Slashdot Mirror


Law Firm Fighting For White Collar (IT) Overtime

Maximum Prophet writes "Programmers and System Administrators typically don't get overtime. A law firm based in Nevada is looking to stand up for white-collar workers around the country, trying to reverse decades-old (and incorrect) thinking about what it means to work in an office. 'Computer workers of various stripes, for example, have commonly not been paid for their extra hours ... But under California law, the exemption applies only for workers whose primary function involves "the exercise of discretion and independent judgment." In numerous lawsuits, Thierman and other plaintiffs' attorneys have alleged that legions of systems engineers, help desk staff, and customer service personnel do no such thing. Of programmers, Thierman says, "Yes, they get to pick whatever code they want to write, but they don't tell you what the program does ... All they do is implement someone else's desires.'"

31 of 573 comments (clear)

  1. Total compensation by WPIDalamar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Overtime is one of those things both the company and the employee has to consider when taking a job and the salary is based around those terms.

    If companies suddenly had to start paying overtime, salaries would have to be adjusted.

    Personally, I'd prefer to stick with the deal I have.

    1. Re:Total compensation by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When the company hires you as salaried, that time you're 'giving' them is factored into the pay.

      Bullshit. Only one company I ever interviewed for told me up front that overtime was common. I didn't even bother to go back for a second interview. Most companies tell you 40 hrs, but then expect more, and more and more.

      If they had to pay hourly beyond it, you wouldn't get as much in the first place.

      What nonsense is this? They'd either hire someone else, or adjust to more realistic timelines. If the company is constantly giving you 60+ hours of work. I've been lucky to have all my employers pay me the rate I want and still not expect more than 40 hours.

      The company I work for thinks I put in a lot more overtime than I do because I'm so productive. I do put in -some-, but not nearly as much as they think. The deal works out great for both sides. If this law goes through, I'll get a huge paycut (or fired, and someone else hired) and no overtime as well. I'll just lose money no matter how it goes.

      That's your own fault; you're letting them think you're less productive than you really are. You need to fix that.

      That said, this would be a great idea if they also tarrified outsourced labor. If they don't, it will only drive companys more to China.

    2. Re:Total compensation by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If companies suddenly had to start paying overtime, salaries would have to be adjusted.

      The ethical thing to do would be to adjust executive salaries down and let everyone else's stay the same. Not going to happen, but I hope everyone realizes that this is a result of institutionalized greed, not a case of not enough money going around.

      Go back to the 1950's and the difference between the CEO and the janitor's salary was a hell of a lot smaller.

    3. Re:Total compensation by dwarfking · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something many of the folks don't like to admit on /. is that most of the executives at successful companies put in as many if not more hours than the average worker.

      In every successful company I have been employed, the executives almost always were the first ones in in the mornings and the last ones out. They regularly had weekend meetings and multi-day off site meetings, where yes they actually worked. I know because I'm in that tier now and attend these. Granted there is higher compensation at this level, but most of them worked their way to where they are today by being driven and putting in the extra time.

      Now before you go flaming me with anecdotes about how so many executives are clueless and got their positions by being family or friends, note that I am referring to what I consider successful companies. I have also seen companies that failed because of the true clueless executive who worked bankers hours and spent most time on the golf course. Those are not the ones I'm referring to.

      And interestingly enough, you have average workers that are also not as driven, who seem to regularly complain when others move up and they don't. The question you have to ask yourself is do you feel like working hard either independently or to lift the company as a whole, thus helping yourself, or do you just want a paycheck and nights and weekends free. You can have either, even in technology, but they require different sacrifices and lead to different lifestyles.

      If you are working for an organization that regularly expects you to work nights and weekends, look at what the executives are doing. Are they working long hours too? If so, your company may be at one of the various growth points companies hit that take major efforts to break through.

      Usually they aren't making quite enough money to afford hiring more staff, but they have the potential for more revenue that will then kick them into the next level where they can grow, but to get there they have to work current staff harder. Those layers vary, but I've seen they generally hit at the $100mm, $1b, $10b and $25b marks. Hopefully when they break the barrier and now get into a new growth spurt, there are new opportunities for the hard workers, higher salaries and potentially bonuses.

      However, if the execs aren't putting in heavy hours but expecting you too, then they may just be looking for a quick payout and are keeping labor costs down by not hiring additional staff. That is when you need to start looking.

