Workers In Brazil Can Claim Overtime For Answering Email After Hours 198
New submitter zzyvits writes "With smartphones becoming more and more common, the push for employees to work after hours is becoming greater. Would the push be as hard if the employers had to pay for it? A law recently passed in Brazil makes it possible for employees who answer emails after normal work hours to claim overtime pay."
Spontaneous outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Who is responsible for being so fair to workers? We'd never get that here (meaning US.)
Re:Spontaneous outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind working....but I do NOT work for free. If I do work at any time, I bill for it, and yes, it definitely makes the employer think twice about calling or bothering you after hours.
This, and considering that there is such thing as employer loyalty nor job security....hell, just about everyone should opt (if possible) for the contractor route.
If you're gonna get the loyalty and job security from an employer that a contractor gets, you might as well get the freedom, tax breaks and bill rate that a contractor gets....no?
Re: (Score:3)
Gaming the system is stupid-- claiming contractor status when you only work for one company. But, if your position has ups and downs based on project cycles, becoming an independent contractor and working with different companies can be a good move... unless you are doing it through an agency and not as your own business.
For people with an entrepreneurial spirit... who like to work hard, starting your own business is a great thing to do. Complaining about answering an email after hours is silly except in
Re:Spontaneous outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Complaining about having to answer AN email after hours might be silly, but if it becomes a regular part of your duties then you are effectively never off work. Enjoy answering AN email while your family is watching a movie, while your kid is in the school play, when everyone else is playing a game on the weekend, etc etc.
Why not take it to the logical next step. Perhaps you could take 2 or 3 hours worth of homework with you each night.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always worked strictly within the rules and limits....I mean, if there is a tax break or advantage that is legal, is it not foolish to take full advantage of it ? I mean, it is YOUR money after all.
That being said....why not have everyone take more responsibility for their own job, pay, medical and needs. A lot of the problems today is because of so many others involved in the process, every one with a hand out...driving up prices for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise I left them later that year. >.>
Frankly, I would have tendered my resignation in that hospital bed. No employer that callous and demeaning is worth working for. Some things are more important than money. Self respect, for one.
Re: (Score:3)
No surprise I left them later that year.
Frankly, I would have tendered my resignation in that hospital bed.
Bad move. Definitely wait until you get out of the hospital before resigning!
Re:Spontaneous outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Informative)
It's already law in the US, for non-exempt employees. If you're required to respond to emails, the time you spend responding to them count as "hours worked".
29 C.F.R 785.12: "The rule is also applicable to work performed away from the premises or the job site, or even at home. If the employer knows or has reason to believe that the work is being performed, he must count the time as hours worked."
Re: (Score:2)
And the key word here is "required".
Yes, if you are REQUIRED to do it, then yes, it should count as overtime.
Re: (Score:2)
Just watch out for cases where it's constructively required. Cases where it's entirely 'optional' except that you go to the top of the layoff list if you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter; in the US even if the work is 'optional' you have to be paid for it if you're non-exempt, if the employer knew or had reason to believe you were doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and mostly for the reason I pointed out. But that wasn't Morcego's proposal.
Re:Spontaneous outbreak of common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
"that's why I quit my previous employer. The HR bitch at ABM was threatening to fire me if I didn't work off the clock and pay checks were usually quite late."
You fill out time cards anyways and turn them in with the overtime. make copies and send them and your pay stubs to the state.
HR bitch ends up fired, Company is fined a very significant amount of money and is forced to pay all back wages to all employees with interest.
If you keep your mouth quiet and act like a good slave they get away with this crap.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not likely, that company has serious corruption issues and they don't provide copies for the employees. All logs are on the same sheet making it difficult to get a copy.
Never thought I'd see on Slashdot someone complaining that it's difficult to get a copy of something...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in the US under the FLSA employers have to pay for all the time that employees spend working, regardless of when that happens. There are a few things which are excluded from that list, but answering email and phones is definitely something they're required to pay for. The problem though is that getting it enforced is quite cumbersome and employers are used to getting that work for free.
