IT Workers Not Eligible for Overtime in New Rules 1068
bjarvis354 writes "The San Diego Union Tribune is reporting that the Department of Labor Secretary Elaine Chao unveiled new rules that seem to specifically target IT workers and other white collar workers for exemption from overtime pay. The Oneonta Daily Star claims that 'According to new exemption tests, the employee isn't guaranteed overtime pay if primary duties involve office or non-manual work,' and 'Computer employees are not guaranteed overtime pay if they make $455 a week, or if their hourly rate is $27.63. Affected employees include computer systems analysts, programmers, software engineers or anyone with a similar title.'"
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
If this figure isn't the take home pay amount, it looks like it would be a good idea (perhaps even a necessity) to get a second job. Ouch. Good luck to all you IT people.
Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
The Bush administration on Tuesday pulled back from a planned overhaul of the nation's overtime rules, allowing more white-collar workers -- including those earning as much as $100,000 a year -- to continue collecting premium pay if they log more than 40 hours a week.
From The Oregonian [oregonlive.com]
Actually, actually, this story is RIGHT (Score:5, Informative)
In a move designed to blur the issue, the Administration today said it was revising its previous effort to terminate overtime protections for 8 million workers [cnn.com]. But even by the Bush Administration's own admission, the "new" regulations will mean that tens of thousands of lower-income workers will be cut off [nytimes.com]. Opponents of the Administration's plan say that the revisions would still cause problems for mean millions. The regulations are so bad for workers that some state legislatures have even rushed through legislation to block them [kaaltv.com].
Re:Actually, actually, I'm confused. (Score:5, Funny)
Jaysyn
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
The employee must be employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer or other similarly skilled worker in the computer field performing the duties described below;
-The employee's primary duty must consist of:
1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;
2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;
3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.
These are the up to date rules changes proposals.
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fair
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:4, Informative)
Companies depend on IT. No IT, and your company will collapse. Now if we had a nation wide Union, we could stop this is a heart beat.
Some people don't want to let market decide pay rates when it doesn't work in there favor.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only is the Story Wrong but even the thinking behind the ruling is wrong.
Overtime laws were set in place first during the 1930's to reduce labor supplies in order to maintain some price levels to prevent deflation. During World War 2 the US War Department (Now DOD) ran into a problem with productivity. They had very highly motivated workers who had been starved for money and who had family in the field fighting and dying. These workers wanted to win the war all by themselves THIS WEEK!
The problem developed that they bought the ideas behind the new rules that more hours of work ment more productivity. So they wrote contracts with companies that open endedly encouraged long hours. As soon as these began productivity spiked upwards and by the end of a month it had crashed to levels in the order of 50% or less of what productivity had been during the 8 hr/day 40hr/week times. The hours were pushing upwards to 100 or more a week so the US War Department did some serious studies on productivity.
Their research showed that after about 35 to 36 hours a week of work, no additional productivity could be sustained even working much longer. In factory line situations this was even worse as defect rates rose catastrophically. Simply stated the 40 hr work week was about 4 hours too long for human functionality. By 44 hours the situation was seeing rates of production drop dramatically. By 72 hrs nonfunctionality had happened.
Studies have been done of office workers on this issue and the numbers are even worse for them on hours of sustained productivity. The reality is that OVERTIME is no good for families, industry or profits! It is a good way to get programs or devices that fail. In offices where workers salaried are paid flat rates, we often see long periods of non-productive time because of this. The few "Workaholics" we see are mostly very busy but frankly most of them actually damage the production effort in the long run. Unfortunately they look good to management who often does not look to see where the money came from.
The whole ideals set for the Bush team is an early industrial revolution set of ideas that did not work. Their "Adam Smith" "Invisible Hand" theories do not work either. Their concept is that there is a shortage of labor. This is inspite of 80 years of American History showing that we have a profoundly dangerous over supply of labor both in the USA and world wide.
The Technolological progress many of us in IT are responsible for is actually increasing the world wide efficiency of the labor by about 12% a year. This is threatening to collapse the market all together. This is the "Jobless Recovery" that is still very much a reality. By the way, don't give me the crap about 308,000 jobs in March. It is probably a fiction anyway but assuming it is true, the USA must add nearly 360,000 jobs a month for static economic conditions to be maintained due to population changes. The USA must also increase income by about 3.5% per annum for the same reasons. It currently is seeing rises in income about 1%/annum which translates into a 2.5% cut in actual wages per average person.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost as ingenious, as the previous move, whereas the fast food employees suddenly became part of the manufacturing sector. The manufacture cardio-vascular problems...
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that our system is designed around the scarcity of labor - which is becoming less the case.
Suppose we developed the technology to have robots do 100% of all physical labor, and 95% of all non-inventive labor (any kind of service which doesn't involve very high levels of labor). In theory in such a society everyone could afford to live like a king (at least at present population levels). However, under our present system, you'd have 50 people living far better than any king in history (the 50 people who own the robots), and everybody else who can't even afford to buy food.
The problem is that with modern technology, the need for workers is lowering every year. However, with our present system you can only obtain money by working. Anybody see a potential problem with this?
