Slashdot Mirror
Should IT Professionals Be Exempt From Overtime Regulations?
Paul Fernhout writes: Nick Hanauer is a billionaire who made his fortune as one of the original investors in Amazon. He suggests President Obama should restore U.S. overtime regulations to how they worked in the 1970s to boost the economy. Quoted by PBS NewsHour: "In 1975, more than 65 percent of salaried American workers earned time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. Not because capitalists back then were more generous, but because it was the law. It still is the law, except that the value of the threshold for overtime pay — the salary level at which employers are required to pay overtime — has been allowed to erode to less than the poverty line for a family of four today. Only workers earning an annual income of under $23,660 qualify for mandatory overtime.
Many millions of Americans are currently exempt from the overtime rules — teachers, federal employees, doctors, computer professionals, etc. — and corporate leaders are lobbying hard to expand "computer professional" to mean just about anybody who uses a computer. Which is almost everybody. But were the Labor Department instead to narrow these exemptions, millions more Americans would receive the overtime pay they deserve. ... The twisted irony is, when you work more hours for less pay, you hurt not only yourself, you hurt the real economy by depressing wages, increasing unemployment and reducing demand and innovation. Ironically, when you earn less, and unemployment is high, it even hurts capitalists like me." If overtime pay is generally good for the economy, should most IT professionals really be exempt from overtime regulations?
Many millions of Americans are currently exempt from the overtime rules — teachers, federal employees, doctors, computer professionals, etc. — and corporate leaders are lobbying hard to expand "computer professional" to mean just about anybody who uses a computer. Which is almost everybody. But were the Labor Department instead to narrow these exemptions, millions more Americans would receive the overtime pay they deserve. ... The twisted irony is, when you work more hours for less pay, you hurt not only yourself, you hurt the real economy by depressing wages, increasing unemployment and reducing demand and innovation. Ironically, when you earn less, and unemployment is high, it even hurts capitalists like me." If overtime pay is generally good for the economy, should most IT professionals really be exempt from overtime regulations?
As a manager and an employee, I vote No for overtime regulation exemptions. If a business is dependent upon their employees working for free after 40 hours, then their business model is flawed and it is better for everyone if they go under.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Project managers should be held accountable for their dubious scheduling practices and failures to estimate and manage project schedules effectively. Greater reward for IT professionals working overtime would hopefully translate into more regular work schedules, rather than being coerced into taking time away from families and loved ones in order to cover a PM's butt.
As a computer programmer, I should get overtime pay when I'm asked to do the IT department's job on a busy event. I had to work wednesday, friday, saturday and sunday over thanksgiving "break" because the load balancer team has a POS Cisco load balancer that doesn't work.
I was up 25 hours starting monday and then after that I got 4 hours of sleep only to work for another 4. Yeah, things need to change! (and this was at a University)
Why are we just discussing IT professionals?
Why not have everyone who works overtime (defined as work done after 40 hours for a given week) be paid time and a half, regardless of their profession/job?
And while we're on it, why not have a normal work week go back to 35 hours instead of 40?
I'm a self-made man - I built the hospital I was born in, started teaching myself at age 11 months, and I got to where I am on my own.
I don't need the nanny state to make sure I and my peers are fairly compensated.
What's next, mandatory clean water? Then clean air? Where does it end?
Socialism, that's where.
No way, not for me!
People didn't die striking so you could work overtime.
Old-style "salaried" meant that you didn't have to worry about your hours, and neither did your managers - you'd get you work done, and could take off, say, for a federal holiday. Now - I'd put down a $10 that 99% of you who are in IT work, or have worked, over 40 hours, had vacation time or holidays that you couldn't take, or, like I do, have to "make up" the hours if the federal gov't shuts down or has a holiday, and we *don't*.
By definition, it means what you're really just fairly well-paid hourly employees. *Hourly* employees get time and a half overtime, and double time for working on, say, holdiays. But you're all making *so* much money that you don't care (nor do you have a life outside of work), right?
mark "would be seriously tempted to strangle a manager who said, 'whatever it takes'"
Read all about it http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
By the way, you can thank Kay Hagan for taking mandatory OT from computer workers. A bunch of telecom companies lobbied to ban mandatory OT and Kay was happy to take all of that money from them. http://www.tomsitpro.com/artic...
No.
We're wanted men. I have the death sentence in 12 systems!
This provides one more reason to offshore and/or bring in cheap H-1B's.
Eliminate that and the rest fixes itself.
If you work in British Columbia you get a special worker status called a "high technology professional". Which exempts you from many employment standards including overtime. Other types of work that are treated in similar ways are people who work in forestry, fishing and transportation (eg. truckers, taxi drivers) who all traditionally work "in the field".
"The hours of work provisions of the Act, including those governing meal breaks, split shifts, minimum daily pay and hours free from work each week, as well as the overtime and statutory holiday provisions, do not apply to “high technology professionals”.
Employees in “high technology companies” who are not “high technology professionals” are covered by the hours of work, overtime and statutory holiday provisions of the Act."
-- http://www.labour.gov.bc.ca/esb/facshts/high_tech.htm
What, that wasn't clear enough for you?
Why not have everyone who works overtime (defined as work done after 40 hours for a given week) be paid time and a half, regardless of their profession/job?
Why hire people when you can get your employees to work the equivalent of 2 jobs?
d while we're on it, why not have a normal work week go back to 35 hours instead of 40?
Commie! We all know that the harder you work, the more money you make! Why limit exempt employees from the wealth, you cummie?!
I'm an IT Manager. I weekly am required to make my dudes work 45-50 hours. Two or three times a year, they put in 65 - 70 hour weeks. They get nothing for the OT except MAYBE comp-time. I don't even get the comp-time.
I am in favor of this. If the IT dudes were treated the same as everyone else, they wouldn't be required to work themselves half to death and get a reputation for being sullen.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Exempt status used to be reserved for highly paid professionals (doctors, lawyers, managers).
At my last company, they made people work 72 hours a week for months. We had multiple heart attacks- and several divorces. They took advantage of the bad job market created partly by the fact that companies can work IT people 72 hours a week.
Anything over 45 hours a week should be overtime until you hit the top 20% of income or you are supervising, hiring, firing, and making pay decisions over at least a few other people.
Any work on actual holidays should be double time.
Conditions in many IT shops in the united states are horrific now.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Wage is a huge motivator, and if you demand overtime of your employees without equal compensation, you're going to get some bad, bad work. You can see it in the video game industry now, where overtime wages haven't matched up right to the death march that development teams are forced to undergo. Not to mention that stress inhibits immune system response and increases risk factors for heart disease, and working over 40 hours a week has shown to be a substantial factor for increasing stress. It's hazard pay if anything - you deserve a good wage if you're doing the work, that's just essential labor value.
And double time on Sundays.
Unions - the people who brought you the weekend.
to be exempt from overtime. The downside is that most employers flip this around and say anyone making less cannot be salaried.
Are they not on salary? if so there's already an exemption in place.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I have worked at a very few places where it was cool hip and fun. Working late into the night was a joy and basically hanging out with like minded people. But the vast majority of programmers are wage slaves working in cubeville. Terrible management often results in death marches where programmers are basically expected to work 24 hours a day and sleeping is barely tolerated. These death marches are basically the norm at most companies seeing that most managers/marketing people over promise, under manage, and under pay their staff.
These programmers desperately need protection. The few places where happy people love their jobs do not justify allowing companies (especially game companies) to exploit their workers to the point where their wives start an organization to protest the horrible working conditions (literally).
Salaried positions only make sense in a few special cases.
An accountant who is really busy at the end of each month but has very little to do in the middle
is one example. Most IT doesn't fall in that category. In most jobs if you finish what you're
doing there is always something more to do. If you can't run out of things to do then you shouldn't
be salaried. Even for those few jobs where you can run out of things to do, if you required overtime
pay then compensation would adjust accordingly where their hourly wage would be reduced a little
to make up for the busy time where they are making time and a half.
Another option for those few rare cases would be to allow yearly averaging and only require paying
overtime if the average for the year is over 40. That would make for a nice christmas bonus.
