Slashdot Mirror


IBM Responds to Overtime Lawsuits With 15% Salary Cut

bcmbyte writes "IBM in recent months has been hit with lawsuits filed on behalf of thousands of U.S. employees who claim the company illegally classified them as exempt from federal and state overtime statutes in order to avoid paying them extra whenever they worked more than 40 hours per week. The good news for those workers is that IBM now plans to grant them so-called "non-exempt" status so they can collect overtime pay. The bad news: IBM will cut their base salaries by 15% to make up the difference."

8 of 620 comments (clear)

  1. Typical. by beavis88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This, folks, is a good example of why labor unions are still around. Not that it's going to help any in this case...

    1. Re:Typical. by GNU(slash)Nickname · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I work for a Union. You work for the union, or you are just a union member?

      They happily negotiated less than 3% for cost of living increase for the last contract. Unfortunately that was nearly erased by them raising the union dues 2.5%. Your union dues went up by 2.5% of your gross salary? Really?
  2. Re:Free market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And how exactly do you live if you don't work? Property is owned by the government so you must always pay taxes or you loose "your" land. Food, power, transportation? Yes, why don't you show us all how you can live without working aside from taking up residence in a shopping cart on the corner. Also, don't the employees who do the work deserve some of the benefit? It seems corporate executives want to make multi-million dollar bonuses based on the work of others without sharing. Work hard so the boss can buy his 16 year old daughter a $65,000 car! Look at the striking writers guild in Hollywood. Are they wrong for wanting a piece of what they create or should they allow the executives who do nothing to take all the money for themselves? How about all these mergers? Can anyone compete against a mega-corp that owns politicians and writes the laws themselves? If you think the market is "free" then you are living in another world.

  3. Re:Free Market by navygeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wouldn't be surprised to see a (relative) handful of people quit over this, but I'd bet good money the majority will stay put - despite the 'insult' the paycut hands out. The reason - take a good look at the US economy. There isn't a lot of upward mobility it the numbers, economists are worried about a recession - and that fear usually turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy; at least to a point. Things aren't looking so good right now, people are worried. The Housing sector is the number one place not to be stuck working right now, tech isn't far behind.

  4. Re:Again. by kripkenstein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Radioshack settled a similar lawsuit with their store managers several years ago, and lowered their base salaries to offset the new overtime payouts. I've heard about lots of this sort of thing going on in smaller corporations, that you wouldn't hear about in the news. Fact is, the 'industry norm' is in many cases to not pay overtime for these sorts of jobs, even though people constantly work beyond the normal hours (these aren't 9 to 5 jobs!). As compensation, the base salaries are typically quite high. But it turns out that this norm is somewhat at odds with certain laws regarding overtime, and employees in many cases demand what they think they deserve.

    The end result is exactly what IBM did. Suddenly starting to pay for overtime means IBM is raising effective salaries by 10-20% or more, so naturally IBM lowers base salaries. The end result is that we are exactly where we started - people work the same hours, and get the same pay.

    Well, at least on average; for individuals who work more or who work less, there will be some change. There are also motivational issues - if you are paid for overtime, you have less incentive to work efficiently (one reason why hi-tech managers, and many workers, don't like paid overtime and prefer to raise the base pay). Overall, it is hard to say that the change is for the better. The old salaries and norms were already 'working' - they were comparable to industry norms, were arrived at after years of haggling, corrections, and so forth, and most importantly people knew what they were getting when they signed on.
  5. Re:It's stories like this... by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bad thing about being a contractor is I only get paid for the time I work (no sick leave, public holidays, annual leave etc)

    The worst day working for yourself is better than the best day I've ever had as an employee...ever. There is a lot of detail work necessary: Invoicing, collecting on the invoices, insurance, license fees, expense tracking, quarterly taxes. And there are liability issues to consider. But as more and more employers keep pushing responsibility and accounting issues down to the lower ranks, the amount of paperwork really isn't that different. Many employers expect you to process all that paperwork on your own time and travel on your own time. Plus a lot of them are getting dickishly intrusive monitoring and spying on their employees.

    Besides, cubicles suck ass.

    IBM gets caught breaking the rules and responds by cutting salaries. Nice. Just keep pulling stunts like that and your turn over will remain painfully high.

    Strangely enough, once I was working on a strictly per-hour basis, the boss found far fewer 'emergencies' that required me to work all weekend.

    Funny how that works, isn't it? Want me to work all weekend? No problemo! Just sign this invoice...right there...here's a pen.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  6. Re:Some reference materials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, this is great business and I love it. I am considered an exempt employee, so I am salaried with no OT; however, I love seeing corporations telling their employees to fuck off when they pull shit like this. IBM said, "You want to be hourly, fine here is your old pay minus 15%." Now, do not cry too much for these people. Assume their old salary was equivalent to a rate of $x per hour. Their new rate would be about $(x * .85).

    Previously, their annual salary would've been approximately 2000*x. It is now about 1700*x. Assume overtime is time and a half, they would get paid 1.275*x for each hour of OT. This means they would need to work about 236 hours of OT a year, or about 4.5 hours per week. If they were working so much OT that they were willing to sue, then this should be easy to make up and in the end they are making more money, since they weren't getting paid OT before.

    Their only other option would've been to unionize; however, if these are programming and/or engineering jobs, you can bet IBM would've outsourced them in a second to save the money and the hassle of dealing with a workers union. Also, don't think there aren't plenty of engineers in the US who are willing to "scab". Most the engineers I know (myself included) absolutely abhor unions.

  7. Re:sounds about fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No harm done -- the employees just have to keep doing regular overtime and they get the same salary they used to. If they do less, they get less money and if the boss deamnds more, they get more pay.


    Wrong. Harm done. Sure, you keep working overtime and your take-home remains about the same. Except when you take a vacation or go on maternity or other medical leave, and suddenly your income drops 15% for the duration. Also, the company's annual pension payout to you drops 15% because that amount is based on your base salary, not overtime.