I'm not sure that communism is the right solution, however eventually something has to change. Perhaps mandatory maximum 5 hour work weeks will be the norm one day?
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
Back in the 50's and 60's the popular press was filled with stories predicting a future when automation would mean we could all work 25 or 30 hour weeks and still live the good life. The accepted presumption was that the wealth of society would be shared.
But under our current system of unrestrained capitalism business has found it more profitable to fire a quarter of the workforce, move a quarter of the jobs overseas and crack the whip on the remaining few workers forcing them to work massive hours for stagnant pay.
Eventually something has to give. The trouble is that Joe Pickup and Mommy Minivan still buy into the illusion of upward mobility even as their finances crumble around them and decent work disappears.
Maybe when the 30 million Walmart and Fast Food jobs get turned over to Service Robots people will wake up and start to wonder how we are going to provide the chance at a decent life to all the members of our society.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
IT in general wasn't in that group, very specific subsets of IT employees are in that group. Many employers would love to have you believe that every IT job is in that group, but that is simply not the case.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a salaried job now that doesn't get me overtime. I have had hourly contract jobs in the past that don't give overtime, but pay for the actual hours worked.
Shifting from contract jobs to a salaried position meant that I had a significant paycut and unpaid overtime (like everyone else in the field), but it offered stability.
If you want to be compensated for working more than 40 hours, do it at a different job or get it into your contract.
Re:Actually, this story is WRONG (Score:4, Insightful)
Salary doesn't mean your not entitled to overtime.
read your state labor laws regarding this.
also, I have found out the salaried 'full time' employee does not mean stability. The last place I was at, they kept the contractors, and let the regular employies go. Different parts of the budget.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
So there are 48 weeks in your year?
$455/week x 52 weeks = $23,660/year
Your point is still valid, after taxes that's not a whole lot of money on which to live.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an employers market. Which means you will pretty much be paid crap if you quit. Employers know this; Congress knows this; the President knows this. In fact, it's pretty much the reason that all of this crap is able to happen: workers are far too busy working extra hours to keep from being canned to worry about being politically active. They have mortgages/rents to pay and kids (or at least themselves) to feed.
In the times to come, I predict that the worker will be increasingly squeezed. I mean, productivity has gone through the roof, but jobs have consistently been going down. What does this mean? It means that companies need to higher fewer people, which means that for each person working, they know that there are 10 people out there who want his/her job. So that person will work harder, won't ask for a raise, and certainly won't try to upset an employer by pointing out that s/he isn't being paid overtime.
In fact, we have a situation similar to the end of the 19th Century, with thousands of workers clamoring for factory jobs and being willing to stand for ungodly working conditions and low pay because the alternative was no job at all. The *only* thing keeping it from being that bad is *NOT* market forces, but rather a whole slew of governmental regulations that make sure a worker has acceptable working conditions. Those laws were passed as a result of political action by the labor movment. Tragically, the labor movement has now lost a great deal of it strength and credibility. We do need a similar movement however, to protect the rights of the workers and to re-assert the main goal of the United States: not to support the making of money and protections of corporations, but rather the livelihood and freedoms of its populace.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lately there have been couple of articles on slashdot and basically satated that most of the computer work these days is not really "white collar" (I dont like these terms presonally).
So if one looks at other jobs around alot of workers are unionized eg, airline pilots/mechanics, auto workers etc etc.
Is there a union for computer professionals?
If so which one I havent found one, if not why not?
We talk all high minded on slashdot thousands times a day every day 365 days a year. Is it all talk or do people here think that a Computer Professionals union is needed these days?
Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
-
We talk all high minded on slashdot thousands times a day every day 365 days a year. Is it all talk or do people here think that a Computer Professionals union is needed these days?
It's really a question of the lesser of two evils. Unions aren't exactly the great defenders of the workers they want you to believe they are. I read a very enlightening book a while back detailing (with documentation) what's happened with unions so that they've gotten out of control. I personally would rather avoid joining a union and take my chances as they stand now.Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I read a very enlightening book a while back detailing (with documentation) that not joining a union will make gremlins fly out of your nose, make your wife/girlfriend/right hand leave you for a football jock and besides the unions will give your name to the Mafia and you'll be lucky if they only break your kneecaps.
I swear that's exactly what it said - only I can't remember exactly which book it was. It certainly was enlightening though.
Back on topic: of course there's going to be bad eggs in unions and some of them probably have got out of control. Guess what - there's employers like that as well. I'd rather have those unions there and employers realising that they can't gouge me quite so hard because my co-workers are willing to back me up. Politics goes where there's power, and I for one am glad that unions have enough power to influence things (while hopefully not gaining so much power that the bad apples take over - I think that's what you're talking about. Surprise, it happens everywhere with power, including politics in general if you haven't been following along at home).
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, unionization is the corrollary to incorporation.
Corporations exist for one purpose: to protect and increase the profits of their shareholders. Unions exist for one purpose: to protect the jobs and compensation of their members. NEITHER has any direct interest in the consumer's environment; they only will improve things for consumers to the extent that such actions help achieve their primary goals.