At the company I work for everyone is hourly and if you don't hit your 40, no big deal, you just get
a slightly smaller paycheck that week. We encourage people to try to get close to 40 and encourage
people to not go over 40 but if they do occasionally go over we pay overtime and don't question it.
Most companies seem to use exempt as just a way to get more hours out of people for free.
Overtime of 1.5x or 2x discourages employers from having overtime, and instead hire more people. It's generally better for unemployment numbers to employe more people full-time than it is to over-employ fewer people by having them work lots of overtime.
Employees are somewhat discouraged to work overtime long term because usually the extra money is not worth it. But let us not pretend that employees have much say in when and how they work. They don't usually have a lot of bargaining power.
But labor unions do have a lot of bargaining power, and they have consistently pushed to have lots of overtime hours at a high pay so that union members can effectively net higher incomes. Higher incomes are usually good for individuals, unless they are doing it just to scrape by or have no choice in finding a good work-family balance. Higher incomes are almost always better for unions as it can increase the dues they collect without diluting their voting blocs with the introduction of a lot of new members.
The system of employers and unions is quite corrupt, I hope that isn't a surprise to any of you.
I think employers should pay 3x overtime, but only give 1.5x to the employees and 1.5x goes into a social program. I don't really care which one, but best to pick one that has the right poetic justice. Like financial support for the unemployed, or healthcare for the poor. If you're force to work 10 hour days, might as well force you to send the money to someone who can use it rather than line the pockets of your union reps. I was tempted to suggest that it would be 1x to the employee and 2x to a fund, but I know that it would make it easier for people to collude to work off the clock if there is zero benefit to whistle-blowing. (not that 50% of your hourly rate is much payment for something high risk like reporting your company for fraud)
The other advantage of having the overtime go to a fund is when a business tries to commit fraud it becomes a type of tax fraud. The IRS is way more aggressive at pursuing tax fraud than the various state agency that handle prosecution of compensation that violates state code.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
In general I think that vast overtime without compensation hurts IT. For one It tends to decrease job stability since only young, unmarried guys can do the 60 - 70 hour weeks that is become seen as good and normal. This results in older programmers drifting toward other careers (and that hurts IT because it lowers the overall experience level and maturity of the teams). There's other good reasons as well, mostly about fairness and work life balance. They only thing is we need to allow for startups that work people hard because everyone is hoping to hit it big with their options or similar. So I am not sure how to do that (company size?) But we don't want to stop people from doing the startup thing.
How many people actually agree to working free overtime during negotiations with potential employers?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
And when I negotiated my salary at 43.5 hours that didn't include the additional 40 hours I many times work. There aren't too many jobs around where I am located that pay well and moving for a couple of pennies is just not worth it. My employer taking advantage of this should not be legal.
There is a term for this people.
That term is wage theft.
Being salaried, but worked so many hours that you effectively make less than minimum wage, is exploitation pure and simple.
If you are salaried but have to clock in your hours, you are being stolen from. If you are salaried and find yourself working long hours every day you are being stolen from. If you are salaried and are always on the hook for extra hours when it's "crunch time" you are being stolen from. If you are salaried and are asked to "come in this weekend" you are being stolen from.
If you are salaried and work more than 40 hours a week. Same thing.
So many of you limp wristed "libertarian" apologists whine and whinge endlessly about unions. Well guess what.The people you worship are busy buying laws to cheat you out of income and replace you with imported semi-slave labor.
The tech industry is no longer a niche specialization you fell in to because you liked computers when you were growing up. You're quickly becoming an interchangeable commodity. In the eyes of your employers, you are utterly replaceable.
You can think about organizing now when you've got a job.. Or you can wait until you're in the soup line.
by taking money out of worker's pockets and putting it into his own.
Dear government! My nasty employer would not pay me, what I deserve. Please, pass a law to make him pay me more.
No, you don't "deserve" anything other than what you negotiate. If you don't like your pay, look for another job — things, including your labor, do not have inherent value. Everything is worth exactly as much, as someone is willing to pay for it.
Andrew Carnegie, is that you?
No.
Strange. because it has been a few decades since I was in the salaried worker pool. But way back then, I wasn't aware of a threshold. I got overtime (1.5x) or not depending on the definition of my job. And back then I was bringing in around $150K/year.
The OT/no OT decision was based on the definition in the National Labor Relations Act of an exempt professional: doing work
"involving the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance"
and
"of such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time"
So when the boss walked up and told me how to do my job, or told me that he expected me to work to a rigid schedule, I just replied, "Thanks buddy. That'll be $120/hour for anything over 40 hours per week. Or get your damned nose out of my cubicle and I'll solve the problem as best I can."
In spite of this sounding like a rather snotty attitude, it did serve to remind my employer of the economics of employees as a resource. You want X done at a certain rate (lines of code, sheets of engineering drawings or pages of specifications), fine. Pay for the work by the hour. You want me to take on some risk for getting a challenging job done? I'll work for a fixed price, but only if I have the flexibility to control my processes, tools and working environment. Quite a few enlightened managers saw the value in the latter option.
Have gnu, will travel.
Federal labor law makes it mandatory for companies to pay helpdesk employees overtime. If you spend more than 50% of your time doing "helpdesk" type duties (and not managing systems and all that stuff) then they are required to pay you OT.
This includes back overtime... I made my current company give me OT and they were required to pay any time I was on the clock since I started. If they do not keep track of overtime... they have to pay you based on how much YOU say you worked.
I know this doesn't cover everyone... but it does cover the lowest paid IT workers. My company is certainly not the first one to do this, either. http://www.overtimeadvisor.com/2010/08/articles/computer-professional-exemptio/do-you-have-to-pay-people-who-work-the-computer-help-desk-overtime-pay/
In my opionion any salary, IT or not, at or under, US$100k/yr should be paid overtime for over 40hrs/wk.
It should be inflation-adjusted each year, as well.
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
Everything is worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it, but they are sure happy to pay a lot less if they can.
Decades ago workers figured out that they collectively they have a lot more negotiating power than individually and companies have been fighting that ever since.
So changing the work environment regulations doesn't count as negotiations?
Boy you really are a short sighted slippery slope loving fool, aren't you? There are entire treatise on the inequality of bargaining power but you are dumb enough to think that unemployed Joe Schmoe is even in a position for fair negotiation to occur?
Here's the thing: pure capitalism is unjust and dangerous. If there is one thing economic history has taught us (see every economic depression, early days of unions, etc.) its that you need a minimum amount of regulation in order to protect society and individuals.
There is no reason to not pay people for the labor they provide.
Like many other sectors, IT Professionals are in a race to the bottom competing with lower wage workers overseas. Unless we organize we will continue to see declining wages and more demands place upon us by management. Technology was supposed to provide greater freedom. Yet given the number of unpaid weekend hours we endure, it seems we're experiencing quite the opposite.
Work them to death. Force them to toil mercilessly until they drop lifeless to the ground. Then throw them into a woodchipper, feed them to feral pigs or bury them in septic tanks. They deserve it.
Is executive compensation limits tied to the lowest wage worker. If the (wo)man at the top is limited to 10,000 times the pay of the person at the bottom, then there's an incentive at the top to raise pay at the bottom. Overtime is just smoke and mirrors.
My employer of almost ten years accepts my standard 40 hour work week. We hit crunch time roughly quarterly, and the hours sometimes go up a bit then, but the typical load is 40 a day.
And all the programmers get this deal.
Such jobs exist. You just have to be willing to find them, and be willing to push back when the demand starts rising.
My contract specifically states that I can't work any overtime at all. I can only work from Monday through Friday during normal business hours. That's fine with me.
So let's say they "fix" the computer professionals exemption. If that happens, it defaults back tot he $23,660 rule. How many IT pros do you know that make $23,600 or less?
I suppose you actually like working for free.
