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."

40 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Whose pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't everyone here a tech worker? Does anyone here actually make under 50k?

    1. Re: Whose pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work as a postdoc and get paid well under $50k. It sucks, especially with student loans.

    2. Re:Whose pay? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably depends what you do, specifically, in addition to who you work for. I literally got laid off of a job that paid about $48k a year, and right afterwards got hired at a new job that pays closer to $78k a year. I'll be doing basically the same work at the new job. Before that even, I had a desktop support job that paid $40k a year.

    3. Re:Whose pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not only do I make under $50K, this won't even affect me.
      I make an hourly wage. I was already eligible for overtime--although my employer hasn't approved any overtime hours in years.
      This site has a large audience, and we come here based on interests rather than employment.

    4. Re:Whose pay? by NiteMair · · Score: 4, Insightful

      right afterwards got hired at a new job that pays closer to $78k a year. I'll be doing basically the same work at the new job.

      Each time I've been laid off (twice in my career), I've landed a better job getting paid more money...

      So being laid off isn't always a terrible thing - sometimes it's really just the spark that ignites the job hunt for a better paying job. I know the first time it happened my salary pretty much tripled with the next job - which suggests that the company I had been with for 5 years had been taking advantage of my accumulated skills and entry-level pay.

      In my case, I ended up doing software development for different industries each time, which also gave me an opportunity to learn something new.

    5. Re: Whose pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe you shouldn't have taken Smoking Dicks as a major?

    6. Re: Whose pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably not, but it's my passion.

    7. Re:Whose pay? by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Informative

      Isn't everyone here a tech worker? Does anyone here actually make under 50k?

      And not everyone here lives in the US, you insensitive clod.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    8. Re:Whose pay? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      Dunkin' Donuts is not moving local store jobs over seas but this will stop them paying a manger from working 60+ hours a week for $35K so they don't have to hire more hourly staff.

    9. Re:Whose pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You've one been laid off twice?

      Hell, I get laid off every 2 to 3 years and every time I end up with a new job paying 30% to 40% more. Now when the boss tells me there has to be layoffs, I smile and ask if I am getting two weeks plus a severance package, or are they just going to hand me a box.

      The last boss to do it laid off the whole team (With a two week notice). When we were leaving, he asked why everyone was smiling.

      I looked right at him and said,

      1) Your idea of outsourcing all the L3/L4 people to India is doomed to failure,
      2) Every one of us is stepping out of this place and into a new job making 30% to 50% more, We all start at our new jobs tomorrow,
      and 3) We never have to deal with your stupid ideas again.

      So everyone is happy!

      It was funny when 6 months later they had to bring the jobs back, had trouble finding people to fill the positions, and started calling the old team to try to get them back. Guess that is what happens when you outsource a GOVERNMENT "NO OUTSOURCE" CONTRACT!

    10. Re:Whose pay? by rastos1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bah! I get laid every 2 or 3 years too!

    11. Re:Whose pay? by muffen · · Score: 2

      And not everyone here lives in the US, you insensitive clod.

      Stupid of him to make that assumption on a story about salaries in the US!

    12. Re:Whose pay? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      There is nothing in this story that says it's about the US.

      You can guess it's about the US because as people point out endlessly "slashdot is an American site", or because the US has a "department of Labor" (but maybe some other country does too?) or because the monetary amounts are in dollars (but other countries have a currency called the dollar) or because Gawker and the Wall Street Journal are referenced (but I guess at least the WSJ does some foreign news stories).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    13. Re:Whose pay? by halivar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Every two or three years? LUXURY! I get laid off every week, two days before my first day, and every holiday my boss stabs me to death and stashes me in the trash bin.

    14. Re:Whose pay? by jon3k · · Score: 2

      He said "got laid" - not "get laid off". Big difference.

    15. Re:Whose pay? by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was working one particular Fed contract, which, after several appeals by the current prime, was finally awarded to the competitor.

      Who promptly announced that everyone could keep their jobs. . . at 20% less. Contract handover was two months later.

      My shop had a total of 34 contractors. Inside of a week, we were down to 9 of us, and I left the next week (12% raise). I'm told the last guy left 2 weeks later, one month out from handover.

      And the new prime had exactly ZERO acceptance from current contract staff. New prime was reportedly going crazy, because NOBODY would accept a pay cut.

      They called a meeting of all the previous contractors. Nobody showed. They called another, with the bait of a free $50. Amazon card for attending. . . .they then offered a 5% cut instead. We started walking (not that I was going to accept anyway). . . .they offered par. We kept walking.

      Eventually, they offered +10% and signing bonuses, but pretty much everybody was settled in elsewhere. They ended up having to bring the old prime on as a sub, to get it manned. . .