Yet, somehow being profit-motivated is darn near sacred in this country, while unions are evil because they raise wages (and therefore cut into profit margins). I think there should be a better solution, but we haven't found it yet... so for the time being, I definitely support unions as a countermeasure to corporations. (Which doesn't mean I support every union's every action blindly; people make bad decisions. There are also corps that do *good* things, though.)
There is a union for computer professionals (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
This policy doesn not mean you can't be paid for overtime. It only says that your employer doesn't have to make it compaly policy to pay you for overtime.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you were part of such a union, you'd have a say in it. History seems to show (though I'm neither a historian nor in a union, so I'm not exactly an expert...) that unionized workers can, on the whole, get better employment terms than non-unionized workers. That's not to say that you, with your mad negotiating skills (which you may or may not possess; just an example) can't negotiate a better contract, just that for the majority of workers, the contract the union can get them is better than the one they could get on their own.
I've also heard some pretty stupid stuff that unions have done. However, a union is neither better nor worse than the people who make it up--which means that at worst, it can be a royal nuisance to the people in it and outright dangerous to the people not in it, employees and employers both. But you can always try to change it once it's there. Without it there, we won't have nearly as much clout as a group.
Dan Aris
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no different that trying to get a better price by buying in bulk at Sam's Club. Unions help to insure that workers do not take the brunt of volatility in a mature market. I don't recommend Unionizing new industries as soon as they show up. Individualism and laissez faire policies tend to help new industries, but can actually stop the formation of new industries around old ones.
There is no such thing as a free market in reality. There are always going to be factors that make the market non-free, reason says that you should find the best way to work within the system that exists. Unions, like Corporations, are simply a tool to better organize resources within society. Planned economies don't work, but lack of regulation can make a commoditized industry too volatile to build new industries on top of. How could you build a chip fab if there wasn't a stable and relatively inexpensive source of energy and pool of workers to run it?
Does this mean that this country's experience with Unions has been all roses? No, but neither has our experience with Corporations, yet lot's of people join Corporations, although the Corporation's alligiance is more to shareholders than workers. If you think of a Union as a Corporation who's shareholders are the members and who's customers are the Corporations the shareholders work for, it seems much more natural.
I personally think that this country has done a very good job of exploring the capabilities of capitalism and laissez faire policies. I also think that the progress and complexity of the economy and society we have built with these tools may need other tools and new tools to continue it's growth.
I like Roosevelt's VP Henry Wallace's quote: "Freedom in a grown-up world is different from freedom in a pioneer world. As a nation grows and matures, the traffic inevitably gets denser, and you need more traffic lights."
The idea is to strike balances so as to better the country as a whole without stepping on the rights of individuals. If the eletrical and telecom industries had not matured, it would have been much harder to develop the industries that are built on top of them.
Other countries understand these principles, especially India. That's why the rest of the world standardized on GSM (via regulation) in the cell phone world and why there are more applications, more widely available for cell users in the rest of the world. This country lost it's leadership in the cell industry, because it refused to mature the industry and grow new ones on top of it.
If you want to see the US continue the growth it has had, then we must be intelligent and rational about the tools we use to manage it. Capitalism vs. Socialism is a dead argument. Now we must compete with other countries who aren't still bound to the ideological struggles of the last century. Unions and mature industries are just part of the toolbox. If you don't like the way Unions have been run in the past, think about how you would do it in the future. Would an equivelent of the SEC for Unions help? What model of collective bargaining for labor would best reflect the types of jobs that are currently being commoditized?
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, auto workers, airline pilots, factory labour, etc. tend to work for a small number of companies with high fixed costs. There are IT people in every company, making negotiations and organization difficult.
Second, IT is a very diverse group. Tech support, code monkeys, developers, systems analysts/architects, network admins, management that still does code reviews/coding, etc. It's difficult to lump those positions together, or draw distinctive lines between all of them.
Third, skill as a programmer depends a lot on natural talent, and there's a lot of ego involved. There are lots of really gifted individuals who would rightfully object to being grouped in with people who took a six month course at the local community college.
Fourth, some of us are a lot more worried about our jobs than others. If you're doing helpdesk tech support you should be very worried. If you're spending most of your time meeting with users in person and doing design for a profitable company you're a lot harder to outsource, and have much more job security.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I may be presuming too much but I would think that a computer professional is likely smart enough to negotiate their own contract. If you aren't getting paid enough or you haven't negotiated an overtime scale than that's your fault. Why would you want to abdicate responsibility to a union anyway? Soon enough they will do something you don't like and than you have no way out.
I totally understand that market forces may be such that computer professional salaries are low due to over supply in the market. Artificially increasing the salary through unionization won't benefit you in the long run. Already I see people here complaining about off-shoring. Just wait until you have a union, the jobs will bolt like there's no tomorrow.
The best way to fight an over supply in your field is to train for a different field! Or simply be the best in your field.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it would be more palatable if you did not call it a union. Call is an "association" like the doctors (AMA) and the lawyers (ABA) do. It does not seem so low class when you call your union an association. After all the people in unions drive chevys people in associations drive BMWs.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
[1] the Peter Principle: Everyone will rise to a level of incompetency. Basically, you'll get one promotion too many and end up in a job you are incompetent to do. He's dead now, but look up some of his books. The hold true even today.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened is that you started (perhaps involuntarily) a new career at the same business, without any formal education. "Incompetent", while strictly true, carries a shade of meaning that isn't really fair. Imagine that your high school just got you a job as a sysadmin without ever offering any computing classes.
