
I agree, anyway, eventually, if they get too far, their reputation about being a good employer is gonna fade. But again ... that is quite normal, isn't it ?

Re:Isn't it quite normal ?

[Quiet_Desperation]

But then you run into the retarded interview process where someone with 1/10 my hardware design mojo and 1/10 my programming kung-fu asks me how to move a chicken and a fox across a river, and other concepts so important to digital communications.

Or they tell you they are *really* looking for someone with 10 years experience in technology X. Pointing out that technology X has only existed for 6 years evokes nothing but a blank stare.

Changing jobs is a pain in the ass regardless of a person's abilities.

Re:Isn't it quite normal ?

[BlueTrin]

Come on, it is really easy

...

The man and the chicken cross the river, (the fox and corn are safe together), he leaves the chicken on the other side and goes back across.
The man then takes the fox across the river, and since he can't leave the fox and chicken together, he brings the chicken back.
Again, since the chicken and corn can't be left together, he leaves the chicken and he takes the corn across and leaves it with the fox.
He then returns to pick up the chicken and heads across the river one last time.
The original problem
A man has to get a fox, a chicken, and a sack of corn across a river. He has a rowboat, and it can only carry him and one other thing. If the fox and the chicken are left together, the fox will eat the chicken. If the chicken and the corn is left together, the chicken will eat the corn. How does the man do it?

On a more serious notem I am in the process of looking for a job ... and I understand your pain.

Re:Isn't it quite normal ?

[tompaulco]

A man has to get a fox, a chicken, and a sack of corn across a river. He has a rowboat, and it can only carry him and one other thing. If the fox and the chicken are left together, the fox will eat the chicken. If the chicken and the corn is left together, the chicken will eat the corn. How does the man do it?
Well, the real answer is that the problem hasn't been researched properly. There is no real reason why you would need to be able to move the fox, which would prove difficult to catch anyway. If you could catch the fox, you could put put the corn in a suitable container which should have been researched beforehand, and then take the fox across the river and dump it.
If you really need the chicken and the corn on the other side of the river, then you take the corn over, then go back and get the chicken. You don't need a fox. The fox is something you need to try to keep away from the chicken.
The question is incorrect and shows an ability of the questioner to reason out what they are asking.

Re:Isn't it quite normal ?

[sethstorm]

In a capitalist model, if you are not happy, you are free to look for a better job somewhere else ? If you are not happy about the package they are offering you, you can just knock at some other door if you have valuable skills (or skills more valued by another company) ?

You are assuming that the practical choice allows for it. In most cases today, it does not - see offshoring and tolerance of illegal immigration. It does not work when your replacement is easy, even for a high skill level.

I do not understand what the fuss is about ...

Fly to Detroit and speak your mind to the UAW, or go where PATCO is and talk to them. They'll be quite friendly and descriptive of the situation at hand.

only a matter of time

[DaMattster]

I think a lot of people smelled this one coming and it was only a matter of time before it hits. Many industries are going to outsourcing and nowhere is the impact more visible than on the devoted employee. I checked one of the links and was sickened by the fact that the appeal to Bill Gates for assistance from a quasi-temp with brain cancer and raising a family as a single parent went unheeded. If I was even a minor functionary at Microsoft and I saw that letter, I would make certain it got routed to the Chairman somehow. Are we so self-preserving that we cannot help out another human being? This even sickens me further because Gates runs a charitable foundation. I guess it must only be "en vogue" to help foreign countries because a blind eye was turned to a legitimate plea here at home.

I am not a particularly religious person but a rabbi once lectured on charity and its importance to being a good citizen. He even said that, "The highest form of charity is the anonymous donation." He said also said that true charity is not supporting a cause celebre. My cheers to those who stepped in to help that quasi-Microsoft employee. Your assistance was in the true spirit of charity.

Re:only a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

My mom worked for Microsoft as a contractor back when it was a one building operation in Bellevue. When she was diagnosed with cancer, Microsoft offered her
health insurance even though that was really the responsibility of the contracting firm.

Re:only a matter of time

[DaMattster]

I am sorry to hear that your mom got cancer and I hope that she is well now, or if not there yet then, on the road to recovery. I am also glad to hear that she got the assistance for the treatment that she so deserved. Cancer is a condition I wish on no person. Did you see the link: ? I am sorry to sound cynical but I suspect Microsoft is not being altruistic but reacting to bad press and a previous lawsuit. The laws governing permanent temporary employees are very muddied.

Short on details

[UnknowingFool]

The story is so short on details it's hard to form any opinion. For example, how many people will be affected and what kind of jobs? Are we talking 100 people? Are talking about jobs that may be temporary by definition (receptionists, contractors, etc.) or unskilled labor (janitors, garage attendants, security guards). Other companies like HP have had the same issues with "permatemps" and how to properly classify them. Other than linking to the same company as the Microsoft fiasco, it really serves no other purpose than to take a cheap shot at Google.

In the MS case, MS had people working at the same jobs as skilled salaried employees for years. But what irked the judge in the case what Microsoft did in the case. As soon as the lawsuit was initiated, Microsoft lawyers drafted an agreement that they tried to get all their temporary employees to sign that would relinquish all their rights to sue Microsoft for labor violations. It was insinuated that those who did not sign could not work for Microsoft. The judge sua sponte quashed the agreements. In the end, the courts ruled that they should have had rights to participate in the employee stock option program.

Re:Short on details

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely the writer had thoughts along these lines...

Man, my deadlines almost up. I shouldn't have been playing WoW this much. My friend just told me about how Google wants to screw him out of overtime, I think I'll write about that. I'm a little short on details, but I can't resist ripping into this "best place to work" and hmmm how do I get a quick graphic. Google image search "punch clock". Yeah that third one looks like a good one. Thanks google for helping me. Done. Now back to WoW.

From TFA:

[Brunellus]

threat of a black mark on the review of anyone who fails to punch in properly to the time-tracking window on their desktops. "Retarted." says our disgruntled informant.

Guess we know why that monkey's punching a clock. Welcome to the real world, kids, where the boss wants you at work on time. I work a similarly menial job. What I want to know is what the hourly wage for clock-punching down at the Googleplex is, and whether it beats my current wage.

Re:From TFA:

[chuckymonkey]

Exactly, that seems to be a major problem today. I don't understand the people in my peer group, I'm 22 work in the tech industry and make really good money because I'm good at what I do. The problem that I have is that I see so many people in my age group that don't even understand what being on time means. I always make it a point to be 15 minutes early to work, and I leave on time if there's no fires that need to be put out. The one thing that I do understand about my peer is that the majority of them want a job like mine where I get paid very very well, only work 7 days out of 14 and have great bennies. What they don't want though is to have to work for it like I did, I got the job because I worked my ass of when I was a teenager and while I was in the Army to do it, they want it without doing anything to earn it.