    16. Re:Whose pay? by ranton · · Score: 2

      Contracting sucks, but it's all I've been able to get. And before you say, "improve your skills," I am doing that, but having no degree compounds the problem!

      This is why I get upset any time some startup founder says the best thing he ever did was drop out of college (or that he regrets finishing college). For the vast majority of people no amount of hard work will make up for not having a college degree. Even in the mostly meritocratic IT industry.

      I certainly understand why you struggle to make less than $60k per year without a degree to show potential employers. I was stuck with about $40k per year until the last recession forced me to get a worthless UoP degree to find new employment. Now I make four times what I made ten years ago. No one cares about my degree now, but there were 1-2 crucial career building jobs over the past decade I would have never gotten without it.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    17. Re:Whose pay? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      You expect us to read the fucking article? Am I on Slashdot or what?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    18. Re:Whose pay? by halivar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Jack and Jill both came up for performance review. The PHB had just had his budget slashed, and corporate instructed him to cut a staff member. During Jill's review, the PHB sighed, and gave her the bad news. "I'm sorry, Jill, but I've got to lay you or Jack off."

      Jill responded, "Can you just jack off? I've got a helluva headache right now."

    19. Re:Whose pay? by Salgak1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Prime: On any large Federal contract, there's usually a team of companies. The one leading the effort, and submitting the formal proposal, etc, is the Prime Contractor.

      Everyone else is a Sub, i.e. a Sub-contractor. Subs are usually a mix of big integrators (Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, IBM, Dell, etc) and smaller companies, with set-asides for "Small, Disadvantaged Businesses", also known as "*8A's".

      Typically, 8A's are, at least on paper, owned by a woman or a minority, or both. In quite a few cases, that ownership is a paper one. I've seen larger companies spin-off several 8As to get in on a contract. It's technically legal, and almost impossible to fight, but it really is kind of gaming the system against actual 8As.

      I've worked for Primes, Subs, and 8A subs. . . .

    20. Re:Whose pay? by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      Addendum: It's common, in big contracts, and especially if specialized skills and/or security clearances are required, for the new Prime Contractor, or someone on their team, to pick up most of the current people. It's also a way of getting rid of people that the customer can't fire, but doesn't like.

      The new prime was willing to do this for everyone. . . IF we accepted the 20% pay cut. At the time, jobs were still plentiful: as I noted, 20+ moved to new jobs in under a week. . .so why take a pay cut ?

  2. I Dunno About "Entire Middle Class" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Around where I live, $50K, including said overtime, is damn near poverty.

    1. Re:I Dunno About "Entire Middle Class" by just+another+AC · · Score: 2

      Where I live, the cost of living is .99% of the national average, so it's roughly *THE* national average,

      Umm... either use the decimal point or use the % sign. If that wasn't a mistake I want to move to your town with cost of living 1% of the average

    2. Re: I Dunno About "Entire Middle Class" by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 4, Funny

      $1700 a month child support!?!?!?! Holy shit!!! I pay that much per child and then also have to spend time with them and raise them and stuff too. That sounds like a fucking great deal. I'm calling my wife and asking for a divorce and making her take the kids.

      Me and the two brats are taking a trip (just the three of us) from Norway to Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, to London and back this summer... just the business class tickets and hotels in Tokyo and London have cost me about $14,000 so far. By the time I pay for the beach house in New York, the rental car, food, taxis, etc... I expect to be well over $20,000. That's $10,000 per kid burned in 2 weeks just to give them a nice summer vacation. And worst of all.. they'll probably want me to spend time with them and talk with them and bring them all over to see stuff. So... add the pain and suffering on top of the financial cost.

      Dude... you've got a sweet deal. I've been threatening them for years to dress them in paper bags and duct tape... then to "stuff me", I came home and found them both sitting around dressed in paper bags and bunny rabbit print duct tape... smiling!!! BRATS!!!

    3. Re: I Dunno About "Entire Middle Class" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude... Fly economy class. It costs a fraction as much and isn't much worse than business class. A little less legroom (irrelevant for kids) and a smaller TV screen, and either way you are still stuck inside a tin can for 12 hours. Stop pissing away money on expensive hotels too. A hotel is where you sleep between doing interesting stuff, as long as it's clean that's all you need.

      It's no wonder your kids are costing you so much when you insist on luxuries for them. Be a bit more frugal, spend your money on stuff that really matters like good food and tickets to attractions. Even the GP's $1700/month on one child is an awful lot... Private school and riding lessons perhaps?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. No, that means your pay is about to go down by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:No, that means your pay is about to go down by Wycliffe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      That's kindof the point. The point of overtime law is to discourage companies from forcing people to work more than 40 hours per week. So I actually disagree with the headline. Likely people's pay is not going to go up significantly but rather many companies will hire more people to fill the gap. As a side benefit this should help unemployment. I work at a tech company and we pay everyone hourly. I think salaried is stupid and we should just do away with it. If they track your hours then you should automatically be hourly. If you don't set your own schedule then you should be hourly. If you can't leave at noon because things are slow then you should be hourly. If you don't have a set amount of tasks that once finished you can leave then you should be hourly. Most people shouldn't really be salaried. Nurses or anyone who has to be at their station a minimum number of hours shouldn't be salaried. Salaried should be reserved for the accountant that comes in, balances the books, and leaves or other such jobs where you can actually run out of work and go home early if you get done early.

