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.'"

Comments

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Good - I didn't want to work those weekends anyway, and now I have a good reason not to do it.

You mean...

[ivandavidoff]

you can get paid for overtime?

Re:You mean...

[gstoddart]

you can get paid for overtime?

Nope. And, now, apparently, you can't sue over that fact any more. :-P

Cheers

Re:You mean...

[cbrocious]

Sure you can, if your employment contract says you get overtime. Most companies are still going to pay for overtime regardless of whether the government tells them to or not.

Re:You mean...

[ivandavidoff]

The beauty of this industry is that although you can't get paid for overtime, but you can get paid for reading Slashdot. That's a pretty good trade in my book.

Concur. Let's not rock the boat.

Re:You mean...

[gstoddart]

Sure you can, if your employment contract says you get overtime. Most companies are still going to pay for overtime regardless of whether the government tells them to or not.

Well, the specific case I can think of was Apple. They were demanding increasingly long hours (as I recall) but not paying additional amounts for it.

The problem is, if it's too open ended in terms of how much your employer can demand unpaid overtime, then it'll just get out of control. If they're not going to be required to pay it, it should be bounded in terms of how much they can ask for.

The problem, is certain professions have been deemed to have a very expandable amount of required extra time, without really giving anything back to the employee. IT, of course, being one of them.

Cheers

Re:You mean...

[gstoddart]

There's no reason you can't renegotiate your contract or go elsewhere and get overtime.

Ahh, the unfailing lament of the free market capitalist who believes that the market will solve all problems, and that any casualties of such an atrociously Darwinian and uncaring system are their own problem.

See, the free market really only tries to do a couple of things -- allow people to pursue their own interests with no regard whatsoever for everyone else. It largely tends to make a bunch of groups rich, and completely steam roll over everyone else.

I believe that market factors will drive a lot of things, and many of them it will do a good job of. Actually trying to improve the lives of people is not one of them, and certainly, it doesn't attempt to help people who have stumbled on the way. That's why civil societies have governments, to try to help out everyone else and protect the rights of all of us. Not being unduly abused by your employer is one of them.

I already said elsewhere in this thread you'd trot out this old chestnut, and you've not disappointed me. And, as you said to me, I completely disagree with you.

Uncontrolled, unbridled capitalism is only good if you're rich, or in the middle of getting rich -- it basically craps on everyone who isn't, and leaves them to fend for themselves on the bottom.

Cheers

Re:You mean...

[Obfuscant]

Uncontrolled, unbridled capitalism is only good if you're rich, or in the middle of getting rich -- it basically craps on everyone who isn't, and leaves them to fend for themselves on the bottom.

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?

Re:You mean...

[Maxo-Texas]

The times it doesn't hold true are when there are non-capitalist distortions to the system.

Such as when executives get exclusive control of their own pay.

Such as when corporations have the government passing laws to forbid overtime.

Such as when corporations pay no taxes, use local services, and get all the work done remotely by overseas workers.

The system is broken now.

Lack of overtime pay will fix itself because no one will enter such a field unless it pays well.

Re:You mean...

[Strange Ranger]

Just out of curiosity do you call it class envy when stories like that of Alan Fishman are not uncommon?

Walking away from the largest bank failure in history after only 3 weeks on the job with 20 million dollars in hand!

Sure ardent capitalists like to point out the failings of socialism without ever looking at the success stories (e.g. every Nordic country) without ever looking at the downside to uncontrolled libertarian capitalism. Which is this.. the stabilization point for it closely resembles what we see today: The top 1% of capital holders control everything and basically treat the rest of us peasants like cattle, not because they do anything special, but simply because they hold all the cash. They're a rich boys club. It's not class envy. I don't envy anybody if I can help it, especially people who earn their money. But I'm furious about stories like Alan Fishman's. He gets 20 million for doing nothing except being part of the club. No matter how hard you work, or how smart you are you will NEVER be part of the club. Hell even Bill Gates had to have about 10 billion in the bank before he got some kind of "honorary guest member" status in "the club". I'm still not sure he's even in "the club". It seems like actually EARNING your money is held against you by "the club".

But if you're some asshat moron legacy at an Ivy League, and your neighbors play golf with board members and CEOs, do you think your C minus average and your intolerable personality means you'll end up serving french fries? Yeah right. You won't even need a trust fund. Just a set of golf clubs and the right clothes so you can join in.

Capitalism has done much for this world, but like everything, it has a lifespan. It's evolved into a shell game (played with capital) won through backroom handshakes, business dinners, sleazy marketing, and the right friends. You're not even in the game, you're just a tiny plastic resource on the board.

You can call it class envy, but a lot people just want a chance to play the game.

Bottom line: We want a lot more meritocracy and a lot less oligarchy.

Capitalism might be totally great, if every 50 years we took all the capital, divided it up evenly, and then carried on with capitalism again. As it is, it's a bad game of Monopoly that never ends. You just keep rolling the dice and landing on somebody's hotels, over and over, as they build more, and you hope for a Chance card.
Pfft.

Re:You mean...

[CrazedWalrus]

Of course, the effect of many of these laws is not "equal." In many cases it's damn near impossible to fire someone from a protected class where you would have instantly fired a person of a non-protected class.

I'm not saying the intention is bad, but the implementation certainly has its downsides.

Re:You mean...

[Mr. Beatdown]

WaMu failed. They paid the price for their inability to compete. The free market system, in this case, weeded out the poorly performing company. That their employment contract specified a certain benefit is not a failure of free markets, but a choice made by a company whose other choices caused their failure.

Let's not forget which country has the highest standard of living, and the highest per capita income. It's not resource rich UAE or Saudi Arabia, but us in America. If having a super wealthy class of people is the price we have to pay for near universal prosperity, I'm willing.

No one in this country needs to starve to death, and if anyone on this board were to have all of their possessions taken from them and dumped on a street corner of any town or city in the country in their underwear, the chance they'd stay at the absolute bottom of the socio-economic ladder approaches 0. We have high inequality, but also high mobility opportunity. I own a home despite being raised in the projects. I paid my own way through college, staying debt free. In America, there is opportunity aplenty, and that opportunity springs from the abundance of a free market economy.

As far as being in the super-wealthy club, you're right that we allow inherited wealth to have a large impact. The alternative is an estate tax that encourages the wealthy to consume near the end of life rather than produce. All things considered, I'd prefer that the people who produced their wealth keep control over their wealth. Even if that means hiring the asshat 2nd cousin of some other CEO. They will pay the price for their decisions, because the invisible hand will reward those who provide the most benefit. You are right that it rewards those who help those who have the most. But their is no better way to encourage wealth creation. And Free market economics is the best system anyone has ever discovered for creating wealth.

Without an engine that rewards production, the amassing of wealth must come from a zero-sum game. You have to take someone else's wealth. Under a free market economy, you get to trade something of less value to yourself for something of more value to yourself. The catch is that everybody gets to do this and some people have more things of value to trade. Those people end up ahead, because they deliver more value to others.

