Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Democrats Government The Almighty Buck United States IT Politics

US Senator Proposes Bill To Eliminate Overtime For IT Workers 1167

New submitter Talisman writes "Kay Hagan (D) from North Carolina has introduced a bill to the Senate that would eliminate overtime pay for IT workers." The bill is targeted at salaried IT employees and those whose hourly rate is $27.63 or more. It seems comprehensive in its description of what types of IT work qualify — everything from analysis and consulting to design and development to training and testing. The bill even uses "work related to computers" as one of the guidelines.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Senator Proposes Bill To Eliminate Overtime For IT Workers

Comments Filter:
  • by JustNiz ( 692889 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:36AM (#38236816)

    3 of the 4 co-sponsors for the bill are republican:

    Michael Bennet [D-CO]
    Scott Brown [R-MA]
    Michael Enzi [R-WY]
    John Isakson [R-GA]

  • by wizkid ( 13692 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:39AM (#38236844) Homepage

    I should have known bennet would be there. I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM! He's a bozo!

  • by EricWright ( 16803 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:40AM (#38236874) Journal

    I'll admit it ... I voted for her in 2008. Won't make that mistake again in 2014.

    That bill doesn't impact me; I'm salaried and already classified as Exempt. But I know a lot of hourly folks, both full-time (like help desk, etc.) and consultants that this would negatively impact.

  • by Sez Zero ( 586611 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:41AM (#38236884) Journal

    If you want a good job vote this man OUT!

    I think you mean, "vote this woman OUT".

    Sure looks like... [senate.gov]

  • by an00bis ( 667089 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:44AM (#38236958)
    nobody voted for him, he was appointed to replace salazar
  • by Bob the Super Hamste ( 1152367 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:45AM (#38236966) Homepage
    The bill is short so below is the full text from thomas.loc.gov [loc.gov]. For a congressional bill it is surprisingly readable.


    To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to modify provisions relating to the exemption for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or other similarly skilled workers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Computer Professionals Update Act' or the `CPU Act'.

    SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.

    Section 13(a)(17) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(17)) is amended to read as follows:

    `(17) any employee working in a computer or information technology occupation (including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--

    `(A) the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;

    `(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;

    `(C) directing the work of individuals performing duties described in subparagraph (A) or (B), including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties; or

    `(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the performance of which requires the same level of skill;

    who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1).'.
  • Re:Hurray.. ? (Score:4, Informative)

    by NJRoadfan ( 1254248 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:50AM (#38237038)
    Red Hat is out of NC, Cisco has a few offices in NC as well. I have met a few IT workers from that area and they seem to get treated worse then the ones around the NYC metro area do.
  • Re:why? (Score:5, Informative)

    by LeanSystems ( 2513566 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:52AM (#38237074)

    How does this make sense for govn't.. isn't this a Private sector issue?

    I have worked my way up from Network Tech to Director of IS... so I made the switch from hourly (non-exempt) to salary (exempt) and since then have had to deal with who is and isn't exempt.

    It all comes down to what positions are considered "professional". My take on the subject has usually been that if the employee has the type of work that is difficult to measure and determine if they are truly working hard or stretching it out, then they are exempt. Exempt employees are expected to know what amount of work is truly needed and get things done in the least effort possible.

    As a competent sys-admin, do you need to parse all 100MB of that log to determine the root cause of the error? How exactly does the boss know you did or didn't need to (yes a competent manager should have a clue, but it's more difficult than you think). Programming is the same way... I could hack it and get it out in a week, or be so damn picky it takes a year.

    My position has usually been that people in these positions are able to determine what level of work is need to satisfy customer demand and not do unnecessary work. BUT, it is always a judgement call with IT. If you get it wrong, make a guy salary, make him work 60 hours to get a project out and he then sues, you can be held liable for back pay.

