Yeah, but say that when MS offers YOU that kind of money, OK?
Money may not buy happiness... but it DOES buy something FAR more precious - TIME.
And what you do with that time, of course, is all up to you. And THAT includes working towards happiness, which is a LOT easier when you don't have to worry about working to pay bills, or worse, just to buy groceries.
Now, is it worth it to never be credible again in this industry? Guess you'll have to answer that for yourself, should this situation ever arise for you, just as this guy did.
But don't try to convince anyone here that money isn't important, because it IS... it's more a matter of what your price is, and THAT, my friend, is something that everyone discovers for themselves, if pushed far enough, and then lives with, one way or another.
$20/hour is $41600/year, assuming 40 hours per week and 52 weeks/year.
$10/hour would be half that, or $20800 with the same assumptions.
Sorry!
Also, I'm mildly curious about the number of companies that pay their exempt programmers the bare minimum to be deemed so: $26.73/hour and then demand that they work excessive hours. Anyone willing to speak up?
Our employers are also "free" to make that a requirement of employment.
Actually, this isn't true. Each state has its own labor laws, and there are federal standards as well.
I've posted on this subject before, and I'll say it again: People need to learn what their state's labor laws say with regards to overtime in addition to federal law. Salary does NOT automatically mean exempt from overtime pay or other forms of compensation, and those companies that act as though it does are generally in violation of both state and federal law.
Now, as a practical matter, you might not be prepared to lose your job over insisting that your employer obey the law as it applies to your job. Should that be the case, the best advice I can offer is: KEEP TRACK OF THE TIME THAT YOU WORK! Keep a log at home, note the dates and hours that you work, every day. Also include breaks and note whether or not you worked through them.
Don't mention to anyone at your office that you're doing so - the mere act of noting that your employer is potentially breaking the law will certainly make them question the desirability of your continued employment there should they discover it.
If you are non-exempt, and the amount of unpaid overtime becomes extreme (and YOU have to define what "extreme" means for your particular circumstance, I'm afraid), then you have a decision to make:
1) You can continue to suffer, in the hope that someday you'll be rewarded. 2) You can attempt to have a reasonable discussion with your manager(s) about the problem. 3) You can quit, or some variation thereof (e.g. look for another job as time permits and then put in notice once you get a job offer).
Cynically, I doubt that that any of the above except for 3) will work. Given the ever-escalating drive for profit at all costs, most management won't think twice about firing you. After all, there are probably dozens of people that would take your job in a heartbeat... and then burn themselves out too, to be replaced later.
If you ARE exempt, you have no recourse at all, and I hope that your employer is paying you VERY well!
Since labor is THE single largest expense for most companies, unpaid overtime (legal or not) is a GREAT way for management to keep costs down, BTW. If you're non-exempt, and working overtime for no additional pay (that is to say, they pay you a flat rate regardless of how many hours you work), then every hour that you work over 40 in a week reduces the amount that you make that week correspondingly (actually, this is true whether you're exempt or not: It's just that exempt employees tend to be paid MUCH more per year when they are truly exempt under the law, so it doesn't sting as much. The average CEO of a large corporation is exempt, but he or she is paid considerably more for their services per year than those in the trenches).
Do the math: Suppose you're being paid an effective rate of $20/hour, salaried, non-exempt.
If you work 80 hours per week, and are treated as an exempt employee, then your effective hourly rate becomes $10/hour. If you do that every week, and don't burn out, your effective salary drops from $83,200/year to $41,600/year.
If you only skip lunch every day for a year (assuming a half-hour lunch break), then you're giving your employer 2.5 hours/week of your time for free (assuming a 5 day standard work week). That may not sound like a lot, but: Do that every week, and don't take a vacation... then assuming 52 work weeks in a year, you gave your employer 130 hours of work for free. Hearkening back to a standard 40 hour work week - that's over *3* of them for which you didn't get paid.
Now, assuming you're willing to lose your job, and further assuming that the labor laws are on your side, you DO have recourse: Ask your employer for the overtime pay to which you are entitled. If they refuse to pay, take a trip to your state's local department of labor office, records in hand.
"I broke the law a LOT when I was young, but it's OK, because NOW I buy what I can afford. The copyright holders that didn't get paid for all the work I stole, excuse me, "stole", can now look forward to me actually paying for some of their products, when I can afford them.
Naturally, if I find I can't afford it, I'll steal it, excuse me, "steal" it, because I did in the past, and that was OK, because I couldn't afford it then and I wanted it. So, whenever I can't afford it now and want it, I'll just do the same, and that's OK too, because I did it before, and so did all my friends.
But, it's all good: I'm buying, when I can afford it, the SAME kinds of things that I used to steal, err, "steal", and I'm sure that the copyright holders will be PLEASED with my loyalty!
Sure, they'll never see a penny for all the stuff I got for free before, but that's OK, because I couldn't afford it then, and besides, they are all rich and greedy and I'm not.
And look! Everyone pirates Windows, and Microsoft is rich! So, it must follow that no company ever gets hurt by stealing, I mean "stealing".
Did I mention that I'm also seeking affirmation here on Slashdot? By being honest about my activities and rationalizing them here, I know that all the people that think just like me will mod me up and feel good about me and themselves.
I'll get an Interesting or two, maybe even an Insightful... and before you know it, this post will be rated +5 and my Karma will be better, to boot!
And, because so many of you modded me up, and WE all think that stealing, I mean "stealing", is OK, it MUST be OK, right?
Oh, and most of it was crap, and I wouldn't have bought it anyway! So, they didn't lose a sale. Besides, CDs only cost like ten cents to make, so they are way overpriced. And, they don't pay the artists enough, so I'm protesting by not giving ANYONE any money. And, the copyright laws are wrong, so it's actually like civil disobedience, you know?"
In fact, if we have a non-contract related meeting--one where we can't charge the time to a contract--it is almost always done at lunch, with lunch provided free.
Unless you are a sub-contractor, or your job is considered exempt under the law, you are being cheated.
