What Tech Workers Need To Know About Overtime

onehitwonder writes "The class-action lawsuit that current and former Apple employees have filed against the company raises questions about what kinds of workers are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) — and thus, what kinds of workers are eligible for overtime pay. Some tech workers are covered under it; some are not though perhaps they should be. The lawyer who got IBM workers a $65M settlement from Big Blue for violating labor laws explains why employers often deny tech workers overtime pay and the circumstances under which certain tech workers may or may not be covered under the FLSA. From the article: 'It's not uncommon for employers to err on the side of classifying employees as exempt [from the FLSA], says Sagafi... In fact, the dirty little secret among employers and HR departments is that classifying employees as exempt — even if it means breaking the law — is in their best interest[,] provided... that they don't get caught... "In a sense, they may see it as economically viable for them to skirt the law and wait to see if they get sued because the exposure is not that huge [if they don't get sued]," Sagafi says. "If they can settle [a complaint] for less than 100 percent of what they owe people [for overtime], they've gotten away with a good deal."'"

Comments

One solution

[Tablizer]

Some government entities I know have simplified the exempt issue: only managers can be classified as exempt. All non-managers go by the clock. This removes most ambiguities and abuses. General labor law may also want to consider this (except in rare and well-documented circumstances).

Re:One solution

[Rakishi]

Gotta love people who think that what they'd like is what everyone else wants. I prefer being salaried; I hate having to deal with time-cards and I hate being told I can't do something (ie: work 80 hours this week then work 20 the next). I like not having to deal with an ever changing income flow depending on how much overtime I took that particular month.

If I thought I was being paid too little then I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. If I thought I was working too long I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. And before you ask I can do this because I'm not an idiot and I put saving for a rainy day above everything else.

Re:One solution

[supertjx]

The whole point of the law is to protect peons from being exploited by their bosses. Peons are usually lowly paid. So the criteria to be classified as exempt should be based on their salary. I.e. those paid below a certain amount go by the clock. You could be designated a "manager", but be doing lowly paid peon work, in which case you should be protected by the law.

Re:One solution

[jcr]

Damn right. This guy didn't like the job, fine. He can go and work somewhere else (which he did.) When I had more than I could do at Apple, I quit and joined a start-up.

Seems to me that litigation is pretty lousy substitute for negotiating skills.

-jcr

Re:One solution

[Urkki]

Seems to me that litigation is pretty lousy substitute for negotiating skills.

But isn't it so that the "negotiations" have already been done, and the result was made into laws and indsutry-wide agreements. Now Apple is breaking the agreements (or at least somebody believes they are, if they are going to court over it), and therefore litigation is the way to go.

If one side wants to change the laws and wants the old agreements discarded, then it's their responsibility to initiate the negotiation/lobbying/bribing process to make it happen. Until then, stick to the law or face litigation.

Re:One solution

[Martin Blank]

I wish I didn't have to deal with time sheets. Even when we were exempt, we had to fill them out for billing purposes (large contractor at a local government). I often long for the days when I don't have to fill one out, not so much because of the tracking but because our time sheet application works about as well as one would expect from Microsoft web application development principles of 1998.

In retrospect, our reaction when HR notified us that we were (mostly) being changed from exempt to hourly was not what one might expect. There was much indignation because for many, reaching exempt status in IT is a sort of badge of honor, a sign that one has made it out of the trenches. We felt like we were being downgraded.

Up until that point, we'd worked whatever was required to get the job done, and if that meant an hour or two (or sometimes three or more) over, then we usually did it. It generally wasn't from any pressure from management. It was just easier for us to get it done that night than to have to pick up again in the morning, when it would compete with whatever else was going on.

When we were changed to hourly, though, we got ominous warnings about overtime and how it was going to be strictly limited and subject to pre-approval and unauthorized overtime was grounds for disciplinary measures up to and including termination. Suddenly, the ability to go home with a clean checklist was in serious danger. However, reality hit management soon after, OT was regularly approved (and almost never actually required pre-approval), and our paychecks...

Well, let's just say that no matter how disappointed we were, the difference between a 60-hour paycheck and a 40-hour paycheck, especially under California overtime laws, was more than enough to chase away our depression. :)

Re:One solution

[jesterzog]

Seems to me that litigation is pretty lousy substitute for negotiating skills.

So you're saying that Apple should be allowed to break the law? These laws are supposed to apply to everyone, and if you're claiming that it should be ethically okay for Apple to break the law as long as it doesn't get caught, you're giving Apple an unfair advantage over its competitors who go to greater lengths to pay their employees properly because they know they're legally required to.

If Apple doesn't like the law they should convince people and lawmakers that it should be changed. Until then they should follow it as far as I'm concerned. I'm often skeptical about the excessive use of litigation to solve problems, but in this case I think it makes sense, particularly if Apple is clearly and intentionally breaking the law at the expense of people who aren't.

Re:One solution

[loraksus]

Problem is... shit like
11 layers of management happens

I've heard the statistic that for every 2 employees that actually worked, 3 managers oversaw them.
Bell (Canada) is a great example of a company that embodies fail in basically everything that they do.

Re:One solution

[Baricom]

Is there an actual codified definition of what constitutes a "manager"?

Yes. It'd be better if you RTFA, but since you didn't, all of the following must be true:

1. The employee makes at least $455 per week.
2. The employee's primary job must be managing the business or a divison of the business.
3. The employee supervises at least two or more other full-time employees.
4. The employee has authority to hire or fire other employees.

Re:One solution

[professionalfurryele]

The solution is actually just two words.

Punitive Damages

And they have to be really punitive. They have to be high enough that Apple shareholders eyes bleed. Businesses of this size almost always act in a manner to forward their best interest without consideration of morals.

All Apple have done is what any large business will do when there is a law. If the PR implications and the impact on employee moral plus the risk of a court case times the cost of it are less than the cost of sticking to the law, they break the law. The only two variables we can change are how often they go to court and how much is extracted when they get there.

Everything else is just loopholes.

Re:One solution

[UnderCoverPenguin]

4. The employee has authority to hire or fire other employees.

"hire or fire" or "hire and fire" - there is a big difference.

From my observations, at most of my clients, any one "supervisor" or above can fire some one below them, but hiring requires approvals at every level up to the "vice president" level, any of which can veto the hiring decision.

Re:One solution

[KGIII]

Let's play Devil's Advocate, not for the intent of trolling nor for flaming...

How about if this was a law in China but not here?

Re:One solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, so 'I'm all-right Jack' then. Love the solidarity and understanding you have with your fellow workers. Unfortunately not everyone is so good at being able to raise issues with their employer, not everyone is in a work place that encourages such issues as yours obviously does.

Surely legislation that protects workers from the worst excesses of the corporate world is good. If you're able to negotiate better conditions for yourself then brilliant, but ultimately companies need to realise they have a obligation to treat their workers fairly. Large swathes workers are unable to stand up for themselves, in this situation knowing that you have the law on your side is a good thing.