    It is a difficult balance between leaving grey areas (because a lot of it is grey), and the government formally defining who is and isn't exempt. I would not immediately defame the Senator introducing the bill... they may actually be trying to do a good thing for employees. This is a messy area of personnel issues, and if they are successful in bringing clarity, all will benefit.

  • by Bob the Super Hamste ( 1152367 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:52AM (#38237084) Homepage
    Technically it means that they are no longer required to pay overtime, but realistically how many employers in a down economy where there is a surplus of workers will do more than they are required to.
  • by That_Dan_Guy ( 589967 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:54AM (#38237124)

    That's the law. Seriously, it is the law. Passed in 2003 amazingly enough.

    The Califronia gov't description is the most clear. There is a Federal one too that is more difficult to read through but spells it out: IT workers get Overtime. Period.
    http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_overtime.htm [ca.gov]

  • by Thangodin ( 177516 ) <elentar AT sympatico DOT ca> on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:56AM (#38237170) Homepage

    And Amen again. I worked at a high profile startup that went defect back during the dot.com days, working 60 to 100 hour weeks. I never got a penny of the back pay they owed me, and the guy who worked most of those hours with me died three years later from congestive heart failure caused by stress (he had an otherwise healthy lifestyle). So this isn't just about the quality of your life; it could mean the difference between life and death.

  • by Bob the Super Hamste ( 1152367 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:56AM (#38237178) Homepage
    Also it is currently in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee so if one of the following is your senator you might want to contact them to have it killed:

    Tom Harkin (D-IA)
    Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD)
    Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
    Patty Murray (D-WA)
    Bernard Sanders (I) (I-VT)
    Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA)
    Kay R. Hagan (D-NC)
    Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
    Al Franken (D-MN)
    Michael F. Bennet (D-CO)
    Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
    Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
    Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)
    Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
    Richard Burr (R-NC)
    Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
    Rand Paul (R-KY)
    Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
    John McCain (R-AZ)
    Pat Roberts (R-KS)
    Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
    Mark Kirk (R-IL)
  • by Divide By Zero ( 70303 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:57AM (#38237202)
    This isn't entirely new. They're basically expanding "Computer systems analyst, programmer, software engineer" to "anyone working in a computer or IT related occupation". Analysts, designers, coders, testers of software were out before. Looks like they're expanding it to DBAs, IT managers, sysadmins and other IT gigs. IANALegislator, so your read is as good as mine, or better. Presented below for your reference:

    CURRENT LAW:
    (17) any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is—
    (A) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications;
    (B) 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;
    (C) the design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
    (D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) the performance of which requires the same level of skills, and who, in the case of an employee who is compensated on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an hour.

    NEW BILL:
    (17) any employee working in a computer or information technology occupation (including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--
    ‘(A) the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;
    ‘(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;
    ‘(C) directing the work of individuals performing duties described in subparagraph (A) or (B), including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties; or
    ‘(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the performance of which requires the same level of skill;
    who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1).’.

  • Nothing new here (Score:5, Informative)

    by yog ( 19073 ) * on Friday December 02, 2011 @10:58AM (#38237206) Homepage Journal
    Relax, it's just a minor amendment of an existing amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Here's [umaryland.edu] a good explanation of the history of this amendment.

    In 1990, Congress adopted free-standing legislation directing DOL to promulgate regulations defining the status of computer services workers and to include in that definition an earnings test: not less than 6½ times the federal minimum wage. Although DOL proceeded as directed, Congress revisited the issue in 1996. It moved the computer services exemption from Section 13(a)(1), creating a new categorical exemption in Section 13(a)(17). Here, unburdened by the issue of defining professional, Congress set its own standard. It also froze the earnings test at $27.63 per hour. With the increase in the general wage floor, part of the 1996 amendments, that came to equal 5.4 times the minimum wage.

    As you can see, the hourly rate and the type of worker involved has not changed at all. It appears that they're merely clarifying the definition of a computer services professional.

