Should You Get Paid While Your Computer Boots?

An anonymous reader notes a posting up at a law blog with the provocative title Does Your Boss Have to Pay You While You Wait for Vista to Boot Up?. (Provocative because Vista doesn't boot more slowly than anything else, necessarily, as one commenter points out.) The National Law Journal article behind the post requires subscription. Quoting: "Lawyers are noting a new type of lawsuit, in which employees are suing over time spent booting [up] their computers. ... During the past year, several companies, including AT&T Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Cigna Corp., have been hit with lawsuits in which employees claimed that they were not paid for the 15- to 30-minute task of booting their computers at the start of each day and logging out at the end. Add those minutes up over a week, and hourly employees are losing some serious pay, argues plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Thierman, a Las Vegas solo practitioner who has filed a handful of computer-booting lawsuits in recent years. ... [A] management-side attorney... who is defending a half-dozen employers in computer-booting lawsuits... believes that, in most cases, computer booting does not warrant being called work."

Comments

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people who work at the local McDonalds get paid for preparing the restaurant to open at the beginning of each business day and for closing up shop at the end? I sure hope so.

This is the exact same situation. If the employers don't like it, they can pay someone to set up a script to automatically boot the computer half an hour before the start of the business day. I'm sure they can justify the cost once the cost is actually there.

Re:Yes.

[atrus]

They probably "punch in" on their PC, which is an interesting ploy by the employer. But I agree. The second you're in the door or at your desk, the clock has started. You are "at work".

Re:Yes.

[teh moges]

Perhaps you should try booting a computer in a corporate environment, where there is much more for the computer to do and check before the computer is actually booted in. That said, I've never seen it take 30 minutes, but I have seen it take more then 15.

To add to the conversation, if at desk, then getting paid. If the time clock is running on the computer, don't power down the computer to ensure you are paid for the time you are there. If policy prohibits that, then they need to change their time clock methods.

Re:Yes.

[pcolaman]

Or if it is a typical McDonald's and you feel like being a really big asshole, contact your local Department of Health. I'm sure there is at least one rat/cockroach/other random rodent/insect around the kitchen.

Re:Yes.

[pcolaman]

If you got injured while cleaning up presumably off the clock but on premises, how do you think an injury lawsuit would end? Probably with a quick settlement to avoid the issue of illegal labor practices. You were hosed, pure and simple.

Re:Yes.

[C18H27NO3]

Agreed.
If I'm scheduled to start work at 9AM and leave at 5PM it shouldn't matter what I am doing in the interim, provided it is work related I should be paid fully.
I am in their place of business turning on their computer running god-knows-what that takes forever and a day to boot; that's their problem.
Perhaps they need a setup where the new shift's comps all turn on at the same time and if no one logs in to start the virtual time clock then they turn off accordingly.

Re:Yes.

[BrainInAJar]

When I worked for a chain coffee joint, We arrived to our shift, punched in, and we were paid. If we opened, we got there at 4:30am and started getting paid, even though we opened at 5 and the first 10 or 15 mins of the shift involved dumping hot water out of urns and staring in to space trying to figure out where we were and why the clock had such a low number on it. Closing, we kicked everyone out at 11, and locked the doors. Then we cleaned until 11:45 when we stopped getting paid. If anything was left to be done, we left a note, and went home.

This ought to be pretty typical even ( especially ) of shitty low-wage jobs. Now I work salary so I roll in when I feel like it, go home when I feel like it, if I feel like working a 4 day x 9 hour week I can, and so long as my assigned tasks get done I continue to get paid.

If your situation resembles neither of these either you're on the dole, or you're getting screwed by your employer and should file a complaint or unionize.

Don't let your boss fuck you, that's anti-capitalist. Fuck back.

Re:Yes.

[The FNP]

At my college the roaming profiles would occasionally get rather large and we would have people who had to wait 20-40 minutes to log in. Yes, just to log in, not even to boot the PC and have it connect to the domain, etc.

While this is not optimal, and part of my job was to fix that delay, I will say that someone out there has time enough for two cups of coffee in the morning waiting to boot their machines, and if they have an electronic time clock system, that person's wages are definitely being illegally affected by that.