Re:From TFA:

[Brunellus]

What they don't want though is to have to work for it

. . . which is precisely why their jobs are outsourced to places in the world where people do work.

Unpaid breaks?

[iceperson]

I worked at wal-mart in HS and even they gave 2 paid 15 min breaks.

With everything they do still in Beta

[0xdeadbeef]

You'd think they'd be nicer to theirs.

What about EA?

[CPE1704TKS]

Funny, when the programmers at EA got switched to hourly, were made eligible for OT, etc, it was hailed as a victory. Somehow at Google, the same action makes them a second class citizen.

FWIW, my company does the same thing (I work in Silicon Valley as well). I am non-exempt, work from 10 to 7 or 8 every day, and I don't get any of the Google perks, and get no OT. I just don't see how this means that Google is turning the corner into evil territory.

Re:What about EA?

[Dachannien]

That's contrarianism at work, and part and parcel of the false company-versus-employee dichotomy. EA is regarded by many as an "evil" company that mistreats its workers, so when they change their employment practices, it's a win for their poor downtrodden employees. Google is regarded by many as a "good" company, so when they change their employment practices, it's because they're actually "evil" and abusive of their workforce.

Come work in the AEC industry

[Overzeetop]

Architecture/Engineering firms typically hire everybody, and everybody is in-house, form the mail room to the partners. Of course, everybody but the partners get paid poorly and work long hours without overtime (exempt folks, that is), so it's not like you're getting off scott free. Oh, and layoffs are pretty common as the building market swings up and down. *shrug*

Re:Come work in the AEC industry

[simm1701]

Sorry but I don't work unpaid overtime.

I work damn hard in the hours I am working, but if more work needs to be done then:

either its impotant enough to preauthorise paying me for it

or

its not important enough to need doing

There is no middle ground.

And yes as you might have guessed I'm a contractor, but I've been permanant too and had the same attitude there, I never refused extra work but my response has always been the same "Sure I can do that, is the extra time authorised? Get back to me when it is" the manager then usually goes away at that point and either comes back with a yes it is, or drops the matter

Re:Come work in the AEC industry

[GundamFan]

I think you don't understand. the parent was talking about full time employees who are exempt form overtime benefits, at a certain level on the pay scale at most organizations the company or institution basically owns the employee's time. Mostly these are critical and senior positions.

Re:Come work in the AEC industry

[tompaulco]

I think you don't understand. the parent was talking about full time employees who are exempt form overtime benefits, at a certain level on the pay scale at most organizations the company or institution basically owns the employee's time. Mostly these are critical and senior positions.
No, the intention of the law about exemptions is that they are supposed to be for critical and senior positions, but they reality is that just about everybody is classified as exempt in order to steal time from them.
I for one, like the GP post, have been promised the world, and delivered nothing more times than I can count, so after taking my current (exempt) position, I no longer work overtime. Period. If they don't like it, they can fire me, or pay me overtime, I don't really care which. I realize that many people are not in a position to make this stand. Neither am I. But I am making it anyway. If EVERYBODY made this stand, even those who are not in a position to do so, major change would be affected. A lot of people WOULD get fired. A lot of companies would fail. After all, there are many companies out there who can only afford to be in business if they don't have to pay their employees for the time they work. If that is the case, their business model is wrong, their solution is not viable, and they deserve to go under.

Re:Come work in the AEC industry

[simm1701]

I understand completely

If a company is not set up to pay overtime then fine, I'll take time in lieu - but my time is valuable, a fact the company obviously aknowledge by paying me my salary, and my time does not come for free. I'm sure this attitude may not go down too well with some managers, tough!! I'm damn good at my job, am able to knock out work twice as fast as most people when I have to, am very flexible and possibly unusual for a techie, very good at getting on and working with others - but on the issue of overtime I will not budge.

In the uk unpaid overtime is technically illegal though I've never heard of a prosecution for it in the higher paid professions (doesn't mean there haven't been any)

I guess it comes down to the old uk/us difference on freedom, in the us you are free to sign away your rights, in the uk you are not, no contract can affect your statutory rights

Re:Come work in the AEC industry

[Overzeetop]

And that's why you are a contractor. You wouldn't make a "good" (read: shituponable, if that's a word) employee. I'm in the business, too. And I run my own firm because most of the AE houses wanted the free overtime. My employees get paid for overtime because I agree with you. They also work hard and are loyal, and I value that. Most firms, in my experience, don't.

Re:Come work in the AEC industry

[simm1701]

It does depend on the company, I've worked permanant at one of the worlds biggest IT companies that did have a formal overtime system (though sometimes there was an overtime ban on but they would arrange time in lieu) and a start up company that couldn't afford to pay the overtime as it was on a budget, but again would agree time in lieu but the need was much rarer.

I just always made it clear that I would happily do the extra work/extra time, but the payment or time off would need to be agreed first.

Time in lieu works quite well as it covers rare occurances, sure paying overtime is great, and I'll take it when I can, but any company that is frequently trying to get unpaid overtime worked is obviously under staffed.

It came up so rarely at the start up that it wasn't an issue. It came up very often at the large company but they didn't treat me any better or any worse (ie still treat like dirt) than those people that always worked extra hours but never claimed the over time even when it was pre approved for the whole department.

Maybe the issue was balanced by the fact I was always willing to do it and just put the ball into thei court - but personally I think its just that companies treat most of their people the same way (be it well or be it crap) and they will try to get what work out of you they can, but will rarely resent you sticking up for yourself on the overtime issue. But then I've always been in a position to be choosey with what jobs to take, I view an interview to be atleast as much about what I think of them to what they think of me.

"Informant"

[R3s0lut3]

The chief source for this story is a disgruntled "informant" inside the googleplex. To this I say: just because one person at google hates his job doesn't mean they're shafting a whole segment of their workforce. Come back when you have data, not just a data point.

I don't,...