There are three types of employment: Hourly, Salary: Non-exempt and Salary:Exempt. Sub-contracting is a seperate deal (and, if you're a sub-contractor working for free... well, sure, sometimes you eat an hour or three in the interest of business. But, if you have to do it a lot, then find business elsewhere).
If you are either hourly or salary:Non-exempt and your employer makes you do work for no pay, then they are disobeying the law.
If you're exempt, well, that's a whole different matter... and I hope that they are paying you a LOT of money! Just remember that every hour that you work over 40 eats into that... and after 80 hours, you're effectively making half your weekly salary (Been there... and let me tell you, in the long run it sucks, no matter how large a yearly salary you're getting. For example: If you're getting paid $80K/year, but you are working 80 hour weeks, every week... effectively you're getting paid $40K/year because you're working twice as much).
But, assuming that you're NOT exempt: Those "working lunches" are just their way of getting more work out of you... they provide the food (whoop-de-doo!)... you grind out more hours for them for free.
Rule of thumb: If it is important enough to meet over, it's important enough that you SHOULD be paid for it. After all, they are paying for you expertise, skills, etc. If they aren't willing to pay you, then it isn't important.
Oh, and the answer to "They don't have $5000-$10000 to pay a division of people for an hour or two meeting." is this: Bullshit. It's called "cost of doing business", my friend. And, if you really ARE working for a DoD contractor, then your employer is making a lot of money, especially now that there's a war on.
You can bet that the money that they are billing the DoD for you and others can more than cover your pay and a few non-billed company meetings now and again... with profit to spare for the higher-ups' salaries and bonus checks.
Quick reality check: Do a survey of the company parking lot, check to see what the executives and upper-management types are driving... it's not scientific, but you'll get a fair idea how well-off the company is. Even better, if the company is publicly traded, you can look up the executives' pay, bonuses, etc.
Here's the real way to look at it: Look at how much they are billing for your time... then calculate how much time you are billing per week. Then, subtract your pay. What is left over is the profit that you are generating for them (hopefully there's money left over!). It will probably be a lot... in fact, you might be amazed. Keep in mind, however, that the money you generate has to pay not only for you, but also goes towards paying those that don't generate billable hours.
But, a company that mandates working lunches for no pay for hourly or non-exempt salaried employees is simply greedy, and usually has other bad habits as well. Maybe it isn't corporate policy, and you just have a bad manager that wants to make his/her department look good. Regardless, it sounds as though you've been sold a bill of goods.
Most of the places I have worked have the policy "We do not pay overtime."
And the sad part about that is, in the US, at least, there is a difference between being "salaried", and "salaried - exempt". The former classification is requires overtime pay, the latter does not.
The requirements for exempt status vary from state to state, but tend to be quite rigorously defined in terms of pay and job duties. For example, in New York, one of the requirements is that the position be mostly administrative/management. So, a typical technician or programmer wouldn't qualify.
Try telling that to your boss, though. One of the quickest ways to become persona non grata with an employer is to point out the labor laws in your state, and note that your employer isn't in compliance.
I've held technical positions for nearly 25 years, and only recently discovered that I only had one job during all that time that could have been considered exempt. I was never paid overtime, in my former employers' minds salary = no overtime, regardless.
And the reason that I now know this is that I helped my brother get overtime pay from a former employer. They made him work for 4 months straight without a day off, 12+ hours a day, with no overtime because he was salaried. They thought that they could get away with it, and knew he was desperate for a job (he'd been unemployed for almost 6 months at that point, and had largely consumed his savings to keep his family fed and bills paid). To their dismay, the NYS Department of Labor made them pay overtime for all the time he worked, and unemployment as well, because they deemed that the only reason that he'd been fired was for complaining about being overworked.
The best advice that I can offer is: Learn the labor laws in your state and make sure that your employer is in compliance. If they aren't, you'll have to decide what, if anything, you are going to do about it. If you're happy with your job, and your employer isn't abusing the overtime, it might not be worth it to complain.
But, employers that use salary as an excuse to get more work hours from employees for no additional pay generally tend to have other nasty habits, too.
In any event, I advise that salaried people keep track of their work hours, breaks, etc. Keep a log at home, update it faithfully. Make notes about the days you work overtime, and why. Sure, it's a hassle, but it is worth it.
This is especially vital if your company bills their customers for your time. If you work overtime on a job for a customer, you can bet your employer is billing overtime rates (or should be - a company that will habitually let their technical employees work overtime on a job for no additional charge is either foolish, greedy(1), lacks time/project management skills, or all three).
If the amount of unpaid overtime becomes egregious, you can potentially use it to justify a raise. Or, barring that, a reason to seek other employment.
There's nothing disloyal about being aware of how much time you work, especially in a service industry. If your employer is billing a customer for your services, then you *should* be aware of how much time you're billing, at what rate(s), so that you know that you're paying for yourself and helping your employer make a profit as well.
Regards,
dj
(1) Before I get jumped on for saying that: Greedy in this sense: The employer wants the money billed, knowing that since they don't pay their "salaried" employees overtime they don't have to bill their customer an overtime rate to compensate... which makes their services more appealing when compared to another service company that does.
Believe me, it happens. I had one employer that did this explicitly: Server upgrades/migrations would take place on weekends, to minimize customer downtime. Rather than bill this at an overtime rate as a premium service that required the person doing the work give up all or part of a weekend, they billed norm
Um, no - the Supreme Court is part of the Judicial Branch... Congress is the Legislative branch, and the President and Vice President are the Executive branch.
You are correct with regards to the duties of the Executive branch, however.
Well, you have a stake in this debate by virtue of posting, otherwise, why post? (And I guess I do now, too *grin*)
Exousia is correct: Despite the fact that copyright infringement isn't defined as theft, the end result is that it does indeed deprive the copyright holder of the money that would have resulted had the terms of the copyright been observed by the person infringing.
It may not legally be theft, but I think that morally it is, and I'm completely comfortable with that view, despite the fact that it's bound to be unpopular with those that post rationalizations here, such as yourself.