Working unpaid hours is not on, the company profits from this unpaid labour, they physically make more money because people end up working for nothing because they feel obliged to. I fail to see the different in a workplace that forces you to work unpaid hours and indentured labour.

Yes, I understand there is a need for flexibility in the workplace BUT not when that extra time becomes a de-facto standard. If it's expected you work extra hours then the company MUST pay for this or renegotiate your terms, if they are unwilling to or make your working situation that much more difficult because you wish to renegotiate then this is surely where the law must support you.

Otherwise everyone is simply left to fend for themselves which in modern western society is anathema.

Re:One solution

[Sparohok]

All non-managers go by the clock.

Screw that. I don't want overtime. I'm a contract software engineer and I always request to be exempt from overtime. Overtime is a curse.

I want to be able to work when I want to. I want to be able to work 12 hours today and 4 hours tomorrow. I want to be able to work 60 hours this week and 20 hours next week. My boss generally wants exactly the same thing. Flexibility benefits us both. In return for providing that flexibility, I get paid more every hour of every day than other employees.

If I am paid overtime, I will most likely be restricted in my ability to adjust my hours to the work load and to my own schedule. This harms both myself and my employer, and dilutes the value that I bring as a contract employee. Ultimately I get paid less, not more.

Broadly speaking, highly trained, highly valued professionals are in a sellers market and have no need for overtime. Purely commoditized and unskilled labor are the ones who need overtime laws to protect themselves.

Martin

Re:One solution

[dsglkdpse]

Lucky you. Even though they are salaried, no one I know is allowed to work less than 40 hours per week with out it being charged against their vacation balance (or deducted from their paycheck) - no matter how many hours they worked the week before.

That's normally company policy. Everywhere I have worked, managers typically have an unofficial comping system. If people put in a lot of overtime to meet a deadline, they often can take a freebie day or two when things are slow. Likewise, if someone has some personal business to take care of, they can make up the hours another time. The general rule of thumb is "get your shit done on time". That's an advantage to being salaried -- you can add some flexibility to your schedule (if you have a good manager). Hourly workers don't have that so much as it leads to overtime pay. Laws make accounting for hours much more stringent for hourly workers. People should know what they're in for when taking a salaried IT job. Ask during the interview what typical hours are. Take that in to account when the salary is offered.

Re:One solution

[krkosska]

As tech workers in the US, we have a pretty sweet deal. Would you rather work long tech hours or regular hours doing ANYTHING else?
Let's remember the lesson of the union workers for the steel industry, auto workers, etc, and let's take a moment to reflect on outsourcing...then let's make sure this gun isn't pointed at our collective foot.

Re:One solution

[Jellybob]

Ask during the interview what typical hours are.

And then add 5%.

Re:One solution

[pla]

I hate having to deal with time-cards

"Professional" hourly workers (and I mean outside the IT world) generally don't bother with time cards, except as a once-a-week formality ("You worked 40hrs?" "Yup" "okay").


I hate being told I can't do something (ie: work 80 hours this week then work 20 the next).

Well, can't help you with that one, except to say that it depends on the averaging period for what your employer calls "full time". If they strictly insist you must work 40/wk for full-time status, then yeah, you just need to use some of your PTO. More often, they average that biweekly or monthly, so yes, you can still do exactly what you describe.


I like not having to deal with an ever changing income flow depending on how much overtime I took that particular month.

Um, hello? It only varies upward as a result of OT. I'd take that in a heartbeat over having my effective hourly rate start slowly dropping after I hit 40 hours for the week, since my pay won't change no matter how long I stay... But wow does my motivation level start dropping at that point.


If I thought I was being paid too little then I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job.

Managers and HR departments have learned the fine art of pushing "just barely okay". I agree with you, if I worked 60hrs a week every week, I'd find a new job. But, liking my job otherwise, will I quit because I find myself pushing 45 hours more often than not? Unlikely.


And before you ask I can do this because I'm not an idiot and I put saving for a rainy day above everything else.

Totally different topic. This doesn't involve hourly wage-slaves working for $8/hr at Wallyworld. Whether salaried or hourly, IT professionals generally make decent money. Most of us have the option of finding a new job relatively quickly; The uncertaintly, hassle, vesting schedules, and the fact that most companies pull the same BS, make looking for a new job not all that appealing except in the worst cases.

Re:One solution

[CastrTroy]

That depends if you're talking about supervisors or canaries.

On a more serious note, I grew up in a mining town. Those guys were paid pretty well considering a lot of them only had a highschool diploma, if that. 60 grand back in the early 90's was pretty good cash, especially when a house could be bought for $40 grand.

Re:One solution

[mcvos]

Let's play Devil's Advocate, not for the intent of trolling nor for flaming...

How about if this was a law in China but not here?

Well, I for one think it would be great if China had a law that required workers to be paid for the work they do. But what's so Devil's Advocate about that?

Re:One solution

[JAlexoi]

I think it should be even simpler....
If an employee can cause serious damages, by the nature of his responsibilities(such as signing a harmful contract or hiring and overpiced employee or selling something with 0% margin), he should be exempt.
A salesman should be exempt, but not all salesmen actually manage anyone, nor do they have authority to hire people.
Ordinary managers that manage funds and are allowed hire people, with those legal action can cause serious damages to a company.

So it boils down to:
- A person that has limited or unlimited authority of a part or whole of the company, revenue streams or obligations.

This definition would disqualify ANY of the IT workers, but IT managers would qualify definitelly.

Re:One solution

[Lumpy]

I'm with you, they should have found a job somewhere else than the silly idea of expecting the company to obey the LAW.

Re:One solution

[SQLGuru]

You posted anonomously, so you might not ever see this, but: when they do switch you to exempt, it's your chance to negotiate your rate. Go back several years and calculate how much you made in overtime vs regular time. Do market research on your job function and find out the salary range in your area as well as nationally. Do an honest evaluation of how you stack up to your co-workers.

If your regular time pay is about $35/hr (around $70k per year) but you received overtime pay (at time and a half, I assume - $52.5/hr) and worked about 10% more hours as overtime on average, you should target a salary in the 80k range. If your job function gets between 60k and 80k in your region, then expecting 80k might be unreasonable, so you'd have to target more like 75k. If you are better than every one of your peers, maybe that 80k isn't that unreasonable.

Regardless, what you negotiate now will actually affect you long term. Raises and bonuses are usually designated in percentages. You want as high a base as possible because most people only see a 3% raise annually. It will take 5 years worth of 3% raises to make up the 10k difference in my example numbers.

Layne

Re:One solution

[Ihlosi]

Exactly. Even a VP usually can't hire or fire someone without HR approving the decision.

But what if he wants to fire HR ... ?