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people here still work for companies where the secretaries and janitors (sorry, don't have the inclination to use the newer politically-correct terms) actually are full-time, fully-vested, non-contracted company employees?. ...my employer outsources, janitorial, security and cleaning services. The house hasn't been properly cleaned since they started this policy, and this despite the fact that they are now doing business with their third janitorial/security/cleaning service contractor. There is a toilet in one of the men's rooms that hasn't flushed properly in over 6 months, the only way to get rid of the stench wen some idiot has walked past the 'BROKEN!' sign and takes a dump in it, is to pour a bucket of water into the bowl and flush the toilet that way. Every time we complain about this somebody from our ever vigilant janitorial/security/cleaning services contractor shows up, hangs around for about 30 minutes, leaves and then nothing changes. Security?... well... security is a joke. The reason why things are like this has mostly to do with the fact that the contractor firms that hire out cleaning, security and janitorial staff pay wages that are so low it borders on being an insult with the result that their employees are not motivated to do their jobs properly and usually leave the instant they can get a better job. As for personal assistants, those are only for PHB's, there are department secretaries, roughly 1 per 15 employees who handle things like stationary purchases, keeping printers running, etc.. plus general secretarial work both secretaries and PAs are hired full-time. As for IT contractors the PHB's finally decided it wasn't worth it due to generally low average code quality and the costs generated by people constantly having to putting out brushfires instead of doing more productive work. This has also adversely affected our customer's perception of our company's reliability. There were some contractors that did proper work (i.e. wrote proper OO code, documented it properly and used our source control system like a source control system and not like a flash drive), some of those have been hired by our company, others will be replaced by full-time employees as we are phasing out contractors as far as is possible. As for myself, I am currently waiting for the next fad in employment policy.... I hope it will be as entertaining as this outsourcing farce has been.

Re:I don't,...

[ReidMaynard]

bravo..as an ademdum, I think sub-contracting is also having adverse effects in the (USA) military, after all, why can't a soldiers peel potatoes?

Re:I don't,...

[Richy_T]

Go out, buy a $2 roll of duct tape and take some responsibility for your environment. Two or three strips should be enough to stop someone using the thing. Sheesh.

Rich

Re:I don't,...

[Anonymous Coward]

why can't a soldiers (sic) peel potatoes?

Believe what you will, but most of them are smarter than that and doing so would be a waste of their time.

Re:I don't,...

[Achromatic1978]

Whereas of course sitting in the barracks polishing their shoes and ensuring the corners of their bedsheets is, of course, NOT a waste of their time, right?

Re:I don't,...

[Blakey Rat]

Are you telling me you don't have a single employee who knows how to fix a toilet? Christ, what is this, an office full of infants?

Do you hire contractors to change your diapers too?

(Yes, I know that you shouldn't have to fix the toilet because you hire people to do but, but when you get to the point where there's shit sitting there for days at a time, FIX IT YOUR DAMN SELF! Then solve the labor issues later on.)

Re:I don't,...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Nope. The point of all that is to teach attention to detail, which keeps you alive when the shit starts flying.

the article cited is from March 21st

[stuartrobinson]

As usual, no one bothers to read the article that is linked to. You'll notice that its publication date is March 21st. So the original article isn't an April Fool's Day joke.

Re:the article cited is from March 21st

[StevenAD]

From the article:

"But try telling that to those employees who will on April 1st be recategorized as hourly workers;"

Your post:

"As usual, no one bothers to read the article that is linked to. You'll notice that its publication date is March 21st. So the original article isn't an April Fool's Day joke."

Who didn't bother to read the article?

Re:the article cited is from March 21st

[stuartrobinson]

Mea culpa.

Blame the Law and Laywers, not Google...

[nweaver]

These are the rules for nonexempt employees.

Previously, many high-tech companies classified effectively everyone as "exempt" as a way of avoiding overtime. There are major law firms who make money suing such companies, their adds are all over BART in the bay area.

This is simply Google actually complying with employment law, reclassifying a large number of employees as nonexempt, so they either have to get paid overtime or go home.

Re:Blame the Law and Laywers, not Google...

[dlim]

These are the rules for nonexempt employees. And the rules are: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay /fs17e_computer.htm

I made more hourly...

[CasperIV]

When I worked hourly, I made more money then salary with equal positions. With an hourly position you always have the potential for at least some overtime. The only reason people don't like hourly pay is because it doesn't sound as official as salary and because it means they actually have to show up to be paid. Think of it this way, $50,000 a year is only $27 per hour if you work 5 days a week and have paid holidays and such. With benefits such as health care and the like, you are actually making around $35-$45 depending. Know, let's add a little over time. Let's say I wanted to work for time and a half another 8 hours a week (a pretty low number for someone who really wants to work). That's ($27 * 1.5) = $40.50 * 8 hours a week * 4 in a month = $1296 per month extra. Over a year that can earn an extra $15,552 from just 8 hours a week overtime. That's more then some minimum wage jobs and it doesn't even factor double time. If you think salary is a great deal, your mistaken. That hourly guy making 10k less then you actually might be making more then you in the end.

Re:I made more hourly...

[Irish_Samurai]

True, the hourly guy could be making more money - but that's not all there is to compensation.

The ability to influence actual change is worth more than money to some. I know that I am more than willing to "lose" a few dollars an hour in order to be given free reign to implement my ideas on a large scale. If my ideas work I am in a much better position to be given more critical tasks and matching compensation.

Some companies don't give this freedom to hourlies.

Re:I made more hourly...

[CasperIV]

True, but I'm more looking at it from a consulting or temp side of things. Most of the time you get moved to salary as soon as you start spending enough time with the company that your actually making money. I know as soon as I moved into an administration or developer role with any company, the first thing they talk about is my salary and my salary cap. I might be in charge of a lot more stuff, but in reality, they just promote people to the point of in being ineffectual rather the firing them. You are either doing really good or really bad when you get promoted 3 times in a year and end up in your own corner of the company, talking to yourself. Since I have played on both sides of the fence, there is a feeling of security and purpose that comes with salary, but there is also a feeling of being trapped. You know that unless you can move up a rung, your stuck in your current salary bracket... and no matter how much extra time you work, all your going to get is comp time (in most cases).

Re:I made more hourly...

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Many companies don't give the freedom to implement change to salaries; that requires a change request and management approval.

Re:I made more hourly...

[svunt]

My employer rocks. The day before payday, I get a choice of being paid for the month at my salary rate, or I can take it as hourly pay, the hourly rate being ever-so-slightly less than salary/37.5...so if I work more than a couple of hours OT a month, I take option B. It's a good deal, and I work my ass off because I work for reasonable people.

Re:I made more hourly...

[StikyPad]

Think of it this way, $50,000 a year is only $27 per hour

Not quite.

A salary of $50,000 equates to a monthly pay of $4,167, weekly pay of $962, and an hourly wage of $24.04.

I'm hourly, and I'm not allowed to work overtime, which is regrettable, but on the bright side I never have to stay late unexpectedly either, and I can do part-time work at nearly the same rate as my fulltime job if I want extra cash. My girlfriend is salaried, makes significantly less, and routinely has to work late and/or work weekends.