That it's pointless to make your workers work over 40 hours a week because over the long term (IE more than 2 or 3 weeks) you literally can't get more than 40 hours a week worth of work out of anyone? I think I've mentioned this before. (Actually I agree with other Slashdot posters that you should expect 20-30 hours of week of real work.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Well, seeing as with Citizens United corporations are now people, maybe tech workers need to lobby to be considered as people too ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Very well - so if jeezbus forbid we All Unionise (never happen that is communism ) then we are all worth However much we can screw out of the company for as little as possible.
Olympic athletes. The usually train anywhere from 15-30 hours a week.(Really, google it.) They may train really hard but even they know that doing your best and doing overtime do not go together.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Throw in Orion splashdown news, and there will be hope for slashdot. And Mars.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
that's my take on it.
I work as an IT consultant and it's less about total hours than when those hours are. I would rather have 50 hours in a 5 day week if they are contiguous hours than 40 hours during a work week with only 5 extra hours thrown in at random all hours of the night and weekend.
It's chaotic scheduling and short, just-enough-to-ruin-my-time-off hours that's more annoying than extra hours.
And I remember this quote which is apocryphally attributed to Soviet-era workers:
"They can never pay me less than I can work."
so why not stay at work and get stuff done? I like solving problems and I'm good at it. There are lots of interesting and/or frustrating problems to solve at work, but not much to do at home besides watch TV.
Don't forget. If you start getting overtime pay, you're also going to start clocking in and out when you get in the office. Clocking in and out when you take your lunch. Clocking in and out when you take your breaks. Clocking in and out when you go to take your kid to the doctor. You work 6 hours, you get paid for 6 hours. If you say you're going to have something done by Monday, I expect that you're not using OT to do that.
I'm all for overtime pay being expanded to those who get abused by not having it. But the large swathes of employees that are able to take advantage of being exempt instead of hourly are going to get stung by this as well.
I'm sure the overworked really don't care about those folks though.
Like many other sectors, IT Professionals are in a neoliberal race to the bottom whereby employers drive down domestic wages through exploiting overseas markets that provide cheaper labor. Computer professionals are entirely exempt from overtime regulations meaning employers can run down wages while demanding we work insane hours. Look at Apple and Google's illegal manipulation of the labor market. Unless we organize we will continue to see declining wages and more demands placed upon us by management. Technology was supposed to provide us greater freedom. Yet given the number of unpaid weekend hours we endure as taken-for-granted professionals, it seems we're experiencing quite the opposite.
Thanks for the link, AC: http://www.economist.com/blogs... ... The Greeks are some of the most hardworking in the OECD, putting in over 2,000 hours a year on average. Germans, on the other hand, are comparative slackers, working about 1,400 hours each year. But German productivity is about 70% higher. ... So maybe we should be more self-critical about how much we work. Working less may make us more productive. And, as Russell argued, working less will guarantee âoehappiness and joy of life, instead of frayed nerves, weariness, and dyspepsia"."
"Working hours: Get a life
Interesting comments there like on work culture in South Korea, and I've just read the first couple comments of hundreds...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Part of the engineering plague in tech. You aren't an engineer, that's just a way to fuck you over on pay.
Work in SF but do it via telecommuting from rural Alabama?
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
Because as the industrializing eras of Europe, America and now China proved, firms will always negotiate fair terms and wages with individual employees of their own volition, without need of government coersion, because the interaction of firms with employees is in no way unequal.
The next time you drink clean water while driving a car that isn't a deathtrap and isn't emitting lead fumes from its tailpipe, and are able to visit a national park on your weekend off because the national weather service predicts beautiful weather, thank liberals and unions. You're welcome, you rugged individualist you.
trickle down was an inside joke by officials - pissing on the populace.
In my current position as a systems administrator for a financial holding company, I've been enjoying the fact I get over time for the first time in quite a while. My last two places of employment, I started out on hourly, and shortly after I was hired the whole department was changed to salary (no OT). One was private sector and one was public sector. Oddly enough, right before I was hired at my current place of employment, the IT staff had just gone the reverse transition due to an employee successfully arguing that we didn't qualify as exempt.
Most weeks, I put in 5 or less hours of overtime depending on the current load. However, when we acquire new banks or have a major project (like the Novell to AD transition), it's very easy for everyone involved to put in 20-30 hours extra per week. Of course, you will always have employees that will take advantage of this, but myself and others that still have a work ethic appreciate being actually paid for our extra time and give our best effort possible.
Now they are discussing transitioning back to salary due to the arrival of a new boss this year. I know if this happens they are going to lose a lot of experienced staff. This might be okay from a business financial perspective. In other words, hire less experienced staff for less pay on salary and it doesn't matter how long it takes. However, in the real world, you're going to upset a lot of clients that way when they're used to things getting done quickly and dedicated (fairly compensated) employees that are willing to work the distance with the customer and actually know what they're doing.
Rambling post aside, yes, OT is a good thing if you want good employees (for the most part).
You americans are waste a lot of time at work. Here in Europe paying for overtime is pretty much the law.
At my former job we even weren't allowed to do overtime because of employee productivity and health. There were lots of times I had to work more (even 20 hour days for a week), but you always had to compensate with free time the weeks after. A lot of folks only work 24/32 hours a week.
Even without overtime there were lots of days that there wasn't much to do, so I left early (with pay) or just spend time looking out of a window or browsing stuff on the internet. It's hard to spend the whole 40 hours usefull.
So what's so different about the work in the US that there is so much more work to be done for no real added value?
Wise people in power and authority always think they know what is best for everyone and how to plan everything out so the world is a better place. They like to tweak things here and there so they can fix stuff that is wrong. There is scant evidence this approach to controlling the economy by making it illegal for people to negotiate their own labor contracts actually works.
: )
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
“There is no such thing as a 'self-made' man. We are made up of thousands of others. Everyone who has ever done a kind deed for us, or spoken one word of encouragement to us, has entered into the make-up of our character and of our thoughts, as well as our success.” -- George Matthew Adams
... pay me overtime.
As it is, I make damn sure the system stays out of the ditch so I don't have to come in on my off hours.
Start paying me overtime and I'd be like a goddam wealthy saboteur.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
No, you don't "deserve" anything other than what you negotiate
Did you negotiate to have a safe work environment? How about handicap accessibility should you ever end up, even temporarily, in a wheelchair? Id you negotiate a lower salary in trade for not having to endure sexual harassment? Your statement is very naive and immature (read Ayn Rand much do we?).
There is huge value in have the playing field somewhat level for a lot of basic things. Employment is inherently a lopsided arrangement. The employer has a lot more power than you do, so it become necessary to have some bigger entity keep things fair, safe, and liveable. Unions along with state and local government end up balancing the scales.
History is littered with examples of company towns, H1B abuse, child labor, black lung, and many other dark chapters for employees who could choose between whatever the company chose or starving in the street (or worse). Arguing that most employees have almost any meaningful bargaining power is just moronic.
Nobody should be exempt from time and a half except the owners of a business. Anyone who works for pay should get paid overtime, if only to punish companies and businesses that insist on overworking their employees instead of hiring more staff to handle the load.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
pretty much presumes that you are an executive-level employee who sets his/her own hours
All coders do in reality, and there are enough job options you can control the flexibility you desire.
You just need to take advantage of the power you have.
Note that although many executives have power to "set hours" they also generally work a LOT of overtime too. I really see them as being similar to coders, more than most people realize.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Those who don't learn their history are doomed to repeat it.
"War makes me sad." - Me
Overtime is for plummorz. Plummor's are in unian's.
Wear more better then them. Well when I say we me mean's I.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Medical is likely to remain that way because of how hospitals work
Hospitals don't need doctors and nurses pulling insane 24-48 hour shifts (I know they do this because a friend is a nurse), they just do it to save money and not have to hire anyone new. We should let them get overtime and force hospitals to hire more staff and make better shift schedules -- maybe that would help cut down on the crazy wait time just to see your general practitioner, as well as medical mistakes from sleepiness too.
managers pretty much have to have OT on big projects
How about managers (upper management?) learn to make realistic project schedules instead of overworking the employees while they high-five and go to the golf course to celebrate getting a job "done early". Again, let's let managers get paid overtime, and expect employers to make real schedules.. or if they need it to be faster, hire more people before the project starts!
salesmen often work in a manner that makes tracking actual hours of work impractical.