Now, I would agree heartily that if you are training for a career in X mainly because of the money, you are probably seeking the wrong job and you won't like it much.
BTW, those guys doing the same job every day for the next 30 years? those jobs are the ones now being outsourced to another continent. Stay flexible if you want to continue working.
(As for that "overqualified" jazz, I'm reminded of Art Buchwald's story about a nuclear physicist named Kase who kept dumbing down his resume' until he landed a job.)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
"That guy is full of shit. The Peter Principle is shit. And... (sniffle) well... (tearing up) Oh my God I hate my job and my life. I wish I were back to being a Technician instead of a manager!"
Hm.
Off to console him.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)
I had to read that 3 times before I could get it to mean "comfort" and not "root tty". Time for a break...
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, by that measure, the logical thing for managers to do is to let go of everyone over 40; overqualified, inflexible, chairwarmers waiting for the next thirty years to retire.
And that's exactly what they are doing. Firing people over 35 and hiring young inexperienced people.
Points:
How can you be overqualified and at the same time inflexible? If you are more than qualified for the job, how could you have been inflexible?
Where exactly are YOU planning to work when you are forty? I assume you are a IT/Comp Sci/Engineering type. The professor's pointmakes sense to you now, because you are young (another guess). What are you planning on doing when you are useless? Will you be overqualifed and yet have spent two decades becoming too inflexible to learn new techniques? If you are the exception, why assume everyone else will be the lump you won't be?
And the fastball: how old was the old, inflexible professor? Over 35? Where does he work? I'm thinking he's too old and tired to be employable at his advanced stage in life.So why listen to his unemployable brain? If he is working, at his sad time of life, then where's he getting off making such a comment? If he isn't working in the private sector today, in his golden years, then how does he justify teaching you? He's just as superannuated and untrainable as the old professionals he's dismissing.
**
I was watching Leo LaPorte interview Kevin Mitnick (37+)on TechTV's The Screen Savers a month ago. Kevin,old hacker that he is, has started a security company. Wrote his own code to test the security of networks.
My recollection of a bit of it:
Leo's question: who wrote the code? An old guy like you can't be doing it, right?
Kevin (slightly off-balance): Um, I wrote it.
Leo: But you can't be up to date with all the stuff that's happened in the last few years?
Kevin (a little stunned): Well, I do read books...
**
It's sad, this meme. Almost all the yunguns here on Slashdot posting today will be olduns in ten years. Am I listening to a giant asssemblage of soon-to-be irrelevant fossils?
Maybe it's the old chicken-and-egg syndrome. Older IT workers stop trying because they know that they won't be taken seriously anymore because they don't play the Star Wars RPG at lunch with the other workers, or can't go bar hopping with the gang after work? (yup. speaking from observation at work).
Is it fossilization of the brain, which isn't physiologically possible at the ancient age of 40 -you're at your peak, really - or is it the simple prejudice of the management and the younger workers themselves that set the stage for the demise of the 35+ year old's career?
Not idle questions. A lot of are hitting that wall now.
(My opinion, for what's it's worth, etc: you lose that learning edge when you get married and have kids. Life takes up too much time to spare 20 hours a day learning and coding. Unmarried guys tend to hang in longer.
You also can just get tired of the politics and the endless staring at a screen.
It's not brain death, or inflexibilty. It's about becoming MORE flexible, acquiring more interests, like girls and national politics. And maybe just about requiring more sleep
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even at 40, you're probably not at your peak yet, unless you choose to be.
There's been a number of myths about this for way too long. People point to scientists such as Einstein, ignoring the Maxwelloids and Lord Kelvenites who did some of their best work after 40, or occasionally 60. Buckminster Fuller was famous enough to pose at age 40 for a bust commemorating his career in 1929, but practically everything he is now noted for he did after that. The same sort of examples can be cited for art and music (Look at what Bach did after 40). I'm citing mostly historical figures because, if anything modern medicine is making the chance of outstanding performance in later life grater and greater.
Meanwhile, some people ignore counter-evidence of rather obvious kinds. (For example, the US Army is generally a young man's game for purely physical reasons, but they grant hundreds of age wavers to keep talented people over age 60 in every year. These are people being kept primarily for their mental skills, and who are also willing to work hard enough at keeping up their physical abilities to not be knocked out for not being able to do 50 push ups on a test before they are even eligible for a waver - obviously that's a lot more selective a pool than in the tech industry, where a diabetic or wheelchair bound person is unlikely to be rejected on those grounds before they even get rejected for age biases).
Incompetent when old - incompetent when young (Score:5, Insightful)
We have had people in management and engineering who weren't flexible. Hard times pretty much made those people go away due to layoffs.
Those people who are left are plenty flexible. We have one 54 year old who is a runner. He's healthy as a horse and quick. We have another 51 year old who recently made an easy transition from test engineering (a stepping-stone position) to driver development.