Clearly no one is here from management today

[Alpha830RulZ]

This was inevitable. Workers that don't perform certain types of duties or have certain types of qualifications HAVE to be treated as hourly as far as both state and federal labor law is concerned. This just isn't optional, and when a company gets to a certain size, they are a delicious target for plaintiff's lawyers.

If Google does not follow these practices, then a plaintiff's attorney can find someone who worked 8.5 hours regularly, get that person as a plaintiff, assert that 1000 other workers are similarly abused, and seek class action status. If the court were to find that those workers averaged .5 hours OT a day, over a 250 day work year, at an average wage of $15 an hour, over three years it could easily find damages of $6,000,000. Assume for a second that the lawyer convinced a jury that it wasa really more like 3 hours a day, or any other distortion, and it could go up dramatically. Since plaintiff's attorneys commonly take these cases for 30% of the award, it's easy to imagine that lawyers would be eager to take this on.

This is, unfortunately, prudent management. Google management has a responsibility to be prudent with their shareholders' money, so this is absolutely ethical. What the moaners are failing to keep in mind is that jobs don't below to the workers, they belong to the company. The company is not to blame for the legal environment that makes this a rational act. The workers have the votes to change Congress, if they don't like what Congress did with the labor law.

Further, again from a management viewpoint, what makes a job humane, satisfying, fun, and all those other fulfilling words usually has little to do with the paycheck and the rules around how you collect it. It has more to do with the quality of the work, the people you are working with, and how your supervisor treats you. This has nothing to do with that.

Re:Clearly no one is here from management today

[Anonymous Coward]

Further, again from a management viewpoint, what makes a job humane, satisfying, fun, and all those other fulfilling words usually has little to do with the paycheck and the rules around how you collect it. It has more to do with the quality of the work, the people you are working with, and how your supervisor treats you. This has nothing to do with that.

You are dead-on, my friend. I'm an over-the-road truck driver. My profession doesn't pay a salary, nor does it pay by the hour. We get paid by the mile. If the tires aren't turning, we're not getting paid. And when you get right down to it, as far as pay goes, there isn't much difference among the major trucking companies.

Some offer more pay per mile, but give you fewer miles to drive. Some offer more miles, but less pay per mile. What differentiates them is how they treat their drivers.

The better companies treat their drivers with dignity and respect, maintain the equipment properly, and don't pressure their drivers to violate the FMCSA Hours of Service rules. The worst companies send out trucks with equipment safety violations that would cause the DOT to put them out of service if they got inspected at a weigh station, lie to their drivers about pay, benefits, and a myriad of other things, and outright force drivers to drive 18 hours in a row (the rules say no more than 11 hours of driving before a mandatory 10 hour break) to get a load to its destination on time, under threat of dismissal.

How do restaurants get around it?

[rsilvergun]

if it's Fed Law. I worked in one for years, and seldom got a break.

Re:How do restaurants get around it?

[Splab]

Are you a member of a union? Have you raised the issue with your employer?

In my experience very few people are able to read you mind, so I usually try talking it over with them if there is an issue.

Re:How do restaurants get around it?

[rsilvergun]

It's a right to work state, so no Unions. If you'd asked the employer about it, they'd just say "It's a right to work state" and that's that.

Re:How do restaurants get around it?

[jrockway]

> "It's a right to work state" and that's that

Maybe you should exercise that right and get a real job?

Also, I don't buy your comment about "there are no unions". Start one. Get your coworkers to all quit on the same day if you don't get paid 15 minute breaks. That's a union.

Re:How do restaurants get around it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having only read the summary of the Federal law, I am a little confused by some of these comments. However, what you describe seems consistent with what I read. What I read indicates that you are not entitled to a short break. It is only if they give you a short break that they must pay you for it. So, the restaurant just didn't give you one, and therefore they didn't have to pay you for it.
-Bette

I wish I could be hourly...

[mutterc]

It would be so much more motivating to be paid by the hour. If the company wanted you to work long hours, they would have to pay extra for the privilege. The only tangible thing salaried employees get for working overtime is "maybe this will put you slightly higher on the list for raises next year, if there's money for raises at all".

It's a healthier attitude, I think. My employer would pay a fixed amount of money per unit of my time / effort. Of course, employers don't want that because they want you to donate a bunch of work to them, saving them some money. Of course, it never saves enough money to make your job safe from offshoring.

Re:I wish I could be hourly...

[slackmaster2000]

On the other hand, you have to punch the clock. When you are hourly your cost to the company is based on the number of hours you work. Thus when you work overtime and start costing the company more money than they expected, you fall under the management microscope. "Why aren't you getting you work done in forty hours?"

When you are salary and not punching the clock, your cost is fixed and you are judged on performance alone. Whether you work 10 hours or 60 hours.

That's the theory anyhow. It all depends on the company how it really works.

I'm salary exempt and it works out in my favor. I typically put in around 40 hours, sometimes a little less. I don't feel bad about the weeks where I work less because there are a few times a year where I have to put in 70 hours in one week.

Another benefit, to me, is that I don't feel at all pressured to perform within an alloted time period. If I waste an hour bullshitting with co-workers I don't feel guilty about it. I still have to have my work done. How I get it done is up to me.

Re:I wish I could be hourly...

[lababidi]

So you want to get paid by the hour for a menial job that you don't want to be at? That's a healthier attitude? Most people take the Salary job because they'll put up with the menial job for 40 (or 50) hours as long as a good chunk of that time is spent doing something other than the job they are getting paid for. I'd love to see you rack and cable servers for 40+ hours a week. It's very motivating to see the other Googlers go to Social events like ski trips and parties while you have to bite your tongue. No thanks.

Valleywag gossip on Slashdot, Sigh!

[Anonymous Coward]

And finally, a heading from valleywag hits slashdot. I occasionally read VW, and can attest that it is mostly sensationalism (gossip/money/sex/personal-lives/lifestyle/rumors) . Just a tabloid for the valley.

Interesting. Sometimes.
News for nerds. Never.

-- SSC

FUD campaign on Google

[Anonymous Coward]

There've been a lot of non-stories revolving around taxes, accounting, employee & management competence, and all kinds of other topics lately directed towards Google. Could just be a FUD campaign. Some corporations actually consider this a business tactic.

Google's recruiting practices are broken

[Anonymous Coward]

While I think Google is probably one of the better companies in Silicon Valley, their general recruiting practices are seriously broken. And by that I mean they are unintentionally screening out some of the top notch people.

I've done some of the leading working at nearly all of the big name companies, as a consultant for the past twenty years. I also am one of the most expensive ones you can find, as I deliberately keep my rates high (simple supply and demand).