Salesmen often have to travel and I agree that makes it more difficult. However, we can treat it like we would for truck drivers, etc. -- salesmen are allotted x number of hours/days of travel (the travel itself should be considered work, meaning they work 14-16 hour days if we don't include sleep and food), and when they get back, they MUST have mandatory paid time off or they earn overtime on their regular work in the office for the rest of the month. I'm just spouting off an idea here, I'm sure it has some flaws and could be refined, but the point is there is a way to handle odd schedules and still be fair to the employee.
IT could certainly use updated laws. Too many times you have to be on-call, come in on weekends at 3am to fix a server, rush a software project out the door, etc. Same things as above hold -- companies will learn to make better schedules or hire more people if such labor laws are in place. They will bitch about it at first, but they will adapt. There is nothing sacred that makes 60+ hour weekly schedules the only way to do work in these fields.
I own my own small software shop. Almost all my work is contracting, but I'm slowly trying to develop a product.
With all the regulations surrounding U.S. workers, I found it to be much more approachable to have a long term, foreign, worker. I speak Russian, and so does my worker (his English is really good too), so the language barrier isn't as bad. Plus, we've met multiple times, in person, so he's not like some random worker that is going to jack me. Paying my worker is exactly the same as buying office supplies at Staples, from my accounting perspective. This would NOT be the case for a U.S. worker.
Any kind of employee protection adds overhead to the employer, and to the system in general. I have never heard anyone argue in favor of additional regulations that has actually had to comply with those regulations. I don't abuse my (remote) employee because it's not a good idea since he wouldn't work as hard, he'd find someone else to sell his labor to, and our interactions wouldn't be as fun. Laws wouldn't prevent me from abusing him, since I already don't abuse him... Just complying with my gross receipts tax reporting is a pain. If it continues to be such a pain, I will move my entire business to a less restrictive economy, and see if dealing with those problems is more fun than dealing with government regulations.
The best comment I read on this topic came from another contractor above. He specified the number of hours, and the time + place they'd be worked in the contract. If this is important to you, then it might make sense to go down the contracting route. Defining "employee" across all industries, across all times and places where our laws carry weight doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I really don't care about this kind of stuff, so I don't specify it in my contracts. What I do specify is that either party can end the contract at any time, for any, or no, reason. That sort of freedom is important to me, but not the "freedom" to have overtime pay.
Yes, just ask those money-making auto-workers in Detroit how well that worked out for them. $45 an hour, 2 months paid vacation, retirement, to stand there and push a button all day? And everyone feigned such shock when the companies said "F*$% it, we'll move to Mexico!"
Working what usually amounts for myself to no more than a dozen or so extra unpaid hours a week is more than worth being able to still live without resorting to begging on the street.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So you're saying you'd rather keep working 80 hours a week, rather than moving and and get around the same pay but only put in 40 hours?
If you went somewhere that paid your normal rate for OT, you'd make double what you are now for those 80 hours. Or you could just work 40 and enjoy life outside of work.
So, ultimately, the whole thing is self-defeating in general. Crunch times may be one thing, but on a regular basis, productivity declines even as people look busy.
One example:
http://www.inc.com/jessica-sti...
"The most essential thing to know about the 40-hour work-week is that, while it was the unions that pushed it, business leaders ultimately went along with it because their own data convinced them this was a solid, hard-nosed business decision....
Evan Robinson, a software engineer with a long interest in programmer productivity (full disclosure: our shared last name is not a coincidence) summarized this history in a white paper he wrote for the International Game Developers' Association in 2005. The original paper contains a wealth of links to studies conducted by businesses, universities, industry associations and the military that supported early-20th-century leaders as they embraced the short week. 'Throughout the '30s, '40s and '50s, these studies were apparently conducted by the hundreds,' writes Robinson; 'and by the 1960s, the benefits of the 40-hour week were accepted almost beyond question in corporate America. In 1962, the Chamber of Commerce even published a pamphlet extolling the productivity gains of reduced hours.'
What these studies showed, over and over, was that industrial workers have eight good, reliable hours a day in them. On average, you get no more widgets out of a 10-hour day than you do out of an eight-hour day."
With software, it is so easy to introduce a bug when you are tired or distracted (one reason team programming often saves money). A bug (especially a conceptual one) might be very expensive to debug down the road, especially if it makes its way to production. How many times have programmers spent days chasing a bug that was a one line fix? So, it may well be the case that longer hours mean *negative* productivity and higher costs for the extra hours worked past 40 per week even when the employee is not paid for the hours.
There is another complicating factor. Big companies in the 1970s such as HP or IBM invested in actually training employees, creating the pool of workers that Silicon Valley drew from initially. Investing in employee training is now rare, due in part due to little loyalty on either side of the employee/employer relationship in many companies. So, given that the tech industry moves so fast, where does the training time come from (including to read Slashdot :-)? Ideally, training should happen during those 40 hours. But in practice, many people working in IT have to keep current on their own time.
Yet training produces many benefits:
http://www.psychologicalscienc...
"A new study from a team of European researchers found that job training may also be a good strategy for companies looking to hire and retain top talent. When workers felt like they had received better job training options, they were also more likely to report a greater sense of commitment to their employer.
For the study, psychological scientists Rita Fontinha, Maria Jose Chambel, and Nele De Cuyper looked at IT outsourcers in Portugal-who must constantly update their skills in order to keep up with the fast pace of new technology. The researchers hypothesized that when people were happy with the training opportunities their employer provided, they would be more motivated to reciprocate with an enhanced sense of loyalty to the company.
This kind of informal balance of expectations between employees and management is known as a "psychological contract." When workers feel that their employer has fulfilled their obligations under the psychological contract, they're more motivated to uphold their
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Hey, I know, let's make slavery legal again!
WTF? I mean really, you want us to work for nothing?
How about "fuck you"? Seriously.
Those who suggest these things need to be treated with the contempt of slavers,
or preferably tarred and feathered.
Anyone working in tech and most other fields knows that uncompensated OT is only one requirement of having a J-O-B.
There was a time when having a job meant that you were somewhat immune to the vagaries of striking out on your own -- you know, like a regular paycheck, some sort of confidence that you'd be employed next month, some fringe benefits like insurance and such. The unpaid OT was part of the exchange -- you give up your time and effort and your employer eliminates financial uncertainties in your life.
Cue forward where employers demand even more of their employees while no longer holding up their end of the bargain -- "right to work", healthcare cuts or cancellations, and decreasing wages.
In terms of diminishing returns, we have almost hit bottom in terms of how little people are willing to accept for the typical job as in more and more cases, it is less risky to go start your own thing. After all, if you're gonna sacrifice a few years of your life for something, it might as well have a big upside possibility.
Actually 'pure' capitalism cannot exist without a large amount of regulation to keep capitalism on the tip of a needle.
Unregulated; Capitalism naturally decays toward monopolies.
Overtime needs to be paid appropriatly.
If somebody (in my case: simulation experts) do something for me, in want them to be motivated to do a good job every hour they work. If i misplanned the project and they are the only ones who can handle it, it should be on my bill/ the companies bill, not on theirs. I also want them to be not disgruntled and ready for sleeping for 5 weeks because some other PM pushed them the last 6 months to 80h/week, since I need them to have a clear mind.
Unpaid overtime gives wrong incentives, since "too good to be true" Project Management Plans are not pnished, but rewarded.
You get stronger by damaging your muscles then letting them heal. Working longer is counter-productive, you're no longer giving them enough time to recover.
