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.

132 of 1,167 comments (clear)

  1. I am planning to move to NC by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And if this idjit is still there, I know I am voting THEM out. What a maroon.

    1. Re:I am planning to move to NC by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Informative

      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]

    2. Re:I am planning to move to NC by show+me+altoids · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now, does this mean that a company CAN'T pay them overtime or that they're NOT REQUIRED to pay them overtime? There's a big difference.

      --
      I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
    3. Re:I am planning to move to NC by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, there is only a semantic difference.

      If they're not required to pay overtime, none will pay overtime.

    4. Re:I am planning to move to NC by an00bis · · Score: 5, Informative

      nobody voted for him, he was appointed to replace salazar

    5. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    6. Re:I am planning to move to NC by operagost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure I get this logic; if that were true, then we could also expect that companies could pay IT workers only minimum wage and still have takers. Overtime compensation is part of the negotiation process.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    8. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Ironhandx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most individuals suck at negotiating. This is a large part of the reason Unions were born in the first place.

    9. Re:I am planning to move to NC by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Funny

      There are 5 senators, roughly half are Republican and half are Democrat. All are retarded.

    10. Re:I am planning to move to NC by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, it isn't just a semantic difference if there's a contract involved, and the contract stipulates time and a half for overtime. Would it invalidate the contract?

      Oh, and BTW, you guys need to unionize (I'm out of the fight, I retire in 2 years). And a thought just occurred to me -- if I were required to work overtime at my normal rate, I'd just refuse to work overtime. Fuck 'em.

      The God Damned 1% and their congressional stooges are still trying to remove the American workers' rights that have been fought for, and in many cases died for them.

      Too bad assassination is immoral and illegal. But despite the fact that it is, these greedy Godless bastards had damned well better watch their backs. If they don't loosen up, there's going to be violence (see the link for a short history).

    11. Re:I am planning to move to NC by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No company is required (by law) to pay more than minimum wage yet, oddly enough, many do.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re:I am planning to move to NC by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Proof: I get four weeks paid vacation.

      Here in the UK that's apparently the legal minimum.

      Signs of my employer being generous are that I get 7.5% of my salary paid into my pension plan. It was 5% last year, but they put it up this year for some reason.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    13. Re:I am planning to move to NC by omnichad · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    14. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As far as I know, Indiana has had this law for ALL workers over a certain wage, for a long time. What they found out, is if they don't pay overtime, they just don't work it, which means they need more workers, so it's cheaper to just pay the overtime.

    15. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Petron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sponsoring a build doesn't always mean you support it.

      Harry Reid (D) sponsored President Obama's Job bill in the Senate, then voted AGAINST it.

      This is done to bring the bill up to a vote, so it can be voted down.

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    16. Re:I am planning to move to NC by PortHaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True...

      Because homeless people tend to have poor attendance records. And while minimum wage has been going up. American worker's wages in relation to buying power and value of the dollar have been continually moving downward.

    17. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't you love it when a bill has bi partisan support. How else would we get fantastic bills like this one, the patriot act, and SOPA?

    18. Re:I am planning to move to NC by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most individuals suck at negotiating. This is a large part of the reason Unions were born in the first place.

      It's not so much that most individuals suck at negotiating (which may be true), but that corporations usually have much more leverage. A corporation can say, "well, we have 100 other applicants, so we'll find someone who is more desperate than you," while the individual could be facing homelessness if they don't find a job within the next few months. You'd have to be an extraordinary negotiator to get a good deal in that situation.

    19. Re:I am planning to move to NC by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not necessarily that they suck at it; it's that there's a much larger number of job seekers that the employers can play off each other. Plus they can refuse to raise their offers knowing that none of their competitors wants to do so either.

      These days things are getting to be more like they were prior to unionization. They aren't as bad, there are still workplace rights that unions fought for, but there's always a lot of GOP pressure to undo as many workplace rights as possible.

    20. Re:I am planning to move to NC by shaitand · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes and individuals who aren't already in exempt positions (all high level IT positions are exempt already) don't really have much leverage for negotiation on an individual basis. Low level positions are on the wrong side of the many-to-one ratio with there many employees/applicants and only one employer. One-to-one, all else being equal, you have equivalent leverage. The minute there are two positions the employers leverage doubles while the employees/applicants leverage stays the same.

      Unions help to restore the balance by consolidating the employees in order to bring it back to one-to-one.

    21. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does (fake) party affiliation mean anything. I did not call him out for being a Democrat. I called him out for being a moron.

    22. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, does this mean that a company CAN'T pay them overtime or that they're NOT REQUIRED to pay them overtime? There's a big difference.

      It's not even that. It's just clarifying that IT workers that make at least $27.63 an hour are explicitly defined as "exempt" under FLSA instead of "non-exempt". If you're a non-exempt employee, FLSA requires your employer to pay you time-and-a-half overtime whenever you work more than 40 hours in a work week. Often exempt employees are paid their regular rate as overtime, sometimes if you're salaried you don't get any.