And P2P may be "excepted" (I'm thinking you meant "accepted", perhaps?), but you seem to imply that the only use to which it is put is copyright infringement. That may be true for you, but it certainly isn't the case for others.
Whether or not it is a "major source" of revenue loss for producers has nothing to do with the matter. The loss is a direct one-to-one mapping: Each act of infringement deprives the copyright holder of the money to which they are legally entitled.
What bothers me most about posts such as yours is their selfishness and short-sightedness. P2P has enormous potential, but its existence is being threatened by those that use it illegally. As others have pointed out, there are artists that use it to gain exposure and recognition that they may not otherwise be able to attain for whatever reason.
Should P2P become outlawed, or just as bad, be permitted only under the control of the RIAA and its ilk, that avenue to success on their own terms, without becoming part of the entertainment machine, may well be denied them.
I'd hate to see that happen simply because some people don't think that unlawful doesn't equate to immoral.
That's their job, fixing things, and its essential to the success of the team.
Sure, but the analogy breaks down in a networked environment: Yours isn't the only car for which they are responsible, and they *all* have to work. In addition, the damage caused to a racing car is the natural result of its environment and use.
In a workplace with an IT staff, you aren't responsible for fixing your computer, they are. I've rarely seen a situation where locking down a computer, when done properly and with attention to the task(s) which that computer is to perform, hampers the user. The few times that it has, rectifying the problem is easily accomplished.
Most times, the people that resent not having full access to "their" computer are exactly the ones that shouldn't have it in the first place, either because they lack an understanding of how it fits into the rest of the network, are by nature inclined to play around with it and cause headaches for those that have to correct the resulting problems, or both.
User failures happen just as often as hardware failures, I've found, and even the most intelligent user doesn't necessarily have the knowledge needed to ensure that changes made to the PC that has been assigned to their use won't adversely impact others.
There's an inherent arrogance in your post, which is probably why you posted AC: You think that your job *requires* full access to "your" computer. That's doubtful, but possible - and if it were, a rational conversation with your IT staff should establish that.
And here's the sentence that confirms your arrogance for me: "Abused things, damage that could be avoided if they took the keys away from the drivers"... normal use of a computer doesn't include abusing it in any manner.
Sure, there are things that might involve "abusing" the computer - driver development and testing come to mind as one example. But if you're doing that, it's very unlikely that the PC that is assigned to you for that task is locked down.
It's more likely that you're a user that discovered that he/she doesn't have full access to "their" computer, resent what you think impugns your technical knowledge, and worse, prevents you from using "your" computer for things other than those for which it was assigned to you. Here's a clue for you: They didn't target you specifically when they locked down "your" computer.
Well, probably. It's possible that they *did* target you, because you proved that you couldn't be trusted not to abuse full access to it. If that's the case, good for them, I say.
To paraphrase your opening sentence: You're making that incredibly naive assumption that you need full access to "your" computer, and that not having it somehow hampers you from using it to perform your job duties. Guess what? It's not likely.
The only thing that gives Americans freedom is the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights merely enumerates a few inherent rights of humans that the Founders believed were so important that they should be pointed out to the world. It doesn't *give* us those rights, nor any rights at all for that matter, because they believed that we are all born with them.
One of the reasons that this is such an important distinction to make is the ever-growing perception that government in general, and the US Federal government in particular, exists as the repository of our rights as citizens.
This isn't true at all, you see, and directly opposes the Founders' vision of a minimal Federal government existing only for those purposes clearly stated in the Constitution.
Basically NSFC would be anything a fair and balanced Christian wouldn't show to their 10 year old.
Well, I think you're a troll, as the above statement is an oxymoron at best, not to mention discriminatory in nature.
And, your post is *not* insightful to the topic at hand - it is Offtopic: What does a rating system for movies based upon "fair and balanced Christian" views have to do with a P2P summit? Nothing.
In an attempt to return my post to some semblance of relevance: I think that this is a good idea - at least someone in Congress appears to have a clue. Technology *has* outpaced the law in general, and most especially perhaps with regards to copyright infringement and P2P. All attempts to date to address the discrepancy have been horribly inadequate and have done nothing to address the problem, although they have given unprecedented power to commercial organizations such as the RIAA.
However, I doubt that Congress will end up doing anything useful. There's too much money at stake, and some of it finds its way into their re-election campaign accounts.
Of course not... it's taxing it's biggest job providers to death...
Beg pardon, but that isn't true.
This link: http://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/trends/current/incomeT ax1910_presG.html
shows the trend of corporate vs. individual taxes, and clearly shows that corporations are paying less each year, while the tax burden on the individual increases.
I hardly think that corporations are being "taxed to death", although the individuals are...
Next week, I get the bill. $100 !?! It only took him two minutes to fix it!
Well, many service companies charge a minimum service fee. Still, $100 is steep for a minimum charge. Personally, I'd have have written it up as "no charge" in the name of good will, if the travel time involved was minimal, and I had the discretion to do so.
And don't pretend that nobody here has ever coded up some patches or something at work.
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that he did... he states that he developed it on his own time, with his own resources.
Work for hire clauses can't include non-competing efforts done outside of the office, off company time and with one's own resources, no matter what a corporation might wish to the contrary. Slavery in the US was abolished quite some time ago, IIRC.
Suppose I, as a technician, decide to fix a family member's computer, on my own time, using my own tools (which I've owned anyway since I was a young tech nearly 20 years ago - and I'm still amazed that many service companies are "reluctant" to provide the proper tools to their techs).
Since they are family, I'd never charge them for labor. If I needed parts, I'd obtain them from the most convenient place, purchasing them from my employer if needed and simply passing the cost along at no markup regardless of the source.
Now, is my employer entitled to bill the family member for my time? Since I didn't bill them, do I then owe my employer whatever that amount would have been, were it on company time?
I think not.
I've done work "on the side" for years, for free and for money. I won't do so for customers of my employer, naturally (although I have been asked to do so many times, and declined). I don't make it a point to mention it to my employer, but won't lie about it if asked, as I see nothing wrong with using my skills to earn extra money when possible, within the limits of professionalism and loyality.