We have a whole lot of meritocracy. Look at the list of billionaires Forbes publishes every year and see how many of them are new, and how many are self-made. I will never be a billionaire, but there's a very good chance I will go from having inherited nothing to being a millionaire by the time I die, all without ever having to fear death by starvation. If that's not enough opportunity for you, I don't know what is.

Re:You mean...

[Maxo-Texas]

You know damn well that everything on that list has happened multiple times except the overtime law.

And you know equally well that the corruption of an unrelated bill to the purpose of outlawing overtime required a lot of corporate lobbying.

And as it has been reported multiple times, the laws are most often *written* by the corporations and just put into law by the legislatures without even changing a word. We can thank Microsoft Word, "Track Changes" for that (before they got wise to this gotcha).

In addition, the right to strike by workers has been cut to pieces by a series of laws. Unions are almost toothless any more.

Not that I'm a fan of unions--powerful unions are as bad as powerful executives for abuse. Unions are basically responsible for the death of the U.S. automobile industry. They and the executives plundered the industry for personal gain. The executives were smarter and took their money up front while the unions took promises of later compensation which wasn't realistic.

Corporations regularly agree to settle in an area in exchange for paying no local taxes. They chew up the roads, plow over the land, and then leave the second the tax immunity expires leaving a wasteland for others to deal with.

Hurts the economy, too

[phorm]

We think it will really hurt the groups of workers who will be expected to work through the weekend and not get paid

Not only that, but as this legislation allowed massive abuse of employee's time, the state will suffer as skilled workers start looking elsewhere for employment.

Re:Hurts the economy, too

[mea37]

Even when the law says overtime must be paid, companies often don't. They count on employees not to know it's illegal and not to see better options elsewhere, and it often works.

It's not that this legal change would enable companies to do something they haven't already been doing -- it's that it removes the legal remedy that employees could use in those cases where someone noticed they were getting hosed.

Of course, CA can't set standards that are less worker-friendly than the federal law. Many IT workers are incorrectly classified as Exempt wrt the federal law when in fact they are not, and some in CA will remain in this category no matter whether this bill passes or not. Companies tend to get shaken up pretty badly when they lose lawsuits for improper classification of employees.

Re:Hurts the economy, too

[EricWright]

Yes, I have checked...

To qualify for the computer employee exemption, the following tests must be met:
* The employee must be compensated either on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week or, if compensated on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour;

Yes, I'm salaried and I make over this amount.

* The employee must be employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer or other similarly skilled worker in the computer field performing the duties described below;

Yep, I'm a Sr. Programmer/Analyst, and no, it's not just a title.

* The employeeâ(TM)s primary duty must consist of:
1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;

Yep, that's the analyst part of my title.

2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;

Yep, that's the programmer part of my title.

3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.

So yes, I really am exempt under the (N)FLSA.

Unreal...

[teknopurge]

Why is Arnold not doing something about this?

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[Blakey Rat]

No thanks, I much prefer individual bargaining than collective bargaining. I'm making more money and working at a vastly cooler company than ANY unionized employee could possibly be.

Re:well

[moderatorrater]

Actually, I see a lot more democrats than libertarians. Also, IT has a shortage of good workers and high barriers for new employees, so if every worker left a company that refused to pay overtime, then the company would fail almost overnight. Any substantial company I've worked for has a code base that takes months to learn well enough to be truly effective at your job, and if you can't get bugfixes out faster than that, then you're screwed. For other companies, if they can't get new products out they're screwed. The free market cuts both ways, it's just that people get so caught up in the fact that the company is big that they fail to realize they have the company by its balls.

Author's name not on it.

[www.sorehands.com]

You can tell if a bill is bad if the author of the bill's name is not on it.

Apparently, the author(s) were ashamed of the bill.

get what you pay for....

[butterflysrage]

I work 9 to 5. I work HARD 9 to 5, but at 5 I log out and go home. If you want me to spend extra time at work then we need to do some negotiation for a new contract and you're going to be giving me more money.

I am not going to give up time with my family so some middle manager can get some slaps on his back for bringing in the project on a date he never should have agreed to in the first place. What ever happened to accountability? oh right.... they get $700bn bail outs.

Re:get what you pay for....

[DoofusOfDeath]

I am not going to give up time with my family so some middle manager can get some slaps on his back ...

And therein lies the problem. You may not be willing to, but it's almost certain that someone else (probably someone with no kids yet) will be willing to waste his time in that manner. And he's your competition. And new replicas of him are graduated every year.

Re:get what you pay for....

[spinkham]

There are 2 ways to be paid: Based on Effort, or based on Results.
By and large, great employees want to be judged on results, and mediocre ones want to be judges based on effort. The problem is in many fields (including most IT jobs) it is difficult to turn results into a number you can be paid based on, so the industry by and large rewards effort instead.
That's one of the main reasons I work for a small company: We value results over effort. If I can get my job done in 1/2 the time allotted, that's great. If it takes me 2x as long, sucks for me. So it puts positive pressure on my to improve and be more productive in less time, the exact opposite of the pressure at most companies.

Re:get what you pay for....

[cowscows]

That's only true to a point. Once you get some experience tucked into your belt, there are employers out there who understand what that is worth. It may limit the number of companies that you have to choose from, but there are a lot of them out there.

If you've got around five years of experience or so and you're worried about being replaced by a fresh college grad, then the place you're working probably has all sorts of priority issues, and you probably hate being there.

Most of what you hear about in IT is the super-enthusiastic companies where everyone works 80 hours per week because they love what they're doing, or the giant corporate "dilbert" firms where everyone is miserable and does as little work as they can get away with. But you're not going to convince me that there aren't lots of smaller companies with decent leadership who can work hard but don't feel the need to march their employees to death. I have a few friends with jobs in IT like that around here, and this part of the country is by no means any sort of tech-wonderland.

And if I'm wrong and your only choice is a death march of misery, then seriously, go find a new career. You can always code on the weekends.

Re:get what you pay for....

[spinkham]

Once again, the benefits of small companies shine through: If there's too much work, we either:

1) Roll in our piles of money,
2) Subcontract it, or
3) Turn down some jobs.

And we get to choose which option we want.

On the other hand, no matter what size company you are in, if you're working too much and/or not making enough money, you need to either improve your skills, change jobs, or change careers.
If you are intelligent, motivated, and willing to learn there is a good fit for you out there somewhere. It usually takes some hard work and sacrifice to find it and get your foot in the door though.

Compensation should absolutely be based on performance, not seat warming. That's the idea behind why we pay more senior people more, because we assume they perform better. The problem is we suck at rating performance.
This is why it often makes sense for people with extraordinary talent to start their own enterprises, as entrepreneurship does pay based on results.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'm quite that good, and am happy to share the work, risk, and rewards with others at the moment.

Re:get what you pay for....

[lymond01]

I work 9 to 5. I work HARD 9 to 5 -- Friday September 26, @02:38PM

Slashdot break time is it? ;-)

Re:get what you pay for....

[nahdude812]

That's true. We have massive project management software at work, and people whose whole job is to run that software and schedule work for people to do. My work schedule tends to be about 250%+ (eg, in a 40 hour week, I have 100 hours worth of assignments assigned to me to accomplish that week). Other guys (one in particular) rarely are assigned more than 50-60%.

