CA Legislature Torpedoes IT Overtime 555
An anonymous reader writes to mention that a recent piece of California legislation is enabling tech firms to avoid paying their workers overtime. Originally designed to deal with bonds for children's hospitals, bill AB10 was completely rewritten to prevent lawsuit damages over overtime nonpayment. "'This is the first time that the Legislature has done a takeaway of the rights of private-sector workers as part of the budget deal,' said Caitlin Vega of the California Labor Federation. 'We just think it is wrong. We think it will really hurt the groups of workers who will be expected to work through the weekend and not get paid.'"
Author's name not on it. (Score:4, Interesting)
You can tell if a bill is bad if the author of the bill's name is not on it.
Apparently, the author(s) were ashamed of the bill.
Re:well (Score:3, Interesting)
While I am not an anarchist, as you seem to want to paint libertarians, and believe that some government is necessary and in fact a good thing, if limited and fiercely controlled (yes, I realize the historical absurdity of that statement), if one wants to break it down into soundbites for the weak-minded, I would assert that this appears to be the action of an over-weening socialist government, not "the free marked" in action. It is GOVERNMENT that is preventing suit for collection of overtime, not the market-place.
Re:Do the lawmakers get overtime pay? (Score:3, Interesting)
News reports claimed that the legislature would benefit from the budget stalemate due to the overtime.
I'd love to see a state constitutional amendment to the effect that if the budget is not approved by June 1, all statewide elected officials shall forfeit all pay, and any person hired by their office shall receive the federally mandated minimum wage, with no chance of reimbursement, until the budget is passed.
The bit about "person hired by their office" is to spread the pain. Lets face it, in CA, most legislators tend to be relatively wealthy. But when Assemblyman X's secretary starts bitching at him because she doesn't get paid, then he realizes the pain he's causing.
Re:You mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the specific case I can think of was Apple. They were demanding increasingly long hours (as I recall) but not paying additional amounts for it.
The problem is, if it's too open ended in terms of how much your employer can demand unpaid overtime, then it'll just get out of control. If they're not going to be required to pay it, it should be bounded in terms of how much they can ask for.
The problem, is certain professions have been deemed to have a very expandable amount of required extra time, without really giving anything back to the employee. IT, of course, being one of them.
Cheers
Re:get what you pay for.... (Score:5, Interesting)
And therein lies the problem. You may not be willing to, but it's almost certain that someone else (probably someone with no kids yet) will be willing to waste his time in that manner. And he's your competition. And new replicas of him are graduated every year.
Re:well (Score:4, Interesting)
In my experience, the big companies have a lot more employees that lean democratic, while startups have a larger republican population than would be expected when compared to local demographics.
I work in the Boston area, which is pretty blue... My experiences at IBM, Compaq/HP and EMC were that the rank and file were almost exclusively of the democratic persuasion. At the last three startups I've worked for, though, the employees have been 80+% republican.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Interesting)
Since when is $75k a large amount of money? These people aren't rich or wealthy. That's middle class. Which mean both parents need to still work to afford a house anywhere near where they work, and the cars to get them. If you have younger kids, then there's baby-sitting and extra insurance and crap like that.
$75k is barely making it in most markets (especially California).
Rent in most places in California is 1 bed room for $1k+.
Re:get what you pay for.... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's only true to a point. Once you get some experience tucked into your belt, there are employers out there who understand what that is worth. It may limit the number of companies that you have to choose from, but there are a lot of them out there.
If you've got around five years of experience or so and you're worried about being replaced by a fresh college grad, then the place you're working probably has all sorts of priority issues, and you probably hate being there.
Most of what you hear about in IT is the super-enthusiastic companies where everyone works 80 hours per week because they love what they're doing, or the giant corporate "dilbert" firms where everyone is miserable and does as little work as they can get away with. But you're not going to convince me that there aren't lots of smaller companies with decent leadership who can work hard but don't feel the need to march their employees to death. I have a few friends with jobs in IT like that around here, and this part of the country is by no means any sort of tech-wonderland.
And if I'm wrong and your only choice is a death march of misery, then seriously, go find a new career. You can always code on the weekends.