--The FNP

Re:Yes.

[baboo_jackal]

Yeah, the summary also forgot to include this:

Having spent time in call centers observing work behaviors, he said most employees boot the computer, then engage in nonwork activities. "They go have a smoke, talk to friends, get coffee -- they're not working, and all they've done at that point is press a button to power up their computer, or enter in a key word," Rosenblatt said.

The impression you get from reading the article summary is that there are legions of poor tech workers who show up to work, turn on their computers, and then sit there idly in their cubes, twiddling their thumbs for a half an hour waiting for their computer to boot, and their employers dock them for that time.

But once you hear the other side of the story, it sounds to me like these "poor victimized employees" come in, hit the power button, and then walk off to do other stuff which occupies them for the better part of an hour, because booting takes (realistically - c'mon, now) more than ten or twenty seconds (which is longer than the average attention span of say, a college grad with a business degree), and that management is trying to get a handle on it as best they can.

This is a classic case of "blame the technologies for my laziness (because my boss doesn't understand it, either, and he'll buy it!)" This isn't anything new, it's an internal management issue.

Re:Yes.

[mqduck]

If you put a lot of effort into it, pay for a lawyer, get what you deserved in the first place plus the cost of filing a lawsuit plus getting fired for any reason they can think of, you might be able to get a "fair" deal. For yourself.

This is what unions are for. Don't let Slashdot's libertarianism lead you to oppose your own interests, or the interests of your felling employees.

Re:Yes.

[roguetrick]

Doesn't rightly matter, if the employee is wasting off the clock time you fire them. You don't get to say "Well you weren't doing a good enough job here, so I'm going to not pay you for it."

Re:Yes.

[Mattsson]

I think he meant "leave it on so that it's already booted when you arrive at work the next day, regardless of any shutdown policy", not "leave it on and logged into the time-clock software and hope you get paid 24 hours per day".

Re:Yes.

[Planar]

Hell yes, leave the computer on overnight. If your employer is requiring you to switch it off at night and on in the morning, then it's obviously part of your job and you can demand to get paid for it.

And if they have automatic shutdown, why in hell don't they have automatic boot up? Modern hardware has been able to do that for decades.

Re:Yes.

[L4t3r4lu5]

Sounds like you shouldn't be using roaming profiles.

You need to teach your users to make proper use of networked storage, including local copies and synchronisation if work is done off-site. Copying all of the users' profile over the network every time they log on must cripple your network in the morning.

Re:Yes.

[atraintocry]

Two words: automated deployment.

Re:Yes.

[fabs64]

So it's management's discretion as to what hours I am paid for while I am at work during the allotted time?

No, sorry, that just doesn't fly.

You should also note that they only try to pull this kind of shit on the people they can get away with it with, ie the people who can't afford it.

Re:Yes.

[pla]

Many corporations are now utilizing virtual time clock software, requiring hourly employees to clock in via their PC. Couple that with a hypothetical policy of having to shut down PCs overnight to save power, and presto, employees don't get paid for booting.

Man, why can't I ever work for a company with such stupid metrics like that (or "lines of code", or something like that)?

Turn on "boot at 8:00am" in the BIOS, set up a shutdown script to run at 4:30pm, (or, lacking the privilege to create a scheduled task, just run "shutdown -f -t 15300" at startup) problem solved. Or if they stupidly use the actual uptime to figure out hours, push those out another half hour for some serious free overtime.

Companies that treat workers like mindless interchangeable robots deserve what they get when their drones learn to game the system.

Re:Yes.

[severoon]

Actually, the service industry is a bad example. I worked at a convenience store for a summer and my wife worked at a coffee shop for a while. Both of us stopped getting paid when the doors were locked despite the fact that there was still cleanup to be done. The theory was that we were supposed to be cleaning as the shift was winding down, but time and customers rarely allowed for that.

My approach to that would be to do all the cleanup that needs doing and let customers wait. If my boss has a problem with it, I give him a choice—I can wait on customers now and leave at quittin' time, I can do it now while customers stack up and get steamed, or he can pay me OT when I stay late. There's no fourth option where I work for free.