What I do with my personal time is my concern, even if it uses those skills for which my employer pays me, so long as I'm not using anything that the employer provides to do so and am not taking business away from them. I'd not work for any employer that thought otherwise, and would read very carefully any employment contract with a work for hire clause to be sure of the limitations placed upon me by it.
Yeah, but they fixed most of the RIP/SAP issues with NLSP (NetWare Link Services Protocol), but by that point, I'm sure they knew that TCP/IP was the future of networking (unfortunately in some ways, I think).
As a long time Novell admirer and CNE (installed my first NetWare LAN in 1986/87, certified in 1992, sigh), I've watched them struggle for years, most times in dismay.
First it was Ray Noorda's determination to beat Microsoft by buying Wordperfect Corporation, DRI and USL. The potential was there, but Microsoft was far too entrenched by that point.
Then it was their poor marketing (renaming NetWare to IntranetWare for a short time, for example), and nearly 10 years of "wandering" around the networking landscape as Microsoft's marketing machine went into high gear and its networking became "good enough" for business use.
Now it seems as though they are back on track. They started awhile ago, by emphasizing network services over the NOS.
With NDS, a stable and mature cross-platform directory service (yeah, yeah, it has its problems - tell me Active Directory doesn't?)and a good Linux distribution obtained through this purchase, they have the potential to challenge Microsoft's dominance in the desktop arena, and slow or even stop their encroachment upon the server space as well.
They have the tools already (NDS and ZENWorks among others); if they can create a transparent network management environment that doesn't depend on any particular OS/NOS, but allows them all to be centrally managed, and encompasses the desktop as well, they will have accomplished something unique, and will be the first company to do so.
It's about large networks, and the ability to choose best-of breed products regardless of OS and be able to integrate them, and support them, to provide services to the users.
In short, it *is* about the network, and it is all connected.
Desktop PC hardware is already a commodity. Server class hardware is rapidly becoming so - the next step in the evolution of networking isn't at the "nuts and bolts" level, it is "above" the network.
>The stupid fact is that guns do kill people. They know it, I know it, you know it as well. Cars kill people too, every day. In fact, I'd be willing to bet more people were killed by automobiles today than by guns.
The stupid fact is, lots of things kill lots of people for lots of reasons, every day. Singling out guns when there are other things that cause more deaths is just a bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
Regardless of the anti-gun nuts mistaken beliefs, for every crime committed with a gun in the US, there are tens, hundreds of thousands of gun owners that didn't commit a crime with a gun, nor in general commit any crime at all.
A little perspective is a good thing, I've found. And, knowing that, all the hype aside (from both sides of the gun control issue), there are far more decent people owning guns than there are criminals owning guns makes me, at least, feel better.
Regards,
dj
P.S. While I'm thinking of it: Does anyone have any statistics on the number of gun owners in the US that have *never* committed a crime with a gun? Or, for that matter, never committed any crime at all?
I don't suppose anyone tracks that kind of information.
Yeah, but you'd be surprised at how effective a pistol can be, when used against the right target. That's why underground resistence movements and the like can be effective dispite "limited" weaponry - pick the correct people, kill them and the opposition can become crippled.
Hmm, we seem to have a difficulty in understanding: My take is that it isn't a condition, it is the reason for not infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms - that's what it says.
Your reading seems to be "There must be a well-regulated militia in order for the people to have a right to keep and bear arms". With the statement that since we don't really "need" to have a militia anymore, then the Second Amendment somehow magically doesn't apply anymore and so people no longer have a right to keep and bear arms. Sorry, but that isn't how the Constitution works.
>If the "well regulated militia" part wasn't a >condition, it seems like the Founding Fathers >would have just said "the right of the people to >keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and >left it at that. After all, the First Amendment >doesn't start with "Since these freedoms are >necessary to keep the peons happy,..."
What "seems" that they "would have just said" isn't important: What they *did* say is very important.
That kind of argument is "second guessing" that's used it to justify an otherwise untenable position, as though the First Amendment is somehow "better" than the Second. That's not the case at all, the order of the Amendments isn't a ranking system, and being placed lower in the list doesn't make the Amendment any less important.
But it is interesting to note that the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of our differences in what that actually means, is listed second.
To continue: The Constitution doesn't *grant* rights, it merely acknowledges a few of them, and seeks to prevent the ones that the Founding Fathers deemed most important from being taken away.
Their desire to ensure that the people never be disarmed was fueled by recent experience, and the knowledge that had the people not been armed, they'd not have been able to become independent of England.
In creating the framework for a new government, they sought to ensure that that would always be true, so that succeeding generations could, if driven to it, overthrow their government by force of arms, as they had.
In addition, they never envisioned that the Federal Government would become so large, nor that its military would ever be more than a token defensive force, supplemented by armed citizens called up to defend the country in time of need.
They despised standing armies, for their experiences with them were wholly negative, and were one of the factors that lead to the Revolution.
The current size of the Federal Government and its military really have no bearing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. You might just as well say that since the government has a lot of printing devices, we don't need to have freedom of the press any longer.
The Second Amendment is the most neglected in the Constitution, the Supreme Court consistently refuses to hear Second Amendment cases, and it has been many years since it has done so.
Finally, it's interesting that the constitutions of some of the states that formed the United States at its inception actually do have Second Ammendment-type provisions stated as you wanted: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", or similar phrasing. Pennsylvania's is one, IIRC.
Regards,
dj
(And I just noticed that I keep trying to spell "amendment" as "ammendment" )
>Yes, but your stance is that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own arms. Or am I wrong on that?
You are wrong on that. The Second Ammendment doesn't grant the people the right to bear arms, it implicitly acknowledges that right, and prohibits infringements upon it.
Slashdot Mirror
Try resetting TCP/IP:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/299357
Good thing I only talk to myself, and post to Slashdot, which is basically the same thing.