    Personally (and I know this is going to earn me a few "troll" points from our faithful moderators), I am against mandating things like time-and-a-half and double-time pay. Although it sounds like a good deal for hourly workers, in fact it probably discourages employers from paying people more. They'll just get a part timer to come in and do the extra work, or offshore it, or some such.

    I'm in IT and when I'm hourly, I love to work 50-60 hours a week. I don't give a damn about all these overtime rules; I just want to make more money. But since around 2001, companies have been much more reluctant to let people bill more than 40 hours a week unless the top management grants special permission to get some project done or some such.

    Frankly I wish the government would just stay out of these matters and let the free market decide what's a fair wage, what's fair hours, etc., but maybe I'm naive :)

  • by Citoahc ( 565108 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:02AM (#38237282) Homepage

    It is worth comparing this to the current law since there isn't much being changed. This doesn't prevent Overtime Pay just the requirement that Overtime be paid at the x1.5 rate, but I am sure there are more details involved. Looking at the changes breifly I don't think this will have any impact on most of us, but they did remove the section for middle managers.

    ---The current Law---
    (17)
    any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is—
    (A)
    the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications;
    (B)
    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;
    (C)
    the design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
    (D)
    a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and
    (C)
    the performance of which requires the same level of skills, and

    who, in the case of an employee who is compensated on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an hour.

  • Read the bill (Score:5, Informative)

    by operagost ( 62405 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:05AM (#38237336) Homepage Journal
    Guys, IT workers are generally already exempted from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. If you currently get overtime, it may because you have a great employer or because your state requires it. The law already reads like this:

    (17) any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--
    (A) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications;
    (B) 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;
    (C) the design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
    (D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) the performance of which requires the same level of skills, and
    who, in the case of an employee who is compensated on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an hour.

    They want to change it to this:

    (17) any employee working in a computer or information technology occupation (including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--

    (A) the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;

    (B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;

    (C) directing the work of individuals performing duties described in subparagraph (A) or (B), including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties; or

    (D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the performance of which requires the same level of skill;

    who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1)

  • Re:Hurray.. ? (Score:5, Informative)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:06AM (#38237344)
    Since the article is so terse, I figured there must be more to the story and found this better writeup [opposingviews.com]. And even the pro-industry [lexology.com] side.

    Guess what? There is nothing more to the story. It's exactly what it sounds like: a money grab.

  • by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:10AM (#38237414) Homepage

    And if you work in an at-will employment state, you get fired and re-hired with the new terms or walk.
     
    By the way, this isn't about working overtime at your normal rate. It's about working overtime for free.

  • by sunking2 ( 521698 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:12AM (#38237456)
    100% of the bill introducers are democrats.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:19AM (#38237570)

    Kay Hagans office 202.224.6342

  • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:23AM (#38237620)

    Since I'm not from the U.S. I might have misunderstood something here, but does the U.S. senate really have the authority to change in employment contracts for the worse?

    Really, no, they don't. Congress is only allowed to regulate inter-state commerce. However, many companies either have presences in multiple states, or at least have clients/customers in multiple states, which would technically make it interstate commerce. The federal government really has no business telling any corporation how much someone should be paid (and this includes minimum wage). I'm not saying minimum wage is bad, I'm simply saying that, in countries as large as the US is, cost of living varies so greatly depending on where you are that in some places you can actually make a living on a minimum wage job(it's not a great one, but still-I've been in areas that in reality probably bring in far less than minimum wage, such as Appalachia), while in other places the minimum wages is grossly inadequate(NYC, LA, Hawaii). Any type of wage level guidelines should be a state issue.

    However, as far as I know, national labor laws already say that, at any wage price, anything over 40 hours a week is overtime and must be paid accordingly. And it is already standard that salaried workers do not get overtime. So, the first part makes of this law makes no sense, and the second part is actually discriminatory because it is singling out a wage level as well as a specific industry. I suspect this bill was introduced by Kagan because NC is trying to draw in a lot of tech companies, and the companies lobbied Kagan for this. It would also make sense to have Isakson(who is one of my senators) co-sponsor this because Georgia has been trying to bring in tech companies and push the state as a place for game design and other programming.