The only way working and not getting paid for the time is acceptable is if I'm a salaried employee paid to meet Goals & Objectives. If I'm hourly, time spent doing something—anything—for my employer, whether booting up a machine or cleaning up a restaurant, is time I'm getting paid. IANAL but I understand that's basic labor law.

Re:Yes.

[garett_spencley]

I consider myself to be libertarian but I don't see any problem with unions. To prevent workers from organizing is contrary to libertarian principles. How can one value liberty and freedom to the fullest extent allowable (meaning to the point where one group's freedoms impede another group's) and yet deny workers the freedom to organize ?

A lot of people, myself included, have observed problems with unions making ever increasing unfair demands and being at least partially responsible for creating the incentive for companies to outsource. Yet I still support a worker's RIGHT to unionize. Just as I support the companies RIGHT to try to get the best labour possible at the lowest cost.

I don't see where people started to get this idea that libertarianism is a synonym for greedy capitalism. Yes we favour free market and don't like government interference. Yet that has nothing to do with favouring corporate execs over workers. People seem to have gotten things so twisted since the US economy went south. Pointing to the recession and saying "see! free market doesn't work and this is what libertarians want !!!!". Try doing some reading first and then ask yourself if you really believe that libertarians want corporations to be able to influence government to increase their power. Libertarians are directly oppose to power in all of it's forms. That's the very fundamental basis of libertarianism. That relates to unions in the sense that unions are a way of countering power levied against workers. There's nothing wrong with that. Certainly not in libertarian politics.

Re:Yes.

[mdwh2]

I agree. And it's not like the employer has a bad deal here - people usually don't get paid for the travel time to work, which often adds up to many hours over a week. Starting the clock when you are in the building is already a compromise that should be more than fair to the employer.

Re:Yes.

[theaveng]

Yes but the fix was so EASY. Pick up the phone and call the State Department of Employment. Ask for anonymity and report that you worked half-an-hour after closing without pay. Multiple times. It won't be long until your employer is on the hot seat, and you will still have you job since he/she won't know who did it.

Re:Yes.

[phlinn]

You're right. He should have said "Libertarians are directly opposed to coercion in all of it's forms.". Coercion and power are not the same thing, although that's still an over simplified statement. Although your first example of power is wrong, as Libertarians generally ARE opposed to the state having a monopoly on force used to protect life and property. They recognize a basic right to self defense.

Re:Yes.

[nakajoe]

And you'd really plan on going to court and potentially spending more in legal fees than you earn in a year to keep a crappy service job? It's a no-win situation for the employee.

Fact is that somebody in that position has practically no rights other than to walk out the door on account of how much it costs to exercise those rights.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing inherent to libertarianism that leads to opposing unions. If anything, forming a voluntary association to engage in collective bargaining (in the absence of government interference) is as libertarian a solution to labor problems as one can find.

Re:Yes.

[cayenne8]

I guess I don't understand why people are bitching about pay for boot/shutdown times. Are they coming in early or something to boot their computers?

I come in...clock starts running on my work time. I boot up....at the end of the day, I shutdown, and when I walk out of the building, the clock stops.

Not sure how others are doing it?

Re:Yes.

[plague3106]

No, you go to court and sue for damages when you're fired, not to keep your crappy job. You also work with the state departments to get your company fined. If they can't prove that you were dismissed for a good cause, the state would likely assume you were fired for reporting their illegal activity.

Re:Yes.

[NtroP]

When I was still an hourly employee we used an electronic timecard--you couldn't "clock in" until the computer was booted and ready. Usually took a really long time...30 minutes in total. You didn't even have the option until your machine was booted and workable...God forbid you have issues starting up.

WTF!? I didn't RTFA (of course) but even using Windows, what computer takes 15 minutes to boot? One minute I could understand, 15 minutes? Even my big SQL servers don't take that long to boot the OS and then bring the DB online. If you are fiddle-farting around before logging in then no, you shouldn't get paid. If you are bitching about not getting paid for the 1 or 2 minutes it takes to boot and log in to the system then I submit the boss has the obligation to put a camera on you to make sure you don't answer your personal cell phone or text message anything personal or chat up a colleague about non-work-related stuff or otherwise waste a minute or two of his time.