      This really just codifies the way employers have been classifying IT workers anyway, and avoids a lot of court cases.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    23. Re:I am planning to move to NC by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And when no company offers overtime compensation, you'll just starve?

      They have to pay more than minimum wage because they have been paying more than minimum wage for a long time now. Quality workers expect it.

      They have not been paying much overtime. Most companies illegally offer flex-time instead of paying overtime. This bill removes the overtime requirement, meaning it will also remove the flex-time requirement.

      As a salaried, exempt, IT employee, I haven't ever been offered overtime, nor will any employers consider overtime during negotiations. This bill extends that situation to hourly IT employees.

    24. Re:I am planning to move to NC by drzhivago · · Score: 3, Informative

      Breach. Not bridge.

    25. Re:I am planning to move to NC by SlippyToad · · Score: 3, Informative

      Harry Reid (D) sponsored President Obama's Job bill in the Senate, then voted AGAINST it.

      Reid's vote was procedural so that it could be voted on again. You really need to invest time in understanding how our legislative bodies work before letting right-wing idiots (who don't) get you into a frothy dudgeon about them.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    26. Re:I am planning to move to NC by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't help but notice how nobody from California, the most populous and technology influential state - where making $27/hr is actually a poverty pay rate, considering the cost of living.

      I'd really like to know why government believes it needs to stick its nose into this industry - it should be working diligently to remove lobbyists from DC.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    27. Re:I am planning to move to NC by jhoegl · · Score: 4, Informative

      how is this legal? They are specifically targeting IT.... this doesnt seem right.

    28. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The first place I ever heard the term "Tea Bagger" was not at a tea party rally. It was from some cable news contributer using the term to marginalize the movement.
      But you can believe what ever you need to to feel good about yourself.
       

    29. Re:I am planning to move to NC by iceborer · · Score: 3, Informative

      nobody voted for him, he was appointed to replace salazar

      Bennett was apppointed to replace Ken Salazar in 2009, but he was elected to the office in 2010. About 48% of the nobodies who voted in Colorado that year picked him. One of them is now thinking of unpicking him in 2016.

    30. Re:I am planning to move to NC by the_fat_kid · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's ok Mr. Beck.
      Just calm down.
      I understand your problem. Now, will you show me on the doll where the government touched you?

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    31. Re:I am planning to move to NC by 9jack9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If government didn't stick its nose into this kind of business interference, businesses wouldn't need to lobby government about the kind of interference. When government no longer sees itself as limited, then businesses and others have to form lobbies in order to try to protect themselves from the government.

      Waddaminite.

      Your theory is that if we didn't regulate business so much, then they wouldn't seek government protection?

      Here's my theory. Businesses spend money where they see a potential return on investment. If they think they can use money to increase profitability, they'll do so. Nothing wrong with it. That's Capitalism. That's the American Way. Spending money to get favorable legislation is just a particular case. Businesses have done it since there have been businesses and governments.

      One of the reasons government expands is because businesses successfully lobby for legislation they think will increase profitability.

    32. Re:I am planning to move to NC by greenbird · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't you love it when a bill has bi partisan support. How else would we get fantastic bills like this one, the patriot act, and SOPA?

      When is everyone gonna wake up to the fact that there are no parties anymore. Elephant or Donkey is irrelevant. The only thing that influences our government representatives, Republican or Democrat, is who happens to be paying them the best on a given issue.

      I keep thinking of a scene from the movie Moon Over Parador. 2 guys are discussing who they're going to vote for where the choices are blue or red. One says, "Vote for whoever you want. It's a free dictatorship." The government of the United States no longer represents the people. It represents the corporate interests that pay them the best. The constitution has been trampled so bad it's pretty much immaterial at this point. The fact that a blatant censorship bill like SOPA/PROTECT IP can even be considered is proof of that.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    33. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    34. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -- George Carlin

    35. Re:I am planning to move to NC by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If government didn't stick its nose into this kind of business interference, businesses wouldn't need to lobby government about the kind of interference. When government no longer sees itself as limited, then businesses and others have to form lobbies in order to try to protect themselves from the government.

      Waddaminite.

      Your theory is that if we didn't regulate business so much, then they wouldn't seek government protection?

      Here's my theory. Businesses spend money where they see a potential return on investment. If they think they can use money to increase profitability, they'll do so. Nothing wrong with it. That's Capitalism. That's the American Way. Spending money to get favorable legislation is just a particular case. Businesses have done it since there have been businesses and governments.

      One of the reasons government expands is because businesses successfully lobby for legislation they think will increase profitability.

      Here in California we had the IT industry pushing hard for increases in H1B visas, so they could recruit from off-shore. Even as the dot-com bubble was dying they were still going for it, despite the streets filling with IT professionals of all skills and levels of ability. I attended a "job fair" and found over 300 people applying for one job, not even a very good job, but a job all the same. What IT industry and employers of IT people are looking for is government regulation of people, not the businesses. Disgusting is the best word for it.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    36. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Funny

      I understand your problem. Now, will you show me on the doll where the government touched you?