It seems to be an assumption that getting old makes you incompetent. But my opinion is that "old" people who are incompetent were always that way. Perhaps they are no longer so good at hiding it. But those people twice my age who were good at their jobs when they were younger are still good at their jobs AND are able to adapt to new positions.
Mind you, I don't adapt as quickly as I did when I was 20. When you get older, you slow down a bit. Sometimes, learning takes a little longer. But intelligence and discipline can make up for that, and a lot of experience makes one more efficient at identifying WHAT to learn.
Re:Bush administration (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bush administration (Score:5, Informative)
Kerry, among other Democrats, has taken great pains to point out that he favors a tax increase on only those household who take home more than $200K a year.
Just as a little personal example... I make a bit mroe than 28K a year, but less than 100K a year. I'll leave a little wiggle room in there for your imaginations. Last year, thanks to George W's tax cuts, I had to pay less income tax. Net savings was approx 300. Thanks!
But wait. Because W wasn't done yet, oh no sir. He lowered the amount of interest I pay on my student loans that I could deduct on my taxes. Net loss to me, approx 740. Apparently getting a (very slight) break on the interest of your student loans is too much to ask for. Thanks!
So thanks to George, I'm paying about 340 more than I did before, our deficit is through the roof, and it doesn't seem things will get better. If Kerry wants to raise taxes on people who make over 200K, and reset it so we middle class folks get our real advantages back while losing those superficial advantages, god bless him and good luck in November.
Re:Bush administration (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a great comment MOD this guy up! I have worked for the State of Alabama Department of Revenue Sales and Use Tax Division in the past. This will save money on collection and reward people for doing good. My Only objection to what is said here is that the Flat tax is actually worse than the current Income Tax. A National Sales Tax and you could kiss the IRS goodbye. Just don't associate the two.
Definitionally a Flat tax is the end of small business. It wipes out the deductions against Income for individuals and does not allow you to count them against your earnings as a whole. At the same time a "Flat Tax" would leave the same deductions in place for the Big Co's.
The Sales Tax taxes everybody the same. The most profound thing it does, is that it ends the tax advantages now extended to foreign (Not USA) businesses and individuals causing all players here to pay equally. It also frees US Exports from being mostly US INCOME Tax allowing us to compete in the world market. Want to watch the world scream for protection from the Americans... ? Pass the National Sales Tax and repeal any income taxes.
This is new how? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is new how? (Score:5, Interesting)
With a few exectpions, I can walk out on my job at the drop of a hat and pick up where I left off in the evening. Of course, there's the off 2am page/alert that has me up and at work -- or once I had to walk out of an amusement park and return to work -- but it's a fair trade, imho (and MINE is all that matters to me).
-jhon
Re:This is new how? (Score:4, Insightful)
2am pages are acceptable if they're rare and they're about real issues. It's when there starts being too many of them that things get messy.
It's not new - for salary workers (Score:5, Informative)
Employees that are on an Hourly wage get paid hourly. This new law is saying that if your wage is over this $20 mark, you do not have a right to earn time and a half, but you will still get paid on your hourly wage. If you work 60 hours you get paid for 60, not 70 (40 + 20 + (20/2))
Companies are required to have no more than 50% staff on Exempt status (ratio may change from state to state)
Re:It's not new - for salary workers (Score:5, Informative)
They can't make you punch a timeclock... nor can they deduct pay for being late or leaving early. Just like working extra time can't earn you extra money for the week, they can't deduct money if you work less than fourty hours. When it comes down to it, about the only retribution they have if they don't think you're working enough is to let you go.
I usually make a policy of demanding offsets for any time that I'm schedule to do something outside of business hours within the same week so that if anybody asks while I'm not there, there's a recent project that can be pointed at.
If a project just can't survive without me showing up seven consecutive days... then this is an ill-designed project to begin with. Most states have a "day of rest" law that prevents employers from scheduling any seven days in a row for the same employee anyway...
Re:It's not new - for salary workers (Score:5, Interesting)
The men and women who I supervise are hourly get ~$30/hour and get OT as well.
In closing: IMHO Unions are good.
Salaried workers can and do get overtime (Score:5, Informative)
Just because you are a "salaried employee" does not mean you are exempt from overtime regulation. Salaried employees have an hourly rate - it's determined by dividing the "salary" by the number of hours worked each week.
Essentially, all employees are subject to overtime rules by default, unless they are categorically exempt. Exempt employees include "professionals" such as lawyers, doctors, etc., and employees whose principal duties are the management and supervision of other employees. There are a number of other exceptions (I seem to recall that truck drivers, for example, are exempt. In California, many employers try to screw employees out of overtime by giving them the title of "manager" or "assistant manager", even though they remain wage slaves.
If you don't get paid for something (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you don't get paid for something (Score:5, Insightful)
if you "don't do it" as an individual, you'll get fired. however, if you "don't do it" as a group you'll have more power. if the entire i.t. staff decides to cease work until their is fair treatment, your chances of success is greater.
that's right: i'm talking union.