The reason: I produce better quality work, faster than he does, and he ends up spending lots and lots of time going back and fixing stuff he was supposed to have fixed before. Our project management office knows it and assigns more workload on me. They know what an average developer from my team can accomplish in 40 hours, I can accomplish in 15.

That's neither hubris nor hyperbole, it's how it runs there. My pay reflects it, and I don't mind at all because I do contract work, and there is a purchase order and statement of work based around me contributing 40 hours a week. When my 40 hours is up, there is not only just no expectation that I continue working (since they would have to pay me for it if they asked me to do it, and it would cause me to go over my PO), they actively discourage me from deciding to donate an extra hour or two here and there to keep on top of my work (since that would make me a salary employee, and suddenly they would be on the line for a lot of back benefits).

So I do exactly 40 hours, they do not want me working 40 hours and 1 minute, and they pile me up with as much work as I can churn through. I stay ultra busy (which I strongly prefer), and I get all the best projects.

That other guy - he is usually doing maintenance work on stuff I've produced, such as text changes or copying & extending some existing report.

Re:get what you pay for....

[Achromatic1978]

I work 9 to 5. I work HARD 9 to 5, but at 5 I log out and go home.

Says someone who has made 19 of his last 24 posts on Slashdot during business hours, including this one.

Re:get what you pay for....

[Mr. Beatdown]

And, believe it or not, he should get your job if he can do it better than you. Even if he's Mexican/Indian. *GASP* An employer should have the same rights to act in their own best interests as an employee. And I say this as an employee.

Re:well

[fiannaFailMan]

Most of you IT people are libertarians

What?! Since when?

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[moderatorrater]

You don't even need an industry wide union. If EA's employees all walked out while they were being abused and picketed their offices, then there's no way they'd be able to find enough programmers to cross the picket line. If your company doesn't treat you well, go elsewhere. If there's nowhere else to go, start your own company and steal all the best programmers who are being treated like crap. With such a disparity between programmer skills and knowledge of the code base, the programming department has a lot of power.

Re:well

[Arcane_Rhino]

Well, I don't know. Since it is a piece of legislation, I would suggest that the government may in fact have some role.

While I am not an anarchist, as you seem to want to paint libertarians, and believe that some government is necessary and in fact a good thing, if limited and fiercely controlled (yes, I realize the historical absurdity of that statement), if one wants to break it down into soundbites for the weak-minded, I would assert that this appears to be the action of an over-weening socialist government, not "the free marked" in action. It is GOVERNMENT that is preventing suit for collection of overtime, not the market-place.

Re:It's a balance

[vijayiyer]

You basically answered your own question. Those who excel (or at least believe they do) have no incentive to give up their freedom and opportunities for advancement to protect those who don't perform as well.

Why work it then?

[B5_geek]

If you are not getting paid for your time or getting equivalent time-off in-lieu of, why would you work it?

Re:Do the lawmakers get overtime pay?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

News reports claimed that the legislature would benefit from the budget stalemate due to the overtime.

I'd love to see a state constitutional amendment to the effect that if the budget is not approved by June 1, all statewide elected officials shall forfeit all pay, and any person hired by their office shall receive the federally mandated minimum wage, with no chance of reimbursement, until the budget is passed.

The bit about "person hired by their office" is to spread the pain. Lets face it, in CA, most legislators tend to be relatively wealthy. But when Assemblyman X's secretary starts bitching at him because she doesn't get paid, then he realizes the pain he's causing.

Re:Thank you

[gstoddart]

This type of thing should be left to employers and not mandated by the government. Thank you for putting some control back where it belongs.

If we put control over everything in the hands of the employers, they'd all decide to screw over the employees. You now have to work 200 hours/week for 80% less money -- because we said so.

The reason that government mandates this is to provide minimum standards, and not create abjectly crappy working conditions for people. You know, try to improve people's lives instead of making them indentured servants.

Of course, this is the point where you say that if you don't like it, you're free to leave and get another job. To which I'll respond that just leads us in the race to the bottom of crappy employment standards, and undoes several generations of changes in working conditions.

Setting the standard to whoever is willing to work in the worst conditions for the least money doesn't benefit any of us. It treats people like commodities, and devalues both their work, and their existence.

If all of the jobs are crappy and trying to screw you over, we all lose.

Cheers

Re:Thank you

[mcgrew]

Who modded you "insightful", someone else who didn't even read the summary?

You think it's OK to work someone for free? You actually believe that if I work for you and you don't pay me I shouldn't be able to sue you?

No wonder the economy is headed down the toilet; it's people like you who run things who are running them into the ground.

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It is not laziness to want to eat dinner with one's family. Nor is it laziness to want to spend the weekend caring for them.

It is ridiculous to think that the company owns so much of your life that work should take the highest priority in one's life.

Re:well

[ivan256]

In my experience, the big companies have a lot more employees that lean democratic, while startups have a larger republican population than would be expected when compared to local demographics.

I work in the Boston area, which is pretty blue... My experiences at IBM, Compaq/HP and EMC were that the rank and file were almost exclusively of the democratic persuasion. At the last three startups I've worked for, though, the employees have been 80+% republican.

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[dwayner79]

As someone who has union employees, try making that fly in the union contract.

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[ivan256]

Take your strawman and go home please.

My point was that if your work environment is sub-satisfactory, you're a technology worker, and you're good at your job, you can go find a new job with conditions you approve of without too much trouble. Not that you need to work insane hours and give up your family life.

Unions are great if you're in an industry where geography or market dynamics mean that you don't have a choice as to who your employer is, and said employer can take advantage of that monopoly. As software developers, we don't have anythin even close to that situation. If you can't find a job that fits your lifestyle, chances are you're either lazy, or not very good.

Re:Cry me a river

[DeionXxX]

Since when is $75k a large amount of money? These people aren't rich or wealthy. That's middle class. Which mean both parents need to still work to afford a house anywhere near where they work, and the cars to get them. If you have younger kids, then there's baby-sitting and extra insurance and crap like that.

$75k is barely making it in most markets (especially California).

Rent in most places in California is 1 bed room for $1k+.

Re:well

[thermian]

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.

the trade off

[fred fleenblat]

I've worked some unpaid overtime in my life, but the amount is miniscule in comparison to the amount of time I've spent during normal working hours surfing the web, reading usenet, emailing my buddies, checking sports scores, ordering stuff from amazon, everything the internet allows. Easily two to three hours a day on an ongoing basis.

I just can't get mad about a couple hours of evening work or blowing a sunday afternoon in the office once a month when I'm just going to read slashdot while waiting for a batch job to finish.

Try science

[TheMeuge]

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".