      And I know some folks will say that even working hard, the executives may still be looking for a payout. If the company does breach one of the barrier's they are often a more appealing target for a buyout or merger, which could impact you. Keep in mind, however, very few driven executives actually retire after these events. They tend to go on to a new endeavor and when they realize they need help, they remember names of folks that were hard workers.

      Speaking very generally, these value barriers also coincide with the skillset of the executives. You have those great at creating ideas and founding companies, who are just horrible at running large businesses. You have those who are great with Wall Street and large organizations who can't start a business. Same as tech skill levels. So what often happens is the early visionaries or founders, if they are smart, relinquish control to others more qualified and then move on. And it is these folks that might call you to join their newest idea.

    4. Re:Total compensation by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something many of the folks don't like to admit on /. is that most of the executives at successful companies put in as many if not more hours than the average worker.

      But I didn't imply otherwise. My point isn't that executives don't deserve to be well-compensated, or that they don't put in the hours their subordinates do, but rather that the level of compensation has reached ridiculous levels.

      How much should the CEO of a Fortune 500 company make? It's a difficult job. Not everyone can do it.

      I think a fair salary for the CEO of a successful corporation should be several million. Let's be nice and generous, and say $10 million a year, with incentive bonuses. I think that adequately compensates someone who's working 80 hours a week.

      But $20 million a year? $30 million a year? Do you really think anyone is worth that? Especially in companies who refuse to pay overtime, or fire people to reduce payroll?

      This incredible disparity in salaries is new, a result of spineless directors and grasping executives. It's not necessary; the jobs are hard but not impossible, and for every CEO who makes $30 million a year, I guarantee you there are plenty of equally qualified people who would be content with a third of that.

    5. Re:Total compensation by E++99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      $10 million is okay, but $20 million is not? Based on what? The idea that there are "plenty of equally qualified people who would be content with a third of that" misses the point of a job with that level of responsibility. They people they are trying to attract are people for whom there IS no substitute. It's like professional athletes. If you lose your superstar ballplayer, there's not necessarily a replacement available in the workforce.

  2. Never mind... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Never mind contracts. It's the law who's king.

    If the la says overtime must be paid, contracts who say otherwise are null and void.

    It's not for nothing that there are laws, because companies cannot be relied to do the right thing.

  3. Being in the industry by AbbyNormal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    for a few years, I think companies have made out like bandits. Companies have always towed the "your a professional" line when expecting overtime from employees. While that may be true, try telling that to your plumber or mechanic. I'm wondering what the impact on general salary would be if some sort of legislation was put into place.

    --
    Sig it.
  4. Re:That will wreck IT... by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, man. The only people who deserve a pay increase are CEO's. God, everyone knows that.

    Really, do you mean to suggest that fewer domestic people entering the business will result in a different outcome (regarding the number of Indian programmers) than current employees getting overtime pay?

  5. Be really good by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used to work in a company that used to put a lot of pressure on the programmers to work long hours. One old guy there came at 9am and left at 5pm every day, and refused to work any later. They didn't get rid of him because he was good and reliable. In retrospect I realise all of us ambitious youngsters were being taken for a ride and the old guy just wasn't having it.

  6. Re:That will wreck IT... by asills · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not all IT jobs require massive (or any) amounts of overtime. I may work the occasional 50 hour week because of deadline concerns, sure, but I'll never be a permanent 50+ hour employee.

    My dad worked in a union for 30 years (small steel finishing plant), topped out at about 50K per year. He had to work a lot for what he got paid (I worked there for a summer, sometimes it's real hard work, sometimes it's easy, but it's always long hours). I make twice as much as he did and I sit all day.

    I realize how good I have it.

    If you don't like your job, there really are plenty of jobs in IT that don't require overtime, just go find one. One place I worked at pretty much dictated 8:00-4:30 (or 8:30-5 but everyone did 8:00) every day and everyone leaves (medium insurance company IT dept). I didn't like getting there at 8am, but I sure did enjoy a 37.5 hour work week (after lunch).

    --
    -- What did Spock find in Kirk's toilet? The captain's log.
  7. Re:I kind of agree with this by Scutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I applied for my job as a systems tech, I was assured it would be an 8-5 job. Did you get it in writing? If not, you have little recourse. You have a couple of options, though. You can either quit, or you can demand more money at your next review.

    Why do you let your company abuse and exploit you and then do nothing but complain to the internet about it?

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  8. Well I do. by samael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I get overtime as a coder. And I have no compunction about saying "Sorry, I'm busy this weekend, I can't do any overtime." when asked (not that I turn it down all the time, but I like to have my time off...off).