As the market fundamentalists like to say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No reason to thank the unions (Score:4, Insightful)
The other obvious thing worth pointing out, is that prices are set by supply and demand. Since there has never been 100% employment, in other words, there has always been an oversupply of labor, one can conclude that the market value of labor is heading towards $0 an hour. Clearly the price set by the market is unworkable. If employers actually hired people when the price of labor was low to non-existant, then why haven't they hired all of the Americans willing to work for less than $5.15 an hour? Why haven't they employed all of the people of Mexico, who are willing to work for whatever the market will bear? Oh wait, that's right, it's because everything you've said about employers hiring as many people as possible if the price is low enough is false.
Re:No reason to thank the unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Some really appaling economics failures in this post.
Let's start with:
"Employers have ALWAYS sought to hire the least amount of people possible. The idea that allowing them to treat their employees like shit will change has no basis in reality."
They SHOULD always seek to hire the least amount possible. If it costs me $10 to make my product (car, ladder, gallon of milk, whatever) then I can sell it to you for $20 and make $10 of profit. If I have to hire three times as many people, it costs me more than $20 to make it now, so no way am I selling it to you for that. The only people who benefit from that are the extra workers, who are effectively being paid to do nothing, since they add no value above the original staff. Forcing someone to pay you when you aren't giving them value in return is theft.
Your problem is you have this mental image of these magical corporate vaults that just fill themselves with money, and the corporations horde it all. With that as your standard, it's no wonder theft seems appealing. But that vision just isn't true. They're filling that vault by charging YOU for their products. If you rob their vault, they're just going to charge you more. The way to make things better isn't to steal harder or faster, it's to work in good faith with the corporation to make the system as efficient as possible. In free trade, both parties profit. Parasites only profit until their host dies or fights back.
Another, more glaring flaw:
"Since there has never been 100% employment, in other words, there has always been an oversupply of labor, one can conclude that the market value of labor is heading towards $0 an hour."
First of all, if it was true that there was an oversupply of labor, and that it was causing the price to head towards zero, then it must be heading there really slowly, or else it would be there already. As you state, employment has never been 100%, so the market adjustment you predict seems to be taking longer than all recorded human history.
The reality is that "labor" isn't a single commodity like pork or lumber. Not all labor is the same. You can't fire the Chief of Neurosurgery and replace him with the $5.15/hour guy.
Lastly:
"If employers actually hired people when the price of labor was low to non-existant, then why haven't they hired all of the Americans willing to work for less than $5.15 an hour?"
1) Because there aren't actually that many Americans willing to work for less than $5.15 an hour, especially over the age of 17.
2) Because the unions and the minimum wage laws will try to prevent you from hiring people for $3/hour.
3) Because you have to create the jobs for them to be hired into. This isn't something that should be done by politicians (though they usually claim to do it). This has to be done by corporations, be they large or individual startups, and it requires that they have access to surplus money. Right now they're spending that surplus on the three guys doing one guy's job, two of whom are on break.
Re:No reason to thank the unions (Score:4, Insightful)
This incorrectly presupposes that the lack of a 100% employment rate coincides with an oversupply of labor. It's generally understood in economics that a significant amount of unemployment is due to unavoidable due to frictional unemployment (day-to-day changes in a dynamic, changing economic system in which old industries die and new ones are born, in which people get tired of old jobs and old bosses, in which bosses find work of subordinates unsatisfactory, and in which new people enter and others reenter the labor force), and partially unavoidable due to structural unemployment.
Furthermore, you're implicitly assuming that the "employers" and "employees" come from 2 perfectly distinct pools and that no one goes from employee to employer (nice hidden communist ideology in your post). This is false. In a free capatlist society someone who is working as an employee or is unemployed can start up their own buisness, creating more jobs and oppertunities (increasing the demand in the labor market) while simultaneously removing himself from the market (decreasing supply). The effect of these forces leads to a dynamic balance where the employment number fluctuates accordingly with the state of the whole economy.
Overtime? (Score:3, Interesting)
100k (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't want to hear any complaints if your making over 100k a year. If your making less thank 23,660 a year I'm confused too.
Not news (Score:5, Informative)
wait just a second here (Score:3, Funny)
You mean we were supposed to get overtime pay BEFORE they passed this law?
whew.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:whew.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They could keep track of whatever variables they need to define these numbers so that the values defined in these laws stay resonable over time and through times of high and low economic prosperity.
The law should also define exactly what the various terms in the equation represent and the reasoning behind why they were chosen.
We have all these computers around, we should be using them to improve the way our government works, not just by giving government workers ever-more bloated versions of Word, but by improving the process by which laws are made and maintained.
Right now we hardcode all the values and 'recompile' every couple of years. Its dumb and a waste of taxpayer money and resources.
Damn... (Score:5, Informative)
For all the difficulty and struggle that comes with it, it's a good time to be a contractor or self-employed.
They (some dept. in the govmn't) also put out a press-release type thing months ago instructing employers how to avoid overtime pay under general circumstances. Maybe someone could help me out and dig it up...
Your government, always fighting for the little guy instead of big business. Gotta love it.