      Right here, on my left front pocket.

      Yes, right there, in my wallet.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    37. Re:I am planning to move to NC by s73v3r · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    38. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Johnny5000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Government is organized crime, nothing more, nothing less.

      Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what has government ever done for us?

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    39. Re:I am planning to move to NC by PoolOfThought · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree that each of those have happened, but which one of those required government involvment? I'm pretty sure many if not all of those have been accomplished within the private sector also.

      But since your glasses seem to be so rosy you might as well add: Oppression, Theft, False Imprissonment, Cover ups, Corruption, and Collusion to the list.

      Any of those things I mentioned could happen in the private sector too, but you seemed to imply that the government was the only way those "good" things could come about and managed to leave out all the extra items that are "bad". I've added the "baddies" and readily admit the private sector could be involved with some of the same.

      I'll be interested to see if if you can admit that the private sector could just of easily handled your list of goodies... It's okay if you can't. I'm just curious.

      --
      My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
    40. Re:I am planning to move to NC by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How is this legal"

      Good question: This sure smells like a bill of atainder, which is specifically forbidden under the constitution... It identifies a group of people and punishes them arbitrarily by stripping them of overtime because "why should those geeks get overtime?"

      Want to see what happens when the people who make your iPhone "work," your electrical grid function, and your business applications process transactions get pissed off and band together? Thought not.

      Yet it's horse-shit like this that leads to people in critical positions unionizing... Keep chiseling away, cutting salaries and outsourcing, and see what happens.

      --
      Who did what now?
  2. You have got by EW87 · · Score: 5, Funny

    to be kidding me. Let's see if we can get a vote up to lower THEIR pay.

    1. Re:You have got by Sxooter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Newt Gingrich made 1.8Million consulting after he left office for a job where he can't even remember what he did. Do you really think these people need the salary they get for being in Congress?

      --

      --- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.
  3. Hurray.. ? by RenHoek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hurray, no more working late!

    Wait.. they still expect people to work without being compensated for their late hours?

    Did EA send out lobbyists again with briefcases full of money?

    1. Re:Hurray.. ? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course not! It would be illegal to force people to work without pay.

      Now, I think we all understand that, if hard choices have to be made, everybody likes a team player, yes?

    2. Re:Hurray.. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep! That's why I play for the winning team. And the winning team treats employees with respect and therefore gets a quality 8 hours of work out of them. The losing team has me working for 16 hours and gets 6 hours of quality work + 10 hours of web surfing from me.

      Which team is your company on?

    3. Re:Hurray.. ? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Red Hat is out of NC, Cisco has a few offices in NC as well. I have met a few IT workers from that area and they seem to get treated worse then the ones around the NYC metro area do.

    4. Re:Hurray.. ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      (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.

    5. Re:Hurray.. ? by timeOday · · Score: 5, Informative
      Since the article is so terse, I figured there must be more to the story and found this better writeup. And even the pro-industry side.

      Guess what? There is nothing more to the story. It's exactly what it sounds like: a money grab.

    6. Re:Hurray.. ? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're salaried. You're paid to do a job, whether it takes you 20 hours or 80 hours a week. If you want, I'll pay you an extra 50% of your hourly wage when you work more than 40 hours a week. Your hourly wage is $0/hour, here's $0.

      I'm done! I can go home early, right?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    7. Re:Hurray.. ? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, um, does the winning team happen to be hiring?

  4. All About The Unions by phantomcircuit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This would effectively make unions the only options for such workers.

    Fucking scam artists.

    1. Re:All About The Unions by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think that:
      Michael Bennet [D-CO]
      Scott Brown [R-MA]
      Michael Enzi [R-WY]
      John Isakson [R-GA]

      Are in the pocket of big labor, I've got a bridge to sell you.

      Now, in the broader sense of Nikolay Chernyshevsky's "The worse, the better" theory of what actually drives the poor to organize and/or unionize and/or devour the rich in an orgy of redistributive bloodletting, they may actually be more effective labor leaders than most actual labor leaders; but not in the direct sense...

  5. Why IT workers? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Why IT workers? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless the wording of the amendment is a hell of a lot narrower through the eyes of somebody who has been to law school, it would appear that it could be stretched to include basically everyone who doesn't turn a funny color when the phrase "pivot table" is used. The heaviest fire is reserved for IT minions; but, given the computerization of contemporary businesses, virtually anybody who earns enough to be mentioned in the amendment and operates a turing-complete system more sophisticated than the coffee machine would potentially be included...

    2. Re:Why IT workers? by nschubach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, there's two ways you can look at this...

      a.) The unions don't like that we have no union, so they lobbied to do this to "encourage" the labor force to unionize...

      b.) The fact that we have no union makes them feel like they can eliminate overtime and get away with it...