Re:Cry me a river (Score:3, Interesting)
First, $75k is not a lot of money in California. Second, anyone who plays the "I don't want to be the first one to leave" game is a first order moron. I leave every day at 5:00 on the nose, and if something breaks on the weekends or the evening, I work that many fewer hours during the week. 40 hours is the deal, and that's all that's fair for both sides.
Re:well (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I see a lot more democrats than libertarians
It seems that way, but if so, why aren't they unionized? If it weren't for my union I'd make a lot less money, I have good health benefits, paid vacations, holidays, etc. If I work overtime I get paid time and a half.
If my state passed some bogus BS like that you can bet your wife's ass I'd be writing my state legislators. Not that it would do much good...
Re:It's time to start a union how long before more (Score:4, Interesting)
It does sound ridiculous that a company can own all of your time. Alas many sociopath executives think exactly that. Last year I was offered employment with company that seemed like a good place to work. Then I saw the offer. Firstly their non-compete clause was so broad that I would need their approval before I could mow my neighbour's lawn for $5. Then there was an intellectual property clause stating that anything I created or conceived of regardless of its function, use or complexity during my tenure at the company, all day and all night was owned by them and not me. When I asked if, during a vacation, I invented an ever-cooling margarita glass the company would own that invention they calmly answered yes.
It turned the job down.
Re:Hurts the economy, too (Score:3, Interesting)
Even when the law says overtime must be paid, companies often don't. They count on employees not to know it's illegal and not to see better options elsewhere, and it often works.
It's not that this legal change would enable companies to do something they haven't already been doing -- it's that it removes the legal remedy that employees could use in those cases where someone noticed they were getting hosed.
Of course, CA can't set standards that are less worker-friendly than the federal law. Many IT workers are incorrectly classified as Exempt wrt the federal law when in fact they are not, and some in CA will remain in this category no matter whether this bill passes or not. Companies tend to get shaken up pretty badly when they lose lawsuits for improper classification of employees.
Re:Thank you (Score:2, Interesting)
Being a salaried employee, I get no paid overtime. If I have something that needs done during off-hours (evening, night, or weekends), I just budget the amount of time it will take and then not work that during the week. If I have a 4 hour change that needs done on Saturday, I only work 4 hours on Friday or work one less hour a day during the week and then do the 4 hour change on Saturday. My company doesn't like us working more than 40 hours, and many of us appreciate that. Some work more than 40 hours (myself included) and that's rewarded at performance review time. Unless you're completely awful, my company rewards you for your extra work. I've never felt like I've been "owned" by my company. Any extra work I do is because I care about the systems and people I support. They are the people who will send an e-mail to your boss and say "Hey, he did a great job! We appreciate it!" To all the young guns out there reading this, do your job and do it well. People always appreciate hard work.
I've seen instances at other places I've worked where employees really abused the overtime system. They would sit around all day and read websites and send stupid e-mails to their friends, then when it was time to go home, they would start working and call it "overtime". That downright offended me. If you're working hard all day and then have a problem and have to keep working, then that's overtime. Sitting around waiting for your 8 hours to be up so you can rack up overtime is a slap in the face to honest hard working people everywhere.
Re:Thank you (Score:2, Interesting)
And those people will always exist.
Re:It's a balance (Score:3, Interesting)
For the same reason that a large majority of drivers think they have above-average driving skills: you always think you're better at what you do than most other people who are doing the same thing.
It's worse in jobs that attract strongly motivated people, like engineering and IT, because they're *really* convinced that they're all better than all their coworkers are.
Every time their company screws them over with layoffs or unpaid overtime, they go find exactly the same job somewhere else and convince themselves that *this* time it will be different because they'll try harder and *this* time they'll be rewarded for their efforts.
Meanwhile, the companies are thrilled to have people leave every time they push them around because someone new will get paid a lot less, even though they're much less productive while they're being trained. But, hey, that's not the company's fault, and it managed to cut costs.
Unionized companies are for people who invest in treasury bonds: in for long-term, gradual improvement. Non-unionized companies are for people who play blackjack at casinos: massive gains anticipated by a player who doesn't realize the game is rigged.
Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
The Republican's can't even begin to talk about "Earn it" when they've got the worlds biggest corporate handout going through congress right now.