    2. Re:No, that means your pay is about to go down by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      of course, because of Obamacare, everyone and their dog is running 29 hour part time workers, to avoid paying through the nose for insurance for every 'full time' employee. This means there was no overtime being worked ANYWAYS.

      There are several solutions to this but keeping employees salaried isn't one of them. One solution would be to stop requiring employers to provide health insurance at all and give people tax breaks to buy the type of coverage THEY want versus the type of coverage that is the cheapest for the employer. It makes no sense to have health insurance tied to your job. The only reason it is is because a long time ago it was a way to get around wage caps. Another way would be to get employers to pay insurance proportional to how many hours a person worked. If you combined the two then you could create something highly attractive to both parties that might actually have a chance of getting passed. For instance if every employer had to contribute $X dollars per hour to a savings account that the employee set up and the employee could only spend it on health insurance premiums. If someone had multiple parttime jobs then they could pool the amounts. If they were short then they could make up the difference. To sweeten the deal for the employers and encourage people to buy insurance you could even say that any money not spent at the end of the year gets returned to the employer. This would likely be a much better system than what we have now where every time you change your job you change your health insurance and the person who uses the health insurance gets no say in what kind of coverage they get.

    3. Re:No, that means your pay is about to go down by fermion · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I know young store managers that are on salary around $25K. The hours they work for that money means they make little more than minimum wage. Some of them are trying to go to school. For them the benifit is going to be working few hours for the money. They may be cut back to $10 an hour, which means they will have $15 overtime, which means they may have to work 45 hours a week to make the same money instead of 50 like they do now.

      Or they may just suck it up and pay managers $50K, since keeping up with hours for managerial staff is kind of cumbersome.

      Where this is going to be a stickler is actually some government jobs. For instance some places do not pay teachers $50K yet they are exempt employees. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:No, that means your pay is about to go down by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      Likely people's pay is not going to go up significantly but rather many companies will hire more people to fill the gap. As a side benefit this should help unemployment.

      - actually many full time employees will be fired and replaced with part time ones. Sure it will 'help' unemployment like every other thing for the last few years 'helps' unemployment by destroying full time jobs and creating part time ones. Having more part time jobs than full time jobs pushes the overall number of jobs up, this 'helps' the unemployment numbers as reported by the government.

      I'm actually ok with this. I want my 7 hour work week I was promised. The key is to make sure that those 7 hours are still good paying jobs. I'm especially ok with a 30 hour workweek if I'm still making the same per hour as 60 hours. I'm even ok with losing my health insurance. I would rather pay for my own health insurance and not have to destroy my health working 60 hours a week. Full time and part time are relative terms. Who decided that 40 hours is fulltime and 30 hours is parttime? The only reason we make a distinction is because of the benefits like vacation pay, health insurance, etc.. but there is no reason that employers couldn't offer those same benefits to employees working 20 hours a week.

  4. Re:Money is for LUDDITES. by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  5. Divide et impera by Trachman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Great, drive prices up some more by crunchygranola · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  7. Re:Great, drive prices up some more by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    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.

  8. Re:This Is Why I Work for Lots of People by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "There's no way for the government to set employee / employer agreements in such a way that everyone benefits. "

    "Everyone" isn't supposed to benefit. The low-wage workers who were getting screwed out of their wages benefit. The employers who were screwing them lose. Not everything has be win-win to be worth doing.

    --
    Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
  9. Re:Your pay is not going up by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Re:I've already seen how this turns out. by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Informative

    You do exactly what the handbook says.

    You show up on time, do your job as best you can, and try to get done in 40 hours. If it's not going to happen, tell your manager that the choice is overtime or failure. Either way, it's his call.

    I've had managers choose failure. I've had managers tell me that I should consider all overtime approved until certain deadlines are hit. I've never had a (long-lasting) manager tell me to break corporate policy, and most prefer to know early what the outcome of the week will be, rather than be surprised on Monday when schedules slip.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  11. Re:Great, drive prices up some more by Calydor · · Score: 2

    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=-
  12. Bloody clickbait by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    I don't who the "you" this headline/summary is referring to, but it's not me.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  13. Re:Tomorrow's headline by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

    Doesn't the US have duck-laws for independend contractors?

    i.e. if a person looks like an employee and quacks like one then they are an employee no matter what the eployment contract says.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.