At the end of the day if they need people working outside of business hours they need to be going through the prop
Re: (Score:2)
So companies cannot monitor employees e-mail usage. That is unfair and violate their privacy.
Companies cannot stop employees from using the company e-mail for personal things. That would be unfair.
But if the employees use e-mail after hours, it is considered overtime.
It is also interesting that, in Brazil, you have to pay the employee for overtime even if it was UNAUTHORIZED. Even if the company has a policy in place that authorization is needed. Since (according mostly to unions), authorized or not, the co
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, companies can monitor employee e-mail usage. I don't know about Brazil.
Companies in the US can prohibit employees from using the company email for personal things. Whether they can stop it is a different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, companies can monitor employee e-mail usage. I don't know about Brazil.
In theory, not only company can do it in Brazil, but they are obligated by law to do so. The law states that "any crime or offense committed using companies resources make the company in question automatically co-responsible" (that is not the exact wording, and it is a rough translation). It was already tested in court in one case, and the company won, so there is jurisprudence. However, this kind of issue is so expensive for the company that, unless they have very deep pocket and big interest in this kind
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be that naive. I refuse to believe that.
Labour union, in Brazil or anywhere in the world, are more interested in politics than worker's interests these days. They make decisions based on what will gain votes for their politician of choice, who in return will get public offices for key people from the unions, or benefit the union in some other way.
on the other hand (Score:2, Informative)
People also use their smartphone more during work hours for all things but work.
Re:on the other hand (Score:4, Insightful)
Then that would imply the managers aren't working, since the manager's job is to make sure the peons are working.
Re:on the other hand (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the manager's job is to make sure that the company's objective's are achieved on time and in budget. If an employee's overall productivity is higher if he or she takes periodic breaks to play Angry Birds or post on Slashdot rather than working solidly all of the time in the office, then only a bad manager would insist on removing the 'distractions'. Most people work best if they take short breaks quite frequently.
I'm pretty sure that you are replying to a troll though. The 'company's bandwidth streaming music' bit was a bit of a giveaway - streaming Internet radio uses very little bandwidth and lots of people work better with music in the background.
Re:on the other hand (Score:4, Informative)
I'm pretty sure that you are replying to a troll though. The 'company's bandwidth streaming music' bit was a bit of a giveaway - streaming Internet radio uses very little bandwidth and lots of people work better with music in the background.
A single user streaming internet music is neglibile. A hundred can saturate your network connections to the point that the apps the employees should be running are no longer functional.
Re:on the other hand (Score:5, Interesting)
Competent IT will put in Stream reflectors for the users.
We put that in place for the 10 top played internet radio streams in the company, the $200.00 linux servers connects, and then rebroadcasts the stream to up to 500 users.
So I have 500 people listening with the bandwidth overhead of 10.
Re:on the other hand (Score:5, Insightful)
Competent IT will put in Stream reflectors for the users.
We put that in place for the 10 top played internet radio streams in the company, the $200.00 linux servers connects, and then rebroadcasts the stream to up to 500 users.
So I have 500 people listening with the bandwidth overhead of 10.
But when the competent IT staff proposes this management says 'Why don't we just block the streaming sites on the firewall for free?"
Re: (Score:2)
You do a google science search, find an article that support your point and say something like this : According to that emeritus researcher in HR, removing access to music during work reduce worker productivity by n%. Therefore the cost of blocking music is 500*p$(employee)*n% per year while the cost of efficiently stream it is a one time cost of 200$ + 40$/Hr*10Hr plus a maintenance cost of 1Hr*40$/Hr per year, what do you choose.
Re: (Score:3)
You do a google science search, find an article that support your point and say something like this : According to that emeritus researcher in HR, removing access to music during work reduce worker productivity by n%. Therefore the cost of blocking music is 500*p$(employee)*n% per year while the cost of efficiently stream it is a one time cost of 200$ + 40$/Hr*10Hr plus a maintenance cost of 1Hr*40$/Hr per year, what do you choose.
(PHB) we're not paying our workers to listen to music. Block all the music sites. And this "google.com" site as well. You seem to be spending a lot of time there instead of working.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.icecast.org/ [icecast.org]
It's been around forever, start reading the server docs.
