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.'"

Comments

Total compensation

[WPIDalamar]

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.

Re:Total compensation

[Aladrin]

Thank you! Someone who gets it. TANSTAAFL. When the company hires you as salaried, that time you're 'giving' them is factored into the pay. If they had to pay hourly beyond it, you wouldn't get as much in the first place.

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.

Of course, I'll have more free time... But not a lot more.

Re:Total compensation

[plague3106]

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.

Re:Total compensation

[nomadic]

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.

Re:Total compensation

[Mongoose Disciple]

Most companies tell you 40 hrs, but then expect more, and more and more.

I've had a pretty similar experience. When I was interviewing for my last job, one of the company's managers explicitly told me that there would be about two weeks a year of 'crunch time' in which everyone would work longer hours, but otherwise it would be a 40 hour week. They offered me a salary that I considered fair for that amount of overtime, and I took it. Flash forward to actually being on the job and finding out that working a few hours of overtime every Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday was expected, and a full day+ every other Saturday and Sunday was mandatory.

Of course, that being said, I didn't need lawyers to straighten that out for me; I just found a better job ASAP, as did nearly all of the more skilled people who were given a similar bait and switch by that company. Market forces can't fix everything, but in this case it worked out all right. (My exit interview included the same manager, who flat out denied his earlier fradulent claim, although he'd made it to many of us. Weaselly jackass.)

Anyway, the point being, the 'You agreed to the contract!' sentiment I'm seeing in some of the posts on this article is something I can only agree with if overtime was presented accurately during the interviewing process. I've rarely seen a company that does.

Re:Total compensation

[dwarfking]

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.

Re:Total compensation

[esaul]

I would have to agree with the parent here. Not sure how it works in the states, but in Canada such laws are already in place (not that they are working well), and many IT companies routinely pay overtime. In Quebec, for example, we have a government agency - La Commission des normes du travail, whose job is to educate employees about their rights, and catch companies that mistreat their workers. Indeed, the whole reason why the 40/hr weeks were set as a standard is to prevent the potential abuse coming from employers.
Contract worker or not, when one has been employed by a company for more than 3 months (maybe 4, I forget), they become eligible for all of the standard employee benefits including sick days, overtime pay, etc. see here.
When employers submit their financial reports to the Revenue Canada, they have to specify hours per week. Adjusting the financial data to fit no more than 40 hours per week, is, well, highly illegal.

Re:Total compensation

[nomadic]

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.

Re:Total compensation

[E 99]

$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.

FairPay Act of 2004

[morgan_greywolf]

It sounds like they are only doing this in California, which has ad the IT exemption for decades. For the rest of the country, IT workers were getting overtime until the so-called Fair Pay Act of 2004, which exempts IT workers (and other fields as well) from overtime, in exchange for guaranteeing overtime pay for anyone making less than about $23,000 a year. Of course, there are no IT workers making such a low wage (except in India), so that means all IT workers became affected.

I, myself was getting overtime pay until 2005.

Re:FairPay Act of 2004

[A beautiful mind]

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!

I kind of agree with this

[scubamage]

Ok, I'm a salaried network admin/systems technician. When I applied for my job as a systems tech, I was assured it would be an 8-5 job. Well, about 2 weeks in I am asked to handle a week of after hours calls. This is fine, except my company is in the Medical/PACS industry. If radiologists can't get their images, people could die. Some nights I will get 10+ calls. Do I get comped? No. Do I get anything for this? No. I applied to build servers and be a backup for fielding calls and was assured a certain set of hours. I did my time on helpdesk and would like to think I'd finally graduated past it. I would just like to see some sort of gratuity from the company for me having to literally go 2-3 days without sleep sometimes because of late night calls. Its bad enough when I work from 8 until 10 at night, but then to get calls most of the night after, I think I deserve something.

Re:I kind of agree with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you tried setting the building on fire?

Re:I kind of agree with this

[grommit]

You don't need a lawsuit. You need to get your employment contract modified or move to a different job. That's all.

Re:I kind of agree with this

[Scutter]

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?

Re:I kind of agree with this

[cthulhuology]

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.