Re:Try science

[JohnGDIPlus]

I work in an eXtreme Programming environment that forbids overtime. I also work as a consultant. I get paid hourly, and I work 4 days per week. I get paid for every hour that I work and I work 32 hours per week. Almost everybody else in this company works 8 hours per day, but some teams do not follow the XP rule of "sustainability". But those teams usually have the highest turnover, and I notice that they always appear to be "struggling". Anyway, what I wanted to say is that overtime is just poor management. And if you don't get your resume ready and start looking for another job, then you deserve to be where you are. The only thing I personally don't like is that H1B VISA workers do not have the same rights that we do. That means that they can be made to work overtime and they are scared to quit, because if they do they get shipped back home, with their only hope being to find a job at another H1B VISA sponsoring firm, which are less than the number of companies that are non-sponsoring. Also, to do the job that I do (financial programming) you have to have great communication skills. This is what is lacking in most IT professionals, get communications skills!!!! Also, a quick analogy for the quality of outsourcing. Recently I was at a bar and my waiter was a recent immigrant. I ordered a "Base Ale", and he came back with "Becks". I then said, no, I ordered a Bass Ale, but I'll take the Becks anyway. That is what happens with IT outsourcing, you ask for A, wait 24 hours, you get B, and because you have been waiting so long for your product you say, "screw it", I'll take it anyway.

Re:well

[clarkkent09]

It is GOVERNMENT that is preventing suit for collection of overtime, not the market-place.

I think the uppercase word should be suit, not government. Government is not preventing you from negotiating for overtime pay with your employer. Free market is still operating. What they are preventing is a lawsuits on a premise which is absurd to start with, i.e. that you can get a job with an employer that doesn't pay overtime, work overtime while knowing that you won't get paid for it, then sue the employer. A real libertarian would say if overtime pay is what you're after, a) don't take that job, or b) don't work overtime, of c) if the employer insist you work overtime anyway, find another job

Yes

[XanC]

Democrats are joiners; they consider groups rather than individuals; they believe that centralized power in the hands of a large organization is the best way to run things, while the peons have no responsibility for themselves. They like to receive healthcare, pensions, and womb-to-tomb "care" from such an organization, and believe the rest of us should as well.

Republicans are more likely to be self-sufficient go-getters, to work at startups where they have a hand in the direction, focus, and success of their endeavor. They expect to have to earn everything they get.

Yes, I do expect to be modded down.

Re:Yes

[sesshomaru]

Republicans are more likely to be self-sufficient go-getters, to work at startups where they have a hand in the direction, focus, and success of their endeavor. They expect to have to earn everything they get.

I'd have modded you "funny" for that one, myself.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Both are quite OK with entitlement. The difference is that republicans don't like it when someone else is receiving it.

Re:Yes

[XanC]

Next I suppose you'll be telling us the Democrats are the party of wealthy elites.

Allow me: The Democrats are the party of wealthy elites.

Re:Yes

[SatanicPuppy]

The Republican's can't even begin to talk about "Earn it" when they've got the worlds biggest corporate handout going through congress right now.

I tend to vote Dem (because there are no small government republicans anymore, and the goddamn religious right makes me ashamed to live in this country), and I absolutely think that this law is perfectly fine.

If you make more than 75,000 a year, close to twice the national average salary, and you can't fucking negotiate a contract that pays you what you think you deserve, then I don't see why a company should be forced to pay your overtime. If you don't like it, get another job.

Frankly, this industry is one of those places where merit and skill matters so much, where absolute raw ability is key, and all this talk of unions frankly makes me sick. Let's take away any actual personal merit, and instead institute a system of seniority and privilege.

And fucking computer professionals comparing themselves to fucking janitors is a joke. You're not entitled to a 6 figure salary, and not having one doesn't make you poor.

Re:Yes

[ivan256]

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Yes

[ivan256]

We have a winner.

You missed part though. Republican's don't like it when someone else is receiving it. Democrats don't like it when they're the ones that have to give it away.

Re:Yes

[GreyWolf3000]

Actually, quite a few republicans are up in arms against the bailout, and quite a few dems are for it. Bush happens to be for it; he was never seen as a fiscal conservative, though.

Re:Yes

[dsa94546]

The corporate handout is not going to Republicans - it's their liberal friends on Wall Street who already have their millions - so they don't give a crap how much they have to tax us for the bail out. The mess is due to banks being forced (by Democrats) to give out affirmative action loans to people who couldn't afford to make the payments including illegal aliens. Look at where most of the forclosures in areas like Phoenix, Salinas, Stockton, the Inland Empire and in all of those places you'll see very high hispanic populations with a high percentage of illegals. I do agree it's up to us to negotiate our own deals and we can always find another job. If you don't like what you have - grow a pair and leave.

Re:Yes

[b4upoo]

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.

Re:Yes

[digitalunity]

While this has nothing to do with labor laws such as overtime exemptions, I feel compelled to correct some misconceptions of yours.

Banks, in an effort to make money have been gradually giving higher and higher value loans to people with relatively stagnant income. This was magnified by the fact that stupid consumers, often those with insufficient or bad credit, have been using their homesteads as short-term credit cards. They bank on the fact that the value of their house will go up to compensate for their lack of spending control.

While you may be right(sort of) about the demographics of those people, it had nothing to do with affirmative action. This is what happens when greedy banks deal with desperate and/or uninformed homebuyers.

Re:Yes

[LaskoVortex]

No, republicans, like our republican president Comrade Bush, likes to give away money to banks. That's what republicans, like Comrade Bush, mean when they say "earn it". You "earn it" by being rich, and then the government steals--using the threat of jail--taxes from the working class (like small business entrepreneurs), and then giving you (the rich) more money.

Now, if you are a working class programmer making less than $100K per year, it is also republican, like the republican Governer of California, to deny you the remittance you have earned--using law as the tool--so those richer than you can keep the money you have earned.

So you see, republicans are much like communists in that they use law to take from the poor and give to the rich. So now we understand what it means to be republican these days.

Re:Yes

[LaskoVortex]

DUDE: Why was your boy Paulson *on his knees*, fucking literally, in Nanci Pellosi's office begging her to support the handout? You live in a dreamworld.

In fact, let's have a heart to heart. Seriously. I need to know. Are you just a republican fanboi or do you really have Republican values and have just been duped by the crooks in office?

Note where the capitals are--lowercase is for the posers known as the "republican party", capitals is for real Republicans like Senator Ron Paul. If you don't know what Republican means, look up "Republicanism" in wikipedia and memorize the first few sentences. The "republican party" these days are not, by and large, real Republicans.

If you are a real Republican, you would literally get sick to your stomach when a President who calls himself a "republican" asks for $700B to hand out to banks. SICK TO YOUR STOMACH. I have news for you and for every one else who has been duped: These are not Republicans.

They call themselves "republicans", but they aren't "Republicans". They do not follow the Rule of Law as evidenced by illegal wire tapping. They do not care for liberty, as illustrated by the Patriot Act. And they do not care for democracy or else they would put proposals like a $700B bailout to a popular vote. And they also do not believe in personal responsibility or the free market as evidenced by the proposal to bail out irresponsible banks.

Now, you will probably say something silly like "democrats are guilty of stuff like that too." And I will say, yes, but it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about democrats here, so don't try to change the topic. I'm not calling myself a democrat, so don't think I'm apologizing for them. I'm calling myself a Republican with a capital "R".