Re:on the other hand (Score:5, Informative)
It's the peons who use the fuck out of their smartphones, as well as the company's bandwidth streaming music and video, and generally not working.
If this was a real problem then they would be fired after making those things verboten. The employer is paying a rate derived from the amount of work actually done in practice by the typical employee, not the theoretical maximum amount of work a typical employee could perform.
Employees that recognize that they do more work than is typical should ask for a raise and if they do not get it should then respond in a rational manner by either reducing output or looking for a new job.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the few things from RIM I wish was on iOS, time profiles for checking into mail systems, and alerts.
I'd love for silent alarms from 11:00pm to 7:00am as if I forget to mote the phone and iPad, and computer, I hear the chime from my PC in my office (if it's really quiet at home) then my phone and iPad chime in too, charging beside the bed. If its on a list my wife also belongs to, her phone will ping too. 8) a couple of times of this happening at 2:am and I really think I should charge for it.
Re: (Score:3)
streaming music does not imply not working. It's often easier to concentrate on work when you have music to drown out the hum of annoying coworkers around you in the cube farm
Re: (Score:2)
And then I put some music on to drown out the annoying hum of your music. Where will it end?
Re: (Score:3)
When everyone gets some decent headphones (not crappy earbuds) which don't subject those nearby to the music being listened to. This is one problem which really does have a technical solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they don't have the distractions of everyone else on their phones, everyone else's noise, they probably have enough space to actually put things, instead of the pitiful amount allotted to most cubby-dwellers (32 square feet of flat surfaces is the minimum - desk, table, shelving).
Re: (Score:2)
No, they aren't. A tinny version of the music comes out the back of the earbud and is quite audible to anyone nearby in a quiet room. This may or may not be true with decent earbuds, it is most certainly true with crappy ones.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not true with decent earbuds, in fact. Senheiser even has "noise isolating" earbuds.
Plenty of middle of the road traditional headphones have more of a sound leakage problem than any earbuds.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, earbuds, even crappy ones, are sealed to the ear canal and consequently very quiet to anyone else.
In my experience, you can hear earbuds MUCH more easily than a real pair of headphones, especially if the inconsiderate fool has them turned up too loud. And if there is any one thing that would just about make me want to throw somebody through a fucking window, it's having to listen to someone else's music through earbuds that are turned up too loud.
Re: (Score:2)
It's often easier to concentrate on work when you have music to drown out the hum of annoying coworkers around you in the cube farm
And then I put some music on to drown out the annoying hum of your music. Where will it end?
I think fondly back to the day that I received an irate email from a supervisor. We'd been working all morning, conversing over email, then he decided to walk around to my office for a chat, and I wasn't there! I'd been logged in via ssh all morning, still in my jammies, and it peed him off no end that he hadn't realized that was possible without him noticing.
Funneeee! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
A good pair of headphones will not leak enough sound to be heard above the din of the air circulation system, pc fans and other assorted noises in an office environment.
Everyone already can do this (Score:2)
If you work after hours (no matter what you are specifically doing) and you are employed on a hourly basis then of course you can claim overtime.
You do not need a specific law for this.
Re: (Score:2)
But how much can you claim? if your employer calls you in they have to pay you for at least two hours... well, where I live, I don't know how widespread that is. If I have to think about work for half an hour I will keep thinking about it after that time, and it will impinge upon me. But I probably still only get to claim half an hour, right?
Re: (Score:2)
That is how it is where I work. I actually felt bad that I just threw on half an hour of out of work time (I even wanted it straight since I was on vacation) because one morning one group woke me up, and when I was done with them I had two other groups pestering me immediately for information questions. So I charged that half-hour out of spite/principal. Some of it through emails.
Work gave me two hours because technically it was a call-in.
Re: (Score:2)
"If I have to think about work for half an hour I will keep thinking about it after that time, and it will impinge upon me."
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
If your job involves complex problem solving (you get paid to think) then obviously you can change them for overtime contemplation.
If you are saying every time you are reminded of work you spend hours uncontrollability and un-constructively thinking about it, like a tune stuck in your head. then of course you cannot.