I tend to vote Dem (because there are no small government republicans anymore, and the goddamn religious right makes me ashamed to live in this country), and I absolutely think that this law is perfectly fine.
If you make more than 75,000 a year, close to twice the national average salary, and you can't fucking negotiate a contract that pays you what you think you deserve, then I don't see why a company should be forced to pay your overtime. If you don't like it, get another job.
Frankly, this industry is one of those places where merit and skill matters so much, where absolute raw ability is key, and all this talk of unions frankly makes me sick. Let's take away any actual personal merit, and instead institute a system of seniority and privilege.
And fucking computer professionals comparing themselves to fucking janitors is a joke. You're not entitled to a 6 figure salary, and not having one doesn't make you poor.
Re:get what you pay for.... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true. We have massive project management software at work, and people whose whole job is to run that software and schedule work for people to do. My work schedule tends to be about 250%+ (eg, in a 40 hour week, I have 100 hours worth of assignments assigned to me to accomplish that week). Other guys (one in particular) rarely are assigned more than 50-60%.
The reason: I produce better quality work, faster than he does, and he ends up spending lots and lots of time going back and fixing stuff he was supposed to have fixed before. Our project management office knows it and assigns more workload on me. They know what an average developer from my team can accomplish in 40 hours, I can accomplish in 15.
That's neither hubris nor hyperbole, it's how it runs there. My pay reflects it, and I don't mind at all because I do contract work, and there is a purchase order and statement of work based around me contributing 40 hours a week. When my 40 hours is up, there is not only just no expectation that I continue working (since they would have to pay me for it if they asked me to do it, and it would cause me to go over my PO), they actively discourage me from deciding to donate an extra hour or two here and there to keep on top of my work (since that would make me a salary employee, and suddenly they would be on the line for a lot of back benefits).
So I do exactly 40 hours, they do not want me working 40 hours and 1 minute, and they pile me up with as much work as I can churn through. I stay ultra busy (which I strongly prefer), and I get all the best projects.
That other guy - he is usually doing maintenance work on stuff I've produced, such as text changes or copying & extending some existing report.
Re:well (Score:3, Interesting)
"if the employer insist you work overtime anyway, find another job"
and when all employeers insist that?
Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's time to start a union how long before more (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't blame the workers - they made the best of a bad situation,. and if the car makers weren't so completely incompetent in the world's largest car market, they would justify their conditions and wages as a small fraction of the overall cost of a new vehicle (it's about 1/4 of the car's cost, if you're interested).
The automakers failed in several ways:
a) To this day, they produce crap cars no one wants, with awful quality compared to their peers. Compare a VW door shutline on the next Jetta (produced in Mexico) you see with a shutline of your average US made SUV. VW's shutlines are 4 mm wide at the top and bottom of the openings, and less than 1 mm wide for non-openings such plastic mouldings to body panels. The Dodge Nitro I hired a while ago had a gap between the rear bumper and the tail gate I could see through, and don't get me started on how much that Nitro sucked - it nearly killed me five times with its terrible road manners.
b) Once they realized that no one wanted their shit products, they moved into SUVs as the other manufacturers were producing cars folks actually bought. I am still surprised that folks bought such agricultural SUVs, but ...
c) They made so much money from these crap boxes that they cut back on designing any other type of car and really scaled back investment in cars the US used to be leaders in (large sedans like the 50's Chevy's and Cadillacs). No US maker has a small fuel efficient car in their domestic line up (say 40 mpg+, which nearly ALL EU cars can manage without difficulty)
d) They forced the US govt to implement effective protectionism, under the guise of safety standards, which prevents cars from outside the US from being imported. This is now biting them really hard because no matter how much Ford or GM WANT to bring in *profitable*, *well made*, *extremely safe* and *desirable* cars from Europe, they can't.
e) they lobbied hard against any form of fuel efficiency standards, and got CAFE. They fought extremely hard to keep CAFE standards low, even to the extent that the SUVs are not subject to safety standards or fleet average fuel consumption figures that slug sports cars and some of their elderly models like the Crown Victoria. CAFE does not address consumption or demand when fuel costs are low. Thus you have the most wildly inefficient country fleet in the world and no domestic models that can manage 30 mpg combined (only the Cobalt comes close, and the Focus is a Euro car). The same manufactures in EU have average fuel consumption figures in the high 30's / low 40's. They addressed the bottom line - CO2 emissions and heavy taxation of fuel to make it artificially expensive. They have efficient cars.