I have been working as a Software Engineer in Southern California for ~10 years and other than my first job when I was paid hourly, I have never averaged more than 40 hours a week. Sure, once and a while there is a production push and I have to work a 16 hour day, but I take a day off (wihtout using vacation) if that is the case. In general, I work less than 40 hours a week. Over the last year, I'd estimate I average 34 hours/week of actual work and that is split between home and in my cubical. And I'm effective, my maanger is ahppy with my performance and I get good reviews. I am also able to be responsive to my email and even VPN in at times during off hours. I also get to spend a lot of time with my family because I am empowered enough to create my own work schedule. Some of the people I work with spend 50+ hours a week in the office and will respond to emails in the middle of the night. Yet they are less effective than I am. Many of the people I work with ahve siomlar schedules to me, and they are most the upper echelon as far as talent goes. In general, I think engineers who work long hours are inept and are trying to make up for their lack of ability.
Do I think the inept people I work with should get paid more for being at their desks more? No, not really.
Should be:
(but not much of it for the situation)
The above post comes across as critical to the poster when I'm really trying to be critical of a widespread lazy industry practice.
That is a great historical link, thanks! And that leads to this other on West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, for two Supreme Court decisions that lead up to the Great Depression and then its resolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
"West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of minimum wage legislation enacted by the State of Washington, overturning an earlier decision in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923). The decision is usually regarded as having ended the Lochner era, a period in American legal history during which the Supreme Court tended to invalidate legislation aimed at regulating business.[1]"
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Just about everyone who gets the job when the market is tight.
Twenty percent unemployment of registered professional engineers where I live and imported guest workers are still allowed due to a "shortage". I've got a job but I'm pissed off that we're losing a generation of people that spent years studying with little to look forward to other than part time jobs making coffee.
I've been preaching this for 2 decades. If everyone were paying overtime we'd have a much better country.
I was salaried working for a big consulting company and they tried to get me to work for free. Sure, I can work Saturday, I'll just take Monday off. They didn't like it, but I didn't care. Take it or leave it. Too many people kowtow, or hey they need to support their large cable tv subscription and payments on their best buy credit card for that new 4K TV they had to have.
Why does my job have to get singled out?
How about we argue for an expansion on non-exempt status based on fairness and logic, rather than dubios macro-economics.
M'kay?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
What a terrible country to work in. Need any more be said.
The difference here is that common safe work environments mean less harm to employees and saved lives. Shorter work weeks means more jobs required to make ends meet (assuming one is still employable). It just makes life suck more for a lot of hard working people.
I am a sys admin, in CA. worked 11+ hours for years, almost everyday.
FYI:
Lawyered up, easily sued for all the OT they owed me, going back 4 years. And doubled for liquidated damages.
Lawyer will eat 25%, taxes will eat about 30%.
If you plan to continue working there, you will get 'retaliation' protection.. although employer will probably try to make life bad for you.
If you go through Labor Board, they will only reach back 3 years. They will probably get a ruling in your favor for free. But they cannot garuntee that you will actually get paid.
A capitalist wants to make money from free work. Even for someone that is not found of Marx, it should be obvious class warfare.
Since about 2005, I have found in the jobs I have worked in the technical industry the following:
1- The expectation that despite education and experience everyone is assumed to be a just out of high school noob and is paid about 1/3 the market rate for their work.
2- In one business where I worked I had a vice president tell me "If you work over 40 hours you are salary, if you work under 40 hours you are hourly" I did some looking and called him on it after the fact (this is in fact illegal, an employee is either one or the other and cannot be both at the whim of the employer.) Despite this and his mis-step, his response on being called on it was, "oh I was just kidding". I realized right then that he was not one to be trusted at all.
3- In every business where overtime was considered to be mandatory, regardless of whether overtime rules were adhered to or not, The employees that were expected to work overtime, never advanced, went from contract to permanent hire or were ever given adequate raises to meet market value. One would think this would cause problems with the business model as mentioned above, but in more than one case H1B employees were not only brought in, they brought in outsourced management, which I took to mean that they didn't want communication or advancement from the unwashed masses (those hired under the paradigm I outlined in #1) to advance in the company.
4- There were a lot of deceptive and not very legal practices going on, such as Constructive dismissal practices and creating a hostile work place instead of listening to the expertise of people hired for their expertise (again management adhering to the flawed ideas I outlined in #1) False problems were created and used as excuses to criticize the expertise and work ethic of lower level employees. An example of this at one company I worked: I was given the job of calling in and working with Verizon to correct the complete lack of Verizon cellular service within the building, which, was causing major problems with executives visiting from out of town and not being able to receive cellular calls. Before I was employed there some subgenus had an idea of buying a consumer femtocell and installing it in a server room, which on the surface seems like it would be a good idea, however, the cell could only handle 3 simultaneous calls and had a maximum range of 50 ft. It had been installed in a server room with 3 floors above it and concrete walls on all sides so a 50 ft range was a "wishful thinking" variety of the best case scenario. This was in a building that was 3 stories, 200 ft by 100 ft and had over 300 employees all expecting to have cellular service.
I called Verizon and had them come out and do 2 walkthroughs of the building and it was determined that the glass they had installed for the windows of the "Green building" blocked all cellular traffic and GPS signals and I explained this to management and demonstrated with an application on one of the phones that I had 0 bars on either GPS or CDMA and walked to the door, opened it and had full connectivity, closed it and had no bars.. Anyone who knows how femtocells work knows that they also require GPS connectivity in order to work. I had Verizon do an estimate of what it would take to install repeaters to cover the building as this is the only way to provide connectivity and solve the problem other than replacing all the windows in the building or building some cheaper repeater from off the shelf components which would have voided the corporate contract with Verizon and would have attracted FCC attention. The bill for the repeaters was 17K. A complete report on what was found and the solution was given to management and it was demonstrated why the femtocell would not work. A day went by and then management came back and said the 17k was not approved, but then a manager started criticizing me for, "All this time going by and me not having a solution to a simple problem" This was not the only instance of this kind of shady management, at a point before I resigned,
Yes, unions can and did greedy. That doesn't mean that they aren't valuable.
As more workplaces in the 30's and 40's became unionized, the middle class grew. A public and free high school education was enough to get you a decent job, a good work/life balance and a pension. Not only did that benefit the workers themselves, but those workers had disposable income that they could spend on other products and services, which meant more jobs for other people. These same people could afford to send their kids to college which fueled further innovation.
If an employer needed more production, there was a financial disincentive for them to have their employees work overtime, so they had to hire more people. These people also made a living wage, didn't require welfare, paid taxes, and contributed to the economic vitality of their community.
All in all it worked pretty well for everybody.
But employers are always looking for ways to cut costs and labor is typically a company's biggest expense. So then we got more automation, jobs being outsourced, and union busting. Big companies paying low wages came in to displace smaller ones "to create jobs". But the number of new jobs created is never as many as promised nor do they pay as well. Those jobs that do get created often get moved someplace else or cut altogether when the company merges with another one.
Today, outside of the few union jobs left, it takes specialized education, one you have to pay dearly for, to make a living wage. Graduating college students start out in huge debt and are encouraged to start saving now for their retirement because nobody has pensions anymore and social security is expected to disappear. Hopefully they can get a job that allows them to pay off their student loans before they need to start saving for their kids college education. And hopefully they won't find their job outsourced or outdated by some form of automation before they have saved up enough to retire.
I'm sorry, but I much preferred the outlook for joe and jane six pack when unions were actually relevant. And I'm afraid automation and outsourcing has started whittling away at white collar jobs too. How long before only the most specialized and expensive skills to obtain will be valued enough to pay a living wage for ?
Most of the comments I see (level 4 or higher) talk about compensation. I come at this from another direction: Productivity.
I generally work hard enough (assuming there is work to do) that if I go over 45 hours a week, I start getting tired, leading to both slowing down and making more mistakes. In general, if I work 50 hours, I produce about the same net worth as if I had worked 40; if I work even more, it just gets worse. Fortunately, I've almost always had bosses who understood this, so it hasn't been an issue. I really feel sorry for those of you who can't say that.
I was born a hermaphrodite who identified as female. Birth complications resulted in a necessary surgery that converted me to a functional male. Then I went back in time and knocked myself up. The baby was of course myself. I wound up doing quite a lot of time traveling.
I smell greedy lobbyists
Table-ized A.I.
You got it, my good man. Just as you are allowed to buy stuff at discount, employers are (or ought to be) allowed to buy your labor at a discount.