Yeah, but say that when MS offers YOU that kind of money, OK?
Money may not buy happiness... but it DOES buy something FAR more precious - TIME.
And what you do with that time, of course, is all up to you. And THAT includes working towards happiness, which is a LOT easier when you don't have to worry about working to pay bills, or worse, just to buy groceries.
Now, is it worth it to never be credible again in this industry? Guess you'll have to answer that for yourself, should this situation ever arise for you, just as this guy did.
But don't try to convince anyone here that money isn't important, because it IS... it's more a matter of what your price is, and THAT, my friend, is something that everyone discovers for themselves, if pushed far enough, and then lives with, one way or another.
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you morons that COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS STILL ILLEGAL... it just won't sink in!
Whoops - I made a math error...
$20/hour is $41600/year, assuming 40 hours per week and 52 weeks/year.
$10/hour would be half that, or $20800 with the same assumptions.
Sorry!
Also, I'm mildly curious about the number of companies that pay their exempt programmers the bare minimum to be deemed so: $26.73/hour and then demand that they work excessive hours. Anyone willing to speak up?
Actually, this isn't true. Each state has its own labor laws, and there are federal standards as well.
I've posted on this subject before, and I'll say it again: People need to learn what their state's labor laws say with regards to overtime in addition to federal law. Salary does NOT automatically mean exempt from overtime pay or other forms of compensation, and those companies that act as though it does are generally in violation of both state and federal law.
Now, as a practical matter, you might not be prepared to lose your job over insisting that your employer obey the law as it applies to your job. Should that be the case, the best advice I can offer is: KEEP TRACK OF THE TIME THAT YOU WORK! Keep a log at home, note the dates and hours that you work, every day. Also include breaks and note whether or not you worked through them.
Don't mention to anyone at your office that you're doing so - the mere act of noting that your employer is potentially breaking the law will certainly make them question the desirability of your continued employment there should they discover it.
If you are non-exempt, and the amount of unpaid overtime becomes extreme (and YOU have to define what "extreme" means for your particular circumstance, I'm afraid), then you have a decision to make:
1) You can continue to suffer, in the hope that someday you'll be rewarded.
2) You can attempt to have a reasonable discussion with your manager(s) about the problem.
3) You can quit, or some variation thereof (e.g. look for another job as time permits and then put in notice once you get a job offer).
Cynically, I doubt that that any of the above except for 3) will work. Given the ever-escalating drive for profit at all costs, most management won't think twice about firing you. After all, there are probably dozens of people that would take your job in a heartbeat... and then burn themselves out too, to be replaced later.
If you ARE exempt, you have no recourse at all, and I hope that your employer is paying you VERY well!
Since labor is THE single largest expense for most companies, unpaid overtime (legal or not) is a GREAT way for management to keep costs down, BTW. If you're non-exempt, and working overtime for no additional pay (that is to say, they pay you a flat rate regardless of how many hours you work), then every hour that you work over 40 in a week reduces the amount that you make that week correspondingly (actually, this is true whether you're exempt or not: It's just that exempt employees tend to be paid MUCH more per year when they are truly exempt under the law, so it doesn't sting as much. The average CEO of a large corporation is exempt, but he or she is paid considerably more for their services per year than those in the trenches).
Do the math: Suppose you're being paid an effective rate of $20/hour, salaried, non-exempt.
If you work 80 hours per week, and are treated as an exempt employee, then your effective hourly rate becomes $10/hour. If you do that every week, and don't burn out, your effective salary drops from $83,200/year to $41,600/year.
If you only skip lunch every day for a year (assuming a half-hour lunch break), then you're giving your employer 2.5 hours/week of your time for free (assuming a 5 day standard work week). That may not sound like a lot, but: Do that every week, and don't take a vacation... then assuming 52 work weeks in a year, you gave your employer 130 hours of work for free. Hearkening back to a standard 40 hour work week - that's over *3* of them for which you didn't get paid.
Now, assuming you're willing to lose your job, and further assuming that the labor laws are on your side, you DO have recourse: Ask your employer for the overtime pay to which you are entitled. If they refuse to pay, take a trip to your state's local department of labor office, records in hand.
But as
Um, that statue is called the Spirit of Justice.
Translation to the parent post:
"I broke the law a LOT when I was young, but it's OK, because NOW I buy what I can afford. The copyright holders that didn't get paid for all the work I stole, excuse me, "stole", can now look forward to me actually paying for some of their products, when I can afford them.
Naturally, if I find I can't afford it, I'll steal it, excuse me, "steal" it, because I did in the past, and that was OK, because I couldn't afford it then and I wanted it. So, whenever I can't afford it now and want it, I'll just do the same, and that's OK too, because I did it before, and so did all my friends.
But, it's all good: I'm buying, when I can afford it, the SAME kinds of things that I used to steal, err, "steal", and I'm sure that the copyright holders will be PLEASED with my loyalty!
Sure, they'll never see a penny for all the stuff I got for free before, but that's OK, because I couldn't afford it then, and besides, they are all rich and greedy and I'm not.
And look! Everyone pirates Windows, and Microsoft is rich! So, it must follow that no company ever gets hurt by stealing, I mean "stealing".
Did I mention that I'm also seeking affirmation here on Slashdot? By being honest about my activities and rationalizing them here, I know that all the people that think just like me will mod me up and feel good about me and themselves.
I'll get an Interesting or two, maybe even an Insightful... and before you know it, this post will be rated +5 and my Karma will be better, to boot!
And, because so many of you modded me up, and WE all think that stealing, I mean "stealing", is OK, it MUST be OK, right?
Oh, and most of it was crap, and I wouldn't have bought it anyway! So, they didn't lose a sale. Besides, CDs only cost like ten cents to make, so they are way overpriced. And, they don't pay the artists enough, so I'm protesting by not giving ANYONE any money. And, the copyright laws are wrong, so it's actually like civil disobedience, you know?"
End translation.
Did I miss anything?
Unless you are a sub-contractor, or your job is considered exempt under the law, you are being cheated.