If it truly takes 15 minutes to boot your system then your IT guy should not be getting paid at all.

Re:Yes.

[geminidomino]

The other issue is that my boss makes at least twice what I get paid- an $8 box of doughnuts is hardly more than a token gesture to begin with.

-b

On the other hand, tokens can go a long way towards moral...

Re:Yes.

[iamhassi]

"...and stops running as soon as the machine starts shutting down."

Why do they have to watch the computer shutdown?

I can understand being paid to boot-up, but once you click shutdown, can't they walk away and go home? Do they really need to stand there and watch it for 15 minutes?

15 minutes?

[ravenshrike]

How the hell does it take anyone 15 minutes to boot up their computer. Even at it's most malware choked, my girlfriend's took less than 10 to get to desktop.

Re:15 minutes?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never booted from a remote disk on the other end of a slow connection, have you?

Re:15 minutes?

[zappepcs]

It's not purely the boot time of the computer. Many places require that you open several applications in order to accomplish your assigned tasks. These can take time to load and access as well. If the system administrator(s) use the wisdom of IT to use boot time to scan drives for application and other content audits, it can take quite a while before the machine is actually usable. Same sort of thing happens at shutdown in many places.

I have had myself removed from the 'normal' network profile to avoid all that crap on my work laptop. I archive at home on the weekends (at my cost) and scan at night for malware etc. I do not need their invasive methods as I am not helpless and lazy as are the users who have forced them to resort to this kind of methodology to comply with security policies, SarBox etc.

It is more than possible that people spend 30 minutes a day waiting on routine maintenance processes that are run during bootup and shutdown.

The part I like is that I use the laptop at home, and may be actively running scripts overnight, yes for work. The 'normal' profile includes a forced reboot at 3 a.m. I have spoken quite heatedly several times to IT people about the completely asshat idea that a forced nightly reboot is required for LAPTOPS used by people traveling with the laptop.

IMO, if you are forced to be at work, and to tend to the pc, then it's payable labor.

Re:15 minutes?

[EvilIdler]

Have you ever had a job at a place with a large Windows-based network? You'll understand when you do.

There can be all sorts of crap required by company policy, servers to wait on, user accounts to be replicated, login scripts to launch and the most bloated anti-virus because the management got a good deal on it. Company computers are often fairly old, especially in government facilities where I live. I've supported the ones for the social services, for example, and they were dreaming of upgrading to 512MB RAM on XP.

Re:15 minutes?

[Majik Sheff]

Unless you're salaried, your boss is out of compliance. When you're ready to move on, make sure he gets a visit from the dept of labor.

Solution

[Hao Wu]

who is defending a half-dozen employers in computer-booting lawsuits... believes that, in most cases, computer booting does not warrant being called work."

Then don't do it. Leave the computer off, and ask your boss when to begin working.

Re:Solution

[Fanboys_Suck_Dick]

Or just arrive exactly on time for work each day. Or don't turn your computer off at night. These two suggestions work for me.

What do you think?

[QuantumG]

I get paid to post on Slashdot.

If you're required to be there...

[EllynGeek]

...they have to pay you. Whether you have something to do or not is not your problem. But then, the tech industry has successfully hosed labor law already (see "permatemp" and "the IRS loves to host stock option losers") so why not screw us over even more.

As doubtless everyone else will say a million times, computers taking that long to boot is a separate problem.

Re:No.

[syousef]

The person who telecommutes would not get paid for that time, why should the person in office?

Telecommuters can flick the switch and literally get on with something completely not work related - eat breakfast, shower, masturbate, or have sex while the computer boots. Last i checked that was frowned at work, but I guess it depends on the industry.

I'm in the building

[earnest murderer]

That sitting at my desk waiting on the computer doesn't get anything done is irrelevant.

It started with being 10 minutes early. Then it was at your desk and working at 9 am. Now at your desk waiting for your PC to "show up to work" so you can log in and start getting paid.

Besides, if this goes... the next stop is monitoring software measuring every second that you are actually inputting.