Re:One solution

[SQLGuru]

I've always held an exempt job and it's always been for internal IT. And believe it or not, I've still had to submit my time. They call it "project tracking". I call it "lying", but I've never hidden that fact. If they don't give me a bucket to log certain tasks, they'll get lumped in to whatever task I feel like padding that week. I don't really see how they can track projects at the level they want and get any sort of meaningful results.

But the point is, being exempt and not having billable hours, I still have to submit a timesheet. It just doesn't affect my paycheck.

Layne

Re:One solution

[encoderer]

It's not really an either/or.

You can be a salaried employee who is paid for OT.

And really, I don't need the government telling me how I can work. I'm a grown man. If I want to work for salary w/o OT, that's my call.

Re:One solution

[cayenne8]

"You posted anonomously, so you might not ever see this, but: when they do switch you to exempt, it's your chance to negotiate your rate. Go back several years and calculate how much you made in overtime vs regular time. Do market research on your job function and find out the salary range in your area as well as nationally. Do an honest evaluation of how you stack up to your co-workers."

Or, if they will not negotiate...leave for a new job. Unless you like your present job SO much that you will take a pay cut (as you described to the GP based on OT calculations), find another job. I prefer to work through my own company which is a "S" corp...on a corp to corp 1099 basis. However, if I do have to work W2, I require that I am paid hourly...and I get paid for all OT. Depending on the bill rate, well, sometimes it is straight time for OT rather than 1.5 rate. But, I learned years ago, I do NOT work for free.

My time is much to valuable. I generally prefer time off to OT...but, sometimes you gotta do it. Don't get me wrong, when they really need me for emergency down time, or if in dev. a deadline is looming, I'm there as long as it takes to get things done. I just refuse to do it for free. If they have to pay you for every hour you are there, they will think twice before making requests that you do so, and only do it when it is required.

Something to think about. How valuable is YOUR time?

Re:One solution

[Urkki]

Have you conisdered that when a law is being broken that it might be an indication that the law should be repealed?

Yes. After consideration, I think this law should not be repelled.

Re:One solution

[salemnic]

Ask during the interview what typical hours are.

And then add 5%.

And then double it for deadline crunches.

Re:One solution

[NeoSkandranon]

"Um, hello? It only varies upward as a result of OT."

It can only vary upwards as a result of *adding* OT. What about taking it away--plenty of hourly places use a few consistent hours of OT to balance out the fact that the base pay rate is marginal. Suppose that company has just realized that they can't find their asses with both hands and a map, and are hemorrhaging money.

First thing to go is overtime, as much of it as possible, which means your paycheck is probably going down and staying there. I don't think that sort of scenario is all that uncommon (but I could be wrong)

Having to deal with crap like that is why I am truly glad to be salaried. Getting paid for working past 40 would be great, but it goes both ways.

Re:One solution

[TheCarp]

Agreed. Its really sad how easy we go on corporations.

remember Exxon-Valdeze (sp?)? I was reading that around 20 years after the fact, Exxon-Mobile has been still fighting, and finnaly recently won their case, they wont have to pay a dime in punative damages over the oil spill.

Of course there is an even better solution: institute a review process.

Its been shown time and time again that peoples decisions tend to be based more on the likelyhood of being caught than on the punishment if they do get caught. Take the example of Lo-Jack.

"It turns out that a 1 percent increase in LoJack sales can reduce auto theft rates by 20 percent or more ...although it costs only $100 a year to have a LoJack, Ayres and Levitt estimate that each individual LoJack prevents about $1,500 a year in losses due to theft." -- Steven E Landsburg "More Sex is Safer Sex" p. 112

Thats all without increasing the penalties for stealing cars at all, just turning up the likelyhood of getting caught!

SO... clearly companies have been abusing the fact that there is no oversight. Its time to institute oversight.

-Steve

Re:One solution

[Thundermace]

Actually, according to the FLSA (http://www.resource4flsalaw.com/fairlaborstandardsactemployeeclassifications.html )

"The Fair Labor Standards Act provides for a âoeprofessional exemptionâ for such jobs as:

One that requires advanced education or knowledge
Work in an original and creative artistic field
Teaching
Computer systems analyst, programmer, engineer, or similar field
Those who perform work which is intellectual and varied in character, the accomplishment of which cannot be standardized as to time
Those who regularly exercise discretion and judgment
These classifications have frustrated many workers, such as computer and information system workers, who have a great deal of specialized knowledge but no professional training. These changes to the law allow many companies to reclassify these workers as âoeprofessionalsâ and thus not pay them overtime.

Your employer must establish precisely why your position qualifies for a professional exemption through a number of wage and duty tests. Salaried positions are generally immediately exempt from overtime, but other positions must meet specific requirements in order to be exempt. If you believe you were not properly compensated for your work, you may be entitled to take legal action. Contact an experienced labor law attorney today."

As far as the litmus tests an employer needs to go through it does not take a rocket scientist to manipulate that system. So I would say based on this "amendent to clarify the FLSA in 2004" a large number of people were bent over and forced to take it.

Of course posting this tidbit as well as a reference doesnt mean those on /. will read it ;)

Re:One solution

[hrld1,kon]

Great explaination! That is exactly how businesses examine situations. It is also how criminals decide whether to commit a crime... (Will I get caught | no | Do it | Yes | Will I be punished? | no | do it | Yes | Is it worth it? | yes | do it | No | Don't do it.) {My background is criminal justice, and I currently teach it @ college level...}

Re:One solution

[Horus1664]

I would basically agree with this sentiment. I was a highly skilled contract worker for 15 years. However in some markets the 'high skill' being paid for by the employer is something that isn't 'development' as the poster's skills obviously are. Someone who can swan about doing basically what they like providing they supply a usable product in a certain timeframe. It might be technical support or problem solving which the employer might genuinely need at odd times, therefore introducing the idea of 'overtime'.

not getting caught

[Iamthecheese]

OH! I get it! like the horrible economic reality that its in my best interests to steal cars as long as I don't get caught

Re:not getting caught

[Asic Eng]

OH! I get it! like the horrible economic reality that its in my best interests to steal cars as long as I don't get caught

It would only be like that, if the punishment for stealing a car was less than the purchase price of that car.

Re:not getting caught

[Urkki]

Well, depending on your local laws and criminal penalties, your connections to the people already working in the car-stealing industry, and your current wealth and income, it may actually be in your best financial interests to start stealing cars until you get caught...

I hear fuel-efficient cars are in pretty high demand (compared to the supply) in some parts of the USA right now, so I think stealing those is a growing "business". Get in now, while it's a new trend!

Or not, if you don't like the idea of being a crook.

Re:not getting caught

[novakyu]

If you don't get caught, there's no punishment.

You should factor that into your calculation:

(Value of car) - (Probability of getting caught) * (penalty converted to monetary value) = Expected net profit (or loss).

It probably won't work for cars, as probability is probably greater than 1/2, and if you count lost wages while being incarcerated (not to mention the cost of being an ex-felon for life), expected net loss would be too great---you might as well buy lottery tickets or go to a casino, at that point.