Re:I kind of agree with this

[no_pets]

I was in a nearly identical position as a sys admin at a hospital and I'll tell you why I stuck with it for a long time before quitting and probably why the original poster has stuck with it for so long. He is working two jobs. The after hours job is completely different from his daytime 8-5 job. He builds servers 8-5, gets paid well, likes the work, people, pay and he's happy. Then when it's his turn to be on call he becomes the fucking help desk. He's helping radiologists get their images, and other life-threatening bullshit that someone else should be doing. Say, a staffed, after-hours help desk employee that the company does not wish to hire. If the company had to pay the original poster for his overtime then they would instead hire a freakin' help desk person and then he would go back to his sweet 8-5 gig and be happy.

He's probably sticking with it hoping that the eventually that position will be filled and he won't have to do it anymore.

Never mind...

[Pig Hogger]

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.

Being in the industry

[AbbyNormal]

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.

Fairness and Federal Law

[cavehobbit]

The problem is that IT are the only workers, non-professionals in the traditional sense, that are singled out as exempt from overtime, whether straight time or time and a half.

State laws, like Californias, are all based off the Federal law.

This exemption was written into the law way back in the 1970'or 80's at the behest of big corporate consulting firms based in NYC. Priot to that, IT folks were paid hourly just like most other office staff.

This is a matter of basic fairness. Why should IT be singled out for different treatment from all other technical trades?

I have been biatching about this for years. Equal treatment under the law is a Constitutional requirement in the US, and just plain ethical everywhere else.

This is also the reason why most IT offices are 40 hour weeks on paper, but 50-60 hour weeks in actuality.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[miskatonic alumnus]

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?

Be really good

[pubjames]

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.

Re:Be really good

[CmdrGravy]

Of course you were being taken for a ride, it's the companies job to squeeze as much out their employees as they can for as little as possible.

It's your responsibility to realise that if you signed up for 40hours a week working hours then that's how many hours you should do. If you're not getting paid why on Earth would you work, this has always been a mystery to me.

The best situation is where you can manage your time flexibly, do your 40 hours of work at a time which suits both you and the company best.

I really am amazed that you all don't seem to expect overtime for working more hours, this is madness. I live in the UK and I can tell you I would never ever make a habit of working more hours than I was contracted for without expecting overtime and I think thats a fairly attitude here. If you're working for something then they need to pay you for the work, it's a simple as that. I'm not a charity !

Re:That will wreck IT...

[asills]

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).

Well I do.

[samael]

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.

Re:Well I do.

[caluml]

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.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[cayenne8]

"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.

Nothing to do with law

[mujo]

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.

Re:More like ServicePacktime, PatchTime, Antivirus

[walt-sjc]

Sysadmin type work is NEVER simply a 9-5 type job. Why? Because so much maint has to be done during off hours. That's the way it has always been. If you have an incompetent jerk boss that decides that you need to work 9-5 everyday PLUS do off hours maint with no comp. time or anything, then that's YOUR problem. My "night maint" guys start late the day of maint, get free dinner, and only work a half-day the next day (frequently resulting in a less-than 40 hour week.)

Re:That will wreck IT...

[Waffle Iron]

Having government dictate the terms of my employment doesn't sound like a great plan to me.

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.

Beats Flipping Burgers

[neverest]

In New York, HR came to IT and requested job descriptions of all the IT employees; which would ultimately decide who was and was not exempt from Overtime due to the Fairpay Act. IT Mgmt complied, and must not have been told the reasons for the request, because after which 85% of IT employees, HR deemed eligible for Overtime. Not only that, we were eligible for retroactive Overtime for time work since Jan. This was in April. I earned Overtime for a full year at Sys Admin hours, all the time knowing this was never going to last. At my next review, Mgmt gave me glowing reviews and "promoted" me. They gave me a new title, which then exempt me from Overtime pay - however my job duties and hours remained the same. My base salary increased by 3%, which is standard at my company. No matter what the law says and how it is written, Mgmt will always find ways around it. But you knew that going in. No one ever went into IT for the long lunches and 35 hour work weeks. Oh, and just to put this in perspective, my brother-in-law served in the US NAVY for 12 years, has held many jobs outside of the military, has multiple degrees in engineering, currently flies passenger jets for an international airline...and he makes less than I do. For what we do, it's not that bad pay.