f) Those huge profits they made on SUV's? Wasted on a binge of consolidation, wasteful depreciation inducing inducements ($5k on the hood of perfectly good cars, employee pricing scams, etc), and all sorts of other shenanigans. They failed to invest these bumper profits in new products consumers actually want, saving up for a rainy day or diversifying their range to cope with all buyers, not just guys with exceptionally small penises (Hummer, anyone?) Women buy and / or approve more than 50% of all the cars on the road. Makers and advertising do not target women - at all, which is a huge mistake.
Car makers have royally hung themselves by their own petard. I'd love it if I wasn't a car guy.
But it's not all the car maker's fault. They are burdened with the dumbest idea since dumb idea were invented. No national health care plan.
The US fails all its citizens and burdens its companies unnecessarily because it has no national health care plan like every other first world country. The US pays three times the amount for medical costs compared to Japan or Australia for worse health outcomes and a shorter lifespan.
If the US had a national health plan and decent medical costs, some of the costs now forced on the UAW by the last deal (or other auto makers without the UAW deal) wouldn't be holding them
Re:It's time to start a union how long before more (Score:3, Interesting)
Whenever I read a little Republican screed, I always think of this from an American master of rhetoric:
Little Republicans would make me laugh if it didn't mean we all had to deal with Big Republicans. Big Republicans are smart, they know that there is practically no class mobility in this country and that their policies are transferring what little wealth the working class, including the Little Republicans, has managed to aquire into their own pockets. (They also know that they have more in common with Wesley Mouch than Hank Rearden, and they don't care because they think Rearden was a chump.)
Okay (Score:4, Interesting)
Well let's see. Here [archive.org] is the former board of AIG. This is going to be a quick Google of each one, and may not be correct or comprehensive.
M. Bernard Aidinoff: Democrat [huffingtonpost.com]
Pei-yuan Chia: Democrat [city-data.com]
Marshall A. Cohen: Can't tell. He appears to be Canadian, maybe he's not active here politically.
William S. Cohen: Democrat [huffingtonpost.com] (2 out of 3 to Dems, also was Clinton's Sec of Defense)
Martin S. Feldstein: Republican [city-data.com]
Ellen V. Futter: couldn't find any evidence.
Stephen L. Hammerman: Democrat [city-data.com] (mixes it up some, likes Rudy as he was NYC police commissioner, but mostly Dems)
Carla A. Hills: mixed [city-data.com]
Richard C Holbrooke: Democrat [huffingtonpost.com]
Fred H. Langhammer: Republican [newsmeat.com] (actually this is pretty mixed, but recently leans Republican)
George L. Miles, Jr: Republican [state.pa.us]
Morris W. Offit: Democrat [huffingtonpost.com]
Martin J. Sullivan: Democrat [huffingtonpost.com]
Michael H. Sutton: Democrat [huffingtonpost.com]
Edmund S. W. Tse: Can't tell. Also not originally American.
Robert B. Willumstad: Can't tell.
Frank G. Zarb: Democrat [city-data.com]
I believe that's 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 5 unknown. I don't have time to do WaMu at the moment, but you're welcome to.
Re:Okay (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I must disagree (Score:2, Interesting)
skilled factory worker
Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Any "skilled" job does NOT start at $10 an hour. I'm honestly tired of people complaining about how much people that put the effort into getting an education and taking the white collar route get paid because they don't work as "hard" as the people that are breaking their backs. It's supply and demand. Sure, there's plenty of jackasses that are in a cushy job because they knew someone. But, there are multitudes more that put the effort in to get there. An uneducated, trained monkey (yeah, that's flame bait) can be found for a dime a dozen.
I worked my ass off and went to college at night while most of the other people I grew up with put in their 40 hours and then just hung out and drank beer watching sports with their friends. Now, I make as much as any 4 of them put together. Sure, they say I don't work hard because I sit at a desk. But, I busted my ass to get here. You get out what you put in. And for those that didn't make the effort to put much in, shut the fuck up and go vote for Obama. And before I get labeled a cold-hearted Republican, fuck McCain, too.