Let me restate: if
Re: (Score:2)
"But how much can you claim? if your employer calls you in they have to pay you for at least two hours... "
I leave work and drive home. if I get a phone call or email I must respond to I coult all the time from when I left work into that call.
Call to ask me a question at 10pm? I just got 5 hours of overtime for that call. IT significantly limits the quantity of dumb calls that can easily be answered the next work day at the office.
Re:Everyone already can do this (Score:4, Informative)
If you work after hours (no matter what you are specifically doing) and you are employed on a hourly basis then of course you can claim overtime. You do not need a specific law for this.
In Brazil, salaried workers get paid overtime if they work over 44 hours a week or more than 8 hours in a single day. So, if you worked a normal 40 hour week, but had to pull 10 hours on a tuesday, you get paid your salary plus 2 hours overtime.
Re: (Score:2)
If you work after hours (no matter what you are specifically doing) and you are employed on a hourly basis then of course you can claim overtime. You do not need a specific law for this.
In Brazil, salaried workers get paid overtime if they work over 44 hours a week or more than 8 hours in a single day. So, if you worked a normal 40 hour week, but had to pull 10 hours on a tuesday, you get paid your salary plus 2 hours overtime.
Communists!~
Re: (Score:2)
Communists!~
No. Just sane people
Re: (Score:2)
Same as Canada, nut normally at least (not sure about the law). you need a full time week to get any overtime during the week (weekend is always overtime).
Re: (Score:2)
Same as Canada, but normally at least (not sure about the law) you need a full time week to get any overtime during the week (weekend is always overtime).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would really suck for people who like working 4 10 hour shifts to get their 3 day weekends...
I don't see any reason why you couldn't work it out with your employer to get a salary pay cut such that your salary + "overtime" in such a system would equal your original salary.
Re:Everyone already can do this (Score:5, Funny)
2. Exchange a long string of emails back and forth each evening.
3. Profit!
Re: (Score:3)
At which point HR will look rather closely at your "work related activity" out of hours. At the very least they will just not pay you that over time, and every single hour that you claim after that will be scrutinized. Or they will just fire you for fraud. You might get away with a few hours every month, but "each evening" will earn you the pink slip you deserve.
The system relies on people being honest.
Re: (Score:2)
The system relies on people being honest.
You're what's wrong with 21st Century management. You immediately leap on the dishonest button when confronted with something new, instead of looking at it as potentially a smart innovation that would be good for all concerned.
I've worked lots of places where there was no time during the day to train subordinates and not enough time to get everything done. When half my working day's taken up attending meetings and other such BS, when do we actually get any work done?
I'd consider it a pleasure to be online
They'll just disable email on a schedule (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not going to pay overtime. So what they'll do is instruct the email servers to not send mail outside office hours. This might cause problems if employees don't all work at the same time. But doubtless the servers can be programmed to send mail in some customized fashion.
Maybe even make it the employee's job to update a settings page in the web terminal for the email system.
Memo 5441: Employees are required to keep current their hours by logging into the provided address. Errors in this system will b
Re:They'll just disable email on a schedule (Score:5, Insightful)
Not paying overtime by not requiring overtime work is exactly the purpose of this legislation I believe. What is wrong with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Not paying overtime by not requiring overtime work is exactly the purpose of this legislation I believe. What is wrong with that?
You mean besides the fact that its a coercion of freedom?
Maybe I want to market myself as available for some minor duties (such as responding to urgent emails) after hours, as needed, for a higher base wage? Well now if I lived in Brazil I cannot do that.
Furthermore, wont the effect be to exert a downward pressure on the base pays of those this law happens to target?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe I want to market myself as somebody who isn't worried about inhaling toxic gasses. Worker safety laws are a coercion of freedom.
If workers don't want to inhale toxic gasses, then they won't take those jobs. Just like how that happened before worker safety laws.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that's the reason why worker safety laws exist. The problem is not so much the fact that I as a worker am unable to assess risk, but rather that I might end up in a world where all jobs that are available to me are risky, as there is no incentiv
Re: (Score:2)
as there is no incentive for employers to take measures to eliminate those risks
There was strong pressure to increase safety in the U.S because of worker compensation laws passed in 1908. Now thats not a law that says you must increase safety.. thats a law that says that you must compensate injured workers. The economics of it is what increased general safety. All other safety laws do not increase general safety, only specific safety failings where a worker cannot assess the real risks.