Not all white collared

[br00tus]

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.

Applies to medical interns and residents, too?

[CorporalKlinger]

I'm a medical student who will be graduating soon and entering residency. I hope any progress from this affects us, too - currently the AAMC (which regulates the medical residency programs) limits interns and residents to an 80 hour work week. Yes, these are the people charged with learning to save lives WHILE saving lives. 80 hours per week. Most of us will sign some utterly unfair, incomprehensible, thick as a dictionary employment agreement with our hospital that basically signs our life over to them for the next 3 to 7 years. Choice tidbits of "policy" included in these contracts mention that we may be expected to be on call for anywhere from 18 to 36 hours - on hospital grounds - multiple times per week. The 80 hours limit, while "technically" weekly is only calculated on a monthly basis. Fun times.
 
It's great that such important people as those who maintain our information technology infrastructure are about to get a financial boost... what about those of us earning $55,000 a year or less with 8 years+ of college and post-graduate education and charged with taking care of you and your family? Everyone envisions doctors as Corvette-driving, boat-owning, million-dollar mansion homestead people. I assure you that in today's marketplace, NOBODY goes into medicine for the money - unless they're making drugs for a big-pharm company or doing boob jobs.

What's the line from Office Space

[techpawn]

...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...

Re:That will wreck IT...

[cavehobbit]

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?

Re:That will wreck IT...

[TheMeuge]

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?

Re:That will wreck IT...

[cayenne8]

"Not everyone is willing to go through the crap that having a corporation entails."

I'll agree..it takes a bit to learn at first, especially if you're like me, and not a real organized, paperwork type person. But, it is easily learned. I got a CPA to show me how and what to fill out. A few hours every month is not that big a price to pay if you want to make and KEEP more of your hard earned money. You pay bills don't you? This is pretty much just like adding a few more bills to the pile as far as time and paperwork go. I'd argue the benefits outweigh extra time consumed.

"In addition, most employer companies will not contract directly, you have to go through another shop, that takes a cut. Nowdays, being independant is far less of an option than it used to be."

To a great extent yes....but, one side benefit of this, it does take a bit of the risk of having to look for all the jobs yourself...which keeps a lot of people out of this type gig. No, you often don't get the full bill rate, but, getting $55-$70/hr isn't that hard, and it can make for a great living if you don't spend a ton, and wisely invest. One thing that companies WON'T do...is generally hire you 1099 directly...too much a risk to them from the IRS or you claiming to really be an employee later in life.

Incorporate yourself (I went the "S" corp route)...and when you do a direct contract gig....you can do it corp2corp which shields everyone from the "employee" entrapment possibilities that can happen.

"The attitude that if you are not willing to jump through all the hoops that the big-business/government coalition puts in your way, you do not deserve to earn a decent wage is just Nietzscheian nonsense."

Well, I don't know about the attitude comment. I take the attitude that I have to be willing to do what it takes or do that bit extra to excel in the current work environment. As I wrote before, I perceive that jobs and employment have changed a great deal....especially since my parents' time. Since I do not perceive a direct job to have the benefits of old (job security, loyalty to employees, room to grow) I see a new paradigm for working if you want to make and keep money.

And also, I guess it depends on what you think a 'decent' wage is. If you are willing to settle for what they'll pay you direct...and the unpaid OT...more power to you. But, in this day in age and the current market and where I think I forsee it going....I think the only way to have a positive employment future is to go more on your own, and take charge more of your own HR needs. YMMV of course.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:That will wreck IT...

[slughead]

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.

But that would involve taking responsibility for my own welfare and treating my labor and their money like it's some sort of 'thing' to be 'traded'!

No, I'm afraid a much simpler, 'fairer', and efficient solution is to get some fancy-pants lawyer to sue the crap out of the employer I hate so much and yet am unwilling to leave. In the process, the lawyer will make tons of money, the company will have to cut a few jobs to pay for the legal fees on both sides, but at least I'll get half of what I asked for and they'll get their comeupance!

