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.
And if this idjit is still there, I know I am voting THEM out. What a maroon.
Already living this. Welcome to the Sweat Shop Of The 21st Century!
IT work already has a terrible education:pay ratio and the pay is nothing special in relative terms, that's a strange sector to target...could it have something to do with outsourcing?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I work for the government and we get paid OT and comp time.
That's like a fantasy for most of us.
I've read the bill's text but I haven't ascertained any rationale for it. Clearly they think there is some cost savings to be realized, but where? All that will really happen is the skilled workers will get salaries/wages to offset the loss of overtime, leaving the less skilled and fresh grads with the less desirable pay/positions. The net result is less people will want to get into IT due to this new barrier to entry.
...this is still surprising to see this coming from someone with a D after their name. This is not because they are fundamentally more decent, but their usual constituency doesn't really seem to buy the "blame the middle class" argument, at least not as much. This seems like a really, really dumb idea, if for no other reason than the political fallout it will create.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
This is already the case in our company; salaried employees are marked as "Exempt"... which means, exempt from getting paid overtime. How is this a government legislative issue??
I am going to take a page out of the great depression. the Kellogg cereal company during the great depression lowered the max hours one of their workers could work from 40 to 30 or so. while the people who were working at first did not like the lowering of their income they did like the effects it had on the city around the plant. kellogg to fill the gap hired more workers who in turn only worked the shorter amount of time, but it helped prop up the rest of the city. costs of food and the like there went down and even though the average income went down the people there including the people who had their hours cut ended up liking it. especially the increased time with their family. if they eliminate overtime and the position had scheduled overtime before they should then fill the gap by hiring someone else.
Since I'm not from the U.S. I might have misunderstood something here, but does the U.S. senate really have the authority to change in employment contracts for the worse?
Where I live, the government can enforce things like minimum wages, but if my contract includes overtime pay, then the only way it can disappear is if my employer and I renegotiate the contract.
His theory of capitalism was, in a nutshell, that an employer's goal was to increase profit by increasing the amount they could make their workers work without paying them anything extra. Which is, of course, exactly what is being codified in this law.
Consider some widget that cost $300 to make $250 in materials and $50 for 1 worker to work 6 hours on it. But our capitalist wants to make more money, so he makes his worker work 12 hours instead of 6 (which the worker accepts, because being unemployed is so much worse), so now he has $600 worth of widgets, which are now $500 in materials, $50 in labor, and $50 in profit.
Regardless of what you think about communism, Marx's theories of capitalism need to be taken seriously, because the guy was predicting, in the 1870's, a lot of the economic behavior we see today.
I am officially gone from
so if its some brand we have dealings with, we can avoid the whores ( i apologize from all sex sector workers) like the plague in our dealings.
Read radical news here
(Posting Anon as IBM employee. Opinions are my own, I don't speak for them etc etc)
I've worked for IBM in two countries. I have been paid overtime in neither one. The flip side of this is that I haven't been expected to work ovetime.
Sure, I've put in a few extra hours at crunch time, but nobody forced me to. And crunch time means just that - a couple of weeks before an important deadline, if there's something critical needing fixing. Doesn't even happen every release, or every year.
As far as I can tell, Big Blue respect the whole concept of work/life balance, and having people well rested and working sensible hours. I doubt very much they would have lobbied for this.
IT workers propose bill requiring citizen referendum on any congressional pay raises
Better still, propose a bill requiring members of congress to serve 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, with full accountability of their whereabouts and activities during those periods.
Every elected official should be paid exactly the median income of their constituents. Then to get more pay they have to raise their constituents' incomes first.
Plus any elected official should be paid to retire instead of running for reelection. Whatever they'd be paid for the term if they won, like 2 years for a House rep or 4 years for a governor, they'd get paid all at once to retire instead.
--
make install -not war
Well, this is basically the #2 punch in the set. Years back....IT guys could easily be classified at non-exempt, and paid hourly....and get 1.5 time for OT.
The Feds didn't like this...specifically for their contractors...the guys just plain worked too much.
So, IT guys were reclassified as 'professionals' just like doctors, lawyers, managers..etc.
However, still...on contracts...you CAN get straight time for OT hours. There are usually hoops to jump through to get all this approved by the gov. in advance of work...PITA.
I guess they're wanting to close this one off too.
I haven't understood why they do it for private sector and for gov contracting....maybe they have to do it for everyone and can't target just the federal contractors.
It doesn't seem fair, like you said...that they can target one class of worker, but this isn't the first time it has happened.
One thing they may be looking at...as we continue forward, with more and more tech taking over in ALL business....most everything is related to IT in some fashion...and they are maybe trying in broad fashion to use this to cut costs.
Of course, let's target the guys who actually do work...rather than the management.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You are right, we don't have an absolute free market.
Above I said government screws things up by putting their thumb on the scale. To clarify, I don't consider labor laws to be altering the scales, but to be changing the rules.
Unions served the purpose of getting the "rules changed". With OSHA, a minimum wage, and other labor laws, the grievances of unions became law.
IMHO - Unions have served their purpose. In non right-to-work states, they're more like an extortion racket who hold the keys to good paying jobs. You have to pay them a kick-back out of every check for a job it seems to me. I'm sure some people appreciate the benefits the Union provides, but to force people to be a member? Seems damn near legalized organized crime to me.
/me sips his coffee and ponders a new sig...
I have been in a riot. The Occupy people and the cops have not been in a riot. To the degree that the beatings and shootings by the cops have come in something resembling a riot, you are correct that the cops have started it - every time. So where does that leave the idea that the cops won't beat and shoot their fellow citizens for no good reason? These cops don't just get told to start shooting civilians. They are told the civilians are a threat to order and property, that they're commies/nazis, that they're the spoiled college kids who get all the breaks while the cops slave for them in the streets stopping criminals, or that they're the criminals themselves. And evidently enough already believe that to beat them mercilessly.
There are plenty of people in the various armed forces in America who will take that even further, especially if the people they're beating start shooting back. That is what we're talking about in this thread: whether the people who talk about "defending liberty with the ammo box" would or could. In fact they would not, or they'd have been out with the guns they wore to Teabagger rallies during the Bush/Cheney years when the Patriot and other acts actually stripped their freedoms, not just when a half Black Democrat seemed possible to become the president, and even more when he did so. Or when the cops started beating and shooting Americans peacefully demonstrating against the thieving power Wall Street has protected by the government - instead these people side with the cops and vilify the demonstrators.
The gun fetishists are the primary target for the fear and division that gets people out to polls to vote for "Conservative" politicians who legalize and fund force to control Americans. The point is not whether they are the reason we have that kind of police state, but that they are part of its cause rather than any inhibition to it as they loudly claim. Likewise the flood of guns in America that their legislators approve is used by the police for the escalated tactics they sometimes do need to control armed gangs and armed individuals, but which is then turned on even nonviolent political demonstrations. This was all perfectly clear back when just the soap box, the jury box and the ballot box were sufficient to protect us, and as they failed the ammo box could have been invoked but never was; the gun fetishists sided with the enemy. To expect them now to succeed with the ammo box, the least likely way to protect freedom (instead of provoking ever more severe police states) is to defy everything that we actually know, in favor of the rhetoric of people who have only made things worse.
--
make install -not war