Re:Damn... (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, here it is:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/ 2001830565_overtime06.html [nwsource.com]
That's an article about it, I used to have a copy of the actual document they're referring to.
Re:Damn... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been self-employed for over three years now. It's a lot of work, and I spend as much time selling my services as actually doing the work I enjoy. However every time I see an opportunity for an employee position it's for less money than I'm making now and usually includes a long commute.
No thanks.
I'll be my own boss, make more money, and work from my home office.
Yeah, sometimes I may have to work late at night
PHBs... (Score:3, Insightful)
Admittedly, I didn't RTFA, but that statements just SCREAMS for pointy-hairs to change the job titles of the people who they don't want to have to pay for overtime.
Re:PHBs... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oddly, it also includes funeral directors and embalmers.
WTF? (Score:4, Funny)
Can you tell that I lived in Oneonta for a while?
J
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
~S
What is this thing called overtime? (Score:4, Funny)
I've been salaried so long now, I stopped lamenting paid overtime ages ago. Unfortunately, this means my wife's already meager paycheck is gonna get leaner.
Great.
Only 100,000 people affected? (Score:3, Informative)
This sucks. I think that if you get an hourly wage you should get overtime pay, regardless of any other factors, if you work overtime.
No, it's accurate..... (Score:3, Funny)
"New" rule? (Score:5, Insightful)
That "new" rule is as old as IT : if you do your legal 40 hours per week in an IT company, you're out of here faster than you can say "antidisestablishmentarianism".
In the last company I worked for, a minimum of 60 hours per week was expected, sort of like an unwritten rule, often a lot more during death marches. I was well paid of course, and bonuses were huge, but in reality I had a really shitty hourly wage.
So what's new here? just that it's now a written rule that IT workers are slave workers. The only thing this does is diminish even further the impression of "privileged workers" non-IT folks have of us, and that's too bad because that's about the only glamour of the job.
Re:"New" rule? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's that simple. I'm not getting paid overtime, so I'm not doing overtime. Granted, I'm "on call" once every other week, so I get woken up sometimes, but frankly, I just don't understand why people think they have to do that extra 20 hours. Do they give you more money? Do they come over and help clean your apartment? No. So why do it for them?
They are providing you a job, and as long as you do that job, then "expectations" are just that.
Re:"New" rule? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not quite sure that's the kind of environment where I'd want to struggle to keep the job...
Re:"New" rule? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if the alleged Microsoft managers actually understood the strategy.
getting $100k/year hourly? (Score:3, Interesting)
People in that salary bracket are being paid hourly? I had always assumed that anywhere in the 50+ per year range is a salaried position, and overtime isn't an issue anyway, because you don't keep a time clock.
figures . . . (Score:5, Funny)
This isn't anything new... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm working as an hourly employee, I'm going to bill my boss for every hour I spend working. At my full rate. If I'm lucky, maybe they'll agree to pay me time and a half for anything over 40 hours (or some other predetermined limit).
They can't make me work overtime hours and not pay me, unless I'm salary. Then I wouldn't expect it anyway.
What about SB 88? (Score:3, Interesting)
This was signed into (California) law in 2000, I believe.
SB 88 [ca.gov]
From the bill:
This bill, except as specified, would exempt a professional employee in the computer software field from this overtime compensation requirement if the employee is primarily engaged in work that is intellectual or creative, the employee's hourly rate of pay is not less than $41.00, and the employee meets other requirements.
Inaccurate Headline... (Score:5, Informative)
Math troubles? (Score:5, Interesting)
$455 a week is $23,660 yearly.
$27.63 an hour is $57,470 yearly, which is already close to Federal overtime exemption (if not hitting it exactly, I don't recall the current figure).
So, why the $34,000 discrepancy?
Re:Math troubles? (Score:5, Informative)
No better in Canada.... (Score:4, Insightful)
My current job has the best "overtime" policy that I've had thus far, in that lieu time off is calculated on overtime hours * 1.5. So we get time and a half OFF for the time we work. Not bad. Gives me at *least* one day off every 3 weeks.
So I have more time off, and no extra income to fork over to the gov't to misappropriate.
AFL-CIO story (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/overtimepay/
blakespot
In other news (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now... (Score:5, Funny)
Me: No WAY man! I won't take a penny over $27.62 per hour.
Thankfully, it's not an issue if you're self-employed.
work overtime for regieme change at home (Score:3, Insightful)
"Salaried" usually equals "hourly" anyways (Score:5, Interesting)
If I am "salaried", why do I have to fill out a timesheet? Why, when I only have 38 hours on my timesheet, do I get paid for 38 hours? Conversely, when I have 68 hour, I only get paid for 40?
I've brought this up as "illegal" on a couple occasions, and even cited the state's labour laws, only to have it thrown back at me.
THIS is where we need to make some reforms too...
An Opportunity Here (Score:5, Insightful)
The bosses in the corporate offices cannot have it both ways. If they want insanely high productivity, they are going to have to pay for it. Even workers in India will eventually cost as much as here for the same work output. So let's stop this madness and live our lives like human beings instead of 24/7 machines. Let's spend more time with our friends and family. Or perhaps more time actually getting friends and family!