But, for things as small as parking tickets, this could work as what some people call "reverse lottery". i.e. if you pay less in fines than you would have if you paid parking fees every time, then it's more economically viable to park without permits. Just make sure your probability estimates and other values are reasonable.

Re:not getting caught

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

"It would only be like that, if the punishment for stealing a car was less than the purchase price of that car."

Which it would probably be if you organised it as a corporation ...

didnt the workers read before they were hired...

[nawcom]

according to the end-employee license agreement (eela) they signed, they only get paid for apple-labeled work hours. any other work hours aren't apple work hours, so they shouldn't expect any support from accounting when it comes to overtime.

(yeah i know - horrible mac clone reference; its a little after 1 am here, i'll have my geek humor rested and ready tomorrow ;) )

Overtime

[Anonymous Coward]

I accepted my first IT Management position about 1.5 years ago. When I took the position I was familiar with the regulations as I had developed payroll software for a big U.S. payroll company for five years. The classification was the first question I brought up to HR. Fortunately, they had classified the employees correctly. However, when I started asking for timesheets, several of them complained.

I'm not a big punch-the-clock guy and have pretty much left it to my employees' discretion as to how they fill out their timesheets. However, I ALWAYS insist that they put in all overtime and account for the not-too-infrequent off-the-clock weekend support calls. It's money they're due, period!

Even if a company "gets away" with not paying overtime they are subject for stiff fines for violating labor law, often greater than the cost of paying the back overtime. It would also be a PR field day for their competitors. I know I would not buy from a company that didn't pay their employees due overtime.

It's simply not worth it...pay your employees!

Re:Wow..

[Tablizer]

One could take the libertarian view that says, "if you don't like the work conditions, go elsewhere". Of course, during recessions that's often not a viable choice.

But libertarians tend to be social darwinists in that regard: "let the harsh markets weed out the weak". However, it may lead to the "ugly capitalism" found in 1800's Britain that inspired tons of novels and discourses bashing capitalism.

These issues are still not settled in the US: the progressives and conservatives (semi-libertarians[1]) fight over these views endlessly.

(It's ironic how conservatives tend to reject darwinism in biology, but embrace it in economics and distribution.)

[1] Conservatives tend to be economic libertarians but regulation-oriented when it comes to sex. This is the main thing that distinguishes them from libertarians in my opinion.
         

FLSA or not, you get paid what you're worth

[Russ Nelson]

FLSA or not, you get paid what you're worth. If not, then you move on. A strongly competitive market ensures that people will be able to find a new job. As long as they can do that, employers will have to pay an employee what they're worth if they want to keep them.

Re:FLSA or not, you get paid what you're worth

[that IT girl]

This is true. And from the other side of the fence, I'm actually in the minority being single and having no children. I am forced to take up the slack ALL THE TIME when people are constantly out due to their children. I hate the attitude I'm starting to develop, which is resentment, because I don't want children I'm subtly forced to work harder than those who do. It isn't fair to either side in this situation.

Caveat Employee

[Penguinisto]

Usually one of the first questions I bring up upon being accepted for a position involves comp-time/overtime. Then I get it in writing.

They can (and often do) quote policy at length, but you can (and should) negotiate changes more to your liking. But unless the job is an entry-level/helpdesk position, or the market really, really sucks? Never trust an employer to look out for your best interests... that's supposed to be your job, eh?

/P

Re:All they need to know: "india"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Seriously. If I had a job in this crappy market, i'd be kissing some serious feet right now."

You are in hell. I don't know if you realize it or not, but you are a slave with that mentality. You've sold your soul for a little piece of bread.

Re:All they need to know: "india"

[Tablizer]

I once saw a cartoon where the boss simply put up a big India national flag behind his desk. Nobody bothered to ask for raises.
     

FPMITA Is the solution

[EdIII]

""If they can settle [a complaint] for less than 100 percent of what they owe people [for overtime], they've gotten away with a good deal."'"

This is why when the DA can prove that there was a conspiracy to carry out just such a policy, then they should be sent to a Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison. I realize that there may not be any laws yet to cover this, but there should be.

This reminds me of the Fight Club when Ed Norton's character is explaining to the woman on the plane that if the total legal liability is less than the cost of recalling all the defective cars, a recall is not issued. There is just no other way to say it... that is some nefarious heinous shit. If laws are really meant to protect and nurture society then this is EXACTLY the kind of crap that needs to be stopped.

Re:FPMITA Is the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of a guy that I used to work with.

We worked in downtown Tokyo, he insisted on driving. (We all used public transport.) Except he didn't have a parking space, so he parked right in front of the building, on the street, illegally, every day. I asked him once how he avoids parking tickets. He said he didn't bother too much.

"Parking space costs about US$500 a month here. A parking ticket costs about US$100. They come around on the average three times a month to issue tickets. I actually only get about 1 per month, because I know they come between 11:00AM to 1:00PM on Tuesdays only. It's both convenient and economically viable to do things that way!"

He had a point...

Re:FPMITA Is the solution

[EightBits]

Bullshit. We have too damn many hippies trying to pass laws to protect the weak and lazy from themselves. All those laws do is remove Darwinian survival of the fittest from our society which only serves to make all of us weak. If we are to progress as a species and/or civilization, we need fewer laws to protect those who can't be bothered to protect themselves.

In the end, this comes down to responsibility and we need to stop trying to pass the buck to everyone else. The fact that there is a law about over time in situations like this is pure stupidity. I apply for a job that is listed as a salaried position exempt from overtime, guess what? It's a salaried position exempt from over time. There is no reason what-so-ever that any laws should be allowed to override this contract between me and my employer.

Don't like it? Then become your own damned employer.

The kind of shit that needs to be stopped is whiny, bitching, lazy bastards complaining about every little thing they don't like. This is why god (aka, man) invented the firing squad. To rid ourselves of people who think that companies not wanting to pay over time is "EXACTLY the kind of crap that needs to be stopped."

Re:FPMITA Is the solution

[Hal_Porter]

That only works because most Japanese people won't break the law even if the fines are rather low, because they have principles. If there were more people like your friend parking fines would have to increase.

Re:FPMITA Is the solution

[Hal_Porter]

This reminds me of the Fight Club when Ed Norton's character is explaining to the woman on the plane that if the total legal liability is less than the cost of recalling all the defective cars, a recall is not issued. There is just no other way to say it... that is some nefarious heinous shit. If laws are really meant to protect and nurture society then this is EXACTLY the kind of crap that needs to be stopped.

No, if that were the case the solution is to make the legal liability for defective products killing someone higher. And in the US, legal liability is higher than almost anyone else. This should make US products safer.

Certainly companies go to greater lengths to avoid being sued for injuring someone in the US than elsewhere. Of course, the price for all this is eventually paid for by the consumer in terms of more expensive stuff.

