Slashdot Mirror
CA Legislature Torpedoes IT Overtime
An anonymous reader writes to mention that a recent piece of California legislation is enabling tech firms to avoid paying their workers overtime. Originally designed to deal with bonds for children's hospitals, bill AB10 was completely rewritten to prevent lawsuit damages over overtime nonpayment. "'This is the first time that the Legislature has done a takeaway of the rights of private-sector workers as part of the budget deal,' said Caitlin Vega of the California Labor Federation. 'We just think it is wrong. We think it will really hurt the groups of workers who will be expected to work through the weekend and not get paid.'"
When I used to be a nurse (not many years ago), I built up six weeks worth of unpaid overtime, or 'time in lieu' as they called it, during a period of low staffing.
I was supposed to be either paid it or given an equal amount of time off, but what actually happened was they said it was too much, wiped it out and gave me a long weekend off. They hadn't seemed to mind the potential cost whilst working me half to death and taking advantage of the legal requirement to not leave patients without care to force me to work 20 hour shifts.
I left shortly after and gave up nursing, just one of many people leaving in droves due to this sort of thing and other pay related nonsense in the UK.
Now I'm a programmer If any employer tries that crap on me again I'd quit and go elsewhere.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
If you think IT is bad, try biomedical sciences, medicine, and science academia.
The concept of overtime does not exist for >90% of the workers in these fields. It's not uncommon to ASSUME that a 12-hour day is normal, at 6 days per week.
And yes, I am including students... because if your training extends into your 30s, you're an employee.
Oh, and by the way, ask your nearest ER resident (or even a junior attending) when was the last time they had a 40-hour week. Most of the time, the answer will be "high school".
No, capitalism doesn't have to do with being rich. The hatred of the rich is called "class envy" and it is a principal component of socialism. Capitalism is what RESULTS in some people being rich, but to claim that the system is good only for the rich is incorrect.
Capitalism is based on supply and demand. That includes services. If your services are not in demand, then you don't make a lot of money. If you go to your employer and say "I want overtime pay" and they can find someone else to provide the same service without paying overtime, then they'll hire him and fire you. In short, the supply is greater than the demand. There are more people offering to work than there are positions. That holds true for any job. If someone will accept lower pay than what you want, they'll get the job and you won't, all else being equal.
The times it doesn't hold true are when there are non-capitalist distortions to the system. E.g., a labor union that will coerce non-union members into not filling the gap in supply when union workers strike, or have in other ways artificially limited the supply.
In essence, if you want to blame anyone for your not being rich, blame the other people who will do the same job you do for less money. It's not the fault of the employer who seeks to lower costs and give the investors a return on their investment, it's the guy who lives next to you who will accept an offer to do your job for less than you. If every employer over-paid all of their employees, prices would skyrocket so that nobody could afford anything and pay would have to go up to match. Or investors would get no return on their investment in a company, no payback for taking the chance, and would stop investing. Fewer companies would exist. Fewer jobs, higher prices ...
Before you claim that you'd never do that kind of thing, how about this? You are looking for a lawn maintenance company so you don't have to mow the damn lawn every two days during the summer. There are two companies in town. Both have the same abilities and long lists of glowing referrals. One wants 15% less for the same job. Who do you hire? Are you altruistic enough to say "I'll pay more", or do you say "cheap is good"? Isn't paying less based on this example of unbridled capitalism good for you? Is it good for you because you are rich, or is it good for you because you save money and may become richer?
You are parroting what you have been taught to believe.Democrats do not believe in self sufficiency less than Republicans. What we do believe is that some people are truly unable to take care of themselves and we have a deep moral obligation to care for them as if they were our favorite family member.