There are three types of employment: Hourly, Salary: Non-exempt and Salary:Exempt. Sub-contracting is a seperate deal (and, if you're a sub-contractor working for free... well, sure, sometimes you eat an hour or three in the interest of business. But, if you have to do it a lot, then find business elsewhere).
If you are either hourly or salary:Non-exempt and your employer makes you do work for no pay, then they are disobeying the law.
If you're exempt, well, that's a whole different matter... and I hope that they are paying you a LOT of money! Just remember that every hour that you work over 40 eats into that... and after 80 hours, you're effectively making half your weekly salary (Been there... and let me tell you, in the long run it sucks, no matter how large a yearly salary you're getting. For example: If you're getting paid $80K/year, but you are working 80 hour weeks, every week... effectively you're getting paid $40K/year because you're working twice as much).
But, assuming that you're NOT exempt: Those "working lunches" are just their way of getting more work out of you... they provide the food (whoop-de-doo!)... you grind out more hours for them for free.
Rule of thumb: If it is important enough to meet over, it's important enough that you SHOULD be paid for it. After all, they are paying for you expertise, skills, etc. If they aren't willing to pay you, then it isn't important.
Oh, and the answer to "They don't have $5000-$10000 to pay a division of people for an hour or two meeting." is this: Bullshit. It's called "cost of doing business", my friend. And, if you really ARE working for a DoD contractor, then your employer is making a lot of money, especially now that there's a war on.
You can bet that the money that they are billing the DoD for you and others can more than cover your pay and a few non-billed company meetings now and again... with profit to spare for the higher-ups' salaries and bonus checks.
Quick reality check: Do a survey of the company parking lot, check to see what the executives and upper-management types are driving... it's not scientific, but you'll get a fair idea how well-off the company is. Even better, if the company is publicly traded, you can look up the executives' pay, bonuses, etc.
Here's the real way to look at it: Look at how much they are billing for your time... then calculate how much time you are billing per week. Then, subtract your pay. What is left over is the profit that you are generating for them (hopefully there's money left over!). It will probably be a lot... in fact, you might be amazed. Keep in mind, however, that the money you generate has to pay not only for you, but also goes towards paying those that don't generate billable hours.
But, a company that mandates working lunches for no pay for hourly or non-exempt salaried employees is simply greedy, and usually has other bad habits as well. Maybe it isn't corporate policy, and you just have a bad manager that wants to make his/her department look good. Regardless, it sounds as though you've been sold a bill of goods.
Regards,
dj
And the sad part about that is, in the US, at least, there is a difference between being "salaried", and "salaried - exempt". The former classification is requires overtime pay, the latter does not.
The requirements for exempt status vary from state to state, but tend to be quite rigorously defined in terms of pay and job duties. For example, in New York, one of the requirements is that the position be mostly administrative/management. So, a typical technician or programmer wouldn't qualify.
Try telling that to your boss, though. One of the quickest ways to become persona non grata with an employer is to point out the labor laws in your state, and note that your employer isn't in compliance.
I've held technical positions for nearly 25 years, and only recently discovered that I only had one job during all that time that could have been considered exempt. I was never paid overtime, in my former employers' minds salary = no overtime, regardless.
And the reason that I now know this is that I helped my brother get overtime pay from a former employer. They made him work for 4 months straight without a day off, 12+ hours a day, with no overtime because he was salaried. They thought that they could get away with it, and knew he was desperate for a job (he'd been unemployed for almost 6 months at that point, and had largely consumed his savings to keep his family fed and bills paid). To their dismay, the NYS Department of Labor made them pay overtime for all the time he worked, and unemployment as well, because they deemed that the only reason that he'd been fired was for complaining about being overworked.
The best advice that I can offer is: Learn the labor laws in your state and make sure that your employer is in compliance. If they aren't, you'll have to decide what, if anything, you are going to do about it. If you're happy with your job, and your employer isn't abusing the overtime, it might not be worth it to complain.
But, employers that use salary as an excuse to get more work hours from employees for no additional pay generally tend to have other nasty habits, too.
In any event, I advise that salaried people keep track of their work hours, breaks, etc. Keep a log at home, update it faithfully. Make notes about the days you work overtime, and why. Sure, it's a hassle, but it is worth it.
This is especially vital if your company bills their customers for your time. If you work overtime on a job for a customer, you can bet your employer is billing overtime rates (or should be - a company that will habitually let their technical employees work overtime on a job for no additional charge is either foolish, greedy(1), lacks time/project management skills, or all three).
If the amount of unpaid overtime becomes egregious, you can potentially use it to justify a raise. Or, barring that, a reason to seek other employment.
There's nothing disloyal about being aware of how much time you work, especially in a service industry. If your employer is billing a customer for your services, then you *should* be aware of how much time you're billing, at what rate(s), so that you know that you're paying for yourself and helping your employer make a profit as well.
Regards,
dj
(1) Before I get jumped on for saying that: Greedy in this sense: The employer wants the money billed, knowing that since they don't pay their "salaried" employees overtime they don't have to bill their customer an overtime rate to compensate... which makes their services more appealing when compared to another service company that does.
Believe me, it happens. I had one employer that did this explicitly: Server upgrades/migrations would take place on weekends, to minimize customer downtime. Rather than bill this at an overtime rate as a premium service that required the person doing the work give up all or part of a weekend, they billed norm
Um, no - the Supreme Court is part of the Judicial Branch... Congress is the Legislative branch, and the President and Vice President are the Executive branch.
You are correct with regards to the duties of the Executive branch, however.
Well, you have a stake in this debate by virtue of posting, otherwise, why post? (And I guess I do now, too *grin*)
Exousia is correct: Despite the fact that copyright infringement isn't defined as theft, the end result is that it does indeed deprive the copyright holder of the money that would have resulted had the terms of the copyright been observed by the person infringing.
It may not legally be theft, but I think that morally it is, and I'm completely comfortable with that view, despite the fact that it's bound to be unpopular with those that post rationalizations here, such as yourself.