So long as every such transaction is voluntary for both sides, there is not a problem.
Let's not get side-tracked with unions — they really are offtopic.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I don't have a safe work environment — a variety of assholes have been protesting some thug being killed by a policeman, whom he attacked, all week. Getting in and out of the office was rather unpleasant, but I don't blame my employer for that.
A valuable employee, such as myself, will be provided with whatever is reasonably needed for him to do his job — whether or not some law requires it or not.
This really has nothing to do with minimum pay. Let's stay on topic.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It would tremendously hurt my productivity in current software job if I was not allowed to finish what I am working on after 5, or conversely got my pay cut if I didn't badge in promptly at 9.
But in my previous job, on call rotation was introduced when it was not part of my responsibility before and never mentioned during hiring. It was very unfair to expect someone to have no fully personal time for a whole week, and I switched companies in short order. Overtime pay for any time in office or on call in excess of 8 hours per day would have put a quick end to this situation.
There is a lot of craziness in IT field that needs to be stopped, no matter what the salary is. But I am not sure what kind of law would do that without crippling good employers and engineers.
Agree 99%, Most people in this economy (myself included) do have the freedom to walk away, and I have done so when management demonstrated that they had lost touch with reality. (At will employment, the fact that I was in school and had a life outside of work, the fact that I worked overtime until 1 am in the morning and got criticized for being 4 minutes late the next morning or my favorite (sarcasm) Being criticized for not magically producing laptops that the manager criticizing me had put a freeze on purchases when all the while 28 new employees were starting and the order and exception forms signed by a vice president had been put in 6 months before that. Sometimes managers act like Bulllies and they think that they can say what everyone around them does with their life and that they are always the smartest person in the room. (Usually they are the dumbest, especially if my cat is in the room.) When reality comes in as it always does and their stupid plans fall apart , they always try to make shit roll down hill. In the words of a former co-worker at the job I left because of the idiot manager that put the fake IT purchase freeze on the 28 laptops just to try to make me not be able to do my job (YES ROBERT I AM TALKING ABOUT YOUR DUMB ASS!) "It is the height of stupidity to piss off the person that fixes your computer and makes sure your network runs day to day." I can understand why Robert was so angry, because I threatened his view that he is god and controls everything, that is why constructive criticism to the end of seeking a solution, became "A rude email to a vice President and himself." This is why he thinks he can slander me to every employer. I have often thought that in order to truly be rid of his jackass behavior, I should sue the company for 9 figures and get it in the news media. See who will hire him then, "Oh weren't you that guy that slandered that one employee for him asking why you put an IT purchase freeze on 28 laptops when hiring was taking place?, NO I am sorry, we don't have any positions that fit your qualifications, I wish you the best of luck in your job search: (STRAIGHT FACE UNTIL He WALKS OUT THE DOOR) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! WHAT A MORON!"
I agree, stay on topic. Read up on the American employer back in the 1900s. After you've cleared the Randian shit from your brain, you'll understand what everyone else in this discussion is talking about.
Hint: 90% of what you've said couldn't be more wrong.
And it should be 2 times regular pay.
"I don't have a safe work environment ... [blah blah blah stuff irrevelent to the point the parent was making]"
Don't play stupid. You know what the parent meant.
It is hard to quantify what should be done in a 40 hour workweek - this is precisely why skilled work is not granted overtime. Usually there are two kinds of skilled labor - one who are very skilled and can get a lot done within a day and others who are not this skilled, but will put in extra time onthe weekends to get the same amount of work done. Both should be paid at par - or else the first category will gravitate towards being the other. this does not apply in highly process oriented or unskilled labor because there is close to zero variance in productivity - think call centres, factory workers, etc.
Yes, and look how well Mexico is doing with all those good jobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
This was my experience at IBM. 12 - 14 hours a day, 6 - 7 days a week for months straight at a time.
Data Center Operations, 12-hour shifts. If there was an issue, you had to stay about 2 hours to hand everything over to the next shift correctly. They always needed you to come in and cover someone on another project, always and there was no declining. It was rare to have 1 day off in a 2 week period.
I left this in 2008, so it might have changed since then, but I doubt it. The nice thing was that you couldn't spend the money you made because you spent all your time at work.
As a software developer, I don't want to become a clock puncher whose time is watched like a hawk. I would, and gladly DO, trade some of my time (doing a job I enjoy) for the flexibility that comes with not being paid based on time spent 'working'.
That's the problem with unpaid overtime, what exactly are you negotiating for? Your whole existence? There are no limits other than your willingness to just say no and to hell with the consequences. Name one company that would ever enter into the same kind open-ended contract. People working for a company should either be paid set amounts for hours worked, or very detailed contracts on a project by project basis as independent contractors/consultants.
That ignores the large imbalance of negotiation power that exists between employers and nearly all employees.
When the scales start tipping in favour of the employees, you see large corporations running to the government, crying for the rules to be changed. And again, their money holds more power over your voice when it comes to getting laws changed (see: H1B program).
If you have mouths to feed, bills to pay, and no health insurance, one may be coerced into accepting crappy pay and crappy conditions rather than it being truly voluntary.
Also since you feel that negotiating pay is reasonable system you must also recognize that often in negotiations one side has greater leverage or bargaining power than the other. If I feel that I'm in a weaker position shouldn't I be allowed to strengthen it? And wouldn't that include bargaining collectively rather than as an individual?
I don't know how you can say unions are off topic. It's been shown that unionization both increases the prevalence of premium pay for overtime hours and reduces the extent and incidence of overtime hours.
Demagoguery. You could say the same thing about a person selling anything — his house, car, bicycle, anything — not just labor.
Do you want the government to force any would-be buyer to pay a "fair" price for the house, car, or family jewels, etc.? No? What if the seller has no health insurance? How is selling one's labor different?
It is the only system. Whatever is being sold, buyer wants to pay less, seller wants to get more — always. They negotiate and either come to some agreement, or walk away. Anything else — such as the government helping one of them against the other — is tyranny and a road to hell....
It is not your employer's fault, that you have "mouths to feed" — they are offering you a certain salary, and you are free to take it or ask for more. The second you think of asking the government to compel the hitherto voluntary party into doing something they don't want to do, you become evil.
Yes, it is quite possible, that you may be able to convince the would-be buyer, that he can't find a better deal — by agreeing with other would-be sellers to hold a certain price. This still does not change the basic economic principle I put forth — that nothing has an inherent value, and everything is worth exactly as much, as a buyer is willing to pay.
This is why I insist, unions — or any other individual methods of persuasion (legal and otherwise) — are off-topic here.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I like being salaried, I get judged by results and not hours. There have been times that 20 hours worth of work has taken 30 because I was new to the technology, just getting ramped up on code base, wanted to try something new, etc. Would it be fair to get paid time and half because I was learning on the job?
I don't get hours docked if I come in late or leave early because of personal business. I have never gotten push back from a manager if I emailed them and told them I'll be leaving early but I'll make sure I stay on schedule, etc.
There have been days that I knew I wasn't as productive as I should be for a variety of reasons but I would make it up at other times.
So what happens when programmers go hourly? How will our productivity be judged? How will they know we aren't slowing down just to get overtime?
It's always been my experience once I proved myself, that I have the implicit trust of the manager. I give them an honest commitment of how long something will take in hours and they adjust the deadline accordingly. If I underestimate, it's on me to keep my end of the bargain.
If you're in your 20's having to put in 60 hours to get experience and pay your dues so be it. If you're in your 30's and 40's and still putting in 60 hours and you're not getting the pay/equity/bonus to make it worth it -- you're doing it wrong.
Billionaire capitalist talking some sense because he understands the tragedy of the commons? That's ... surreal.
the obvious answer was to:
1) kill the business people
2) take the factories
3) continue making cars
you should be shot in the head and dumped in a mass grave with all the other subhuman scum that are ruining the species
Actually 'pure' capitalism cannot exist without a large amount of regulation to keep capitalism on the tip of a needle.
Unregulated; Capitalism naturally decays toward monopolies.