    You crazy Americans with your 5 days holiday a year, 80 hour working weeks and complete lack of overtime.

    1. Re:Well I do. by caluml · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if it's a choice between 1st place, and killing yourselves to achieve it, or 4th place (UK), and having a fairly good amount of holidays (27 days here, excluding public holidays), I know which one I prefer. It gives me a chance to travel around, and see the world too.

  9. Re:That will wreck IT... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Why shouldn't people get paid for the hours they work? I've never understood why IT workers just "have to work overtime" without compenstation, to me it's just stupid."

    Simple solution. Contracting. Since I changed, I never looked back. I will NEVER work for free. I will work as long as the job requires, I will bust my ass to get things working, but, I will not do it for free.

    It is a plain and simple thing that took ME awhile to realize.

    If salary were a two way street ("sure you can leave early this week, since all your work is done") it might be ok, but I find for today, especially in admin jobs, where you are on call and carry a pager (some people actually do this for free??)...salary is just a way to squeeze time away from you for free.

    They'd have to pay me a LOT of salary to go back to it.

    IMHO, in this day in age, there is no such thing anymore as job loyalty (from either party), nor job security. If that is the case, then the two main things that would draw a person to a direct, salaried job are gone. That being the case, you might as well contract. YOu can find long term contracts....possibly be a contract employee of a company which is kind of a hybrid thing (benefits, and hourly compensation), so it isn't always a hit and miss occupation. If you are really good at what you do, you can do the complete indie thing....make great bill rates, and enjoy more time off.

    Sure it takes a bit more paperwork, but, you can incorporate yourself, get tax breaks, write things off.....and you don't have to work for free any more.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  10. Nothing to do with law by mujo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the problem is not whether the law allows the bosses to pay or not pay for extra hours, its all about availability of workers willing to not demand for extra hours to be paid.

    I mean if I start to insist on getting paid for every hour over 42h/week I work, my boss will fire me and replace me with someone that wont ask for overtime.

  11. Re:I kind of agree with this by cthulhuology · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My best friend is a PACS admin for one of our county hospitals. As a county hospital employee he had to join the government union. Does he get overtime and flex time when he gets a pager call? You bet ya! Does he get paid "private sector" wages, yep (was a matter of having the job's classified as a higher grade). So I gues the solution to your problem might actually be a union.

  12. Not all white collared by br00tus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I have been following this for a bit. There has been overtime exceptions for decades for professionals like lawyers, doctors etc. One of the problems of the changing laws is they keep revising downwards what the definition of an IT "professional" is. I make $90k base pay, but the current definition of IT "professional" has overtime for IT workers thrown out if I recall correctly below $40k, or it may even be below $30k.

    As far as people who don't want government involvement - there are a host of laws limiting what we can do. The Taft-Hartley law allows the government to call off any strike. States are allowed to prevent certain agreements between workers and management (a "closed shop"). Overtime, at least below a certain salary level, is one of the things countering this. If you don't care about the ITAA etc. pushing the salary level for overtime down, down, down until it disappears, all that will exist are laws that give weight to the employer, and have the government take away your freedom in contract-making with the employer (Taft-Hartley, so-called right-to-work laws etc.) Even if you want to do away with all such laws, from our perspective it makes sense to keep these laws until the ones hurting us are done away with first, as in the meantime these just balance things on our side against the laws against us.

  13. What's the line from Office Space by techpawn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...In a given week I do 15 hours of REAL actual work...? Let's be honest with ourselves. We work overtime because a LOT of what we have to do must be done during non production hours. There are some days where we're in support mode and just read websites all day...

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  14. Re:FairPay Act of 2004 by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Patriot act - unpatriotic
    Clear skies act - no controls on pollution
    No child left behind - everyone is left behind
    FairPay act - no more overtime pay

    Hmm. I would swear I can almost notice a pattern here!

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  15. Re:That will wreck IT... by cavehobbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, you are not.

    The law prevents certain employee's from willingly working uncompensated overtime.

    You can not agree to certain "services" being provided in exchange for employment. (think bill clinton, tip oneill, etc).

    Plus, the employer usually has the upper hand in any negotiation. Not always, but more than not. I have been in IT for a while. Unfortunately it is all I know that can earn me more than being a retail clerk will.

    Corporations will rape IT orkers for all they can until the law changes.

    If you think outsourceing to India is bad, so is never seeing your family.