And P2P may be "excepted" (I'm thinking you meant "accepted", perhaps?), but you seem to imply that the only use to which it is put is copyright infringement. That may be true for you, but it certainly isn't the case for others.
Whether or not it is a "major source" of revenue loss for producers has nothing to do with the matter. The loss is a direct one-to-one mapping: Each act of infringement deprives the copyright holder of the money to which they are legally entitled.
What bothers me most about posts such as yours is their selfishness and short-sightedness. P2P has enormous potential, but its existence is being threatened by those that use it illegally. As others have pointed out, there are artists that use it to gain exposure and recognition that they may not otherwise be able to attain for whatever reason.
Should P2P become outlawed, or just as bad, be permitted only under the control of the RIAA and its ilk, that avenue to success on their own terms, without becoming part of the entertainment machine, may well be denied them.
I'd hate to see that happen simply because some people don't think that unlawful doesn't equate to immoral.
Regards,
dj
I got it - it's a reference to Gene Roddenberry and Harlan Ellison, nicely detailed in "Harlan Ellison's The City on the Edge of Forever".
Regards,
dj
Sure, but the analogy breaks down in a networked environment: Yours isn't the only car for which they are responsible, and they *all* have to work. In addition, the damage caused to a racing car is the natural result of its environment and use.
In a workplace with an IT staff, you aren't responsible for fixing your computer, they are. I've rarely seen a situation where locking down a computer, when done properly and with attention to the task(s) which that computer is to perform, hampers the user. The few times that it has, rectifying the problem is easily accomplished.
Most times, the people that resent not having full access to "their" computer are exactly the ones that shouldn't have it in the first place, either because they lack an understanding of how it fits into the rest of the network, are by nature inclined to play around with it and cause headaches for those that have to correct the resulting problems, or both.
User failures happen just as often as hardware failures, I've found, and even the most intelligent user doesn't necessarily have the knowledge needed to ensure that changes made to the PC that has been assigned to their use won't adversely impact others.
There's an inherent arrogance in your post, which is probably why you posted AC: You think that your job *requires* full access to "your" computer. That's doubtful, but possible - and if it were, a rational conversation with your IT staff should establish that.
And here's the sentence that confirms your arrogance for me: "Abused things, damage that could be avoided if they took the keys away from the drivers"... normal use of a computer doesn't include abusing it in any manner.
Sure, there are things that might involve "abusing" the computer - driver development and testing come to mind as one example. But if you're doing that, it's very unlikely that the PC that is assigned to you for that task is locked down.
It's more likely that you're a user that discovered that he/she doesn't have full access to "their" computer, resent what you think impugns your technical knowledge, and worse, prevents you from using "your" computer for things other than those for which it was assigned to you. Here's a clue for you: They didn't target you specifically when they locked down "your" computer.
Well, probably. It's possible that they *did* target you, because you proved that you couldn't be trusted not to abuse full access to it. If that's the case, good for them, I say.
To paraphrase your opening sentence: You're making that incredibly naive assumption that you need full access to "your" computer, and that not having it somehow hampers you from using it to perform your job duties. Guess what? It's not likely.
Just my opinion.
-dj
Acutally, you are wrong about this:
The only thing that gives Americans freedom is the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights merely enumerates a few inherent rights of humans that the Founders believed were so important that they should be pointed out to the world. It doesn't *give* us those rights, nor any rights at all for that matter, because they believed that we are all born with them.
One of the reasons that this is such an important distinction to make is the ever-growing perception that government in general, and the US Federal government in particular, exists as the repository of our rights as citizens.
This isn't true at all, you see, and directly opposes the Founders' vision of a minimal Federal government existing only for those purposes clearly stated in the Constitution.
Regards,
dj
Well, I think you're a troll, as the above statement is an oxymoron at best, not to mention discriminatory in nature.
And, your post is *not* insightful to the topic at hand - it is Offtopic: What does a rating system for movies based upon "fair and balanced Christian" views have to do with a P2P summit? Nothing.
In an attempt to return my post to some semblance of relevance: I think that this is a good idea - at least someone in Congress appears to have a clue. Technology *has* outpaced the law in general, and most especially perhaps with regards to copyright infringement and P2P. All attempts to date to address the discrepancy have been horribly inadequate and have done nothing to address the problem, although they have given unprecedented power to commercial organizations such as the RIAA.
However, I doubt that Congress will end up doing anything useful. There's too much money at stake, and some of it finds its way into their re-election campaign accounts.
Regards,
dj
Beg pardon, but that isn't true.
This link: http://trac.syr.edu/tracirs/trends/current/income
shows the trend of corporate vs. individual taxes, and clearly shows that corporations are paying less each year, while the tax burden on the individual increases.
I hardly think that corporations are being "taxed to death", although the individuals are...
Regards,
dj
Well, many service companies charge a minimum service fee. Still, $100 is steep for a minimum charge. Personally, I'd have have written it up as "no charge" in the name of good will, if the travel time involved was minimal, and I had the discretion to do so.
Just my opinion.
dj
That may be true, but it doesn't mean that he did... he states that he developed it on his own time, with his own resources.
Work for hire clauses can't include non-competing efforts done outside of the office, off company time and with one's own resources, no matter what a corporation might wish to the contrary. Slavery in the US was abolished quite some time ago, IIRC.
Suppose I, as a technician, decide to fix a family member's computer, on my own time, using my own tools (which I've owned anyway since I was a young tech nearly 20 years ago - and I'm still amazed that many service companies are "reluctant" to provide the proper tools to their techs).
Since they are family, I'd never charge them for labor. If I needed parts, I'd obtain them from the most convenient place, purchasing them from my employer if needed and simply passing the cost along at no markup regardless of the source.
Now, is my employer entitled to bill the family member for my time? Since I didn't bill them, do I then owe my employer whatever that amount would have been, were it on company time?
I think not.