Exactly, this is Macroeconomics 101, the US is not a free market economy nor is it a Command and Control economy, it is a mixed economy, blending aspects of both.
This is exactly why the low end model Republicans (Think late night Walmart shoppers in the deep south) look so misinformed when they tell you that the economic policies of the Obama administration are "Socialism". They demonstrate a lack of knowledge of economics in the US, a lack of knowledge of history and a lack of knowledge of what economics is like in the rest of the world. In short the Affordable Care Act, was an attempt at putting healthcare in the US on somewhat equal footing to how it is in the rest of the free world, but the high end Republicans (think Corporate CEO's and current members of Congress) scream loud that the US is:
1- A pure free market economy (which there is no example of a pure free market economy in the world today even in Communist China.)
2- Going down the tubes because Obama is basically trying to turn the US into something like Soviet Russia. (Do they really believe that the people of the USSR had good healthcare at all? really?)
3- That Obama is a secret muslim, and a communist and a nazi ( last I checked, Muslims hate both communists and Nazis hate muslims and communists.. thats like saying someone is a black Nazi Jew for christ, so many contradictions it would make any reasonable person's head spin.)
4- Important bit, Rich Republicans believe that people in the lower classes are pawns and basically stupid and worthless, and that they will believe anything if they scream it loud enough no matter how ridiculously contradictory it is. I used to think that the American people were generally smarter than that, and given recent events highlighting how the working class is treated, how minorities are treated, the outcome of the last mid-term election would have been very different, but it seems the American people have voted people into Congress and the Senate that are going to make the divide between the upper and lower class wider, not narrower. They are going to make the race relation situation worse and are dead focused on overturning the ACA even if they have to put everything else on hold for 2 years and they are dead focused on the Oil pipeline which tells me we have gotten nowhere since the Bush administration. OPEC still has a stranglehold on American politics.
I digress, It is still a fact, The US is a mixed economy and people who tell you otherwise should just be patted on the head and told that God will make sure it all works out for us, better than those godless communists taking over their precious "Murica" because they don't think for themselves, or more to the point, are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Every time I read one of these it makes me miss the older, smarter, more Libertarian Slashdot back in the day vs. the socialist shithole it has become.
Between the "if you don't like it, move to Somalia!" and "Oh, you don't think government should tell people wages, I bet you grew up in a cave on your own, you crazy Liberarian!" liberal douchebags and the "Yeah, that sounds good!" half-wits the response to this article is especially annoying.
Companies are not going to pay you more money to do the same work you do now. Period. If you're working 60 hour weeks you aren't going to magically get a 50-100% raise "because..overtime!", you fucking idiots.
If someone were asinine enough to change this it just means companies will either a) hire more people, and pay you considerably less or b) pay you considerably less and then you'd work overtime to make roughly what you make now.
You idiots can't cheat the system. By all means refuse to work unpaid overtime - people who do will just stand-out more and get more pay and more promotions, you lazy entitled fucks.
Well this billionaire is actually proposing MORE pay for overtime job. So in this case, it's YES: Pay us overtime, or we go home!
His rationale is that paying fairly for the work done will boost the economy. Otherwise, wages are depressed, and so is the economy.
With real inflation being north of 7% these days, no wonder the economy is constantly depressed. It's called globalization though, and is supposedly a good thing. In order to stay within bounds of inflation, economist adjust the formula more and more frequently.
Ironically, companies earn more when they pay less salary. At least in the short run. Guess we're witnessing the accumulated effect over years of effort to empowerish the people.
Tough "luck"!
In Norway, companies started to provide work-agreements in the IT field with no overtime pay. However, this is illegal and is now being reversed. However, only small innovative companies want their employees to work overtime. Go figure.
Overtime pay for all. No exceptions. I would say exempt the 1%, but better to tax them at 200% and then will be the 1%. And thou not suffer billionaire to live.
I find it surprising that many ardent self identified capitalist have such a poor grasp of economics. They object to economic equality despite the fact the Gini Coefficient is well proven and demonstrates that increasing economic equality promotes increased economic growth and supports a larger over all GDP.
Why should they be exempt? That would mean less jobs for professionals since companies would abuse situation... Some smucks would surely be stupid enough to sign contract that says overtime is not compensated...
I like the flexibility I have to work the hours I choose to. I get paid to do a job, no matter what the hours. I would much rather get comp time than paid overtime, and my company is pretty flexible.
And for those calling for unionization, take a look around you. How many 'union' companies are left?? The textile industry, steel industry, and many others are all GONE after unions raised wages so high it became cheaper to build factories overseas. Many successful car companies have tossed unions aside, and were better able to handle the economic downturn that GM and Chrysler. Remember many years ago when everyone started outsourcing?? The main reason was high wages.
I've been paid overtime a couple of times in my career. And it sucked. Because I got sucked into the overtime trap, and worked more hours to get more pay. Then, when overtime was not allowed, I was stuck on the short end of a paycheck because I had gotten used to it.
I'd rather work smarter, and work fewer hours, than work longer hours and have less free time.
Just because some have a sucky job and can't find a better one because they have average skills, don't penalize those that have great jobs.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
PBS is an electronic soap box for the liberal agenda.
If these policies are implemented, then the work will go elsewhere.
You, the people who make instant global communication possible, understand this more than anyone else.
You'll then be on public aid with the rest of the PBS viewers.
Don't kill the goose laying golden eggs.
In tech, if you're good, getting another job is easier than many other industries.
You have a choice when to lay down the keyboard and mouse.
It's OK to say "No".
Sometimes being fired is a good thing...
Exactly, rest is part of their training. (And if you're a knowledge worker not getting your rest makes you significantly less intelligent.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
That's because the body physiologically requires a recovery period - the biological processes take time to get your body back into a state where you can hit the next workout with any intensity.
That isn't to say that mentally-demanding tasks don't require a recovery period, of course.
If the job description requires a 4 year college degree and pays salary, it's a professional position that is exempt from overtime pay.
If the job description requires no degree or a 2 year degree or is paid hourly, it's a "blue-collar" or service position that should be required to receive overtime pay.
It's not a gray line.
From my own experience in a mixed Windows PC/Macintosh corporate environment, the computer-to-IT staff ratio for PCs was 10:1, meaning that one IT person could handle maintaining 10 PC users. On the Mac side of things, the ratio was closer to 100:1. Given that, if IT staff can suddenly demand overtime pay, corporate is going to find a way to reduce the costs which translates to less-demanding platforms.
Someone who makes less than twice minimum wage CANNOT be exempt, no matter what they do.
Beyond that you have to be manager, professional, administrative to be exempt, and that's where the weird stuff happens.Grossly simplifying (full details available in the DLE handbook, which is available on line)
manager means - directs the activities of at least 2 people and has hire/fire authority
professional means - doesn't need to be told how to do what they are doing
administrative means - support services not directly involved in producing what the company produces
And to get the exemption, you have to be doing these thins basically ALL the time. No "sweep floors for 30 hours a week, hire/fire for 10 hours"
And, then there's the "computer professional" aspect, which is what you're thinking about.. someone who is a "computer professional" (for which there is a lot of discussion: programmers are, graphic artists are not, even though both "work on a computer") and makes less than 83k (varies from year to year) must be non-exempt.
But for IT; overtime should be defined differently from number of hours worked.
What about On-call time or "Standby for call, but sleeping" time?
I believe either On-Call time should be required to be included in hours worked first, or employers should be required to define a consistent workday for employees, such as 9 am to 5pm; they must define a standard 40 hour work schedule.
And any work out of the defined work schedule is overtime. Even if there are less than 40 hours total.
I'm a telecom professional - which is considered IT, given the proliferation of VoIP these days.
The bulk of our customers are public sector (schools, local/county/state gov't, police/fire, etc...) - and in our state we have Prevailing Wage Law where our wages on public sector projects are fixed by law (and vary by craft and by locality). So as a result, they have to keep us as non-exempt employees and pay us by the hour. To make us salaried and factor in increased prevailing wage rates would be a bookkeeping nightmare.