      I'm a developer, and I've been in a union (non-it work) before. It wasn't better for me or the company. I was far less motivated to do anything and I threw away part of my paycheck to some guy who was only motivated to do less.

      To be perfectly honest though, I haven't worked an hour of overtime in the past 10 years.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Why IT workers? by wezelboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And in your non-IT work, was there ever an attempt to take away overtime pay? Just because it seems like your union is doing nothing doesn't mean that they aren't useful. A lot of the things we take for granted we have unions to thank for- like the 40 hr work week, overtime pay, etc.

  6. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That means I get to go home at six, right?

    1. Re:Good by sgt+scrub · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah because no IT workers are tied to the... hold on. I got a call.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  7. Simple solution... by bhunachchicken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    8 hours work for 8 hours pay.

    Don't work for free, people. After all, you're just an employee to them, not a BFF.

    I recently saw a guy who had worked at my current place of work get given the shove after nearly 20 years. Escorted him out of the building and everything. He sat in the pub blubbing like a baby and asking how they could be so cruel after everything he'd given them.

    I've vowed never to work a minute past what I'm contracted to do, and if I have to I simply come in late the next day.

    1. Re:Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amen brother.

      I only take hourly paying jobs now. That salary shit wont fly with me.

      I tried it once and it was the worst mistake I ever made.

      Went from a 60k/yr hourly contract to a 48K salary position with supposedly similar pay in the form of A+ benefits like a 0% copay medical (yes zero) and free legal care and the list goes on.

      I went from working 40hrs and getting regular overtime easily bringing 2400 after taxes every two weeks, to working 50-60 hour weeks with absolutely no recognition for $1450 twice a month.

      The job lasted 4 months before I got the hell out of there back into a 70K hourly contract. FUCK THAT.

    2. Re:Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, I used to be a nut case, working 12 and 15 hour days for weeks on end... then I realized that morons who were producing shitty code and working 6 hour days + 2 hour lunches were getting the same promotions and pay increases I was, so that was a ME problem, not a THEM problem. ME is easier to fix than THEM.

      8 hours work, 8 hours pay, pure and simple. Don't kill yourself over your job. If you love coding, join an open source project and contribute freely to the world, not your employer's pocket -- he/she probably doesn't care that you're working 12 hours -- you're being used.

    3. Re:Simple solution... by Thangodin · · Score: 3, Informative

      And Amen again. I worked at a high profile startup that went defect back during the dot.com days, working 60 to 100 hour weeks. I never got a penny of the back pay they owed me, and the guy who worked most of those hours with me died three years later from congestive heart failure caused by stress (he had an otherwise healthy lifestyle). So this isn't just about the quality of your life; it could mean the difference between life and death.

  8. One SlashDot link... by DigiJunkie · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... and their site is down. If only they had some IT guys who could do overtime to bring it back up...

    Prk

  9. I'd support this ... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... if it got rid of congressional pay and prevented IT workers from having to work more than 40 hours.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  10. This is madness by lc_overlord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $27.63 seems oddly specific
    But with the amount of overtime pay in the IT community someone will pretty soon realize that unless people actually sometime work overtime to fix problems it won't be long before people start cutting up old tires to make body armour.

    --
    - "There is nothing quite like an ineffective solution to an nonexistant problem"
    1. Re:This is madness by brusk · · Score: 4, Funny

      How could it not be specific? It's a law. What did you expect, "25-30 bucks or so?"

      --
      .sig withheld by request
  11. What? IT Workers GET OVERTIME? by neowolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's like a fantasy for most of us.

    1. Re:What? IT Workers GET OVERTIME? by That_Dan_Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    2. Re:What? IT Workers GET OVERTIME? by FoolishOwl · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  12. Re:Another Good Move--Not by Sez+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you want a good job vote this man OUT!

    I think you mean, "vote this woman OUT".

    Sure looks like...

  13. Seriously? by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  14. I'm no democrat but... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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
    1. Re:I'm no democrat but... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...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.

      Don't know about this one, but several Democrats are indistinguishable from Republicans - other than the 'D' after their name.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  15. Re:This is not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I disagree. Yes if you pick up your smartphone and answer an IT question after hours you most certainly did work overtime. If it is after hours.. work is OVER. and you took TIME to work.

  16. Solution to a non-existent problem by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Aren't most IT workers exempt anyway? (Not that I think they necessarily should be, but still.)

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  17. Already there? by Ixne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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??

  18. Re:why? by hort_wort · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How does this make sense for govn't.. isn't this a Private sector issue?

    It *is* a private sector issue. You see, people who wanted to pay less for IT guys bribed these senators to pass this bill. The senators rubbed their hands together and agreed. Now they each have a new car.