Re:I'm in the building

[L4t3r4lu5]

IANAL, but i'm pretty sure that use of that software would be illegal.

Unless the work machines are only to be used for work purposes, and alternative facilities are made available for personal usage during lunch times, for example, then there's a high probability that it would fall foul of Human Rights legislation, specifically rights to privacy.

It's for this same reason that I can't read staff email boxes to make sure they're being used only for work purposes. Of course i'm capable of it, but unless there's a court order requiring me to open the box, a signed document from the Head and ICT Manager stating that there is an ongoing disciplinary matter being investigated, or a tech issue with a particular member of staff, those boxes stay locked up to anyone but the staff member.

my time, my paycheck

[v1]

in most cases, computer booting does not warrant being called work

The way I look at it is I'm being paid for my time. Time that I can't be off doing something I want to do. How much I get paid for my time of course depends on what I can accomplish with the time they are buying from me.

But for ME, time spent sitting idle at work, time that my employer is requiring me to be there, is time I should be paid for. How many people would be OK with their boss saying hey how about you come in an hour early and leave an hour late starting tomorrow? Not on the clock or anything, I just want you to BE here. You don't have to work. But it's going to be a new requirement around here.

Sounds silly and of course you can't find anyone that would be OK with that, but that's just this issue taken to a little of an extreme to prove a point. Your time is your time. If they want you to give some of it up, they better be paying for it. If it took me 15 minutes to get the computer booted up to punch in, and after I punched out I was required to spend another 15 in the office waiting for it to shut down, you can bet I'd be having a talk with my manager about compensation for my lost 65 hrs of pay a year. That's a week and a half of paycheck lost a year. Not really lost, time TAKEN by your employer without compensation.

Little stuff like that adds up. Don't let them fool you by saying oh it's only 15 minutes, you don't mind that do you? That's cheating me, pure and simple.

Re:my time, my paycheck

[joelmcintosh]

As a self-serving caveat ... my office Mac boots in 29.8 seconds ...

... but on to the bigger issue. I agree with you. I own a small company with 10 employees. From the moment staff members walk into my business and are under my management, they should be be paid for their time. If my computers take too long to boot, that's my problem. The bargain is that my staff is trading their time and labor for my cash (capital ... as in capital-ism). These companies ought to be sued -- they are not holding up their end of the bargain.

Re:No.

[TrekkieGod]

The person who telecommutes would not get paid for that time, why should the person in office?

Because the person who is at the office is getting paid for doing one additional thing that the telecommuter isn't being paid for: being at the office.

If the employer told me to be there at 9am, I don't care if there's work to be done or not. Time isn't free, and I could be doing something else at 9am. I could be sleeping in, I could be doing laundry, I could be playing video games. If part of my job is to be at the office at 9am, then I get paid for being there at 9am, whether or not I'm waiting for my tools to be ready or for them to tell me what to do.

If he tells me to be there at 9 and stay until 5, and doesn't give me any work, should he pay me for that time? How would you justify answering "no" to that?

If my employer *really* wants me to start working as soon as I get in, he can pay someone to go through the office at 8:45am and start turning the computers on before I clock in. Oh, that costs money? He could leave the computers on all night. Oh, that costs electricity? It's all a balance, but it's still part of the cost of operating the business. If I'm expected to turn it on, then it's part of my job's duties, and thus it's obviously something that I need to be paid to do.

Re:More than just Windows....

[negRo_slim]

Connecting to a domain can be a wonderfully long process on poorly configured equipment.

Re:Cheap Bastards

[Hao Wu]

If your company is run by cheap bastards who have their hourly employee time-clock billing system tied into a booted PC ONLY, I say sue the crap out of them!

It makes a big difference whether you live in a state with strict employment laws and a political system to enforce them. Some places you'll lose more money paying a lawyer. In others places, the company will really be screwed for their evil games, and you'll be made fairly wealthy.

The important thing is to report them. Otherwise nothing changes.

Re:More than just Windows....

[SpacePirate20X6]

Multiply it by two if encrypted by pointsec.