I'm ready to leave this fucking country because the masses are too soft and too stupid. I don't mind a little social support, but you fuckers are just too goddamn lazy for me anymore.
/rant
Re:Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
No, republicans, like our republican president Comrade Bush, likes to give away money to banks. That's what republicans, like Comrade Bush, mean when they say "earn it". You "earn it" by being rich, and then the government steals--using the threat of jail--taxes from the working class (like small business entrepreneurs), and then giving you (the rich) more money.
Now, if you are a working class programmer making less than $100K per year, it is also republican, like the republican Governer of California, to deny you the remittance you have earned--using law as the tool--so those richer than you can keep the money you have earned.
So you see, republicans are much like communists in that they use law to take from the poor and give to the rich. So now we understand what it means to be republican these days.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
DUDE: Why was your boy Paulson *on his knees*, fucking literally, in Nanci Pellosi's office begging her to support the handout? You live in a dreamworld.
In fact, let's have a heart to heart. Seriously. I need to know. Are you just a republican fanboi or do you really have Republican values and have just been duped by the crooks in office?
Note where the capitals are--lowercase is for the posers known as the "republican party", capitals is for real Republicans like Senator Ron Paul. If you don't know what Republican means, look up "Republicanism" in wikipedia and memorize the first few sentences. The "republican party" these days are not, by and large, real Republicans.
If you are a real Republican, you would literally get sick to your stomach when a President who calls himself a "republican" asks for $700B to hand out to banks. SICK TO YOUR STOMACH. I have news for you and for every one else who has been duped: These are not Republicans.
They call themselves "republicans", but they aren't "Republicans". They do not follow the Rule of Law as evidenced by illegal wire tapping. They do not care for liberty, as illustrated by the Patriot Act. And they do not care for democracy or else they would put proposals like a $700B bailout to a popular vote. And they also do not believe in personal responsibility or the free market as evidenced by the proposal to bail out irresponsible banks.
Now, you will probably say something silly like "democrats are guilty of stuff like that too." And I will say, yes, but it doesn't matter because I'm not talking about democrats here, so don't try to change the topic. I'm not calling myself a democrat, so don't think I'm apologizing for them. I'm calling myself a Republican with a capital "R".
You probably have some naive notions, like "Rule of Law" means lots of cops with tazers. That is not "Rule of Law". That is fascism. Get this stuff straight.
You probably think that "Rule of Law" means more laws, like laws against smoking pot or having gay sex. Again, wrong. "Rule of Law" applies to the operations of the rulers. "Rule of Law" means that the rulers are ruled by law. It means that the no man is above the law. (Make sure you go study that wikipeda article before you argue that point.) "Rule of Law" does not mean that the subjects must be ruled by cops and draconian laws.
You are probably asking now, "how about the subjects? How about the people? What's going to keep them doing what I think is right?" Well, assuming your idea of "right" makes any sense whatsoever, in our Republic, which is also a federation of states, the idea is that most criminal law should be deferred to the states themselves. The exceptions would be laws against actions that adversely and DIRECTLY affect the operations of the Federal Government. (Some washed-up sixties flower child smoking a joint at a Jethro Tull concert does not constitute DIRECTLY affecting the operations Federal Government.) So, can a person have gay without getting arrested? Well, in the ideal "Republic" of states, this question is left to the states, NOT to the Federal Government. That's why they call it a "Federal Government", because of the concept of deferring most law to the states.
But is this *really* how true Republicans think? Surely they want federal agents breathing down every pot smoker's slimy back, don't they? NO THEY DON'T. I refer you to a concept called New Federalism [pbs.org], which was a reaction to the New Deal and was spearheaded by one of my favorite presidents, Richard Nixon. (I'm fucking serious about Richard Nixon, so unless you are prepared to read up on his history as president and his ideals, don't even think about questioning my sincerity here.) He was the closest thing we've had to a Republican in office in the last 50 years. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Now I ask you, since I recognize your name and the mindless "conservative" tone of yo