  19. Full text of the bill by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Full text of the bill by Citoahc · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is worth comparing this to the current law since there isn't much being changed. This doesn't prevent Overtime Pay just the requirement that Overtime be paid at the x1.5 rate, but I am sure there are more details involved. Looking at the changes breifly I don't think this will have any impact on most of us, but they did remove the section for middle managers.

      ---The 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.

  20. i think this might be a good idea if.. by Truekaiser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  21. The U.S. senate decides on overtime pay? by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The U.S. senate decides on overtime pay? by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?

      Really, no, they don't. Congress is only allowed to regulate inter-state commerce. However, many companies either have presences in multiple states, or at least have clients/customers in multiple states, which would technically make it interstate commerce. The federal government really has no business telling any corporation how much someone should be paid (and this includes minimum wage). I'm not saying minimum wage is bad, I'm simply saying that, in countries as large as the US is, cost of living varies so greatly depending on where you are that in some places you can actually make a living on a minimum wage job(it's not a great one, but still-I've been in areas that in reality probably bring in far less than minimum wage, such as Appalachia), while in other places the minimum wages is grossly inadequate(NYC, LA, Hawaii). Any type of wage level guidelines should be a state issue.

      However, as far as I know, national labor laws already say that, at any wage price, anything over 40 hours a week is overtime and must be paid accordingly. And it is already standard that salaried workers do not get overtime. So, the first part makes of this law makes no sense, and the second part is actually discriminatory because it is singling out a wage level as well as a specific industry. I suspect this bill was introduced by Kagan because NC is trying to draw in a lot of tech companies, and the companies lobbied Kagan for this. It would also make sense to have Isakson(who is one of my senators) co-sponsor this because Georgia has been trying to bring in tech companies and push the state as a place for game design and other programming.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  22. Re:This is not a problem by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are doing work, you should get paid for it. Period.

    If your employer wants to cheap out and go with "on call" instead of real staffing, they still get to pay for your labor.

  23. Karl Marx nailed this one by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Karl Marx nailed this one by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He wasn't "predicting" anything. He was merely describing what was already going on then.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Karl Marx nailed this one by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bring up Karl Marx before the Senate and see what kind of response you get.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  24. tell us that place you worked by unity100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  25. Re:why? by CyclistOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, but the private sector owns the gov't.

  26. Re:why? by LeanSystems · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  27. Not Congress's Business by jdpars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate how Congress thinks it can legislate anything it wants, and whatever it can't legislate in can hold a "hearing" on and then impose some ridiculous punishment. Interstate commerce. It's not meant to be a gateway for doing whatever the hell you want, it's supposed to be highly restrictive and limiting.

  28. Re:This is not a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But that is work done beyond your normal 8 hours. Are you saying, that if the boss calls you 24 hours at day at home, he doesn't have to pay you even though your extending your expertise? Fuck that, these supports calls can go on an hour often multiple of times. You basically be working several (often large amount of) hours for free. Why shouldn't they get paid for the thing support they give, which is much like what they do normally at their job. You obviously never worked in most IT environments. Excessive offcalls is extremely common and time consuming (something much more then the job itself).

  29. So....what? by dpaton.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this different than the plight of software engineers, hardware engineers, or designers that work outside of the IT industry? How is it different than the legions of R&D folks that are listed as exempt employees?

    I'm not saying it should happen. Far from it. But the real battle is that technical professions all over have been moved to exempt status and their employees continue to be forced to work exceedingly long days for 8 hours of pay. It's not the IT guidelines that need reform, it's the ones for all technical professions.

    --
    This is not a sig. this is a duck. quack.
  30. Re:why? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How does this make sense for govn't.. isn't this a Private sector issue?

    It's a government issue because the government defines what overtime means in the first place.

    If it were purely left up to the private sector, people would still be routinely working 12 hour shifts 7 days per week for base wages, like they did in the 19th century before governments got involved.

  31. Re:Screw this Senator by DECula · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are a lot of us, like you, that care about the quality of our work. To think
    they can legislate something that actually should be between an individual and
    his employer just proves we need to get over this "party" crap and start demanding
    an IQ test of our politicians.

    --
    dreaded scurrilous bit-twiddler from Oklahoma
  32. More update than addition by Divide+By+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative
    This isn't entirely new. They're basically expanding "Computer systems analyst, programmer, software engineer" to "anyone working in a computer or IT related occupation". Analysts, designers, coders, testers of software were out before. Looks like they're expanding it to DBAs, IT managers, sysadmins and other IT gigs. IANALegislator, so your read is as good as mine, or better. Presented below for your reference:

    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.
  33. Nothing new here by yog · · Score: 5, Informative
    Relax, it's just a minor amendment of an existing amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Here's a good explanation of the history of this amendment.