You probably have some naive notions, like "Rule of Law" means lots of cops with tazers. That is not "Rule of Law". That is fascism. Get this stuff straight.

You probably think that "Rule of Law" means more laws, like laws against smoking pot or having gay sex. Again, wrong. "Rule of Law" applies to the operations of the rulers. "Rule of Law" means that the rulers are ruled by law. It means that the no man is above the law. (Make sure you go study that wikipeda article before you argue that point.) "Rule of Law" does not mean that the subjects must be ruled by cops and draconian laws.

You are probably asking now, "how about the subjects? How about the people? What's going to keep them doing what I think is right?" Well, assuming your idea of "right" makes any sense whatsoever, in our Republic, which is also a federation of states, the idea is that most criminal law should be deferred to the states themselves. The exceptions would be laws against actions that adversely and DIRECTLY affect the operations of the Federal Government. (Some washed-up sixties flower child smoking a joint at a Jethro Tull concert does not constitute DIRECTLY affecting the operations Federal Government.) So, can a person have gay without getting arrested? Well, in the ideal "Republic" of states, this question is left to the states, NOT to the Federal Government. That's why they call it a "Federal Government", because of the concept of deferring most law to the states.

But is this *really* how true Republicans think? Surely they want federal agents breathing down every pot smoker's slimy back, don't they? NO THEY DON'T. I refer you to a concept called New Federalism, which was a reaction to the New Deal and was spearheaded by one of my favorite presidents, Richard Nixon. (I'm fucking serious about Richard Nixon, so unless you are prepared to read up on his history as president and his ideals, don't even think about questioning my sincerity here.) He was the closest thing we've had to a Republican in office in the last 50 years. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Now I ask you, since I recognize your name and the mindless "conservative" tone of yo

Re:Cry me a river

[EllisDees]

First, $75k is not a lot of money in California. Second, anyone who plays the "I don't want to be the first one to leave" game is a first order moron. I leave every day at 5:00 on the nose, and if something breaks on the weekends or the evening, I work that many fewer hours during the week. 40 hours is the deal, and that's all that's fair for both sides.

Re:well

[mcgrew]

Actually, I see a lot more democrats than libertarians

It seems that way, but if so, why aren't they unionized? If it weren't for my union I'd make a lot less money, I have good health benefits, paid vacations, holidays, etc. If I work overtime I get paid time and a half.

If my state passed some bogus BS like that you can bet your wife's ass I'd be writing my state legislators. Not that it would do much good...

I must disagree

[wernox1987]

"Unions in this country have long outlived their usefulness." While the model doesn't necessarily apply here, this country needs strong unions now more than ever. I used to work in a factory that voted down an attempt to unionize while I was there (in 1996) The factory workers started at $10/hr, health insurance was free and we got paid double time when we worked Sundays or and paid holiday (So holiday pay + 2X hourly pay). I checked in with a friend who is still there, employee's pay $200/mo for insurance, they still start at $10/hr and they no longer get paid double time. Its no longer possible for a skilled factory worker to live a middle class lifestyle....and yet your average CEO makes an insane amount of money. And the answer can't be "Go to College" because someone will always have to do the menial jobs and they should be able to earn a livable wage working those jobs

Re:I must disagree

[sac13]

skilled factory worker

Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Any "skilled" job does NOT start at $10 an hour. I'm honestly tired of people complaining about how much people that put the effort into getting an education and taking the white collar route get paid because they don't work as "hard" as the people that are breaking their backs. It's supply and demand. Sure, there's plenty of jackasses that are in a cushy job because they knew someone. But, there are multitudes more that put the effort in to get there. An uneducated, trained monkey (yeah, that's flame bait) can be found for a dime a dozen.

I worked my ass off and went to college at night while most of the other people I grew up with put in their 40 hours and then just hung out and drank beer watching sports with their friends. Now, I make as much as any 4 of them put together. Sure, they say I don't work hard because I sit at a desk. But, I busted my ass to get here. You get out what you put in. And for those that didn't make the effort to put much in, shut the fuck up and go vote for Obama. And before I get labeled a cold-hearted Republican, fuck McCain, too.

I'm ready to leave this fucking country because the masses are too soft and too stupid. I don't mind a little social support, but you fuckers are just too goddamn lazy for me anymore.

/rant

i've noticed a lot

[circletimessquare]

of my fellow workers here on the farm collective lean monarchist theocrat, while my former unit in military intelligence leaned green anarchist. but hey, that could just be me

anecdotes, shmanecdotes

Re:i've noticed a lot

[infonography]

you mean we are not living in an Anarcho-syndicalist commune?

next you'll be telling me we're living in a dictatorship

I'm sorry, but if you're salaried, why do you...

[Assmasher]

...believe you deserve extra pay? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just really don't understand the justification. I've been salaried since I got out of school and I've always accepted that working beyond normal business hours was a possibility (and quite often a reality.) If you have a salaried job and don't like the overtime you have to put in, find a better job. Saying that, I now it isn't easy for everyone to do such a thing but there are significant differences (usually) between the benefits, hours, flexibility, and types of jobs when discussing an hourly position and a salaried position. I mean, the whole reason companies offer salaries is for this reason (afaik.)

My choice

[CaptScarlet22]

In my case, I'm never really away from my job. I'm constantly working from home on the weekends or weekdays. Either it's a phone call, R&D, or finishing some project planning. I feel I can accomplish more working away from the office, because when the kids and wife go to bed, I have absolutely no interruptions.

And to me, working all those hours and not getting paid for is my choice. But working all those hours has helped me advance with my current company. Going on 13 years, I've had 4 promotions and 4 major raises. I was just promoted again 3 weeks ago. I'm now in a place were I'm financially very comfortable. All because of hard work, dedications, and patience (remember that young guns!!). Besides this IS my life's work!

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[Neil Watson]

It does sound ridiculous that a company can own all of your time. Alas many sociopath executives think exactly that. Last year I was offered employment with company that seemed like a good place to work. Then I saw the offer. Firstly their non-compete clause was so broad that I would need their approval before I could mow my neighbour's lawn for $5. Then there was an intellectual property clause stating that anything I created or conceived of regardless of its function, use or complexity during my tenure at the company, all day and all night was owned by them and not me. When I asked if, during a vacation, I invented an ever-cooling margarita glass the company would own that invention they calmly answered yes.

It turned the job down.

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[Metasquares]

This is the most important reason why IT workers should learn the "business side" of things as well: not to please your current boss so much as to have something to fall back on should you decide you want to go into business for yourself.

Re:well

[ivandavidoff]

At least not in my part of the US they can't.

There are two Americas. In one America, people get paid according to hours worked and in accordance with clearly stated policies. The other America is IT. Everywhere I've worked, IT staff were expected to work at least 9 hours, and be on call 24/7. Granted, these have all been small and medium sized companies, and certainly had nothing resembling a union or any kind of advocacy. So it was just expected. IT is expected to pitch in as if they are part of management.

Oh Really?

[Rand Race]

"the tracking of hours generally is anathema to the creative and free thinking computer professional employees,"

Indeed. As is the tracking of inventory.