Re:FPMITA Is the solution

[Telvin_3d]

See, many people consider the idea of a Darwinist survival of the fittest and civilized society as oxymorons. You should not have to resort to Darwinist solutions to receive the pay agreed upon. Your compensation should not be a competition to see who can screw over who the most.

The idea that laws and contracts should be followed not because you will be penalized for being caught but because they are laws and contracts is significant. I would go so far as to say it defines much of our western society, or at least the ideals our western society strives for at its best.

Re:FPMITA Is the solution

[EightBits]

While I agree with you on some matters, I disagree with you on others. Darwinist solutions are time-tested and known to work quite well. But we are destroying our ability to survive by pampering those that lack the skills and motivation. Instead, we should be pushing them harder.

I don't believe in blindly following laws written by people that are not affected by them. I am of the belief that our laws are too complex and as such are becoming more and more meaningless and useless. I should have the right to start a corporation and offer positions with the pay that I want to offer. In an open market like we have here in the US, if the offer I make to potential employees is not satisfactory, they will shun it. I may only be left with the bottom of the barrel and my company will die because of a lack of decent employees. This is not something laws should be governing in a capitalist environment. This is something free enterprise will take care of by itself if the government will merely make sure the market stays competitive.

Re:FPMITA Is the solution

[EightBits]

Partially, yes. But I'm also partially serious. We're talking about a law that requires companies to pay over time to employees when neither the employee or the company want that.

For instance, I currently work a salaried position in IT which is exempt from over-time. I enjoy the benefits of that position. I can come in a little late. I usually stroll in around 9AM and leave around 5PM. I usually take a 1.5 hour lunch. No one cares because they all see the next day that I also worked from home that evening for about 3 or 4 hours. I enjoy my work enough to work more than 8 hours a day, but in a cubicle farm, I get interrupted so much that I can get more work done at home in the evenings. I participate in an on-call rotation, but even when I'm not on-call, I often times take notice of emergencies and hop online and help out my co-workers with on-call issues. I have no wife or children, am generally anti-social, so I sit at home and work. And I enjoy it.

Enter the law about over time. What happens when these law suits become all the rage and my employer decides that, even though my position doesn't appear to be affected by this law, they make it hourly anyway? Now, I've lost my flex time, have to punch a time card, and must be at work from 8AM to 5PM with a strict 12PM - 1PM lunch. At the very least, I will be unhappy enough that I will no longer work more than 8 hours a day. I will perform worse during the 8 hours that I am there. Sooner than later, I'll probably leave for greener pastures. This is now a negative for both me, my team, and my employer and it's all because someone else somewhere else that has no relationship to me what-so-ever opened his mouth and bitched and complained.

We've got to stop this kind of non-sense. Let me live my life the way I want to live my life for fuck's sake! I'm tired of people bitching about every little thing, going on to spawn new laws that destroy my lifestyle, and then proceeding to bitch about even more shit! We have to stop catering to these people who want life handed to them on a silver platter. It only makes all of us suffer. They need to take initiative to make their lives better through action rather than using a flawed legal system to their advantage. When companies do this, these same bitchers raise holy hell and cry foul. When they do it, it's a self-righteous holy war that is destructive to everyone around them.

This kind of behavior attempts to normalize the work environment for our entire nation. In the end, all this senseless bitching will do is end us all up in a THX 1138 world. That is what a normalized world would look like and whether they know it or not, that's what they're trying to achieve. They decide it's too much work to stand on their own, so they attempt to pull down those who can by constant complaining.

A previous poster had it right. This is people doing this to people, not the companies doing this to people. The companies are just adapting to the crap the people are throwing at them.

Re:FPMITA Is the solution

[EightBits]

I agree the combination is possible. But the possibility is irrelevant when there is a looming chance of lawsuits.

If this is the case, it's your employer's fault for a total lack of understanding of the issues.

It's not my employer's fault for a lack of understanding. My employer already DOES understand. That's why I am currently in this situation. The lack of understanding is on the side that is pushing this law on my employer and thus on me. Rather than risk further lawsuits, my employer will reduce that risk as much as possible by enforcing uniformity (often misinterpreted as fairness) on all employees. This will mean everyone will get the same hours with the same strictness of policy and lack of flexibility. While this wont happen over night, it will happen a little more every time one of these lawsuits comes to bear until we have no flexibility and everyone across the globe has a uniform job with uniform benefits. Sounds like communism to me.

Re:FPMITA Is the solution

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

So he was being a dick because he could get away with it.

Not much to be proud of.

Hear hear people, I'm being an asshole because nobody is forcing me to be considerate of others.

People like him are the reason we need all these stupid little laws in the first place.

A dig at the free market and capitalism.

[serviscope_minor]

Now I'm going to use this to take a dig at the free market and capitalism. This is why pure capitalism doesn't work. Companies don't try to "compete", they will lie, cheat, steal and break the law just to make a buck. That's because people will lie, cheat and steal to make a buck. Which is of course why communism doesn't work either. Because of people. And the company will keep selling the products because this makes them cheap. And people will keep buying them because they don't care about whoever is getting cheated.

Remember, it's not the company doing this to people, it's just people doing it to people. In the end that's all it is.

Re:A dig at the free market and capitalism.

[Gamer_2k4]

Which is of course why communism doesn't work either. Because of people.

But that's the same reason that capitalism is so much better than communism. With communism, the incentive is that you'll be providing for others, and they'll help you in return. However, with capitalism, you get what you put into it. Because there's personal motivation, capitalism works. Sure, with capitalism, people will do whatever it takes to get money. But the truth is, even if they're lying and cheating to make that money, they're still ultimately helping their company and society in general. And that's quite a bit better than communism, where there's little to no motivation at all. Misguided motivation that increases productivity is always better than a lack of motivation that hinders productivity. Both systems are influenced by greed and even distrust, but capitalism harnesses that greed, while communism breaks down because of it.

Re:A dig at the free market and capitalism.

[0123456]

"This is why pure capitalism doesn't work."

Most big companies wouldn't exist in a free market, and most small companies can't afford to 'cheat' employees, so your point is not very convincing. While there are exceptions, big companies generally rely on big government to keep new, small competitors out of the market, funnel taxpayers' money to them and protect them from irate employees and ex-employees with RPGs, .50-caliber sniper rifles and surface-to-surface missiles.

Re:A dig at the free market and capitalism.

[Hal_Porter]

There was a joke in Russia

"In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism it is the reverse"

Re:A dig at the free market and capitalism.

[Urkki]

Your argument is flawed because it is based on the assumption that a free market would contain laws pertaining to employee pay and overtime.

A free market would still contain agreements, and it would out of necessity need laws for situations when somebody breaks the agreement, no? If there was no government to enforce agreements (and define what an "agreement" is), but only private "security" bought with money, then the law would simply be what ever the one with most money for the best "security" would dictate.

Re:A dig at the free market and capitalism.