The liability is entirely on the corporation here

[zullnero]

Seriously, greedy managerial types seem to think that a person's entire job rotates around a computer. A computer is a tool that you use to do your job, not unlike a crescent wrench. You pay a mechanic to take the tool out of his toolbox, you pay a person to turn the computer on. If the systems boot slowly, that's the fault of the corporate IT policy putting slow-booting operating systems on computers. If people aren't being paid, what, does their time card automatically start when it's finally loaded by Windows? Then that's some seriously questionable software practices in regards to labor laws.

Re:More than just Windows....

[ElAsturiano]

or if you have a roaming profile with 50-100Mb worth of crap to download.

Re:No.

[totally bogus dude]

Agreed, it'd cause way too many problems.

I live in an apartment literally one city block from my workplace, so my travel time is about 5 minutes. Why should I get paid less for being at work 8 hours a day than a coworker who lives an hour away? Unless your commute is such that you can actually work while you're traveling, then you're not providing anything of value to the business. The business shouldn't be forced to compensate you for choosing to live further away than other people.

Re:Absolutely

[palegray.net]

Major back-pay is coming their way for this.

More likely, major pay is going to the attorneys who handle this on a class action basis, and a few cents are going to participating employees.

They are call centre workers

[Anonymous Coward]

What else do they do but call (need the PC to log in) or add to the database of work (need the PC to enter data)?

If you want them to do more work other than their contracted work, pay them for it.

Scary...

[Ioann]

I find this kind of discussion rather scary. If you are at work place, setting up the tools you use to do your job, then it is work. Full Stop. The discussion should be about whether your boss should pay you (even maybe with a reduced fee) for time spent COMMUTING to get to the work place. But note that this has nothing to do with productivity. Is just bosses harassing people (to maximize profit). I think i wouldn't like to work in the USA.

If they have to be there...

[BoneFlower]

If the employee is required to be present, they should get paid. It's really that simple.

If the relevant laws in the states concerned don't reflect that basic principle, those laws should be changed.

Become an entrepreneur

[wikinerd]

Just quit your job and start a business. Problem solved.

Work starts the moment you're in the building...

[GuyverDH]

Whether it's the 20 minute walk to your cubical, or the 15 minute wait for your computer to boot, and for you to get logged into the network, it's all work related, and all on the clock.

Your time is a precious commodity, you only get to live each second once - mark down all time spent in the building (aside from your shift meal, if it's away from your desk).

Employee's responsibility to clarify up front.

[JBHarris]

In my mind it is very clear.

What did the employee agree to as a condition of their hire?

If they agreed to start getting paid when their time-tracking software finally started, or when they logged in to the queue in the soft-phone, that is how they should get paid. If this was not clearly specified during the interview process, it should be considered the employee's responsibility to clarify.

I'm tired of hearing the nanny-state mentality of protecting people from their own inability to understand the caveats and details of an agreement they entered into of their own free-will.

If I sign a cellular contract that states "billing will start when you hit the send key, not when the call connects", well then I should expect that to happen. If it does not state when billing starts, I should clarify it with the cellular carrier before entering into the contract, and if that issue is important to me, make a determination AFTER I know the entirety of the policy.

I'm sure I'll be modded down for my anti-socialist views by some, but its got to stop. The government has NO place telling an employer when to start and stop paying you. That is a private contract, and the US Constitution clearly states "No State shall [create a] law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..." source. Employment is a mutually agreed private contract.

And yes, before anyone asks, I do believe that minimum wage laws interfere with the free negotiation and establishment of work contracts. If my employer wants to give me a home, a car, food, electricity, etc, but only pay me $3.00/hr, it SHOULD BE MY RIGHT to accept that offer. If accepting that offer is a bad decision, so be it...at least its MY decision.

Our governments (state and federal) should have no business attempting to protect people from their own stupidity.

Brad

Simple solution

[seeker_1us]

The boss doesn't want to pay for employee bootup time?

The (salaried) boss should come in early and boot every single employees computer.

Re:You are wrong

[JDAustin]

But if they fire you after you have filed a complaint w/ the labor bored then that will be seen by the labor board as a retaliatory termination. That is illegal.