At this point, free-market types will argue that, if enough workers refuse to work for the risky jobs, there will be demand for an employer that actually takes measures to eliminate them, thus making a more competitive offer to prospective employees. Except that oftentimes the labor market does not work that way: usually the employer can afford not to hire someone, but that someone cannot afford to be unemployed. Doubly so in an economy with a high unemployment rate, and triply so for jobs that require little to no qualification
You dont have extended high unemployment in a free markets. See Hong Kong's history of unemployment
Re: (Score:3)
Is it a result of economic theory that it's not a coincidence? If it is, I would be truly interested if you could point me to a proof. It seems to me that the argument that unemployment in a free market leads to the creation of ne
Re: (Score:3)
Prior to the "free market" reforms of the early 90's, Sweden had an unemployment rate hovering around 1-4%. Of course for those advocating the current "free market" system, that is below the rate of unemployment preferred, workers should be sufficiently desperate to take crap jobs at crap salaries. The current unemployment rate is about 8%.
Re:They'll just disable email on a schedule (Score:5, Insightful)
Brazil is a leftist country, which means they take workers' rights seriously. You see, as there is a competition in a labour market, without regulations like minimal wage or overtime pay the companies could just require workers to work more for less pay, because there would always be someone else to take the job. By regulating overtime, the state ends the competition between the workers, thus solving the prisoners dilemma scenario and resulting in an environment that's better for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
You see, as there is a competition in a labour market, without regulations like minimal wage or overtime pay the companies could just require workers to work more for less pay, because there would always be someone else to take the job.
Countries like Hong Kong seem to do OK with very few regulations, because their over-supply of workers induced more businesses to start up inevitably reducing that over-supply of workers. America was the same as they used to let anyone in the world come here, and by the millions per year they did. By the end of that period America had the most diverse and powerful economy on the planet.
Minimum wage is the most regressive employment regulation imaginable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've had very low regulation periods (aka the 30s, 70s, 90s) and companies didn't use that to create jobs nor make the economy flourish but to ransack as much as they could.
You mention the 1930s, but that was a time of great instability in Brazil, with a revolution in 1930 and then a coup 7 years later.
Then you mention the 1970s, the period of Operation Condor and military dictatorships.
Then finally you mention the 1990s, which while removing the military dictatorship, only did so because hyperinflation was just kicking. Then you have the period of dual currencies, culminating in a great deflation of one while trying to stop the rapid inflation of the other.
Banks are no
Re: (Score:3)
Countries like Hong Kong seem to do OK with very few regulations, because their over-supply of workers induced more businesses to start up inevitably reducing that over-supply of workers.
Do you really try to compare the economy of a city-state to a huge country like Brazil?
America was the same as they used to let anyone in the world come here, and by the millions per year they did. By the end of that period America had the most diverse and powerful economy on the planet.
Being the most powerful economy doesn't do much good when only a few percent of the citizens gets a share of that booming economy due to inequalities.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, a lot of those worker protection laws are restrictions on your freedom to work in unsanitary, dangerous conditions and on exploitative or slave contracts. And apart from a few libertarian freaks most think it's a good thing.
Any time you get a specified amount of money for an unspecified amount of work you're going to get screwed, because the natural reaction in every company is to abuse that privilege as much as possible. Paying you a fixed salary with no overtime is like the company giving a fixed pr
Re: (Score:2)
It won't push down the wages of the people this law targets - because I bet you at the moment they aren't being paid for the work at all. Now the companies have a choice - they can either cut off their servers from sending emails out of hours OR they can pay their employees for working out of house.
In the case of the former, the employee will get paid the same and have more time to enjoy themselves
In the case of the latter, the employee will get paid more because it will be over time.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree... ideally one should be able to wave this whole overtime thing since a lot of employees aren't paid by the hour anyway. Just make it part of the law that no employer can coerce someone to wave the requirement and that it has to be voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's just the republican lip balm.