[RAMMS EIN]

You are right, for some value of "doesn't work". The trick is in designing the system in such a way that it causes egoistic people to do things that are beneficial to others.

A free market does that, because it provides an incentive for you to produce what others want, so you can trade it for things they have that you want. And it provides an incentive for you to charge a reasonable price for it, because, if you don't, someone else will produce the same thing and trade it for less, and you will be left with a stock of things you have produced, but none of the things you wanted. In a way, it is very beautiful, because you get all this by doing nothing; that is, not imposing any rules.

However, the system is definitely open to abuse. Instead of producing the chairs that people want and trading them for the meat you want, you can produce a wooden club and threaten to beat people to death unless they give you meat. This is probably something that should be regulated. In a sense, without regulation, the system "doesn't work".

On the other hand, regulation can also cause problems. At a minimum, regulations are useless without enforcement, and enforcement diverts resources away from production, which reduces the efficiency of the system. Regulations can also actively reduce the efficiency of the system, for example, by disallowing certain exchanges. An extreme case of this could be found in many Eastern Bloc countries, where you basically weren't allowed to decide what to produce, who to sell it to, and in exchange for what. The result was that the incentive to produce was lost, there was a mismatch between what was produced and what was needed, and a vast amount of work went into enforcing regulations, rather than production.

I think there needs to be regulation, but there is good regulation and bad regulation. On the whole, I think Western countries have done a good job of enacting good regulation. There is some bad regulation as well (I am sure we all have our favorite examples), and some countries do a better job than others, but I think, at the end of the day, there is much production and little abuse.

Re:A dig at the free market and capitalism.

[that IT girl]

Definitely. If we take all the people out of the equation, we could have utopia!

I'm not being sarcastic. People always want to put on rose-colored glasses and talk about all the nice people in the world and the goodness of mankind. You may find this in churches and charities, but honestly, in the business world, dog-eat-dog cutthroat attitudes prevail. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone in a position of power that didn't use some unscrupulous means somewhere along the line to get there.

You are exactly right with your closing statement. People are quick to blame big businesses. Big business doesn't just exist. It is created and sustained. By people.

Re:Wow..

[jcr]

the "ugly capitalism" found in 1800's

First of all, what we had in the 1800s was mercantilism, more than capitalism. There was an awful lot of trading in government favors, tariffs, interference with competitors, etc. Secondly, even with those distortions in the market, the industrial revolution is what made our current standard of living possible. There weren't any gangs rounding people up off the farms and forcing them to go work in factories in England or the United States (it was Lenin who came up with that particular crime, and Stalin and Mao scaled it up tremendously.)

-jcr

Crazy idea.

[RightSaidFred99]

How about an employee and an employer agree to an amount of pay, a schema for that pay be it salary or hourly, and a set of duties. Then if either side decides at a later point the agreement is no longer suitable, the relationship can be severed.

Crazy shit, I know.

Re:Crazy idea.

[evilviper]

How about an employee and an employer agree

That's quite an unequal bargaining table, stacked substantially in favor of the employer.

Laissez Faire capitalism was tried and failed in the US nearly a decade ago, precisely because the individual has such minuscule bargaining power compared to a large company.

It wasn't the free-market and contract law that ended sweatshops in the developed world.

Re:Crazy idea.

[Danathar]

Except that you don't see this until your paycheck comes in and it's less than what you agreed to and the employer says "quit and sue me!".

So you do and now...

1. you are out of a job

and

2. Now you have to sue a company while looking for a job.

Re:Crazy idea.

[evilviper]

Umm, I think that's why they developed these things called "unions".

Indeed. But that's not the same as "an employee and an employer agree[ing]". Perhaps more to the point, though, Unions have practically no foothold in the tech industry right now.

Read for yourself...

[MillenneumMan]

The FLSA is actually pretty clear and easy to follow: http://finduslaw.com/fair_labor_standards_act_flsa_29_u_s_code_chapter_8#2

It is not hard to determine whether or not your own role qualifies as exempt or non-exempt. Where it gets interesting is if you have seasonal duties, such as being a software developer for part of the year (which would be exempt from overtime pay) and then providing technical support for that software during a different part of the year (which would be non-exempt, or due overtime pay). A good example might be developers at Turbo Tax that code in the fall and do tax software support during the spring (which is tax season in the United States). If more than 20% of your work during the year is non-exempt then your employer cannot classify you as exempt and you must be paid for all overtime as if you were non-exempt year round.

In honor of this article - Overtime Jokes

[Nomadic_Z]

Top Ten Reasons To Work An Overtime Shift On The Weekend 10. Think of all the weight you'll lose from not getting to eat because of short staffing. 9. Think of the closeness you'll develop with you're co-workers after being knee-deep in Code 10's/Blues and Code "Browns". 8. Everyone is so frazzled, so next to them you look fabulous! 7. Think of what a challenge it will be to your nursing skills to run a Code without a Crash Cart because they are all down in Central being replaced. 6. The joy of having the previous shift's charge nurse tell you, " I don't understand why no one would return my calls to work today/tonight. Oh, and by the way, you are short two nurses and a CNA for this shift with a full house of patients sick as dog dirt." 5. Because you're a new grad and you want to be a "TEAM PLAYER" like your head nurse told you to be. (That and you have "sucker" stamped on your forehead!) 4. When you go home with your back aching from not having any nursing assistants who work weekends and your feet aching from running your butt off for "emergency procedures" (like the gas pain your patient has had for a week that is suddenly unbearable) you'll know that you really ARE a caregiver. 3. Think of all the computer skills you'll gain from putting in your own orders and ordering supplies from Central. (That can go on your resume' as...."Know how to operate multiple outdated computer models.") 2. You don't have time to adequately chart so you may get to learn how our judicial system works. On the bright side, your handwriting will be so bad that it can say whatever you want it to say! 1. Think of what a GREAT "Learning Experience" this will be. Translation: You just got shafted!!

California law applies too

[Todd Knarr]

Also bear in mind that, for the IT field, California has additional laws about who's overtime-exempt and who's not based on, among other things, salary and effective hourly rate. Relevant law is California Labor Code section 515.5. As of 2007 the effective hourly rate needed to qualify as overtime-exempt was $49.77/hour. SB 929 changed that effective 1/1/2008 to $36/hour, or not quite $75K/year in salary. Anyone in the IT field not being paid at least that amount is not exempt from overtime in California regardless of other qualifications (the exemption requires that all conditions hold).

Re:California law applies too

[ishobo]

The $74,880 salary is for 40 hours per week only. If you routinely work more than 40 hours, say 50 hours, then your employer would need to pay you a salary of $93,600 to be safe.

• 60 hours = $112,320
• 70 hours = $131,040
• 80 hours = $149,760

Once your employer fails to pay the correct salary for the calendar year, your classification switches to non-exempt for that entire year.

Re:Wow..