    I am close to going to truck driving scholl. Those guys earn close to what I do per hour, and then get overtime on top. A union truck driver can earn 6 figures for over the road tractor trailer driving.

    How many IT folks can say that, outside of the hottest current tech?

  16. Re:That will wreck IT... by TheMeuge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Before the government started dictating terms of employment, working 12 hours per day, 6 days per week was the norm. Maybe you want to go back to that plan.

    For scientists and doctors that's the current reality... alongside with dropping salaries.

    The post-docs in my laboratory, make about $40'000 a year... after a PhD. A clerk in the subway booth makes $55'000 after 5 years with benefits that dwarf any academic institution... with a GED and a demeanor of a world-class asshole. When translated into per-hour payment, the booth clerk makes $27.5/hour, and the post-doc makes $13/hour.

    That's the kind of society we live in. Want more unions?
  17. Re:That will wreck IT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sounds like the subway clerk has a good job at a good wage thanks to a union.

    It looks like your PhD lab rats are getting screwed... perhaps you need a union?

  18. Re:That will wreck IT... by mollog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, this will force IT management to be more efficient. Human resources are the most precious of resources. For too long, IT management has resorted to forcing workers to work longer to compensate for poor IT decisions. I'm reminded of why the Egyptians didn't use the steam engine when they invented it; slave labor was cheaper and more adaptable.

    This sort of technique get used in agribusiness; a choice between investing in better productivity tools vs. hiring migrant farm workers. I recently was in Kauai where the Kauai coffee plantation invested in productivity methods to compensate for the rising cost of labor. Only when it's more painful not to adapt will IT management adapt.

    --
    Best regards.
  19. Re:Unions are just fearmongers by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 3, Insightful

    See, what this is ultimately is, is fear mongering. There's not a spit of difference between guys selling the Union or the guys selling USA PATRIOT ACT. Both depend on this idea that we are completely powerless, so we need to get some goons to protect us, and furthermore, we should just give these jerks, in the form of dues or taxes, protection money. You know what a union is? It's a steward who just got a nice deck for his house, a president's kid's baseball team that got new uniforms, and any manner of theft.

    You speak on and on about fear mongering but all you do not give a single rational argument against unions. All you do is try to associate a simple, healthy, life improving initiative that aims to protect worker's rights with evil, oppressive initiatives like the US's patriot act. If that wasn't enough to satisfy your trolling needs, you go on associating unions with organized crime and corruption.

    The thing is, whenever a group of people join themselves to fight for their rights, their lives improve and society improves. History is packed with landmark victories accomplished by people associating themselves and fighting for their rights. You absolutely cannot state that a bunch of IT workers organizing themselves to fight to get their a fair pay earned by their honest work is some sort of evil, oppressive, criminal, abusive act.

    You may have been brainwashed against the evils of communism and you may have lost the ability to understand the concept of worker's rights but that doesn't mean that it is wrong or evil.

    The simple matter of the truth is, unions don't work. Unions don't work because, every time you give them what they claim to get, they either drive the parent company bankrupt, like GM and a cast of thousands, or the work goes overseas. The promise is a lie, and all a union really does is just place a tax based on a fear.

    Oh I see. That must be why there is absolutely no european company. They simply cannot survive under that harsh climate. Damn those european unions, with their minimum wage, their 35 hour work weeks, their paid overtime, their 30 day paid vacations, their Christmas bonus and paid leaves, their national health services and their unemployment benefits. They simply destroyed their lives and reverted back to the stoneage! No small company can possibly survive that, let alone a multinational. Poor bastards.

    Really, all of these "workers" advocates are just in the business of helping themselves. A bunch of crooks, trying to frighten people into giving them money for promises that they can't keep, and have no intention of keeping. It's just like the "people's lawyer", the guy that sues some company for a billion dollars - he gets millions, while his plaintiffs get coupons. Workers rights is a slogan for an industry based on extortion, and fear.

    Yes, you seem to be the smart one here. You completely avoid all unions or worker's association and nonetheless you still got that 35 hour work week and paid overtime. Oh you don't have that? Tough. Keep on bitching about how unions are evil, then.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  20. You wan FLSA? Then get ready for the minuses. by csoto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, you want to be subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (rather than "exempt")? Then be prepared to be at your desk for an actual 8 hours (minus two 15 minute breaks and one 30 minute lunch break). Be prepared to punch in and account for every minute of your time. Be prepared to be a glorified custodial worker...

    Don't bitch about what you've got, until you realize what you COULD have.