  • Plead the 27th (Score:4, Informative)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:25AM (#38237656) Homepage Journal
    That bill is already law, at least in my country. It is called the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress can't raise its own pay; it can raise only the next Congress's pay. If you disagree with a pay raise, plead the 27th and vote against the incumbent.
  • by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:25AM (#38237672) Journal

    Pity most other countries in the world START at 25 payed days off. That is 5 weeks incase your over worked mind can no longer do math.

    Most amazing myth I ever heard about the US is that of the "working poor". People who have a regular job or even two AND still can't keep themselves fed and housed. I am mean, how silly do you think we dutch people are? It is like plate sized hamburgers. Nice photoshop, no way that is real, no human beings could possible eat so much and no dressing up an elephant and putting it on a moped does not fool me.

  • Re:Plead the 27th (Score:5, Informative)

    by jmauro ( 32523 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:31AM (#38237750)

    Sadly that amendment is not really enforcable. The Supreme Court has basically said there is not a person in the country who would have standing to bring a suit to overturn a pay raise, so if Congress raises it's pay there is nothing that can be done to stop it.

  • by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:54AM (#38238126) Journal

    "Most amazing myth I ever heard about the US is that of the "working poor". People who have a regular job or even two AND still can't keep themselves fed and housed."

    People are in that situation with both partners working.

  • by drzhivago ( 310144 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:57AM (#38238166)

    Breach. Not bridge.

  • by SlippyToad ( 240532 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @11:57AM (#38238182)

    Harry Reid (D) sponsored President Obama's Job bill in the Senate, then voted AGAINST it.

    Reid's vote was procedural so that it could be voted on again. You really need to invest time in understanding how our legislative bodies work before letting right-wing idiots (who don't) get you into a frothy dudgeon about them.

  • by SlippyToad ( 240532 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @12:14PM (#38238454)

    Most amazing myth I ever heard about the US is that of the "working poor". People who have a regular job or even two AND still can't keep themselves fed and housed

    Yeah, it happens all the time here. It's the consequence of 30 years of Reagan's supply-side nonsense. Congress only raises the minimum wage every decade or so, while our cost of living goes up like a rocket.

    It is like plate sized hamburgers

    I went to Mexico on honeymoon with my 2nd wife. We went to a cute little restaurant in a mall in Cancun, and I ordered fajitas. I was startled to see how tiny the tortillas were, and I actually took pictures to prove it.

    There are absolutely plate-sized hamburgers here. I usually eat half and take the rest home for later.

    I assume you are being funny. But in case you are not, yes it is all fucking real.

  • by FoolishOwl ( 1698506 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @12:19PM (#38238572) Journal

    But they're not exempt if their pay rate is below a certain threshold, among other conditions. The standards for exempt status in California are more stringent under California law than under federal law, meaning it's more likely that an IT worker qualifies for overtime pay. In California, currently, the hourly pay rate threshold is $37.74 per hour; any work performed over eight hours in a day or forty in a week is eligible for overtime pay. Salaries are calculated as hourly pay, assuming eight hour days and forty hour weeks.

    At my workplace, we work 12 hour shifts; this is important. I found out from a co-worker that we were actually entitled to overtime pay; he'd had to explain this to our employer. I discovered our employer was playing dumb, as they claimed not to know anything about this when I brought up the issue, although they conceded the point and paid me my back pay shortly after I was able to cite California labor law, from the same link that That_Dan_Guy posted.

    Fortunately, for workers in California, the more stringent standards for exempt status at the state level override the standards at the federal level.