Over the years I've seen exactly one contract position offered by Google from an agent. And that was from a disreputable agent at that (he stiffed another contractor, and we do keep tabs).

In my experience, this is very unusual. Everyone else has to turn to agents to find the people they need. It's the only way to get the top quality talent when you don't know that talent personally. Nor do I know of any other contractors whom I respect that have worked there.

So, folks at Google, this is a "head's up". You're clearly doing something unusual, and it's limiting yourself from reaching a key segment of the talent out there.

As for myself, I don't care. I'm quite happy with a long time gig with a client that has deep pockets. And they're good people too. I won't be leaving any time soon, since I have a ticket to ride that I can write myself.

But I thought I'd mention it in case anyone at Google cared. They strike me as one of the better companies around, generally speaking, and ought to be supported when possible.

How is hourly being a second class citizen?

[hey!]

Many salaried workers these days aren't high status professionals who come and go as they please as long as the produce the desired results. They're just workers who have to have to be laboring at their posts when the man says so. Their big perk is that they get to work overtime and take work home when the boss says so -- without extra pay.

I realize there is a generational difference in attitudes towards work; younger people expect to be given responsibility faster and have looser restrictions on when and how they work, provided they get the job done. Some people see that as spolied, and sometimes it may be, but it also represents a shift in the kinds of work many people do. If you can redefine how your job is done, I say more power to you.

That said, there are still jobs where a worker's output is largely a function of his having his ass in his seat for a certain amount of time. These people don't need to prepare briefs in time for a court deadline. They don't have jobs where interrupting them while they're in the grip of creative inspiration would be tantamount to a crime. They are paid to perform relatively routine operations repetitively.

Some might think having one of those jobs makes you second class. But having legal protection so the boss can't extort more work out of you can't hurt your status.

Hourly still sounds good at Google

[Ushiroda80]

I'm sure that being an hourly worker at Google would still be the top place to work for as an hourly worker. Its not about classism, it's about having an effective work structure. Hourly employees are needed in any large corporation. to fill in the blanks such as support staff, these positions could be great opportunities for those still in school who don't have time for a full time schedule

Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is it a bad thing for employers to give employees breaks and lunchtime anyway? And what is so wrong with punching a clock if you are paid hourly? I mean, isn't that kind of how they know how much to pay you?

As for limited overtime, so what? Guess how many people in this country are stuck working exactly 31 hours a week at two different jobs so that both companies can deny them benefits. Guess how many salary workers work 70 or 80 hours a week with no overtime pay at all. Kudos to google for not totally screwing over their hourly employees like many companies.

This is a ridiculous story but also a ridiculous list of non-complaints.

And the real ugly truth.

[LWATCDR]

I some how doubt that the actual developers with PHDs are treated the same as a starting sysadmin at Google.
Welcome to the real world.

Re:And the real ugly truth.

[radl33t]

Nor should they be treated the same. The PhD has an enriched skill set and they have also signaled an ability to commit to a difficult and long project, often forgoing immediate gratification (e.g. salary, lifestyle). They have sent signals to a business that a entry level sysadmin with BS or GED is unable to match. Dedication and education are excellent providers of upward mobility and advanced degrees demonstrate this nicely. Such is life.

I'm going for a graduate degree and at this point I might chose a horrific, untimely death before I have to face a job market.

Re:And the real ugly truth.

[LWATCDR]

Notice I said "starting sysadmin at Google".. Anyone at the top of the Network admin food chain at Google is probably worth many times what a starting PHD Of course the people that plan and are in charge of Google's network may also have a few PHDs under their belt. Goodness knows that the idea of planing and implementing a network infrastructure like Google's makes my head hurt, but I would love to give it a shot.

IBM's Answer to That

[Greyfox]

At any time of the day or night, within minutes of you entering a stall someone will come in, choose the staill right next to yours even though there's a full row of 16 empty ones and proceed to take the most noxious dump ever taken by a human being. I'm pretty sure that IBM hires "Will Work for Food" people off the street for minimum wage and all the bran muffins they can eat. These people must be kept in secret bases in empty meeting rooms and dispatched, as needed, to restrooms across the site. Once they've done their work, no one will want to go near that place for a good couple of hours. That's the real reason for IBM's success. They're so much more productive because no one's in the restroom unless it's an absolute emergency.

yep.. I lived in california, and hourly

[way2trivial]

a long long time ago... I know it's a common state law..

I also know there is no such law in my current state, ergo- it's not federal mandate..

the only such laws in my state (NJ) are for employed minors.

this a joke, right?

[b-l4ke]

They're being reclassified on APRIL 1ST. Maybe they're getting a head start this year.

Jeez

[Oligonicella]

"...which come with a guarantee of unemployment after one year."

No. It's called the period of time after the contract expires. The only friggin' thing making it a time of unemployment is lack of searching for next job/contract.

Re:Jeez

[tiupayzai]

So let me get this straight.

You've got a one year contract job at a name brand company like Google. You obviously had the experience to get that job in the first place.

You know for sure when your job is finishing. And you have a very professional answer to "why are you leaving your current job?"

This makes for a very good job search situation. Anyone with half a whit looking to really build their career, rather than just collect a paycheck, should be able to leverage this quite nicely.

And you complain about this? Just ask for more money to cover your own benefits. That's what contractors do. If they don't pay you enough, then try and find a better job before the year is up. You haven't sold them your soul for a year. You've just made a business agreement, and you have every right to terminate that agreement (with proper notice) as soon as you find a better opportunity.

This doesn't sound so bad to me. It should be a win-win for both parties. If it's not a win for you, then milk it for what it's worth until you can get something better.

My point is that the employer-employee relationship is a business relationship. You are a business, treat yourself with the business respect that a good employer would their own business. You owe it to yourself.

Union, Yes!

[Animats]

The problem I would have with the Google work environment is that it all appears to be geared to getting you to spend as many hours as possible at the office.

Er, yes. Google has on-site laundromats in their office buildings.

In time, programming will be a union job. Like animation. Yes, creative jobs can be unionized. Most of the film industry, from grips to actors to directors, is unionized.

Re:Union, Yes!

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Do you honestly believe that the majority of programmers are undercompensated individuals working under oppressive conditions where their health and life are under threat? Or are you just looking with longing at the dot.com era when the need for talent was much larger than the pool available, and thinking that unions will somehow provide the answer and get you the same compensation and benefits as yesteryear? What benefits could a union possibly bring?

Re:Union, Yes!

[smithmc]

  What benefits could a union possibly bring?

