Slashdot Mirror
Your Pay Is About To Go Up (gawker.com)
The Department of Labor's overtime rule is expected to be updated some time later this summer, and when it does, you will soon be entitled to overtime pay if you make less than $50,000 per year. According to Gawker, "It now appears that even if you are a salaried employee or some sort of 'manager,' you will still be entitled to time-and-a-half pay for working more than 40 hours per week, as long as your total salary falls under the threshold." How did they come to this conclusion? Gawker points out that the Department of Labor promotes a Wall Street Journal story which says that "The threshold would be increased to $970, or $50,440 annually. That level is about the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for salaried workers." Hamilton Nolan writes, "This rule has been a matter of political contention for years. But now that it is actually approaching, its import is becoming clear: overtime pay, which has long been isolated to a minority of workers, is about to be extended to almost the entire middle class."
Isn't everyone here a tech worker? Does anyone here actually make under 50k?
Around where I live, $50K, including said overtime, is damn near poverty.
If the pay for overtime is going to go up, that means it's less likely that a business will want you to work overtime.
But they may not be able to quite get everything done they need to, so they will hire a part time worker...
But then that's too many extra hours, so that means your full time to overtime job gets cut back to a half-time position also. Now they have two people working 60 hours instead of one person working 50, with no overtime.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
App guy, look up "fiat currency." All you did is trade money for money. You should write a new app, App Money! You can app it wherever apps app, right?
Take arbitrarily selected number, 40%.
Those above it: shove it
Those below it: take it
Reality is that most of unpaid overtime is done by faceless, nameless IT workers, project managers, accountants, office workers with the salary band of $50K to $100K.
>, you will soon be entitled to overtime pay if you make less than $50,000 per year.
I have never made less that $50,000 per year in the 17 years I have lived in the USA. My pay is not about to go up on the basis of this change.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I have been in IT for 20 years and I haven't made less than $50K since 1998 as a systems administrator with no degree. This was in Santa Rosa, CA just north of San Francisco from until 2004 until I moved to Portland, OR. The trend has continued up here, too. It just seems to me that anyone who is making less than that, say $45,000 would just get a pay increase to the minimum and continue to be worked 50-60+ hours a week. Anyone making less than $45K is probably help desk and doesn't really have the same overtime requirements that server admins, network admins, and developers do.
Not sure what they are smoking, that is the lower middle to lower class.
Kinda hard to see how decisions made by the US Department of Labor impact pay rates in other countries.
Just started a new gig -- full-time, exempt, over the threshold by more than 100% -- but I had to read the employee handbook that covers overtime rules for non-exempt employees.
Yes, we have to give you overtime pay if you work more than 40 hours per week.
No, you're not allowed to work overtime without reporting it.
If you work overtime without prior management approval, you'll be reprimanded. If you keep doing it, you can be terminated.
Now, you've been assigned a certain duty on the production line, and you're not going to be able to finish it in the 40 hours you've been allotted. Which rule are you going to break?
The first part of that statement is what many don't realize. So many initiatives are targeted at minimum wage full time workers and what people don't realize is that in most minimum wage industries they've all but eliminated such a thing. Working three jobs to get 40 hours a week is a hell of a lot more work than getting the same hours at one.
The exempt/non exempt classifications have been kind of bendy over the years. Back when I managed people we had a lot of jobs in which the exempt people made less per hour than the non-exempt, which seemed wrong to me. It's sort of implicit that if you're exempt you're making more money than the hourly guys.
From a policy perspective I like it, but this is a big sort of change I would have thought you needed Congress to okay. I'm a little bit concerned the bureaucracy seems to be just kind of ruling by fiat these days.
Forcing companies to pay for overtime just means you're going to get fewer hours or a lower base salary so overtime doesn't affect the company's bottom line.
I'd rather work for a handful of companies and between them completely blow away overtime limits because none of them have to pay me overtime and all I care is that I make my hourly rate which means none of them are complaining and neither am I. Not everyone is interested in only working 40 hours a week.
The people this benefits are the managers who take on salary and end up being a slave to the company. But then, this just bumps their salary up marginally and doesn't change anything.
There's no way for the government to set employee / employer agreements in such a way that everyone benefits. The sooner you can excel at something to the point you move past these income brackets of government meddling, the better.
Work Safe Porn
Get ready for things to get more expensive. You didn't actually think companies were going to give that money away freely, did you? People will lose jobs, too, because businesses won't be able to afford this.
Because, you know, without any sort of employment regulation we always get the best of all possible worlds with absolutely the best economy and wages that there is possible to be. Because right wing ideology says so!
It's the same reasons economists agree that minimum wage hurts the economy.
Economists "agree" on no such thing.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Tommorow's Headline.