[Hal_Porter]

I've always thought that Communism was actually a trick. It was described as socialism, i.e. moving power from bosses to workers, but actually it was about rolling back progress in workers rights.

E.g. in the Soviet Union it essentially ended up essentially reinstating Serfdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom#The_Alleged_Return_of_Serfdom

Some economic and political thinkers have argued that centrally-planned economies, especially the Soviet collective farm system and other systems based on Soviet-style Communist economics, amount to a return to government-owned serfdom. This view was put most powerfully by Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom as early as 1944 and has since been adopted by others including Mikhael Gorbachev. In certain Communist countries, farmers were tied to their farms, either kolkhoz which were theoretically collectives, or sovkhoz which were state-owned, through a system of internal passports and household registration. They had to plant crops according to instructions from the central authorities, especially if they were on state-run farms. These authorities would then "buy" their agricultural produce at vastly reduced prices and use the surplus to invest in heavy industry.

This de facto serfdom persisted in Russia till as late as 1974 (with a brief break during the Civil War), when the Soviet Government Decree #667 was put in effect. This decree granted peasants identification documents, with an unrestricted right to move within the country â" thus detaching them from the piece of land where they had worked for generations, for the first time in Russian history.

Ok but that's a straw man argument

[Sycraft-fu]

Because I haven't seen anyone here propose a pure capitalism, and you'll find very few people who advocate such. You'll also notice that countries that are capitalism aren't pure capitalism. Capitalism also DOES work because it is the only system I've seen that deals with people, specifically that they are lazy and greedy. While it is not true of all people or in all cases, as a general rule people are lazy and greedy. They'd rather not work, if given the option, and would like to have more stuff. Capitalism plays one off the other, using greed to overcome laziness. Not perfect and doesn't work in a pure state, but it is certainly better than anything else tried.

I think the important question to ask is...

[loraksus]

Why is it that "tech workers" are virtually the only group singled out for getting the shaft on overtime pay.
Sure, other groups have exceptions in state and federal law (truck drivers, fruit pickers, etc), but if you look across the board - virtually all states have sections just for us in the overtime part of the law and no other group gets screwed in such a wide swath of area.
This even extends to Canada.

I left an employer who stiffed me on overtime pay "accidentally" and when I talk to other people in town, the general consensus is their employers "don't pay overtime... and they have lawyers on hand to ensure they don't start paying."

Interesting, no?

Re:I think the important question to ask is...

[evilviper]

Why is it that "tech workers" are virtually the only group singled out for getting the shaft on overtime pay.

Because wage laws were designed for "blue collar" workers almost exclusively. "White collar" jobs were exempt because those were mostly managers and executives who got payed plenty, anyhow, and those jobs didn't translate into hours of labor precisely either.

IT is just what happened to come along and dramatically expanded the pool of non-union, white collar jobs, which didn't fall under most wage laws. Now, companies are accustomed to screwing over their IT staff, and there's a lot of inertia against changing that.

Re:These are IT people

[Urkki]

The suit is being filed by a Network Engineer. These are the guys who keep the local infrastructure running - its tough to outsource that kind of thing to India.

Just have an Indian support professional walk any secretary though any network maintenance procedures over IP phone. Easy! Efficient! Almost free! Then you can "let go" a few better paid network professionals, and hire an extra secretary or two (at minimun pay of course) to be the hands and eyes of the Indian network professionals. Guaranteed to save you big bucks on the long run!

And remember, young female secretaries in skirts reaching up to change some cable is a much more aesthetic view, than a slightly overweight, bearded male engineer doing the same, Even assuming he doesn't wear a skirt... (Just try not get a mental image of him doing it in a skir...AAaaieee

CSC got busted.

[pecosdave]

My check was about 1/10th of what they legitimately owed me.

I don't get overtime

[LKM]

I really don't get overtime for programmers. Well, perhaps if you need to ship in a few days and aren't quite finished yet, so you work overtime for a few days. That could work.

But constant overtime? It just doesn't work.

If you're building a wall and putting one brick on another, you're probably going to do about twice as much work in twice the time. This does not apply to programming. I've noticed that I have about 4 to 6 hours of programming in me each day. Some days it's more; perhaps up to 10 hours. But most days, it's around 4 to 6 hours.

After I've run out of "programmming" time, I have to stop programming, because if I continue to write code, I'll have to spend time rewriting it the next day. I simply start writing crap code after about 4 to 6 hours of writing code. I can't properly concentrate on writing code anymore, I guess. Once I reach this point, I typically start doing administrativa, replying to mails, answering support calls, writing documentation and such. Or I just go home (happily, I can do that at my current work place; as long as my output is good, I don't need to put in the time).

In my experience, most programmers work the same way. Nobody codes well for 10 hours a day, each day.

This gets us to overtime. If you force people to continue writing code after their natural code writing limit is exhausted, they will write crap. And they will have to refactor that crap. So in effect, forcing programmers to work overtime will slow down your project, because they'll start spending more and more time fixing broken code instead of writing good fresh code.

Re:I don't get overtime

[antirelic]

I'm not so sure I agree with where your going with your argument. Sure, if your a programmer, you may not be able to program for more than 4-6 hours, but that doesnt mean you've "stopped working". Doing all that administrative bullshit IS WORKING, and you should be compensated for it. Every worker should be compensated for every second they perform or are forced to sit "on the job".

While I am fervently anti-socialism/communism, I do not agree with the whole "time and a half" and "double time". However, everyone should be paid for every hour they work. In the long run, no business works for free. Your software company doesnt give away its software for free. Your IT services company charges for every second you are on the job. Why shouldnt you get paid the same?

Lets face it, the days of being a "company man" are over. Every individual needs to treat themselves as a "business". Since we are forced to pay for our own training (some people will let their companies pay for their training, and then sign "reimbursement contracts" for x amount of time, but I digress) and are simply a "cost" on a "chart". If you work for free (aka: uncompensated overtime), then you should look at it this way: I just gave my boss and his boss money that I actually earned (because most management types get bonuses for cutting down on "hours paid"). So the next time you want to argue against over time (not directed to the parent), go ahead and give a piece of your earned paycheck back to your company because it is the same thing.

Article should be titled "What *US* Tech Workers"

[TheThiefMaster]

Article should be titled "What *US* Tech Workers Need to Know About Overtime".

Very few stories on here are US-specific, and they should be labelled as such.

Experts getting it wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If they can settle [a complaint] for less than 100 percent of what they owe people [for overtime], they've gotten away with a good deal." - Sagafi

Even if they settle for 100% of what they owe, they haven't lost.

I'd love a gamble where there's little chance of losing, but even if I did, it'd only mean not gaining or losing anything...

There's only risk if the judgement could be 101% or more. Even then, with minimal risk, it'd have to be pretty high in punative damages to actually stop companies doing it.

Case in point:

There's a brand new PS3, boxed up in an empty shop. If you take it and get caught, they'll take the box off of you and tell you off.

Would you try?

Overtime is an illusion...