Well, they could bankrupt the software industry the way they have the US auto industry, but I'm not sure I'd call that a "benefit", exactly.

Re:Union, Yes!

[Blakey Rat]

You think the automotive industry is bad, teachers' unions have made our kids borderline retarded in the same amount of time. As a bonus, they contribute your dues to super-liberal politicians whether you consent or not!

Re:Union, Yes!

[sethstorm]

Do you honestly believe that the majority of programmers are undercompensated individuals working under oppressive conditions where their health and life are under threat?
Why, yes I do. Companies are NOT holy entities, and should be fully aware of it.

What benefits could a union possibly bring?
Taking a company and removing it's "holier than its components" status. Not to mention that it would drop such things as offshoring as soon as it could undo Reaganomics.

Sounds good to me...

[Garse Janacek]

Now, it's hard to tell what the real situation is, but the idea of doing interesting work for a presumably reasonable hourly rate, and having them actually tell you not to put in any extra hours (or, if you have to, being compensated well for it)... well, that could be pretty nice. The perpetual expectation of "going the extra mile" by putting in lots of hours to get projects done (obviously without the corresponding "going the extra mile" by the employer by sacrificing some of the resulting profits to supplement employee salaries) is the biggest thing that bothers me about tech jobs.

If I could have the benefits of an interesting tech job without the drawbacks of a culture where you're considered lazy for working 40 hours a week, that would be pretty cool.

Re:Starting date: April 1.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if they use the calendar year, it is the beginning of the second quarter.

going hourly rocked

[darkuncle]

My employer converted all the sysadmins to hourly last summer (right before a big datacenter migration). It was the best thing that ever happened to my paycheck. You don't realize how much you're actually working as a salaried geek until you start making overtime for all of it ...

McDonalds...

[aesova]

So, essentially, they killed you a little bit each day.

I don't get it

[OrangeTide]

With the permatemp who has cancer and no medical insurance. "Miller loved his job, made good money" .. 'Miller said he was well compensated by Microsoft, but did not buy health insurance. "I never thought anything about it. I never expected to use anything like that," he said.'

So he was compensated, but choose not to buy health insurance. And now it's Microsoft's fault? When I do contracts I take how much health insurance costs into account. Because I could get hit by a bus and become paralyzed, health insurance isn't for sick people it's for everyone. It protect you in precisely these unexpected cases. You don't have to have the super expensive stuff that covers ever single doctors visit, that sort of insurance is very expensive. What you want is the insurance that covers the sudden costly operations and treatments. True the kind that covers major incidences won't cover the hundreds of dollars of prescription drugs every month, but when you consider that the basic insurance costs hundreds of dollars less than the full coverage stuff it doesn't seem like such a bad deal.

Ideally you choose insurance that if your appendix bursts or you have a mild heart attack you can still make your mortgage payments. If you have a stroke, get cancer, need an organ transplant or become paralyzed you should be able to afford your treatment and care, but you will have to make major changes to your lifestyle. And possibly sell your extra car, and if you can make money off it sell your house for a small condo closer to the hospital where you get treatment.

Personally I prefer working as a long-term contractor. State law here prohibits me from doing it for more than 18 months, but if it is a statement or work rather than a contract/temporary position then I can take it on indefinitely.

lower end jobs

[zoftie]

That seems they are recategorizing lower end jobs that don't require education. Software developers are still up there in being treated nice.
Lower end, ones don't require technical knowledge and degree. If you are software developer, I would rather work hourly basis, so that when company stands to benefit from using me under strees clocking extra hours, I can benefit from that as well. There is no better reward to an employee / contractor then straight cash. Stock options are for those who have something to gamble, those who can control destiny, where there invested in. Most of the time working salaried stiffs don't, so hourly rate is better.

Note that most people missed that overtime has to be *approved*. Meaning that they will pay you, but will make you feel like a theif if you worked overtime fixing that build script. Hence bad review, no bonus and possibility of being switched/replaced at moments notice when there is someone else who can take your job.

Perm is Dying

[Tablizer]

Everything I've seen points to the trend away from the "permanent employee". The internet has made it easier to find people with a given skill such that companies are less likely to worry about losing a skilled person when the scene changes. What they really want is Just-In-Time workers to plug in and work on a project, and then send them off when the project is done. The US specializes in changes and trends because anything that becomes predictable or mechanical moves to the 3rd-world where the labor is far cheaper. Our comparative advantage is "change". Thus, come-and-go projects is where it's at in the US, for good or bad, thanks to free trade.

Bad Mangement

[bill_mcgonigle]

There always seems to be deadlines that require OT and weekends.

You have bad management. Either they don't know how to do project planning or they do this to you on purpose.

Let's assume incompetence over malice. Make sure they've read The Mythical Man Month and PeopleWare.

If they have, they're either not getting it or they don't care. If they haven't maybe they can learn. Then they can become Good Management.

If none of the above apply, move on - the company can't ultimately be successful with this model. They'll either lose their staff (no product) or wind up with low quality staff (poor product). Clearly some programmers don't mind the abuse but I wouldn't recommend it unless you want an ascetic lifestyle.

I did

[rsilvergun]

some time ago. Didn't you notice everything I wrote was in paste tense?

You can't really start a Union in a minimum wage job with 90% turnover in a down turned economy. Heck, thanks to outsourcing and people taking on mortgage loans they can't afford desperately seeking second and third jobs to keep their homes, the entire staff could quite every day for a week and it'd hardly matter.

Unions are more or less dead, the ability for capital to move freely across the globe killed them.

Read the CA labor code

[yodadied]

I forced the company I worked at two years ago to switch all of their employees to hourly because of what is clearly defined in section 515.5 CA labor code.

The problem is that most employees don't meet the salary requirement to be classified as exempt. The other problem is that there have been a number of lawsuits recently regarding this and Google is just trying to protect themselves.

I am strongly of the opinion that we should all get paid for every hour that we work. Because of the industry that we are in, I'm sure the majority of us have had to work extra hours and never got paid for it. In a sense, this is a good thing but...

The unfortunate flip side is that even though you may be making more money due to OT, the quality of life at work inevitably begins to deteriorate. If most companies are going to go down the road of turning their IT staff into hourly employees, the only solution to preserve the benefits and flexibility that comes with most sys-admin and programming jobs is to unionize. It's only through collective bargaining that we can retain or regain benefits that will soon begin to widdle away from this change in status.

Typical Slashdot Idiocy

[einhverfr]

I own a sole proprietorship which specializes in helping businesses use open source software. So I know a little bit about labor laws, and other aspects of this article.