    In 1990, Congress adopted free-standing legislation directing DOL to promulgate regulations defining the status of computer services workers and to include in that definition an earnings test: not less than 6½ times the federal minimum wage. Although DOL proceeded as directed, Congress revisited the issue in 1996. It moved the computer services exemption from Section 13(a)(1), creating a new categorical exemption in Section 13(a)(17). Here, unburdened by the issue of defining professional, Congress set its own standard. It also froze the earnings test at $27.63 per hour. With the increase in the general wage floor, part of the 1996 amendments, that came to equal 5.4 times the minimum wage.

    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.
    1. Re:Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd say you're naive. The "free market" (i.e. heavily tilted in favor of large companies) would settle on a wage that isn't quite enough to pay your rent and groceries, much less Internet access. How does a schedule of 12 hours a day, 6 days a week sound? That's what the "free market" used to offer, back before employment law came into being.

      It was great for the owners of large companies, but it sucked for the 99%.

    2. Re:Nothing new here by geoffrobinson · · Score: 3

      But it very often doesn't settle on that wage.

      But I'm not going to start arguing based on practicality. Are we for freedom or not? If you don't want to work at a job that won't give you time and a half, go camp out in some park protesting the 1%. Let the rest of us make our own decisions.

      Furthermore, you aren't going to change what a job is worth. If you start dictating higher pay (relative to what the work is worth), you start seeing things like high unemployment among teens because of the minimum wage law.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    3. Re:Nothing new here by nahdude812 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Particularly in IT, you can't just bring in part timers to bridge the gap when you need more work done than your current staff can accomplish in 40 hours. Sometimes it takes a month or more to bring a new guy up to speed.

      The reason they have mandatory time and a half rules is because typically the lower you are on the hourly wage scale, the more badly you need the job, and the easier you are to replace. Without this, companies would just demand 80 hours or more from their employees rather than hiring new employees. Each employee has a fixed cost, so one person doing 80 hours work is a higher profit than two employees each doing 40 hours work at the same salary. If you don't agree to that work schedule, they'll replace you, and soon all jobs in your skill range require this.

      The point is to incentivize employers to maintain a reasonable work/life balance for their employees, while not totally crippling them when there's a short term work load glut. Time and a half over 40 hours strikes me as a particularly good balance. Many hourly workers are happy to have the bonus pay at that rate, while employers are typically willing to pay it since this work glut represents unusual profitability on their part. If you're consistently paying 20 hours of overtime, then you probably should increase the size of your work force.

      Unfortunately most IT jobs are already overtime exempt. At first I misread the title and though, "About time they made non-IT managers eligible for overtime!" What I mentioned above about unreasonable work schedules is pretty true in many corners of the industry. If you're a software tester or software engineer, chances are you have felt pressured to donate time to the company on a regular basis. Each extra hour they can squeeze out of you just increases their ROI on your salary, so they're incentivized to find the highest number of hours they can convince their workforce to commit. In many shops, you'll be consistently found to be under-producing if you go home before 10 or 12 hours, and you may be let go as a result.

    4. Re:Nothing new here by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree to some degree...

      I believe that the time and half vs exempt employees has created a caste of worker who is now forced to work for free. IT, salaried, then gets stuck working 50-60 hours or more.

      Let's say an IT worker is salaried at $100,000 ($48/hr) for a 40 hour work week. But more often than not said IT worker is working 60 hours a week. They lost the other network engineer and the economy is too challenging to hire a replacement. Said IT worker's true salary is actually only $66,666. Or about 2/3 of their reported salary.

      Even at 50 hours, it's an equiv to $38/hr, or $80K.

      Meanwhile, the non-salaried worker with overtime who works 50 hours a week. Will earn $80K on a mere $28/hr pay rate. And a $100K on a mere $35/hr rate.

    5. Re:Nothing new here by Marble68 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...
  34. why does congress hate free markets? by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IT workers propose bill requiring citizen referendum on any congressional pay raises

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:why does congress hate free markets? by oddjob1244 · · Score: 3, Funny

      IT workers propose bill requiring citizen referendum on any congressional pay

      There fixed that for you.

    2. Re:why does congress hate free markets? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:why does congress hate free markets? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

    4. Re:why does congress hate free markets? by squidflakes · · Score: 3

      Only forty? Lets make that a bit more like IT work and require them to work 60 hours a week, without overtime pay, on-call 24/7, vacations to be determined by the voters, and absolutely forbidden if there is any sort of crisis facing or potentially facing the nation, because... you know, we don't want them out of reach if we think something is going to go down.

  35. Tempest in a teapot by braeldiil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is all much ado about nothing. There are no real changes to current law here - the computer professional exemption has been a part of the FLSA for years at least - probably decades. See the Department of Labor fact sheet - http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17e_computer.htm The proposed amendment has 2 purposes. 1) It provides a more detailed definition of computer professional. 2) It cleans up the weekly salary requirement by linking it to the standard salary requirements, instead of existing seperately. The hourly number is the same in both versions. So there's essentially nothing new here. This is a cleanup/clarification of existing law, with almost nonexistant changes.