Sudden uptick in the number of new independent contractors baffles researchers.
"I dunno man, like one day there was this huge like 40% of the population that was making less than $50k salary, now all those positions have been filled with independent contractors. Total mystery, dude!"
Get ready for things to get more expensive.
This is unlikely to have much effect on prices. There is little evidence that longer hours leads to much additional productivity, especially as those longer hours become routine. I usually hang around for an extra hour or so at the end of the day, because my boss does. But I spend that hour unwinding, reading Slashdot or Quora, or browsing Wikipedia (Pro tip: Never sit with your back to the door). Meanwhile, all the non-exempt employees in admin and shipping are required to clock out and leave the building at 5pm, because the company doesn't want to pay them overtime.
Because some businesses are not smart enough to hire two people to get the job done in 8 hours at regular pay, they'd rather pay one guy to do the same job, only it takes him 20 hours (two 8 hour days, plus another 4 hours, because no one works at peak efficiency for 10 hours straight.), and because they have to pay him time and a half for 4 of those hours, they actually lose money by using fewer workers.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Learn to read. Most of them will see exactly zero increase in savings from having their base pay lowered or having their hours capped.
Reading skills weren't on the curriculum in your elementary school, were they? I'm making fun of "the other guys" for lying through their teeth to the little guys because the policy as written leaves big fat loopholes (to make big fat scapegoats for later) and the policy as sold to the ignorant masses leaves an unfunded mandate to "pay people more" without regard to how economies work.
Because when all the businesses in rural nowhere: population 'me' catch whiff of that I'm either going to be relegated to burger flipper salary equivalent wage to compensate, layoffs will force more small businesses into the hands of contract IT vendors (of which there are maybe two that matter around here), or forced to move again.
I suppose I'm in the minority considering $15/hr flipping burgers in California by comparison would be middle class here, but a sweeping adjustment like that will certainly do more harm than good around here where median income for nearly everyone is far below that 50k/year threshold.
overtime pay, which has long been isolated to a minority of workers, is about to be extended to almost the entire middle class."
When the old threshold was approved it applied equally extensively, but it eroded over the years. They are now just bringing it back to what used to be.
the idea of unpaid OT needs to change I can see some stuff being ok.
But this idea of useing to get more coverage
have people no call with pay for doing so with the idea of even if you do need to work late that we still want you in on time the next day.
Places where you need some to be there all the time you are open and it's cheaper to work someone 60 hours then hiring more people.
Endless crunch time to get some thing done and when it's done it's on to the next thing with no added time off.
The push to have people work from home with the balls to say it's out passion Yes some work places do say some of people do it out of passion but how true is that?? and how much is it dead lines / other bs we can get a collage kid to do your job for less.
In the past places use to be like we are all salary hear and more of time it's 35-38 hours a week.
Game dev's used to be some times we have to have crunch time where it can be 50-60 but that is not for that long and after that we have a lot fun / you can take free time off.
Now days it's we need people working 60+ all the time and we are all salary so we can have less people working but get the out put of having more with the 60-80 weeks and we can find of some one willing to 60 for 40K.
The purpose of this is to prevent employers from working their salaried employees 60-80 hours/week. It basically will encourage if not force employers to hire more people or pay a penalty. More jobs == Less competition for work == Hire wages for all. It's supply and demand. Right now there's an oversupply of labor. This will help that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Go fuck yourself.
And the same to whoever nodded him informative.
In case you hadn't heard, Gawker just had their ass handed to them by Hulk Hogan for shitty 'journalism.'
Thus, never, EVER, source them, cite them, or use them on this site, ever again.
They do not count as a worthwhile or trustworthy source of information. Thus, they do not belong here, EVER.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
we can find of some one willing to 60 for 40K.
cool, let them. Meanwhile they'll see you living a happy life and perhaps re-evaluate theirs.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
He probably thinks its a missprint - didn't they mean 80 hours a week?
"Laugh while you can a-monkey boy!" - Dr Emilio Lizardo
Because, you know, without any sort of employment regulation we always get the best of all possible worlds with absolutely the best economy and wages that there is possible to be. Because right wing ideology says so!
Well, no, Microeconomics 101 says so. And Fredrich Hayek. The observation is no one agrees to a deal unless both parties think they benefit and benefit by more than their other available options (would you buy something if it wasn't worth it or you could get it cheaper somewhere else?). Given that, I trust employees and employers to strike the best possible deal between themselves. It's the height of arrogance for me to think I know their situation and can craft a better deal than they do.
Economists "agree" on no such thing.