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.

I read an article a few years ago comparing jobs now as opposed to 20 years prior. It said that fewer employees are asking for raises but theft by employees is way up. It quantified the two and estimated that the employers are probably coming out ahead. People are less willing to play by the rules and just play hard; they have this impression that the only way to get ahead is to bend or break them.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say this (actually no I don't), but when you have a skill that thousands upon thousands of others have ("general IT staff"), as well as anyone who's just "good with computers" you will never make any money.

Also, you aren't really in IT. You are in "plug PC components together"-T. If you want to make money and be shielded from issues in any industry:
1. Be naturally gifted in the area
2. Learn as many general skills in the area you can
3. Learn and be great at at least one high demand skill, that is difficult to learn (yes, being good at programming is difficult to learn; no, setting up simple networks at a 30 person company is not difficult to learn)
4. Continue to learn and develop all skills

Everyone who performs those 4 steps doesn't have to complain about pay, overtime or getting their job outsourced. It's all the rest, who really are just "resources" or "bodies in the workplace" who are going to ruin it for those of us performing the 4 steps above.

Simpler solution

[ducman]

Sorry, I think there's a simpler answer to the question, "Why shouldn't people get paid for the hours they work?" It's because the hours you work aren't valuable, it's only the result of that labor that's valuable. We [should] get paid because we're doing something valuable, NOT because we spent a certain amount of time doing it. Historically, time spent has been used as a way to measure value, because it's an easy way to measure the amount of work done. When the work being done is so standardized that there's no way for one person to do more than another in the same amount of time, hours provides a good measurement. However, it has only ever been an approximation.

I'm totally against any govenment intervention in how I get paid because I know that I am more productive than almost anyone I work with. And while my greater productivity doesn't always result in my getting paid as much as I think I should get, the fact that my pay is more based on my getting the work done than on spending a certain amount of time doing means that there is a possible upside, and at least it means I have some flexibility. I can read slashdot during the day, for example, because I know I'll still be able to get my work done.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[mollog]

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.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[darrint]

Contracting through your own corporation can be easy. I have two organizations that help me with it. A CPA firm obviously, and a PEO. PEO stands for Professional Employment Orgainization. I love my PEO, which is why people don't use them. Imagine that on a t-shirt.

PEO's are a good deal. They take you, your corporation and your contracting money and make you legally into a W2 employee. You pay them a fee per pay cycle to do it. They administrate your health plan (sorry, no volume disounts, at least in my US state), retirement, withholdings, and if you do end up hiring another person later, they make sure you do everything just so, so you stay out of accidental legal trouble.

Furthermore, you get to design your own pay cycle, I have a two week one (not bi-monthly mind you, two weeks). It's nice. You get to set up everything the way you want so it's favorable to you. I just have to tell the payroll guy how much to run every two weeks and the direct deposits happen. There's a little bit of bookkeeping you need to do once a year for the CPA, but that's really tiny.

Between your PEO and your CPA you'll have a couple of meetings up front and then you're good to go.

I'm a little surprised more contractors don't use a PEO now. Maybe because PEO is a horrendous acronym.

Working IT vs. driving a bus

[mollog]

Perhaps if you had actually driven a bus for a while, you might not say that. I worked my way through school as a bus drive in Seattle. I loved driving a bus. My quality of life was better driving a bus than working in IT/tech.

I am considering leaving the IT/tech field and moving back to Seattle and getting another bus driving job with Metro.

Again, quality of life.

FYI, the city of Seattle has the highest educated bus driving workforce in the country. Many students work their way through a degree at the UW by driving a bus. When they graduate they often realize that finding work in their field doesn't pay as much as driving a bus. Top scale is $25 or so, and overtime is paid time and a half. Next time you work a 60 hour week, think about the fact that bus drives are getting paid the same if they work that much. With a degree, bus drivers can move into management, which pays more.