Works for me. As it is I'm paid above average for my skillset. Factor in the 250-300 hours a year of overtime I average, and I make more than many managers in my company. Granted in the 6 years I've been with this shit outfit I work for I haven't received a raise, but the prevailing wage increases every year, take-home company car (I work from home - service customers within a roughly 100 mile radius), and the fact my rarely-seen boss is 2-1/2 hours from me just makes it a bit easier to bend the numbers in my favor. In other words, no rush to leave a prevailing wage work site or hurry up to finish a job after I hit the 40-hour mark.
Exactly right. I like to bring it up because in order to get in the Olympics you need to be really good and have every little edge you can get.(To get the most out of their training they've realized they need to consider rest as part of that.) Even in this extreme scenario overtime is counter productive for exactly the reasons you mention. (Which leads me to think in less extreme scenarios, such as IT professionals just doing their job, overtime probably doesn't work either. From what I know everybody who's studied the end result of overtime on workers finds that you don't actually get more work but you do get pissed off employees.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
This has always been a truth for the US worker: the harder you work, the less you get paid.
In the exact same way that the erosion of the federal minimum wage—from an inflation-adjusted peak of about $11 an hour in 1968 to only $7.25 an hour today—has held down wages for low-income Americans, the simultaneous erosion of the overtime threshold has also held down wages for the American middle class. And just like raising the minimum wage would nudge up incomes for those workers earning somewhat above it, restoring the overtime threshold would push up incomes for many workers currently earning above $69,000 too.
You know, I always suspected that these people really understood how the economy worked, and that they were simply bamboozling voters into thinking that giving more money to the rich would benefit working people somehow. That's not how the economy works. It works by consumer demand. And if the consumer has no money, there is no demand.
So, here we have it, straight from the horses mouth. You can stop voting against your own interests now.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Pay peanuts you get monkeys, Pay peanuts to skilled people they devolve to adpat and are now the monkeys...
Kind of funny that in this great "Land of the Free" companies are prioritized over people. Must be that American Dream everyone likes to fantasize about, or some other American myth. This is a great country but we seem to be addicted to lying to ourselves here.
Does he require his employees to be paid overtime? Is he leading by example or just rattling on about the government should force other people to do?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I'm an actual I.T. Pro - Linux mostly. That said when I worked for the state our benefits sort of paralleled the union employees. But when it came to overtime we didn't get that - instead we got to comp hours. When we relocated offices I ended up with 400 comp hours. And I exercised them, roughly 10.6 weeks worth. A day off here, a week off there. Took close to two and a half years to tap that out. It resulted in me not working my last month there and being paid for it so that was cool.
.
Time to go back to the drawing board to define what the term means, not just what is convenient.
Otherwise a 'computer professional' is asking you if you want fries and a malt with that burger just because they press a key on a 'data entry device'.
... "When you pry the source from my cold dead hands."
Either you fall into one of the exempt categories (manager, professional, admin) or you're non-exempt. It's not like a company can give you the option of being exempt. They can always make you non-exempt (e.g. qualified for OT): the penalty is for calling someone exempt who isn't.
I suppose, aside from the computer professional thing, the company can call you a professional: this is actually a fairly low bar to meet: advanced training, which means anything beyond high school.. the law was written back in the 30s; and not being told how to do your job, which I think a lot of programming jobs qualify for. Sure, if you're coding up existing screen forms, and it's more like graphic arts, it will be non-exempt, but anything where you have to decide whether to use a for() or if() or while() is probably a safe bet for "professional".
Of course, a lot of companies, scared of misclassification lawsuits and penalties, require a higher standard. some experience beyond bachelor's degree, or holding an advanced degree, for instance. You'd hate to be a company paying some one 100k/yr as an exempt, working them 60 hrs a week, and then discover that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) thought they should have been non-exempt, and now you're on the hook for back OT and penalties.
Didn't one guy die in his efforts for this same thing?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/02/18/raw-data-joseph-stack-suicide-manifesto/
I've seen pensions claim bankruptcy and everyone who depended on it lost it all. At least when I have a 401k with a financial institution that is 130 years old and a track records of excellence and ethics, I am less concerned about it randomly folding. Even if my company didn't use this institution, I could transfer my 401k funds to them. Can't do that with a pension.
You could say the same thing about a person selling anything — his house, car, bicycle, anything — not just labor.
Selling is the transfer of wealth, labor is the creation of value. Big difference.
Another option for those few rare cases would be to allow yearly averaging and only require paying overtime if the average for the year is over 40. That would make for a nice christmas bonus.
Interesting concept, however I'd tweak it in two ways: 1. You would probably want to do it on a rolling year basis (i.e., annually on your hire date) to smooth out the cash outflow a bit, and 2. Make it mandatory to do when someone leaves as a YTD calcluation. I've seen enough places that want to cheat you out of a bonus because you left/were laid off a couple weeks before the payout day, even though the work you did to earn that bonus was already done over the last weeks/months/year.
We need to mandate the 40 hour week again.
Before anyone says "but muh business", business worked just fine before regulations were laxed. The resulting "growth" after undoing regulations has done nothing but drive the wage gap between the top and the bottom.
No, it is not, actually. Not even close...
First of all, labor, however heavy, does not automatically mean value. A man can spend 4 hours digging a hole, and 4 more hours filling it up. At the end of the 8 hours he is very tired, his hands are callused, but his hard labors produced no value whatsoever.
On the other hand, an old cell-phone charger may be of no use to me, but to a buyer — who still uses that peculiar cell-phone — it may be very valuable. My sale of the charger to him has just created value...
Distinction — maybe. But distinction without difference. Because any argument, with which you can come up to justify government intervention on behalf of a seller of labor, can also be applied to sellers of iPhones and orange juice...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
For the study, psychological scientists
You had me until this point!
That's actually quite funny. I'd mod you up if I could.
Yeah, I agree. It would definitely have to be based on the number of weeks worked or some
other calculation. It would be easy enough to come up with some rules and then maybe
tweak them a bit to prevent abuse. One possible problem would be construction workers
that only work 9 months out of the year so they could be worked half to death for those 9
but they get overtime and still work that way anyways.
I think the main point is that they should allow employer/employee flexibility with compliance
but crack down on obvious abuse. There *might* be a few occupations where it's difficult to
track hours and you might have to use estimates or other ways to calculate it but for the most
part just like other employee protection laws we should make an effort that they are effective
and aren't circumvented. Currently overtime laws are constantly being abused or subverted
to the point where overtime protection is almost non-existent for whole groups of people.
If programming is ART it's YES.
If programming is ENGINEERING it's NO.
Casteism
In fact, only people at the very top of the income distribution should be exempt from overtime pay -- think A-list actors and professional athletes. The vast majority of workers should be paid overtime. *cue bullshit libertarian arguments about how this abrogates free-market capitalism*
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Well, if you're going to argue corner cases, then sure, you're 100% correct a whole 20% of the time. I assume the 80/20 rule is a play when comparing the transfer of wealth "creating value" vs labor creating value.
But if you were to compare two hypothetical worlds
1) where no one labored, so nothing was created, but could sell all of that nothing
or
2) where no one could sell anything, but everyone could labor to create stuff. I did say, not sell stuff, so they could just take stuff and start using it.
Which world would have more "value"? The world full of nothing or the world full of stuff but no market with which to sell? An extreme example to show the fundamental difference.
To labor to create something where there is no demand or the supply outpaces the demand is purely wasted effort, but that doesn't happen as often as people creating stuff that is in demand. Artificial demand is dangerous. Behold, the power of market bubbles!
Even if you are, I won't work > 40 anyway, unless the pay is extreme.
In general it will still be cheaper to pay overtime than hire more workers. Especially in areas where overtime only comes during certain times of the year. It is still a good thing thou because we don't need to pity-the-poor-billionaires and a little wealth adjustment is fine, it will also help the economy as a whole by making more people have the ability to spend more.
Wow! You go from quoting studies to pure hyperbole and expect us to accept them both without hesitation. When you argue with "might", "maybe" and "may well be" you're just making it up.