Fair enough, it's not unanimous. I hope (but can't prove) virtually all of them will concede that theory and practice show if you have a price floor, you get surplus supply and reduced demand. In a labor market, one calls that "unemployment". They should also generally agree employers can adjust in other ways than cutting jobs (e.g. by cutting benefits). Finally, they should agree the effects might be small and difficult to measure. The current natural experiments suddenly raising the minimum by large amounts (e.g. Seattle) ought to be enlightening.
Personally, I suspect the economists who signed that statement want to believe the minimum wage doesn't cost jobs and are suffering confirmation bias. I may be doing the same thing in the reverse direction. I don't think so. Supply and demand analysis is pretty simple, compelling, and matches my own observations of how the world works. That raising the price of labor would not reduce demand seems such an extraordinary claim it demands really clear, extraordinary, and compelling evidence to believe it.
How about I do my job for a predictable expense to the accounting department for an agreed upon amount of money and if there's less work I leave early and if there's more i leave later like a normal IT manager.
Btw I actually quit to run a computer repair store like half a year ago but still.
Except the 'best possible deal' goes out the window the moment unemployment reaches a relatively high level. By then the employer can go "Work for slavery wage or don't work at all, there are ten other guys right outside who are hungrier than you."
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I don't who the "you" this headline/summary is referring to, but it's not me.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Behold Zartan, King of the Apps!
Maybe it's time for some of these poorly managed companies to drop some of the ballast in management, then. Screwing around with the productivity and morale of the actual money-generators of the company while retaining a dozen layers of parasitic management isn't a winning strategy.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Given that, I trust employees and employers to strike the best possible deal between themselves.
Bwahahahaha.
and matches my own observations of how the world works.
You need to get out more.
Can you describe the supply chain and figure out which employee isn't getting paid what they're worth?
The McDonald's CEO makes $10 per year per employee.
So where is the money to pay these low wage workers who are getting "screwed?"
Where in the supply chain is someone bleeding funds off?
The government takes thousands per year per employee.
Can you describe this "living wage" and show a sample budget that accounts for quality of food, travel (car, public transit, etc), commute time, living arrangements, clothing quality, etc?
Work Safe Porn
Actually, you should get ready for an improvement in unemployment rates for jobs affected by rule change. The labor cost calculations will change making additional employees most cost effected relative to paying overtime.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
As of 2013 US median income was $51,939, so yes, that by definition fits the "middle" class. I'm not terribly certain where the "liberals" part comes into it, however if you wish to look at that then I would suggest you thank you "liberal" friends since conservatives generally prefer to "let the markets determine" things such as employee compensation, overtime rules, minimum wage, occupational safety requirements, etc.. Those notions are a product of us liberals talking out of our arse.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
and it depends on how you define overtime. Yes, I get paid for every hour I work on my Government contract but that will be straight time not time and a half. This change mandates time and a half for any employee that is paid less than 50K per year.
About time that they put a stop to the shit of adding Assistant Manager to the title of one of the line workers at McDonalds or Wal-Mart and then make them an exempt employee not getting overtime or time and a half and 27K per year.
I really think this change is aimed at those kinds of situations as will as help desks using the Tech exemption to work support people 60 hours a week for 30K a year.
Yes, that would be the correct Prime in this case - the Primary Contractor who then hires sub-contractors to do various parts of the work.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
By then the employer can go "Work for slavery wage or don't work at all, there are ten other guys right outside who are hungrier than you."
If there are "10 other guys" willing to do the work for a given wage, it appears a natural price for labor has been set by the market. If the wage is too low, workers couldn't survive and wouldn't be able to work. If someone desires a higher wage, they must learn a skill that's in demand or move to a location where the skill they know is in demand.
It is not the job of the employer to ensure a given employee has obtained enough compensation through employment to survive, let alone live a comfortable life. That's the responsibility of each one of us in society.
Stop forcing your fellow citizen to pay gold prices for aluminum. It's not helping anyone, except Democrat politicians.
Considering their choice is often struggle to survive with some income vs no-income, that isn't much of a choice. Same reason that quite a bit of people on government assistance are employed workers. With a wrecked economy like we have had for the past eight years, the balance of power is disrupted - the employers have the power to force their positions right now. Get fired or layed off? You're tainted, good luck getting a decent position.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
The reason we reach for things like higher minimum wages and guaranteed overtime pay is because we, as a society, want to make things better for the most people possible. This means that we set expectations about what we consider to be acceptable living conditions.
I'm sure you think we should abolish minimum wage and everyone should get paid "market value" for their jobs. This is great, in theory, until your job is the next one on the "market value". Why should I pay you $50k, when there's a guy with no house, 2 kids, no cars, and expects no benefits, and he'll do the job for $10k, just so he can feed his family?
I'm sure you'll say, "Well, then you should just train to find a better job that is in higher demand." That doesn't work, because the hordes of people will eventually come for that job as well.
It's a race to bottom at that point, and helps nobody.