And there's that quality of life thing again. If you don't want the overtime, if you want to do something with your free time, like flip houses, you have that choice. (I knew two bus drivers who owned apartment building together.) In IT/tech, you're forced to work 50-60 hour weeks.

I blame my generation (baby boomers) for the expectation of 50-60 hour weeks in IT. Screw that.

Re:Unions are just fearmongers

[GreatBunzinni]

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.

You wan FLSA? Then get ready for the minuses.

[csoto]

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.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[C10H14N2]

That's great to a point--I'm also a contractor and prefer it for precisely the same reasons.

HOWEVER, there are circumstances of our current economy that make it simply not an option for many people. Namely, if you have any sort of medical condition, especially of the chronic and/or cardiac variety, and you don't want to die an early death or live in poverty conditions despite making $100k+ per year, getting individual or small group health insurance is a near impossibility and you're pretty much forced to work for a company with decent large group coverage.

Despite the FUD about "HillaryCare," it is essentially just attacking the primary root problem of that: eligibility. For most of the population, it's not a monetary entitlement, it's just an eligibility entitlement. Essentially, the entire country is the "group" and you are entitled membership in that group, which is as it should be. You still pay for it, sometimes through the nose, but at least you can GET IT.

Should that go through and that major risk is effectively removed, I imagine you'll find a lot more people leaving the ranks of th W2's into the promised land of independent contracting.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[Artifakt]

I actually agree strongly with your last point, but this is not really about being independent, if you mean being a corporation all by yourself and handling all the tasks it entails to be one. The problem with that sort of independence is the same as trying to be your own lawyer, civil engineer and dentist, all at once.

You don't even have to incorporate (in the US at least). You certainly don't have to incorporate just to level the playing field. You can set yourself up as a sole proprietorship, (or if there's more than one involved, a partnership), and you don't have to incorporate at all. You can enter a sole proprietorship pretty much at will (in some states this has the caveat - if you're not a convicted felon), and you can style a partnership any of many ways so that you are getting paid fairly for what you bring to it. You can even limit your liability in a partnership so you can't be left holding the whole bag, without having to create a LLC or S-corp to do it.

Here's all working for yourself really, absolutely requires.
1. When you are employed, someone else withholds taxes (both income and social security/medicare). To be self employed, you have to hold these out yourself. If you start making a real lot of money, you have to make advance payments once a quarter, but until you are getting some serious income, you can usually just keep the money in an account and keep the interest for yourself until around April 15th. If you're making more money than will allow that, you can definitely afford someone like me to advise you and file your forms for you. I have clients who can afford my services entirely on the interest they are getting on money they would have never seen at all as employees. What you can't do is expect to keep all the money you wold have been paid as an employee, plus all the extra you should be able to make being your own boss, plus all the taxes you would have paid one way or the other as an employee, plus any money (or time) it costs to learn the basics of record keeping and legal compliance for your particular business.
2. you need to learn what counts as a business related expense, and what doesn't, what you can claim on an IRS schedule and what you can't. For most people in IT, this means learning a 2 page form (Schedule C), and probably the 1 page form to cover your driving expenses, and maybe the 1 page form for having a home office. The government both prints and PDFs complete instructions for all these and gives them away free on the IRS's website. There's about 40 pages of support manuals for all this, but once you learn the basics, those are not something you have to memorize or even read cover to cover. There are all sorts of additional sections explaining what to do if you are a lobster fisherman or a non-citizen, or both, but if you can't figure out pretty quick that this area doesn't apply to you, then you should be working for somebody else, as a burger flipper (and I've known some burger flippers who picked up on these pretty damned quickly). Most people have to get over their fear that government has hidden something vitally important in a tiny footnote in that section that only applies to commercial fishermen - that really seems to be the biggest obstacle, not intelligence.
You just may need to learn how to amortize computer related hardware and software, but probably your beginning business model is simpler than that and you can usually forget about doing any amortization - i.e. you can't claim a personal laptop if you use it for various things besides business, and a cheap old one sufficient for most IT needs is small enough you can just claim the whole thing as a straight out expense in a year. Most admin and diagnostic software is free these days unless you are specializing in certain parts of Windows. Starting out in business doesn't have to be very complex, and if it is you probably need to refine your business model.
Again, this is what I'd claim for a beginning IT, tec

Re:That will wreck IT... Where they get it from...