  36. Read the bill by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative
    Guys, IT workers are generally already exempted from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. If you currently get overtime, it may because you have a great employer or because your state requires it. The law already reads like this:

    (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.

    They want to change it to this:

    (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)

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  37. Good luck! by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, good luck to them getting anyone one to work on Senator's computers ever again. Email, internet, and computers frequently have problems. Nobody has to crash them... we just don't have to fix them once they do. A day without IT can be a real bitch, just like some Senators.

    "Ah, gee, Senator. My shift ended at 5pm and I don't do overtime. Call back tomorrow between 8 and 5pm."

    --
    I8-D
  38. Re:why? by splutty · · Score: 3, Funny

    You mean a new computer with lifetime support, right?

    What's the use of yet another car...

    --
    Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
  39. Safely Invested by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's safely invested in Greek, Italian and Spanish government bonds. They went with a conservative approach to investing.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  40. Re:This is not a problem by Riceballsan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    That depends, if the job specifically requires you to carry the phone and answer questions, and you would likely be written up or lose that job if you did not answer the phone, or respond to the message, then yes you did work overtime. If your job requires you to be on call and available, then you should be compensated for doing the extra work.

    2 scenarios here. 1. If a doctor is given a pager and informed that he must come in when it beeps, he should be compensated if it beeps and he has to come in

    2. If a doctor is working clinic duty, Feels concerned for a patient, and gives her his celphone number, and says "If you have any concerns call me", and that patient calls him for advice on her toe fungus, he should not be compensated as that is a favor he volunteered to do, without being told by the hospital to do so.

  41. Plead the 27th by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    That bill is already law, at least in my country. It is called the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress can't raise its own pay; it can raise only the next Congress's pay. If you disagree with a pay raise, plead the 27th and vote against the incumbent.

    1. Re:Plead the 27th by jmauro · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Plead the 27th by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean the ammo box is the next box. You gun fetishists had your chance 10 years ago, but you never did anything. Now even with your arsenals you're easily outgunned by the military, police and national guard, who have been trained since then in fighting urban, suburban and rural militias. Lately the police have been out clubbing your fellow citizens, and will only increase the firepower to "mass lethal" when the "problem people" start fighting back.

      You didn't use the soap box, the jury box or the ballot box to do anything but keep your fetish objects close. In fact you used all of them to give power to the people who have run the country into the ground.

      You're never going to use your guns to fight the government. All your actions have proven otherwise, every time.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Plead the 27th by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your area has more people with guns than the million people in the US military, plus the millions more in the National Guard, the State Police, the state's various municipal, county and local police?

      Yes, you are living in a fantasy world. A world from the 1780s, where the locals could have the same firepower and skill as the government forces, instead of little gangs facing satellite guided helicopter, plane and drone bombings and strafings, tank batallions, poison gas... Where the government forces were all from a foreign country, in terrain with no roads, mostly not populated, no databases of political affiliations...

      Yes, you are living in a Teabagger fantasy world if you think the many armed Americans have any chance against the actually armed to the teeth military that's been just fine with fighting wars against "guerrillas" for many continuous decades, holding the countries in question under their power even when they're outnumbered there thousands to one by people who want them out.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Plead the 27th by greenbird · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?
    5. Re:Plead the 27th by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

    6. Re:Plead the 27th by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, my complaint is not that "you wackos didn't just start shooting up the place".

      It's that you wackos just having the guns was no deterrent, though you claimed it would be.

      It's that you wackos claimed that when the government started damaging our rights despite the deterrent, you'd actually start showing more than "I'm the NRA and I vote" bumper stickers. You claimed you'd show up with guns, presumably as reasonable and orderly but opposed to the damage. You never did anything of the sort. Instead, you wackos voted for the people who scared you with "confiscate your guns" boogeyman stories about liberals, then damaged our rights.

      And even the few real hardcore wackos you run of the mill wackos implied would actually just start shooting up the place never did. Because you're the kind of wackos who don't care about freedom - you care about having guns, shooting them, and scaring regular people. The authorities are your kind of guys.

      I'm not complaining that you wackos never did any of those things because I wanted you wackos to do them. I'm complaining because you cowards were lying about it all. Which flooded the country with guns, which gets more people shot, without the promised deterrent to crimes high and low. And which gives the cops the excuse to treat Americans like our soldiers treat Iraqis and Afghans. All while voting for the people who damaged the freedoms you said you'd protect, if only you had completely wacko access to guns.

      This is like when people complain when the "family values" Republicans you voted for, who demagogue against gay people and for the drug war, turn up with a gay whore and a bag of meth. It's not the drugs or the paid gay sex that most of us complain about. It's that they got the power to do that by stopping others from doing it, by lying against being against it. With guns, it's how you lie about being against damaging our rights to get ever more guns, but then never keep your word about using those guns one way or another to protect our rights - you use them and the people giving them to you to damage our rights.