I'm getting my overtime pay one way or another.

Re:Thank you

[theshowmecanuck]

More like all the companies in California will collude (whether actively or not) so that none of them will pay O/T. That is, there won't be competition in that regard. It takes that aspect off the table. i.e. it will be pointless to quit to find another employer who does pay overtime as none actually will.

Re:Thank you

[Leafheart]

No you won't. Seriously, and it is not hard to think about that. Reason is simple, too few companies will decide to pay that overtime, and an even fewer positions will get that. And if I can't sue them for it, they can just claim on the interview that they will pay, and actually don't, and vÃila I can't prosecute them. And that idea of yours of "you don't like, go get another job", reality called and they want your silly beliefs back. It just don't work like that. Most people don't have the luxury to select another job, specially students just out of college with plenty of debt and not rich families that can pay them until they find that only job that they enjoy. And they need to get what they can.

Re:Thank you

[Fallen Kell]

Sure, if you want to pay IT support and computer programmers only base salary, that is fine. Just don't expect them to show up in the middle of the night or on Saturday when your severs crash. We will get to that bright and early at 9am next business day just like any other person who works 9-5. If you don't like it, well, that is too bad.

Your political heroes at work

[InsaneProcessor]

What did you expect from a bunch of liberals running the state. Oh, and I bet since the unemployment rate in the tech sector is so high in CA that going to another job really isn't much of an option. Just another liberal screw up in your state.

Re:Cry me a river

[DeionXxX]

WTF? Really Hollywood? That's gotta be one of the worst neighborhoods in LA.

I agree that Dallas is a much better market than LA, but in Dallas the same programmer making $75k in LA, is making $50k.

And seriously, who do you know making less than $100k/year * 2 people that "take extended vacations" and have "$30,000 cars"?? I seriously don't know anyone.

$1200 for mortgage in the suburbs of LA? HAH!. Even in Riverside county (which sucks), you're paying $400-500k for a house (used, sucky house).

Yeah in Dallas, you can go to Carrollton and get a house for $150-200k and its really nice, but like I said, that's not the market we're talking about.

Re:well

[Gerzel]

Yes. The "free market" does cut both ways; however, both sides are rarely equally sharp.

For instance for a worker to leave his or her job that worker would have to take a loss in income. With rising debt and unemployment currently seen in this nation it is unlikely that many could afford to leave their companies. Also such high barriers to entry still largely apply to employees leaving one company and moving to another. It will still take months to learn a new code base.

Companies don't have families, they don't need to eat, sleep or breath and they can't be sent to jail. Also they don't have balls.

Re:It's a balance

[Chibi Merrow]

Remove the Taft-Hartley/RTW laws.

Wait, did you just advocate REMOVING Right To Work laws? Are you insane? Should we just go back to a guild system where if you want to learn a trade, everyone already working the trade can decide you're not allowed to? Wasn't that awesome?

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Yes, we see how well that's worked for the US auto industry. It took a few decades, but look where they are now -- do you think they'd be there if they were able to pay wages as market conditions required? (Yes, I know there's also the question of working conditions/safety - perhaps the only valid reasons that a union should exist.)

Bunch of Ungrateful Serfs

[nurb432]

You should be glad we give you a job in the first place. Now, quit whining and get back to work before you are replaced.

Re:well

[just_another_sean]

Most of you IT people are libertarians, this is what a free market does to you. Don't like it? Find another job.

What does the government of CA setting legislation that prohibits people from suing their employer over what they perceive to be unfair treatment have to do with a free market?

Re:Thank you

[plague3106]

If that's what you think then you have never put yourself in the employer's shoes. I am an employer with a small business and I know that to get good people and to get them to do a good job I have to treat them well. There is a balance of power between the employers and employees that depends on supply and demand, like anything else in a free market.

Yes, because there are basic rules that all employers must follow. There is no equal balance of power, and for proof just look at the early 1900s in this country.

In a free society, I should not be forced by law to provide another person with a living, certainly not to any arbitrarily set standard that someone else sets. If the government wants to set the minimum standards then it should do it with taxpayers money so that this burden is spread evenly, instead of placing the burden on one particular group, the business owners/shareholders.

We already went down this road. Again, look at history to see how people will be treated unless we force companies to follow basic rules.

You have a company, and presumably in a form that provides some immunity to things like lawsuits, debt, etc. In exchange, you agree to be regulated, so that you can't use your company to destory people's lives and the environment.

That's not the problem.

[gillbates]

The problem is when you have employees who come to work and do a good job without slacking off, and are then expected to work weekends because of mistakes made by management.

It treats people like commodities

[nurb432]

Ultimately, to the corporations, we are.

What is your life worth?

[rossz]

A friend of mine worked a high tech job that required lots of flying to other cities and living out of a hotel room. He would spend weeks away from home, fly home for a weekend on occasion, then fly out again. One day he realized he was missing his little girl growing up and he was becoming a stranger to his family. After completing a particularly grueling job that took several months, he chose to take two weeks off and spend it with his wife and daughter. His boss thought otherwise because they had already booked him for another job. He flat out refused to go to it. They fired him. He took them to the labor board. They lost big time. My friend had documented every minute he had spent waiting in airports and in the air. Under California law those were paid times (at least they used to be). As he had never been paid for the travel time, they not only had to pay him, they had to pay a penalty to him. He's now much happier with a local job. He gets to have dinner with his family and sleep in his own bed. The pay is only slightly lower and he is much happier (and so is his family).

So what is your time worth to you? If you are willing to work unpaid overtime, then you put a very low value on your life. I flat out refuse to work unpaid overtime on a regular basis. Yes, I've occasionally put in a couple of extra hours, but this is the exception, not the rule. Typically, if an emergency requires me to work late, I'll leave early the next day (or come in late). If a project consistently requires overtime, management has not done their job. Either they didn't assign enough people to the project, or they set too short of a deadline. Improper planning on their part does not constitute an emergency on mine. One or two days of crunch time isn't a problem. Shit happens. But weeks or months of it is not acceptable and your project is NOT going to be on time because my life is worth far more. You say you'll fire me if I don't work unpaid overtime? Not a problem. Go ahead and fire me. We'll talk further in a hearing.

I should repeat this. Emergencies happen and require extra time. Failure to set a reasonable deadline (or changing the requirements at the last minute) is NOT an emergency. Also, if I'm expected to carry a pager and be on call, my salary better reflect that requirement. I don't get up at 3am to fix your server for free. At one job, they decided to stop authorizing overtime pay, so I changed nagios to never send out alerts outside of work hours. Five nines of uptime aren't free. In this case, management didn't have a problem with it. The systems did not need to be up 24/7. Oddly enough, an ecommerce job, where 24/7 uptime was essential, was least willing to make the investment to keep things running (thus one of the reasons I no longer work for them).