Read the friggin rules (Score:4, Informative)
Systems Administrators are still non-exempt. Programmers with 'high skill level' are not.
Get organized or get used to it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Unions? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can still get overtime (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are about to accept a job offer and they do not pay 1.5 for overtime, ask for it. If they refuse, suck it up or find another job. You don't need the government to mandate that they pay 1.5.
anti-union bias? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not exactly sure where all of the anti-union bias comes from. Screenwriters and actors have a union, and they are also well-paid (most of the time) and creative people.
I also think that the argument that we can negotiate our own contracts is equally naive. Sure, there are some that can, but I wouldn't say that social skills and negotiation are well-known geek skills outside of MMRPGs.
The only disadvantage of unions, as was eluded to earlier was the whole factor of diverse employment. However, that doesn't bar places like MS, Apple, Sun, Adobe, IBM, etc., etc., from joining unions. This doesn't mean people sit on their buts while unions continually strike, but it does mean you have someone negotiating your benefits and work week for you, collectively, as well as a network of peers.
Pussies! Take control of your careers! (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Know your shit. If you're a sysadmin who can't make an Ethernet cable or a programmer who can't build a workstation, you deserve to be at the mercy of others.
2. Know others' shit. You just gonna sit there while the PFY brings down the intranet?
3. Be your word. Every discrepancy between what you say and what you do will be used against you. This does not mean that your word must be intelligible to anyone but you. Make credible threats and follow through.
4. Incompetents must fear you, whether they work above you, with you, or below you.
5. Everyone is your adversary until proven otherwise. This does not mean you should be on the offensive, but you can't let your guard down. Trust no one with your reputation.
6. Take no shit, give shit only when your case is strong. It's hard to implement (4) without giving shit, but your aim had better be true. Sometimes it's better to bide your time.
7. Make no friends in haste. Lunch is ok but never, never go drinking with an incompetent. It just makes it harder to fire them later (*sob* I thought we were friends!).
8. Be humble. The more bad-ass you say you are, the more the probability of us having a drink approaches zero.
9. Carry your own insurance and retirement, even if you are on salary. It's so easy to walk out the door when your benefits are secure, and they know it. Don't forget to negotiate for extra compensation!
10. Punctuality. Some deserve it, some don't. Learn the difference.
Bush's overtime changes (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting - but article is wrong... (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, we were not very happy at the prospect, and complained loudly!
We were then routinely dispatched to fire scenes for 'standby' so that the county government could try to argue that we were 'fire fighting personnel' and fell under that exemption. When that didn't fly with the workers either (and the law was pointed out to the county commissioners), a LARGE chunk of back pay was paid.
The current law requires overtime for anything over 212 hours in a 28 day period for fire fighting personnel - for anyone else covered by the FLSA it is any hours over 160 in 28 days.
For you or I, that means working slightly over 10.5 hours a day every work day (5 days per week) for 4 weeks - WITHOUT GETTING OVERTIME PAY. (by the way, I am salaried and don't get overtime, anyway - but I do get compensatory time off...)
So when the article mentions the overtime protection already afforded to Fire, Police, and EMS workers, it is deceptive, as they are NOT paid under the same rules as other people.
My take on this is this is another "business friendly - fsck everyone else" move by the Bush administration. I don't like it.
Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, I've worked construction. You'd pry my ergonomic mouse from my cold, pastey hand before I went back. You're just laborer, paid to break your body for someone else. The mentallity of your supervisors and coworkers is worlds apart from IT. It's a mind-numbing and spirit-crushing existance. I've been used and abused in IT too, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't even compare.
Your talk of 6-figure incomes is BS. I've know only handful of people who have done that well; it's only because they work more overtime than should be humanly possible. Every single one is an alcholic who has to pause a moment to recall how old his own kids are.
Choose wisely.
Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? (Score:4, Informative)
The parent should not me modded Interesting
My brother in law is a plumber and steam fitter. It's true that when you're an independent contractor, and own your own business, you can make lots of money. However, to get to that point you need to get trained, and certified, and pay lots of dues. And you literally do pay dues. To become a plumber, or other skilled blue collar worker you need to work as an apprentice, for $30k a year, if that, for somebody else who makes the $100k a year, until you pay off your training -- which can take years
Even then, when you finally do become a master, and can start out on your own business, that takes a lot of money and hard work. You need money to set up shop, and you need to be a certain type of person to make the business work. If you're not good at keeping books, and running the business, you will never make $100k+ a year, and will have to go back to breaking your back for somebody else, even though you might be making as much as $40k+ for them
Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the *idea* was good, the *implementation* of said idea was seriously borked. And in the end, it destroyed a lot of good companies.
Re:Don't you wish you were blue collar? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OTOH (Score:5, Insightful)
Overtime is an incentive for employers to HIRE people rather than working the one's they have to death.
It is incentive which recognizes that the market if left to itself will gobble up all the dedicated people who don't have kids and can work weekends and evenings and leave the people who carry the real burden of society (yes parenthood) unemployed.
Where there is no negative pressure on expliotation - people will sign up for expliotation rather than get left behind and starve - that is a comment on world experience over time - your mileage may vary (but not by much)
AIK