Re: (Score:3)
How is dictating that employees who do work must be paid for said work reducing freedom? Is it reducing freedom to outlaw theft, too?
Generally speaking, it's possible to contract around laws. In Canada, a collective agreement has the first priority, and then any areas not covered by the CA fall to the employment legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
troll troll troll. By God, I think you're on to something. Not being required to pay wages for time worked increases liberties for everyone!! I think the communists and slave owners probably agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
PS I may have misunderstood your post as arguing against being required to pay for overtime. I was having a hard time tracking all the "this liberty that liberty"
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are free to ask for more.
But not free to negotiate how.
Re: (Score:2)
We have lots of legislation like that in my country and you can ask for whatever you want in whatever manner you want on top of the minimum.
Minimum what? Wage? Aha.
Brazil just decided that I must accept at a minimum an hourly rate that is greater than my regular rate ("overtime rate"), rather than that I might simply accept, for example, a piece rate.
This can only have a downward pressure on my regular rate. Thanks a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what half of American does already. The difference is, they don't get the one time fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
VW already do this with their Blackberry servers, although the state aim was to encourage a better work life balance. I realise this concept is strange to a lot of Americans - but there are companies out there that do this.
Re: (Score:2)
You had me until you made the stupid insult against my country.
We are well aware companies do bad things all the time. My point was that the companies are not paying for overtime. They won't do it. So the new rule is going to be disabling the email.
Please save the juvenile insults.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the desired outcome in a rational society, just a very easy way rather than directly legislating.
Re: (Score:2)
The wealth of nations is directly related to their productivity. Just be careful that you don't reduce the productivity of the economy or everyone suffers.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally... it's going to make companies unhappy and there are all sorts of consequences when employers get upset. Like... not employing as many people.
Anyway, it's brazil, so I don't really care...
nothing new (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't new, isn't specific to smartphones, and (as noted in the article) isn't unique to Brazil. Many employers have the ability to allow employees to check work email remotely from their home PCs. However, most sophisticated employers (or perhaps more paranoid) are careful about opening up such access to non-exempt employees (i.e. employees who are paid on an hourly basis) because of wage and hour issues. My employer (a US healthcare system) requires non-exempt employees to get manager permission before remote access is enabled and even then there are explicit rules about when the employees should be accessing email remotely. Compliance can be easily monitored but, conversely, wage and hour problems can also be easily proven through log in records.
Re: (Score:2)
Last place I worked that handed out Blackberries only gave them to exempt employees.
It's about time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh to be non-exempt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first one to claim email overtime . . . (Score:5, Funny)
. . . will be the last one to receive a promotion . . .
Dynamically weight and sort promotion list based on willingness to do overtime email for free.
Patent this.
So can I... (Score:2)
I have a Brazilian boss, and I can claim overtime for answering e-mail from home, too...
Won't make a damn bit of difference in my paycheck, since I'm on salary, and we have the 70+ club for people who work 70+ hours a week - I think the club members got a T-shirt last year, or maybe it was a ball cap, anyway, all those hours over 40 sure are appreciated, hardly compensated at all, but appreciated.
Good News (Score:2)
Sounds like great news, can't make other comments.
I like that idea (Score:2)
When I worked for NorTel, we got a 3-hour "callout" if we had to deal with an issue we were paged for, so carrying a pager could actually be a nice perk if you could deal with the hassle of nightly calls for an unreliable system.
But it's been a long time since I've seen a company that would pay callouts.
Maybe the employers and customers who used to call me during off-work hours would have stopped if I'd been greedy enough to bill them a 3-hour callout when they did so, instead of letting them abuse the
Re: (Score:2)
my formula to pay the off hours overtime (Score:2)
in order to pay overtime for reading emails off the clock, the company must first subtract the time the employees spend on slashdot, facebook, checking personal emails and other websites while on the clock. Seems to me most employees would owe the companies.
Re:Employers are rapists (Score:4, Insightful)
Fucking cowards. Stand up for yourselves,
Says the person posting anonymously.