Re:Thank you

[ajkst1]

Being a salaried employee, I get no paid overtime. If I have something that needs done during off-hours (evening, night, or weekends), I just budget the amount of time it will take and then not work that during the week. If I have a 4 hour change that needs done on Saturday, I only work 4 hours on Friday or work one less hour a day during the week and then do the 4 hour change on Saturday. My company doesn't like us working more than 40 hours, and many of us appreciate that. Some work more than 40 hours (myself included) and that's rewarded at performance review time. Unless you're completely awful, my company rewards you for your extra work. I've never felt like I've been "owned" by my company. Any extra work I do is because I care about the systems and people I support. They are the people who will send an e-mail to your boss and say "Hey, he did a great job! We appreciate it!" To all the young guns out there reading this, do your job and do it well. People always appreciate hard work.
 
I've seen instances at other places I've worked where employees really abused the overtime system. They would sit around all day and read websites and send stupid e-mails to their friends, then when it was time to go home, they would start working and call it "overtime". That downright offended me. If you're working hard all day and then have a problem and have to keep working, then that's overtime. Sitting around waiting for your 8 hours to be up so you can rack up overtime is a slap in the face to honest hard working people everywhere.

Re:Cry me a river

[Ioldanach]

$75k is barely making it in most markets (especially California). Rent in most places in California is 1 bed room for $1k+.

Which is then, what -- 16% of your income? At that rate you can live quite comfortably on $75K.

But we're not talking about one person, the problem comes with people that have families to support.

Presume an average family of 4. First, account for taxes, health insurance, worker's comp, etc fees. From $75k/yr, you're left with $50k/yr. Next, you're probably going to want a 3 bedroom home (2 adults, 2 kids). In areas with IT jobs, that's going to run you about $2,500/month, or $30k/yr, subtract auto insurance ($1500-$2000/yr for one vehicle), commuting fuel ($2500/yr with a reasonably fuel efficient vehicle and a commute of only 30 miles each way, or train/parking fees, remember that's only $10/working day), utilities - gas, power, water ($2000/yr - I'm not sure how energy rates in CA are at the moment, this is probably very conservative), food ($10,000 for a family of 4, based on national average food spent per person per year), vehicle ownership/maintenance costs ($4000/yr in payments and/or repairs). We've now gone into the red by $500/year, and that's just the obvious big ticket items off the top of my head. No savings, no movies, no recreation for a single-worker family of four in this scenario.

A big portion of this is the obscene housing rates right now in CA, dropping them from $2,500 to $2,000/month would save $6,000 a year, making $75k/yr for a middle class standard of living manageable again, if you're ok with only having one vehicle. Unfortunately, the numbers mean that today, in most cases a family of four will end up requiring both parents to work just to make ends meet.

Now don't forget, the second parent probably isn't going to take home as much as the first (honestly, in most 2 adult families, one adult has higher earning potential than the other, simply by virtue of different interests and training, even ignoring gender issues) and taxes will go up if you have 2 people working because you're in a higher tax bracket now. So presume the second earner makes $50,000, now your family brings in $80,000 take home pay (after taxes, insurance, fees, etc). That's an extra $30,000/yr, but now we have daycare ($10,000/yr, presuming one's of school age), another vehicle ($4000 maintenance/payment + $2500 fuel + $1500 insurance) leaving us $11,500/year (just under $1000/month) including the -$500 from the previous paragraph. Still barely enough for any substantial savings, but at least its manageable. Incidentally, this means that the minimum the second wage-earner can make is $30,000/year ($15/hr) for the second job to cover its own costs.

Re:Thank you

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The problem with this is that as long as there are enough people with some talent who /are/ willing to work the extra hours, you have no leverage.

And those people will always exist.

Re:It's a balance

[smellsofbikes]

For the same reason that a large majority of drivers think they have above-average driving skills: you always think you're better at what you do than most other people who are doing the same thing.
It's worse in jobs that attract strongly motivated people, like engineering and IT, because they're *really* convinced that they're all better than all their coworkers are.
Every time their company screws them over with layoffs or unpaid overtime, they go find exactly the same job somewhere else and convince themselves that *this* time it will be different because they'll try harder and *this* time they'll be rewarded for their efforts.

Meanwhile, the companies are thrilled to have people leave every time they push them around because someone new will get paid a lot less, even though they're much less productive while they're being trained. But, hey, that's not the company's fault, and it managed to cut costs.

Unionized companies are for people who invest in treasury bonds: in for long-term, gradual improvement. Non-unionized companies are for people who play blackjack at casinos: massive gains anticipated by a player who doesn't realize the game is rigged.

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! You're delusional.

I'm a Java developer and DBA, and since I work for the government, I'm in a strong union as well (we have over 50,000 members). I've worked both union jobs and nonunion jobs, and let me tell you, you have NO IDEA what you're missing. You think you're bragging, but really you're flashing this huge neon sign over your head; it reads "NOOB!"

I get paid around 70K for a strict 9 to 5, monday through friday job, with NO OVERTIME REQUIRED, incredibly good health, dental, and vision plans, almost four weeks vacation per year, PLUS five personal days, PLUS 2 1/2 weeks of sick leave, PLUS education benefits.

I'm responsible for about a million dollars' worth of hardware and software, and my cubicle is more like an office -- it's ten feet wide and deep, with thick, soundproofed walls six feet tall, complete with windows and walnut trim. I'm sitting in a genuine Herman Miller Aeron by the way. And the agency buys me all my books. If I need software to get my work done, I ask my boss, and I get it, usually within a day.

Everyone in the office is well rested and well adjusted, because we SLEEP AT NIGHT, and get to spend our evenings with our families. And the work we do is interesting; my current project is a 31KLOC Java desktop application involving data processing and calculations. I'm using JDK6 and NetBeans, with Oracle Application Server as a servlet engine for some of the server side stuff. It's a blast.

Go ahead. Tell me how great your private sector, non union job is. I like a good laugh.

Re:well

[geekoid]

"if the employer insist you work overtime anyway, find another job"

and when all employeers insist that?

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[geekoid]

"My point was that if your work environment is sub-satisfactory, you're a technology worker, and you're good at your job, you can go find a new job with conditions you approve of without too much trouble. Not that you need to work insane hours and give up your family life."

That demands on a lot of factors. Economy, location, companies not needing to treat you like a human.

The bubble burst, and it was very hard to find work for a number of years, and with the way unemployment is going, software developers may not have this luxury much longer.

Now it's funny you bring up strawman, becasue:
A) the poster who repliud to you did NOT use a strawman.

B) You post DID use a strawman.

"The only reason to start a union is if you're too lazy to go find a new job, or your skills are too poor to think you can get one"

That is a strawman.

I'm not lazy, and according to my peers,I am very good.
I am also in an engineers union. Why? becasue skill often has very little reason why you are let go from a company, becasue I want good healthcare, becasue I want to get compensated when I work OT.

I played the corporate gig for a very long time, and quite frankly I had enough.

Another father says "Amen"

[OneIfByLan]

Please ignore the frat-boy supermen and sad divorced bastards who are currently razzing you for this comment. I just wanted to stand in support of this post.

I've worked since I was fifteen (yes, illegally, shocking I know). I've supported myself since I was seventeen, starting out with a stint of homelessness. I paid for my own college. I hit every single damn step on the ladder. It took decades.