[pythonhacker]

Remember Murphy's law which is most applicable to tech jobs ? "Work expands to fill the time available for its completion". So, for workers complaining about not getting paid for overtime, shut up and go back to your cubicle and continue listening to those iPods and posting inane comments to /. ...

Re:These are IT people

[Kent Recal]

Never underestimate human/management stupidity.
My ex-employer is currently performing his third outsourcing-experiment for core infrastructure - after the first two (thailand and russia, iirc) failed horribly.

The ratio being (no kidding): "We pay only 1/3 for them, so we can try at least 3 times."
Needless to say the damage done by the first two experiments already ate pretty much all potential savings for the next 5 years...

Law != both sides agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn't it so that the "negotiations" have already been done, and the result was made into laws and indsutry-wide agreements.

Just because something was made into law in a democracy does not mean that both sides agreed to it. It may just mean that one side out numbered the other and committed tyranny of the majority.

Re:Law != both sides agreed

[Urkki]

The way I see it, if you agree to use the infrastructure created and/or supported by the society, and if you agree to take advantage of skilled people educated in society-supported schools, then you implicitly agree to follow the laws of that same society. You can't pick one and reject the other.

I don't see a company being forced to accept the laws, any more than I see a hungry unemployed being forced to take a crappy job. Both can choose to reject the agreement (not hire people, not eat), or to ignore the law (but possibly face the consequences if they get caught). Both can also move out of the country if they think it's a better solution for them. Etc.

Re:These are IT people

[Danathar]

Why would they need to do that? Connect a modem to the serial port of the hardware and they can dial in to fix the router.

The only things that can't be outsourced (yet) are stuff that needs physical presence. Who knows, maybe your sysadmin might end up being a walking robot remote controlled by a low paid worker in china.....

Re:Article should be titled "What *US* Tech Worker

[CastrTroy]

Seems like somebody forgot to read the FAQ. Not all the articles on slashdot are US centric, but I think that anything that involves the law or politics tends to be very much U.S. centric.

Re:Wow..

[Aladrin]

It depends on where you work, doesn't it? He obviously works somewhere that they value their employees enough to recognize that working overtime is doing them a HUGE favor, and give him time off when he wants it in return.

Overtime work isn't regular work... It's harder, and it's generally an 'emergency' situation that has to be completed on a timeframe. Trading overtime for regular time is a really, really good deal for a company and they should appreciate it.

The company I work for, if you end up working an extra day's worth in a week, they offer to let you take a day off the next week. (Or even that same week, if it works out that way.) Yes, they offer... You don't have to ask. Less than a day's worth, and you generally have to ask if you want the time off another day, but unless the 'emergency' is still on, they answer is usually 'Yes.'

(I put 'emergency' in quotes because there's not really any such thing in a business, but they treat the situation like it is.)

Hours vs Morale

[Fractal Dice]

Funny thing I've noticed is that the more hours I work, the less I usually get done. It's not a conscious or deliberate thing, it's just that morale is hard to measure on a spreadsheet.

paid what you're worth ONLY IFF

[MickLinux]

No, you don't get paid what you are worth. You get paid what you are worth IFF (if and only if) there is free movement of labor whereever there is free trade, and if labor and trade are equally restricted where there isn't free trade.

If, on the other hand, you have free trade without free movement of labor, then...

(1) The products produced by the labor will still be traded, but...
(2) Only certain players [the corporations] will have permission to trade, so...
(3) they will buy the labor, mark up the price, sell, resulting in...
(4) An effective transfer of wealth from laborer to corporation for...
(5) the privilege of being able to trade in the needed product (labor, and its results).

Aside from that, there are also those who say that an increase in power also results in getting more than you're worth, while a decrease in power results in getting less than you're worth. In general then, a laborer would not get what he's worth.

Aside from that, there are always other elements that come into play, so that people don't get what otherwise they'd be worth, but get more or less.

Hopefully, that little reality check here may be helpful in reducing unwarranted growth of toxic pride among those who can least afford it.

Re:Article should be titled "What *US* Tech Worker

[TheThiefMaster]

I don't care about the stories being US-centric (which is what the FAQ is about), but it would be nice to see US-centric articles marked as such.

Thank God I'm not working in the US

[clickclickdrone]

The more stories I read like this, the more grateful I am that I don't work in the US. The whole mindset when it comes to employment T&Cs seems like something out the dark ages.
I'ts bad enough that the employers treat staff badly but so many people seem to support that say ing get another job if you don't like it - what if all employers behave badly?

Re:All they need to know: "india"

[encoderer]

I'm not sure where you live, but the tech market for software developers seems pretty strong right now.

I've got 6 years experience. I'm writing this from a private office in the Triangle where I'm paid about $85k. I like my job just fine.

Tomorrow evening I'm being flown to Sarasota for an interview for a company who called me and threw-out a 110-120k range.

I started my career as a developer in the immediate aftermath of the .com burst. THAT was a bad market. This is peaches and cream.

What flexibility has to do with O/T

[pem]

The overtime laws are quite inflexible. For a non-exempt employee, it is ILLEGAL to move hours from one week to another week.

So, if a non-exempt employee works 60 hours one week and 20 the next, he effectively gets paid for an extra 10 (Time and a half for 20 of the 60 hours.)

So guess what? Most employers don't like paying extra for their employees' flexibility, so the flexibility disappears for non-exempt people...

I billed my employeer when I left

[daveywest]

I worked as a graphic designer at the corporate office for a now defunct Multi-level Marketing company. The family-owned company had become very arrogant. Shortly after I left, they were raided by federal marshals and the FDA who confiscated about half their product line.

They tried to have the best of both worlds when accounting for my time and pay. If I took off early for a doctor's appointment, I had to write up a time card deducting those hours, but if a project required additional hours, it was just part of the job.

I began documenting all the time I spent on work beyond 8 hours after the marketing V.P. complained to my supervisor that I was leaving after an 8-hour day. Shortly after that, the company laid off half the work-force. Two other designers quitting just weeks before was the only reason I survived the layoff.

With the expectation of increased hours growing, I talked with HR. I was told that the labor laws said not completing required work constituted insubordination.

A week after I quit, I mailed them a bill for just under $3,000 in unpaid overtime. I included a short primer on labor laws culled from web research that detailed why I was incorrectly classified as exempt, and that their payroll practices forfeited any claim to my position being exempt.

I knew the company wasn't going to be around much longer, so I felt pretty safe leaving the burned bridge. I didn't want a future prospective employer talking to these clowns. 18 months later, I attended their bankruptcy auction and bought the filing cabinet that contained a few grand in graphic design software.

P.S. They paid the entire amount I billed them. I later heard this wasn't the first time they had been hit by a labor issue claim, and they had been advised that it might get bumped up to class action if someone was allowed to pursue litigation. Personally, I was bluffing. I was gonna let it drop with the letter, but the check was just icing on the cake.