In general, if Google didn't employ some workers as hourly, that would be problematic in my view, not from a legal perspective, but rather that some work is best managed in terms of hours. Hourly workers must take lunch breaks (min. 30 minutes in most states), and in most states (including Washington) these are unpaid. Certain other break requirements apply, and these may be paid or not depending on state law (in Washington, you are entitled other short breaks, which are paid).

I have also subcontracted through companies such as WorkforceLogic. Interestingly enough, one of my customers through them is Microsoft. I am the author of the MySQL and PostgreSQL papers on Port25. While I certainly have some complaints with WorkforceLogic, they are not overwhelming. If Microsoft wants to retain the services of my business indefinitely, that is fine. I am just a service provider, and Microsoft is not my only customer. Whatever my (reasonable but small) complaints with WorkforceLogic, I do not think they are a Permatemp problem.

I would certainly consider offering services to Google as well if they wanted to be my customer. Why is this a bad thing? Isn't there a time and place to bring in outside ideas and people?

Re:Typical Slashdot Idiocy

[rhizome]

Wait, are you saying that Federal laws don't apply if you're doing something business-good like Google or if you're a sole proprietorship?

Re:Typical Slashdot Idiocy

[einhverfr]

Federal law is only one part of the question. The state laws are almost always what determines what a given person can be paid for (the states that I have lived in use federal law as a baseline).

For example:

In Washington, short breaks are at least 10 minutes for each 2 hour block, and these are paid. Lunches are at least 30 min if more than 6 hours is worked, and is not.

In Oregon, lunches are paid.

The federal law might say "you don't have to pay" but the states say you do. The states win out in these cases.

So yes, federal law matters but is only a *small* piece of the puzzle.

I thought I saw Joe Hill last night

[grikdog]

I thought I saw Joe Hill last night
trying to explain collective bargaining
to a bunch of libertarian nerds...
Joe Hill exclaimed "Good night! I never thought
these clowns could be so dumb!
Must not be married, not have kids, not even notice
when life drains away that pale and gray,
DOWN IN THE BIT MINES."

Got that D&D, who needs a life?

Why is this article postes here?

[Chris whatever]

i was trying to find the interest of that article or scientific or weird thing and i could only say to myself "WHO CARES

Overtime

[CMan0]

Usually what happens when companies limit overtime, is that people work overtime without getting paid. At least that's what I've seen happening usually.

Permanently Temps

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

They can just switch them from one temp to another if they want to keep them around a little longer. That's what CitiMortgage does. They have their own temp thing called Citiflex and then when that runs out they switch them to Adecco employees. Then they periodically dumped about 30 of them in the dept I was in. It's great for morale let me tell you. Picture one of the Harry Potter dementors sucking out your soul.

Is there a law against keeping people perpetually on as temps?

Re:Hoogle (Foaming & Spewing)

[Paracelcus]

I spent 10 years working for "body shops" after I passed a certain age milestone, than after passing one more of those milestones, I could not get a job at all, period.

The "recruiters" or "headhunters" lie to you, keep you running around for nothing, bring you in to their offices for nothing, don't read the resumes, and other really stupid stuff that you'd expect from a bunch of mindless coke fiends.

The industry now (high tech) is all about getting labor on the cheap and all about not giving workers any of the benefits that we took for granted during most of my working lifetime. Surftemps (Tempsurfs?) and H1B's are how the multibillionaire punks "get over" on the labor laws here in the US of A, as a "Temp" you can be let go because you have gas & you get no benefits. As a "guest worker" (H1B) not only can you be fired for clearing you throat during a meeting but you can be deported too!

I know why people from "developing" countries come here, money, something in short supply (back home). But why the hell do I see people from western Europe working here? Maybe I'm missing something?

Definition of "Exempt"

[rossz]

The labor laws here in California are very explicit on who can be exempt.

1. You are a manager of at least 2 people.
or
2. You must be licensed to legally perform your job (e.g. doctor or lawyer).

That's it. Everyone working 80 hours a week and not getting paid overtime, guess what. You're getting screwed because you MUST, by law, be paid overtime.

IANAL, but I was told this by a labor law attorney.

Cleaning staff thievery is a hidden cost.

[HornWumpus]

Of hiring contract cleaning service.

Hire staff janitors and you have a chance of, at least, keeping it under control.

The contract cleaning service doesn't care how many laptops walked out of your office until it gets so bad you are ready to fire their ass. Employers are generally not all that concerned when employees personal property walks out, so in some cases you have two layers of indifference.

They also know that nobody in the cleaning services business can afford to hire non-thieves and still pay their management well.

Think of it this way, if you pay an janitor (in pay and benefits) the same amount you pay the cleaning company you will be paying the highest rate for janitors in town. You can pick and choose an honest one. She or he will then have an incentive to keep the job (relatively high pay).

The handicapped stall is

[HornWumpus]

the Cadillac of the pooping stalls!

I think it's a good step forward!

[71thumper]

Too many companies abuse "exempt" status, in my opinion. In fact, it's really the standard. Make everyone exempt and then never hire enough people. Work 60 hours last week to get the job done? Sorry, you're "exempt." But the same companies will track a Friday you don't come in if things are slow -- when you shouldn't be tracked on hours at all! In short, it's used as a way of making you at LEAST a 40 hour employee, with all the penalties for working less and none of the benefits from working more. Explain to me how this is good for the worker?

I believe we'd be better off as a whole if "exempt" status was banished entirely.

COMPULSORY breaks?!

[Khanstant]

There could be nothing worse than having to take a break! I know I HATE it when I'm forced to stop slaving around. God, why won't people just let me work 24/7?? Bastards.

Re:COMPULSORY breaks?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was once at a job where they forced me to take a 15 minute break. I was of the opinion that if I have to take the break, why can't I take it at the end of my shift and leave early, but that was not allowed. If they were unpaid breaks, it would be even more annoying, because I really would prefer to be at home when not getting paid.
--Bette

Full of shit much?

[Americano]

Cleaning staff thievery is a hidden cost of hiring contract cleaning service.

Any actual data on this? Or is this a "fact" based on your assumption that anybody making a low wage must be a dishonest thief?

If you're concerned about laptops being stolen, you could just spend an extra $20 - 30 (probably less, if you buy in bulk) to buy a decent cable lock to secure that $1500 - 2500 laptop. And if you're concerned about employees' personal effects being stolen, provide them with a locking cabinet, for a small fraction of the thousands you'll spend on a desk & cubicle system for them.

The contract cleaning service doesn't care how many laptops walked out of your office until it gets so bad you are ready to fire their ass.