[gabrieltss]

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!

Re:That will wreck IT...

[Rakishi]

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.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[corifornia2]

she's free to do what makes her happy
Bang the pool boy for 50+ hours a week?

Your missing the point.

[dfint]

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

Re:That will wreck IT...

[The Spoonman]

If you don't like the hours, don't get into the business.

Close, but not exactly right. The credo goes: "show me an IT guy consistently working more than 40-42 hours a week and I'll show you an incompetent boob that needs to be flipping burgers." IT is a field whose simple purpose is to increase the efficiencies of our organizations. If we're so inefficient at our jobs that it takes us more than 40 hours to regularly do it, then we're doing it wrong. Now, that's not to say you don't chip in and do what needs to be done when things need fixing, but that's true in any job. But, if you're working 70 hours/week in IT, you're a twit who has no idea what he's doing and need to be fired. Period. As a PART of my job, I maintain a set of (Windows) servers that process approximately $25 trillion/year worth of payroll transactions for over a million individuals...and I RARELY work more than 40 hours/week.

However, that being said, there's nothing wrong with companies not paying their employees overtime. If they want someone to work 70 hours/week for a 40/hour a week salary...well, that's their perogative, but employees need the abilty to not work there. Your basic premise is that if you work in IT, you work overtime, right? Do you negotiate salaries based on that? For example, one potential employer I interviewed with while unemployed asked if I had a problem with working 70/hours a week and I told him no, if he's willing to pay for it (as soon as he asked that question, I decided I didn't want to work there. I know where it leads). He said they didn't pay overtime and I told him flat out..."the salary we've discussed is for a 40 hour work week. If you want me to work almost twice that, you're going to have to pay me almost twice that. I don't give up my time for free." He quickly concluded the interview and I never heard from him again. I did, however, notice the ad in the paper week after week. So, to be a prick, I'd write him every week "I noticed you hadn't filled the position yet. If you can't find someone to fill the position at the salary you want to pay, I'd like to discuss further the possibility of my employment at a proper salary level."

Re:Absolutely Necessary

[rk]

"And woe be the guy who isn't back in the office again at 8 AM sharp after working on a project until 1:00 am the day before. I've been threatened with losing pay and even possible termination for just that very thing."

If they fired you, it would probably be the best thing they could do for you. I had a job like that once, and because I dared to leave at 5pm one day for a doctor's appointment, they fired me the next day even though I came in to work at 4:30am. Yes. Twelve and a half hours wasn't enough.

My next job had no overtime, better pay, tuition reimbursement, better health plan, and flex time so I could schedule college classes (I hadn't finished my degree at the time). Seeing how a company could be GOOD, I vowed to myself that I would never work in the bad conditions I came from again. Sure, I've had crunch overtime, and even had to work weird hours for a bit when I was doing a little work for the Mars Rover team, but I've only had one other shitty job since then when a reorganization made me (a Unix software engineer) into an NT sys admin andwebmaster (pronounced "glorified typist"). Even then, I worked damn little overtime (restart, reboot, reinstall wasn't an arduous job).

It helps to be excellent (not merely good) at what you do, though. In the last 17 years, I've only spent about 16 weeks jobless, only 6 of which were without another job lined up at the end of them. Most of that in 2001, which was a lot of us.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[columbus]

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.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[skarphace]

I agree, after 9 years in IT, a few car accidents and *a lot* of poor personal behavior and I do have the standard "I sit all day" ailments. May not fix car accident problems but I've found it nice to stand when I feel like it. With a few books under the monitor, a cardboard box under your keyboard, and a couple of upside-down in-bins under your mouse pad, you can have a standing desk. It's pretty nice once you get used to standing all day. Only time it sucks is when you're hungover from a long Monday night drinking session.

I do believe they make standing desks nowadays if you want a more permanent solution.

Re:That will wreck IT...

[Yaztromo]

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