It's simple. If you don't want the next generation to be raised as feral animals, then Mom and Dad need to be involved in their life. Absentee parents mean children go looking in the wrong places for love and guidance.

As a society, our choices are clear. We can either allow parents the time to care for their children, or we can build prisons and pay in excess of $50,000 a year to care for that child for the rest of their life, to say nothing of the carnage they'll cause on the way there.

I'm tired of listening to clueless jackasses. Children are not a "consumption choice." They are not "crotchfruit." They are literally, whether they're your kids or someone else's, your future. Twenty years from now, those children will be crossing your path, and they can either do it as your smiling waiter or your grinning mugger knifing you for the fun of it.

I'm tired of listening to milk-fed idiots talking about the harsh realities of life when they've never missed one meal or spent a single night on concrete. My patience wears thin with Social Darwinists with 40 percent body fat.

Having a child is not the moral equivalent of a trip to Cancun. Making sure our next generation gets raised right is more important than Larry Ellison's next yacht.

Re:well

[Glonoinha]

Look up from the keyboard. Higher. Now look around.
See all the computer manuals? Those are books. Your books.
You arrange them in a certain order. You know the material contained within. You occasionally loan them out to your friends, and you get them back and put them exactly where they belong.

That makes you a libertarian.

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[ajv]

Don't blame the workers - they made the best of a bad situation,. and if the car makers weren't so completely incompetent in the world's largest car market, they would justify their conditions and wages as a small fraction of the overall cost of a new vehicle (it's about 1/4 of the car's cost, if you're interested).

The automakers failed in several ways:

a) To this day, they produce crap cars no one wants, with awful quality compared to their peers. Compare a VW door shutline on the next Jetta (produced in Mexico) you see with a shutline of your average US made SUV. VW's shutlines are 4 mm wide at the top and bottom of the openings, and less than 1 mm wide for non-openings such plastic mouldings to body panels. The Dodge Nitro I hired a while ago had a gap between the rear bumper and the tail gate I could see through, and don't get me started on how much that Nitro sucked - it nearly killed me five times with its terrible road manners.

b) Once they realized that no one wanted their shit products, they moved into SUVs as the other manufacturers were producing cars folks actually bought. I am still surprised that folks bought such agricultural SUVs, but ...

c) They made so much money from these crap boxes that they cut back on designing any other type of car and really scaled back investment in cars the US used to be leaders in (large sedans like the 50's Chevy's and Cadillacs). No US maker has a small fuel efficient car in their domestic line up (say 40 mpg+, which nearly ALL EU cars can manage without difficulty)

d) They forced the US govt to implement effective protectionism, under the guise of safety standards, which prevents cars from outside the US from being imported. This is now biting them really hard because no matter how much Ford or GM WANT to bring in *profitable*, *well made*, *extremely safe* and *desirable* cars from Europe, they can't.

e) they lobbied hard against any form of fuel efficiency standards, and got CAFE. They fought extremely hard to keep CAFE standards low, even to the extent that the SUVs are not subject to safety standards or fleet average fuel consumption figures that slug sports cars and some of their elderly models like the Crown Victoria. CAFE does not address consumption or demand when fuel costs are low. Thus you have the most wildly inefficient country fleet in the world and no domestic models that can manage 30 mpg combined (only the Cobalt comes close, and the Focus is a Euro car). The same manufactures in EU have average fuel consumption figures in the high 30's / low 40's. They addressed the bottom line - CO2 emissions and heavy taxation of fuel to make it artificially expensive. They have efficient cars.

f) Those huge profits they made on SUV's? Wasted on a binge of consolidation, wasteful depreciation inducing inducements ($5k on the hood of perfectly good cars, employee pricing scams, etc), and all sorts of other shenanigans. They failed to invest these bumper profits in new products consumers actually want, saving up for a rainy day or diversifying their range to cope with all buyers, not just guys with exceptionally small penises (Hummer, anyone?) Women buy and / or approve more than 50% of all the cars on the road. Makers and advertising do not target women - at all, which is a huge mistake.

Car makers have royally hung themselves by their own petard. I'd love it if I wasn't a car guy.

But it's not all the car maker's fault. They are burdened with the dumbest idea since dumb idea were invented. No national health care plan.

The US fails all its citizens and burdens its companies unnecessarily because it has no national health care plan like every other first world country. The US pays three times the amount for medical costs compared to Japan or Australia for worse health outcomes and a shorter lifespan.

If the US had a national health plan and decent medical costs, some of the costs now forced on the UAW by the last deal (or other auto makers without the UAW deal) wouldn't be holding them

Re:It's time to start a union how long before more

[sesshomaru]

But enough hammering the workers. As you can see they are not the problem.

Whenever I read a little Republican screed, I always think of this from an American master of rhetoric:

To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here. -- Malcolm X -- Message To The Grass Roots

Little Republicans would make me laugh if it didn't mean we all had to deal with Big Republicans. Big Republicans are smart, they know that there is practically no class mobility in this country and that their policies are transferring what little wealth the working class, including the Little Republicans, has managed to aquire into their own pockets. (They also know that they have more in common with Wesley Mouch than Hank Rearden, and they don't care because they think Rearden was a chump.)

Okay

[XanC]

Well let's see. Here is the former board of AIG. This is going to be a quick Google of each one, and may not be correct or comprehensive.

M. Bernard Aidinoff: Democrat

Pei-yuan Chia: Democrat

Marshall A. Cohen: Can't tell. He appears to be Canadian, maybe he's not active here politically.

William S. Cohen: Democrat (2 out of 3 to Dems, also was Clinton's Sec of Defense)

Martin S. Feldstein: Republican

Ellen V. Futter: couldn't find any evidence.

Stephen L. Hammerman: Democrat (mixes it up some, likes Rudy as he was NYC police commissioner, but mostly Dems)

Carla A. Hills: mixed

Richard C Holbrooke: Democrat

Fred H. Langhammer: Republican (actually this is pretty mixed, but recently leans Republican)

George L. Miles, Jr: Republican

Morris W. Offit: Democrat

Martin J. Sullivan: Democrat

Michael H. Sutton: Democrat

Edmund S. W. Tse: Can't tell. Also not originally American.

Robert B. Willumstad: Can't tell.

Frank G. Zarb: Democrat

I believe that's 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 5 unknown. I don't have time to do WaMu at the moment, but you're welcome to.

Re:Okay

[Stephen Ma]

Campaign contributions as an indicator of partisanship are meaningless, as most influential people donate to both parties. For example, Kerry Killinger, CEO of Washington Mutual for 18 years until he was fired recently, donated to both George Bush (R, of course) and Chris Dodd (D). You can probably dig up similarly mixed largesse by nearly everybody on your list. So try again. Prove to me that the yacht clubs are mainly populated by Democrats.

Re:well

[Fred_A]

So when they hired you and you never saw your overtime on your paycheck, what would you do then? Seeing as how you can't sue them...

Automatically add it by editing the paycheck printing routine ? After all there *has* to be some kind of advantage to being a programmer.