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  21. Re:That will wreck IT... Where they get it from... by gabrieltss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously though, you point out that 'in this day and age' there is no loyalty on either side. I'd say that's partially a reflection of the unwillingness of workers to ask for (demand?) what they're worth. Labor is a business transaction, you shouldn't hate your business partners or let them treat you 'unfairly'. Get a good idea if what you should be paid, ask for it, and leave if you don't get it.

    You know where workers are getting it from? They just look at the executives of the companies and see them getting paid BIG bucks - way more than they probably should. And see them stealing peoples money (Enron, Worldcom etc...) and bascially getting away with it. How many executives are doing it and NOT getting caught? Probably A lot more than you think! So if the executives are doing it why shouldn't the employees - think about it. You have the RIAA/MPAA stealing from "artists" and US the people who actually buy their crap!

    Think about it we have a double standard. The big rich executives get paid WAY too much steal from others and it's ok. But it's not ok for use to get paid well for our hard work and it's not ok for us to steal from them. Companies would rather outsource to some other country whos workers are willing to work for dimes on the dollar than to pay people decently. To me let those FUCKING companies move their business overseas, take the jobs with them and then let the rest of the U.S. QUIT using their products and services. Some other company will just come up and take their place. Maybe learning from the previous companies mistakes.

    If the cost of living in the U.S. wasn't so high I bet people wouldn't need such higher salaries. What is the cost of living in India? A LOT lower than it is here, hence they can get away with needing less pay. Corporations don't get this AT ALL. If they would help bring the cost of living DOWN in the U.S. I would bet people would be willing to work for less. how can we compete in a "GLobal Economy" if everywhere companies are sending jobs has far lower costs of living than we do.

    But I think corporate EXECUTIVES need to get a pay cut! NO! they would rather "lay off" hundreds or thousands of employees just so they can keep their cushy job, getting paid millions of dollars and getting millions of dollars in stock options. That's utter CRAP! They say "oh we need to pay them well to keep them." BULLSHIT! If you get rid of one executive there is ALWAYS another wiating in line for his job! MBA's are a DIME A FUCKING DOZEN! Engineers are NOT! If anything Engineers and scientist should be making more than MBA exeuctives!

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  22. Re:That will wreck IT... by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, the free market pretty much always exists. If it's not legal it's called the black market or bribery or government corruption or organized crime.

  23. Your missing the point. by dfint · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why must I suffer as an IT professional because your lack of management forethought. If we are a 24x7x365 company, act like one. Spread the work to multiple shifts. I volunteered to work a night/later shift. I was denied because we are an 8 to 5 company. Well then why am I putting in 8 hours during the day just so I can schedule my real work for a 3am maintenance window that night, and then they would really like you to be back to work at 8am. Companies don't change unless it's painful for them not to change, or the government tells them to. Your forgetting that we are the little guy and the company is the big guy we have no power. my 2 cents

  24. Re:That will wreck IT... by columbus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd like to emphasize a point suggested by the parent: "the employer usually has the upper hand in any negotiation"

    The subject of unpaid overtime / legal protection / unions has come up many times on slashdot. The most frequent responses I read to this subject are along the lines of "it's your responsibility to look out for yourself. Negotiate a fair wage and fair conditions for yourself at the time of hiring. If your employer screws you, quit and find a new job." I think that the people who post those responses are hardworking, ethical, probably libertarian, believe in the free market economy. I have a lot of respect for them.

    However, I think there is a flaw in this thinking. Within this paradigm, the only time that the employee has the capability to affect their working conditions is at the bargaining table at the time of hiring. But the power relationship between the 2 parties at the bargaining table is not equal. It hurts the potential employee more to walk out than it hurts the employer to look for a replacement. The same relationship applies if conditions become abusive during employment. It hurts the employee more to be out of a job than it hurts the employer to be temporarily short-staffed. As long as the balance of power is heavily in favor of the employer, they are in a position to make excessive demands.

    I don't think you can rely on market forces to fix this problem when there is such an imbalance of power between the employer & the employee.

    --
    friends don't let friends teleport drunk
  25. Re:That will wreck IT... by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to add an item to your otherwise fine list:

    • Learn and be very proficient in one (or more) esoteric skill(s), even if the demand for it is very low.

    Having such an esoteric skill can mean making even more money because people having such a skill are very difficult to find, and can improve your overall retention as you can be difficult to replace (so long as an organization needs that skill, so don't get pigeonholed by it). Being irreplaceable gives you some advantage in dictating your work-life balance with your employer.

    Yaz