Slashdot Mirror
US Senator Proposes Bill To Eliminate Overtime For IT Workers
New submitter Talisman writes "Kay Hagan (D) from North Carolina has introduced a bill to the Senate that would eliminate overtime pay for IT workers."
The bill is targeted at salaried IT employees and those whose hourly rate is $27.63 or more. It seems comprehensive in its description of what types of IT work qualify — everything from analysis and consulting to design and development to training and testing. The bill even uses "work related to computers" as one of the guidelines.
3 of the 4 co-sponsors for the bill are republican:
Michael Bennet [D-CO]
Scott Brown [R-MA]
Michael Enzi [R-WY]
John Isakson [R-GA]
If you want a good job vote this man OUT!
I think you mean, "vote this woman OUT".
Sure looks like...
nobody voted for him, he was appointed to replace salazar
The bill is short so below is the full text from thomas.loc.gov. For a congressional bill it is surprisingly readable.
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to modify provisions relating to the exemption for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or other similarly skilled workers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Computer Professionals Update Act' or the `CPU Act'.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.
Section 13(a)(17) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(17)) is amended to read as follows:
`(17) any employee working in a computer or information technology occupation (including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--
`(A) the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;
`(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;
`(C) directing the work of individuals performing duties described in subparagraph (A) or (B), including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties; or
`(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the performance of which requires the same level of skill;
who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1).'.
Time to offend someone
How does this make sense for govn't.. isn't this a Private sector issue?
I have worked my way up from Network Tech to Director of IS... so I made the switch from hourly (non-exempt) to salary (exempt) and since then have had to deal with who is and isn't exempt.
It all comes down to what positions are considered "professional". My take on the subject has usually been that if the employee has the type of work that is difficult to measure and determine if they are truly working hard or stretching it out, then they are exempt. Exempt employees are expected to know what amount of work is truly needed and get things done in the least effort possible.
As a competent sys-admin, do you need to parse all 100MB of that log to determine the root cause of the error? How exactly does the boss know you did or didn't need to (yes a competent manager should have a clue, but it's more difficult than you think). Programming is the same way... I could hack it and get it out in a week, or be so damn picky it takes a year.
My position has usually been that people in these positions are able to determine what level of work is need to satisfy customer demand and not do unnecessary work. BUT, it is always a judgement call with IT. If you get it wrong, make a guy salary, make him work 60 hours to get a project out and he then sues, you can be held liable for back pay.
It is a difficult balance between leaving grey areas (because a lot of it is grey), and the government formally defining who is and isn't exempt. I would not immediately defame the Senator introducing the bill... they may actually be trying to do a good thing for employees. This is a messy area of personnel issues, and if they are successful in bringing clarity, all will benefit.
Technically it means that they are no longer required to pay overtime, but realistically how many employers in a down economy where there is a surplus of workers will do more than they are required to.
Time to offend someone
That's the law. Seriously, it is the law. Passed in 2003 amazingly enough.
The Califronia gov't description is the most clear. There is a Federal one too that is more difficult to read through but spells it out: IT workers get Overtime. Period.
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_overtime.htm
Also it is currently in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee so if one of the following is your senator you might want to contact them to have it killed:
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Bernard Sanders (I) (I-VT)
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
Kay R. Hagan (D-NC)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Michael F. Bennet (D-CO)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Time to offend someone
CURRENT LAW:
(17) any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is—
(A) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications;
(B) 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;
(C) the design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) the performance of which requires the same level of skills, and who, in the case of an employee who is compensated on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an hour.
NEW BILL:
(17) any employee working in a computer or information technology occupation (including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--
‘(A) the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;
‘(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;
‘(C) directing the work of individuals performing duties described in subparagraph (A) or (B), including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties; or
‘(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the performance of which requires the same level of skill;
who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1).’.
Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
As you can see, the hourly rate and the type of worker involved has not changed at all. It appears that they're merely clarifying the definition of a computer services professional.
Personally (and I know this is going to earn me a few "troll" points from our faithful moderators), I am against mandating things like time-and-a-half and double-time pay. Although it sounds like a good deal for hourly workers, in fact it probably discourages employers from paying people more. They'll just get a part timer to come in and do the extra work, or offshore it, or some such.
I'm in IT and when I'm hourly, I love to work 50-60 hours a week. I don't give a damn about all these overtime rules; I just want to make more money. But since around 2001, companies have been much more reluctant to let people bill more than 40 hours a week unless the top management grants special permission to get some project done or some such.
Frankly I wish the government would just stay out of these matters and let the free market decide what's a fair wage, what's fair hours, etc., but maybe I'm naive :)
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
They want to change it to this:
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Guess what? There is nothing more to the story. It's exactly what it sounds like: a money grab.
And if you work in an at-will employment state, you get fired and re-hired with the new terms or walk.
By the way, this isn't about working overtime at your normal rate. It's about working overtime for free.
Pity most other countries in the world START at 25 payed days off. That is 5 weeks incase your over worked mind can no longer do math.