And if you're the company hiring the cleaning service, how many laptops have to "walk out" until it gets so bad you're ready to fire the cleaning service? Frankly if it were my company, it'd take ONE laptop disappearing after-hours for me to consider terminating the contract.

Think of it this way, if you pay an janitor (in pay and benefits) the same amount you pay the cleaning company you will be paying the highest rate for janitors in town. You can pick and choose an honest one. She or he will then have an incentive to keep the job (relatively high pay).

Actually, no, you probably won't be giving relatively high pay. The reason to outsource these sorts of jobs is because the cleaning companies are more efficient at it -- they buy supplies & material in bulk quanitities (at bulk rates) that would be overkill for a small office, and they hire janitorial staff that cleans multiple offices, further reducing the cost to each individual office. So instead of paying a full-time position for 2 hours of work a day, you pay for the hour or two a day you actually need someone to clean.

MOD PARENT UP

[alizard]

While I don't think the guy is necessarily right (he could be, I don't know google's internal numbers), I don't think the opinion deserves troll-rating. This isn't a google fanboy site that I noticed, regardless of what some of the mods think.

the employee treatment of regular employee

[alizard]

vs permatemp, even using the same temp shop Microsoft is using for contract hires is simply an indicator that since google has gone public, they're on the same road Microsoft took in its becoming a dinosaur. Whether google can do a better job of profiting from its projects not related to its core competency than MS has done with Microsoft Research is yet to be seen. Can google escape the tar pits MS can be reasonably expected to fall into in the next few years?

In a few years, we'll probably lead the rest of the public into google's smaller, nimbler successor as google follows yahoo into also-ran status, as we led the public to discover that google worked better than anything else for search a few years ago. Or maybe search is big enough to sustain multiple big (big in this case means "big enough to snapshot the whole Net") search engines that do things differently to solve different problems.

A good general question is, How can a company evolve in its growth cycle rather than devolve?

Corporations are not gods. Treat them accordingly.

[sethstorm]

which is precisely why their jobs are outsourced
Thankfully there will be a politician that will end up fixing that problem. That is, returning jobs back due to foreign assets being included in tax, along with penalties for corporate structures that attempt to get around such measures.

They need a Union

[lrunger]

Sounds to me like they need a Union. I don't care how great a place is. When you get down to it, unless you have a Contract, they can keep changing things. It always amazes me - When top executives take jobs they always negotiate contracts for themselves - how much they get if they leave, stock options, benefits, pensions, car, housing - but when workers get together to do it everyone acts like they are doing something wrong! They should get in tough with CWA's http://www.washtech.org/.

Really?

[Slashdot Parent]

When you are salary and not punching the clock, your cost is fixed and you are judged on performance alone. Whether you work 10 hours or 60 hours.

Have you really found it to work that way in practice?

Consider Alice, Bob, and Carol. All three are peers, working for their Manager, Melvin:

• Alice is superhuman. She can get work done in 10 hours, that would take mere mortals 40 hours to complete.
  
• Bob is your average, dependable salaried worker. When you assign him 40 hours of work, he completes it in exactly 40 hours. Not a minute sooner, not a minute later.
  
• Carol is a nincompoop and a slacker. It takes her 50% longer to do work than her peers. If you assign her 40 hours of work, don't even think about looking for it until she's worked on it for 60 hours. Trust me, it ain't done.

On Monday, Melvin hands Alice, Bob, and Carol their assignments for the week. In your experience, would Melvin typically assign his Top Performer, Alice, the same amount of work as he assigned Carol, who is currently on a Performance Improvement Plan? That has not been my experience.

Perhaps where you work, Alice, Bob, and Carol would be assigned the same workload despite differences in their abilities. Even in that situation, I think you'll find that being a superstar is not adequately rewarded. If this hypothetical equal workload situation were to exist, ask yourself the following questions:

1. When Alice gets her assignment, she might say, "Gee whiz. This is easy. I can knock this out in one 10 hour caffeine-enhanced coding session." and then proceed to do so. When she goes home Monday night, does she get to take the rest of the week off? I mean, really. Are you not going to see or hear from Alice until the following Monday?
   
   Not likely. In my experience, Alice will come back Tuesday morning for another 10 hour assignment. And then Wednesday for another, and so on. The most I've ever seen any of the salarieds duck out of work is to maybe leave at 3 on a Friday if things are particularly slow. Have you ever seen top performers on salary consistently work 35 or fewer hours per week, excluding deadlines?
   
2. Bob is boring. He got 40 hours of work and he did it in 40 hours. He merits no further discussion.
   
3. Carol is generally expected to get her work done by the Start of Business on Monday, however long it takes. She is expected to toil for 60 hours with no further compensation for her time. Not that we feel sorry for her, because she is probably in the wrong position to begin with. But she is probably unhappy with her compensation.

This is why I laugh at those who defend their salaries as opposed to being compensated hourly. I have not yet found a non-managerial employee for whom being on salary as objectively worked out in his favor. Maybe you will be the first, but I can name 100 people off the top of my head who are doing obscene amounts of volunteer work because of their exempt status.

Moron

[HornWumpus]

Have you ever worked in an office?

Laptops go missing overnight regularly. It's been a chronic problem at many of the places I've worked (save the dumb comeback). The buildings hired the cleaning company who in turn hired the janitorial staff, all we could do is threaten to not renew the lease. They could give a rip.

And yes its a safe assumption that someone that can't get a better job then the bottom of the janitor market will be an opportunistic thief. If they had anything on the ball they'd have a better job. If they were responsible enough to show up on time and sober everyday they'd have a better job. If they could find their ass with both hands in broad daylight they'd have a better job.

You realize the advantage of laptops is they are PORTABLE, cable locks aren't that much help. Granted people should lock up valuables, they always forget on occasion.

You're office would have to be big enough to support at least 1 full time janitor for it to make sense. If you're smaller then that you can just add cleaning up to the 'administrative assistants' job description. Cleaning supplies have great shelf lives. CostCo sells cheap cleaning supplies.

Re:Moron

[Americano]

Let me fix that for you. I think you meant to write:

No, I don't have any factual evidence of this to share, just prejudicial notions formed from my own wildly exaggerated anecdotal observations that things have been stolen at some of the places I've worked at.

Simply put, if "cleaning staff thievery" was as common a problem as you describe, then janitorial contract companies wouldn't exist as a viable business model -- I'm not claiming it doesn't happen, but I will claim that it doesn't happen with anywhere near the frequency or severity you suggest that would warrant a company "planning" for this theft as part of the cost of doing business. But please, feel free to prove me wrong with data that doesn't rely on you recounting the tale of how an improperly secured laptop was stolen at a company you worked for one time.