I've done work "on the side" for years, for free and for money. I won't do so for customers of my employer, naturally (although I have been asked to do so many times, and declined). I don't make it a point to mention it to my employer, but won't lie about it if asked, as I see nothing wrong with using my skills to earn extra money when possible, within the limits of professionalism and loyality.
What I do with my personal time is my concern, even if it uses those skills for which my employer pays me, so long as I'm not using anything that the employer provides to do so and am not taking business away from them. I'd not work for any employer that thought otherwise, and would read very carefully any employment contract with a work for hire clause to be sure of the limitations placed upon me by it.
Just my opinion.
Regards,
dj
Yeah, but they fixed most of the RIP/SAP issues with NLSP (NetWare Link Services Protocol), but by that point, I'm sure they knew that TCP/IP was the future of networking (unfortunately in some ways, I think).
Regards,
dj
It's about time!
As a long time Novell admirer and CNE (installed my first NetWare LAN in 1986/87, certified in 1992, sigh), I've watched them struggle for years, most times in dismay.
First it was Ray Noorda's determination to beat Microsoft by buying Wordperfect Corporation, DRI and USL. The potential was there, but Microsoft was far too entrenched by that point.
Then it was their poor marketing (renaming NetWare to IntranetWare for a short time, for example), and nearly 10 years of "wandering" around the networking landscape as Microsoft's marketing machine went into high gear and its networking became "good enough" for business use.
Now it seems as though they are back on track. They started awhile ago, by emphasizing network services over the NOS.
With NDS, a stable and mature cross-platform directory service (yeah, yeah, it has its problems - tell me Active Directory doesn't?)and a good Linux distribution obtained through this purchase, they have the potential to challenge Microsoft's dominance in the desktop arena, and slow or even stop their encroachment upon the server space as well.
They have the tools already (NDS and ZENWorks among others); if they can create a transparent network management environment that doesn't depend on any particular OS/NOS, but allows them all to be centrally managed, and encompasses the desktop as well, they will have accomplished something
unique, and will be the first company to do so.
It's about large networks, and the ability to choose best-of breed products regardless of OS and be able to integrate them, and support them, to provide services to the users.
In short, it *is* about the network, and it is all connected.
Desktop PC hardware is already a commodity. Server class hardware is rapidly becoming so - the next step in the evolution of networking isn't at the "nuts and bolts" level, it is "above" the network.
Just my opinion.
dj
>The stupid fact is that guns do kill people. They know it, I know it, you know it as well.
Cars kill people too, every day. In fact, I'd be willing to bet more people were killed by automobiles today than by guns.
The stupid fact is, lots of things kill lots of people for lots of reasons, every day. Singling out guns when there are other things that cause more deaths is just a bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
Regardless of the anti-gun nuts mistaken beliefs, for every crime committed with a gun in the US, there are tens, hundreds of thousands of gun owners that didn't commit a crime with a gun, nor in general commit any crime at all.
A little perspective is a good thing, I've found. And, knowing that, all the hype aside (from both sides of the gun control issue), there are far more decent people owning guns than there are criminals owning guns makes me, at least, feel better.
Regards,
dj
P.S. While I'm thinking of it: Does anyone have any statistics on the number of gun owners in the US that have *never* committed a crime with a gun? Or, for that matter, never committed any crime at all?
I don't suppose anyone tracks that kind of information.
Yeah, but you'd be surprised at how effective a pistol can be, when used against the right target. That's why underground resistence movements and the like can be effective dispite "limited" weaponry - pick the correct people, kill them and the opposition can become crippled.
Regards,
dj
Hmm, we seem to have a difficulty in understanding: My take is that it isn't a condition, it is the reason for not infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms - that's what it says.
Your reading seems to be "There must be a well-regulated militia in order for the people to have a right to keep and bear arms". With the statement that since we don't really "need" to have a militia anymore, then the Second Amendment somehow magically doesn't apply anymore and so people no longer have a right to keep and bear arms. Sorry, but that isn't how the Constitution works.
>If the "well regulated militia" part wasn't a
>condition, it seems like the Founding Fathers
>would have just said "the right of the people to
>keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and
>left it at that. After all, the First Amendment >doesn't start with "Since these freedoms are
>necessary to keep the peons happy,..."
What "seems" that they "would have just said" isn't important: What they *did* say is very important.
That kind of argument is "second guessing" that's used it to justify an otherwise untenable position, as though the First Amendment is somehow "better" than the Second. That's not the case at all, the order of the Amendments isn't a ranking system, and being placed lower in the list doesn't make the Amendment any less important.
But it is interesting to note that the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of our differences in what that actually means, is listed second.
To continue: The Constitution doesn't *grant* rights, it merely acknowledges a few of them, and seeks to prevent the ones that the Founding Fathers deemed most important from being taken away.
Their desire to ensure that the people never be disarmed was fueled by recent experience, and the knowledge that had the people not been armed, they'd not have been able to become independent of England.
In creating the framework for a new government, they sought to ensure that that would always be true, so that succeeding generations could, if driven to it, overthrow their government by force of arms, as they had.
In addition, they never envisioned that the Federal Government would become so large, nor that its military would ever be more than a token defensive force, supplemented by armed citizens called up to defend the country in time of need.
They despised standing armies, for their experiences with them were wholly negative, and were one of the factors that lead to the Revolution.
The current size of the Federal Government and its military really have no bearing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. You might just as well say that since the government has a lot of printing devices, we don't need to have freedom of the press any longer.
The Second Amendment is the most neglected in the Constitution, the Supreme Court consistently refuses to hear Second Amendment cases, and it has been many years since it has done so.
Finally, it's interesting that the constitutions of some of the states that formed the United States at its inception actually do have Second Ammendment-type provisions stated as you wanted: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", or similar phrasing. Pennsylvania's is one, IIRC.
Regards,
dj
(And I just noticed that I keep trying to spell "amendment" as "ammendment" )
>Yes, but your stance is that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own arms. Or am I wrong on that?
You are wrong on that. The Second Ammendment doesn't grant the people the right to bear arms, it implicitly acknowledges that right, and prohibits infringements upon it.
Regards,
dj