Most amazing myth I ever heard about the US is that of the "working poor". People who have a regular job or even two AND still can't keep themselves fed and housed. I am mean, how silly do you think we dutch people are? It is like plate sized hamburgers. Nice photoshop, no way that is real, no human beings could possible eat so much and no dressing up an elephant and putting it on a moped does not fool me.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Sadly that amendment is not really enforcable. The Supreme Court has basically said there is not a person in the country who would have standing to bring a suit to overturn a pay raise, so if Congress raises it's pay there is nothing that can be done to stop it.
But they're not exempt if their pay rate is below a certain threshold, among other conditions. The standards for exempt status in California are more stringent under California law than under federal law, meaning it's more likely that an IT worker qualifies for overtime pay. In California, currently, the hourly pay rate threshold is $37.74 per hour; any work performed over eight hours in a day or forty in a week is eligible for overtime pay. Salaries are calculated as hourly pay, assuming eight hour days and forty hour weeks.
At my workplace, we work 12 hour shifts; this is important. I found out from a co-worker that we were actually entitled to overtime pay; he'd had to explain this to our employer. I discovered our employer was playing dumb, as they claimed not to know anything about this when I brought up the issue, although they conceded the point and paid me my back pay shortly after I was able to cite California labor law, from the same link that That_Dan_Guy posted.
Fortunately, for workers in California, the more stringent standards for exempt status at the state level override the standards at the federal level.
how is this legal? They are specifically targeting IT.... this doesnt seem right.
This might be why:
"The sponsor is Kay Hagan. Listed in her Top 20 contributors are companies like Bank of America, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Time Warner. The cosponsors are Michael Bennet (Comcast, Qwest, DISH Network, Level 3, Time Warner), Michael Enzi (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and John Isakson (Home Depot, Delta, AFLAC, Cox, Citigroup, & GE). So, you know, no one that would be interested in lowering their IT costs a bit. If anyone knows where I could get numbers based on what percentage of employees at those companies are wage versus salary, I'd like to see them."
This is the result of Senate rules. As Senate Majority Leader, Reid has to vote against a bill that is going to fail if he wants to reserve the right to bring it back one day for another vote. He has to constantly vote against bills that he supports.
THIS is the real problem here. "Information Technology" is so broad a term that any professional who uses a computer could wind up being considered an "IT person."
Here's the full text (the importantly vague part is 2(D))
__________________________
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Computer Professionals Update Act’ or the ‘CPU Act’.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.
Section 13(a)(17) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(17)) is amended to read as follows:
‘(17) any employee working in a computer or information technology occupation (including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--
‘(A) the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;
‘(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;
‘(C) directing the work of individuals performing duties described in subparagraph (A) or (B), including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties; or
‘(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the performance of which requires the same level of skill;
who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1).’.
If they think they can use money to increase profitability, they'll do so. Nothing wrong with it.
Highly disagree. While in the general case, attempting to increase profitability isn't a bad thing, it all comes down to the details. Depending on WHAT they do to try and increase profitability, it can be extremely bad. Shit like this, for instance.
Simply saying that "There's nothing wrong with increasing profitability" as a blanket statement is hugely oversimplifying the situation.
They go in expecting to overreact to a threat - that doesn't actually exist. None of these cops, who have violently arrested, maced without provocation, and beaten hard with clubs now thousands of people were actually threatened. If they felt threatened, it's because they refused to accept the reality happening to them. We have now had many second times, both in the same place and just across the country, for weeks and months.
Have you ever been in a riot? I have. There's a palpable energy generated that's pretty damn scary. I have no idea what it is but it exists. I'll give you that in most of the current situations the police have been the instigators of creating a situation where they had to fear that energy.
It's a no huge step going from macing some trouble making punk kids (mindset of the police, mind you, not my opinion of them) to shooting them in the head.
For anyone but a complete sociopath it is. Killing people (and living with it) isn't easy.
Big enough to find plenty of thugs already in the armed forces ready to kill other Americans, especially ones they see as "spoiled, lazy rich kids".
I think you need to poll the actual grunts on this one. I think you'll find you're way off base here. Yeah, they do exists but they are a small minority and US Army doesn't do anywhere near a good enough job of brainwashing it's recruits to override their moral compasses. The moral ones are more likely to just shoot the idiots. Hell, I got in trouble for telling a Sergeant to fuck off when he tried to get a cruit to empty the garbage in the Sergeant's room. What do you think I'd do if he told me to start shooting civilians? Mind you, I got in trouble for telling him to fuck off not for telling the Sergeant and cruit that he didn't have to and wasn't supposed to do it. Actually I was told I was right about that but was wrong about the way I handled it. In the US military you're told you have an obligation NOT to follow illegal orders. And shooting civilians is WAY over on the illegal order side of things.
And to my original point, it was perfectly clear that this would happen when the gun fetishists spent years voting for Republicans and Democrats who enable them who created this police state in waiting.
At least you're not blaming one political party because the Obama administration has taking Bush's oppressive policies quite a but further towards the wrong end of the scale. But if you think the pro-second amendment people are the primary cause, or even a major one, of the current movement towards a police state you need to broaden your viewpoint. I really don't think it's a big factor at all. The main one is the revolution in communications brought on by the advance of technology. Information is a far more potent weapon against oppression than any number of guns are. The US government is finding that the historical control they've had over information is rapidly eroding and in the process their myriad of sins are more and more coming to light.
Who is John Galt?