      Do you get it? I doubt it. It's not like this is the first time it's been laid out in front of you. That happens every day, and you gun fetish wackos never change.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  42. Yeah... that is generous by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Yeah... that is generous by shaitand · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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."

      People are in that situation with both partners working.

    2. Re:Yeah... that is generous by SlippyToad · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

      Yeah, it happens all the time here. It's the consequence of 30 years of Reagan's supply-side nonsense. Congress only raises the minimum wage every decade or so, while our cost of living goes up like a rocket.

      It is like plate sized hamburgers

      I went to Mexico on honeymoon with my 2nd wife. We went to a cute little restaurant in a mall in Cancun, and I ordered fajitas. I was startled to see how tiny the tortillas were, and I actually took pictures to prove it.

      There are absolutely plate-sized hamburgers here. I usually eat half and take the rest home for later.

      I assume you are being funny. But in case you are not, yes it is all fucking real.

      --
      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
  43. Calling BS or dinosaur by PortHaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously,

    How old are you? 67

    McDonald's has to pay a full time worker $15,080
    ($7.25 min. wage * 40 hours * 52 weeks)

    So I'd wager when you made $13K, you were either part time. Or this was a very long time ago. When you could buy a car for $6,000 instead of $20,000.

  44. I propose that IT workers simply stop work at 40hr by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pretty simply solution. Oh the stock exchange servers are down? Oh wait, I'm sorry you have reached your limit for my hours this week. Have fun trying to fix it yourself, and go back and read the memo's I sent saying that there was a hardware problem that I detected, but you didn't want to spend the money to replace the system, and told me to simply scrounge around for spare parts and work you magic.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  45. This isn't the first time... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    how is this legal? They are specifically targeting IT.... this doesnt seem right.

    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.........
    1. Re:This isn't the first time... by kj_kabaje · · Score: 4, Informative

      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."

    2. Re:This isn't the first time... by squidflakes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Time Warner and Cox tried to get all of their headend engineers and line tech qualified as IT workers so they could make them all exempt and voila, no more huge OT checks for being hip deep in a muddy hole trying to splice fiber.

      Luckily, the unions jumped all over this and TW and Cocks quietly rolled back that idea. I guess they finally found another patsy.

    3. Re:This isn't the first time... by uniquename72 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).’.

    4. Re:This isn't the first time... by squidflakes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yep. That whole thing about "network" is what will screw the cable workers. Most systems now use a DNCS, or Digital Network Control System, about half of which are provided by Cisco acquisition Scientific Atlanta.

      At the heart of the headend is a big Solaris machine that handles provisioning for all of the cable boxes and acts like a supervisor blade in a large router. From there, the individual set-top boxes are addressed via IP on a hybrid fiber-coax network, making nearly every cable TV system in the United States a large network.

      Headend engineers are already pretty much IT people, but the line techs have clung to their non-exempt blue collar status for years and it costs the cable companies out the wazoo. They've tried to enforce no-overtime policies, but their customer service rates and rate at which they can install new customers plummets.

      This isn't the first time the industry has gone out of it's way to screw line techs either. About 8 years ago, Time Warner, Adelphia, Cox, and Comcast all, right around the same time, put policies in place to prevent workers over a certain weight from being certified to climb poles or operate in bucket trucks. The restrictions were based only on weight, not accounting for height, build, or experience, so tall muscular guys were being pulled off of poles that short fat guys were allowed to climb. The effect of this was that fewer and fewer line techs were allowed to do the work that paid a premium and were stuck in jobs like customer premise installation which had some very strict hour restrictions. Again, voila, less overtime.

  46. Get them what they pay for. by therafman · · Score: 3, Informative

    I experienced something similar here in Canada with a previous employer that decided one day to do the same along with not paying for pager duty. The day that it started I gathered my support team together and I explained that we would leave at 4:30 PM sharp regardless of the workload or crisis. The same day, I went to see my director and put the emergency pager on his desk (it was around 3 PM). I told him that if we were not going to be paid we would not answer it and wished him good luck as there were some upgrades scheduled that evening and we expected problems with them. The expression on his face was priceless but he sympathized with me as he did not agree himself with the corporate decision. He offered me time-in-lieu-of, which is basically the equivalent of time off for any overtime/after hours worked. I explained to him that it would have to apply for my whole team and it would be only short term as we worked to earn a salary, not to only to have time off, which of course would complicate work schedules even more. The sad thing is that I found out that my team was the only one to pull that off; everyone else bowed down and shut up right away, bringing morale to an all time low. I can tell you that attendance to that year’s social events (especially the Christmas party) was at an all time low. The only problem I see with this bill is that if anyone pulled off something similar as I did, there is a good chance of a desperado who will come in and do it for even less pay. Now is this the proper way to handle any infrastructure that business relies on? You get what you pay for, and if this bill makes it through it will cause a further decline of the American status which hasn’t looked too hot lately.

  47. Limits for everyone! by mitso6989 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only if we can limit the CEO's pay to under $10million.