  • by jhoegl ( 638955 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @12:20PM (#38238584)
    how is this legal? They are specifically targeting IT.... this doesnt seem right.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02, 2011 @12:36PM (#38238890)

    The first place I ever heard the term "Tea Bagger" was not at a tea party rally. It was from some cable news contributer using the term to marginalize the movement.
    But you can believe what ever you need to to feel good about yourself.
     

  • by iceborer ( 684929 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @01:03PM (#38239376)

    nobody voted for him, he was appointed to replace salazar

    Bennett was apppointed to replace Ken Salazar in 2009, but he was elected to the office in 2010. About 48% of the nobodies who voted in Colorado that year picked him. One of them is now thinking of unpicking him in 2016.

  • by kj_kabaje ( 1241696 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @01:19PM (#38239600)

    This might be why:

    "The sponsor is Kay Hagan. Listed in her Top 20 contributors are companies like Bank of America, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Time Warner. The cosponsors are Michael Bennet (Comcast, Qwest, DISH Network, Level 3, Time Warner), Michael Enzi (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and John Isakson (Home Depot, Delta, AFLAC, Cox, Citigroup, & GE). So, you know, no one that would be interested in lowering their IT costs a bit. If anyone knows where I could get numbers based on what percentage of employees at those companies are wage versus salary, I'd like to see them."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02, 2011 @01:44PM (#38240020)

    This is the result of Senate rules. As Senate Majority Leader, Reid has to vote against a bill that is going to fail if he wants to reserve the right to bring it back one day for another vote. He has to constantly vote against bills that he supports.

  • by uniquename72 ( 1169497 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @02:07PM (#38240376)
    THIS is the real problem here. "Information Technology" is so broad a term that any professional who uses a computer could wind up being considered an "IT person."

    Here's the full text (the importantly vague part is 2(D))

    __________________________
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ‘Computer Professionals Update Act’ or the ‘CPU Act’.

    SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.

    Section 13(a)(17) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(17)) is amended to read as follows:

    ‘(17) any employee working in a computer or information technology occupation (including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--

    ‘(A) the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;

    ‘(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;

    ‘(C) directing the work of individuals performing duties described in subparagraph (A) or (B), including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties; or

    ‘(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the performance of which requires the same level of skill;

    who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1).’.
  • by s73v3r ( 963317 ) <`s73v3r' `at' `gmail.com'> on Friday December 02, 2011 @02:21PM (#38240562)

    If they think they can use money to increase profitability, they'll do so. Nothing wrong with it.

    Highly disagree. While in the general case, attempting to increase profitability isn't a bad thing, it all comes down to the details. Depending on WHAT they do to try and increase profitability, it can be extremely bad. Shit like this, for instance.

    Simply saying that "There's nothing wrong with increasing profitability" as a blanket statement is hugely oversimplifying the situation.

  • by therafman ( 774411 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @02:54PM (#38241078) Homepage
    I experienced something similar here in Canada with a previous employer that decided one day to do the same along with not paying for pager duty. The day that it started I gathered my support team together and I explained that we would leave at 4:30 PM sharp regardless of the workload or crisis. The same day, I went to see my director and put the emergency pager on his desk (it was around 3 PM). I told him that if we were not going to be paid we would not answer it and wished him good luck as there were some upgrades scheduled that evening and we expected problems with them. The expression on his face was priceless but he sympathized with me as he did not agree himself with the corporate decision. He offered me time-in-lieu-of, which is basically the equivalent of time off for any overtime/after hours worked. I explained to him that it would have to apply for my whole team and it would be only short term as we worked to earn a salary, not to only to have time off, which of course would complicate work schedules even more. The sad thing is that I found out that my team was the only one to pull that off; everyone else bowed down and shut up right away, bringing morale to an all time low. I can tell you that attendance to that year’s social events (especially the Christmas party) was at an all time low. The only problem I see with this bill is that if anyone pulled off something similar as I did, there is a good chance of a desperado who will come in and do it for even less pay. Now is this the proper way to handle any infrastructure that business relies on? You get what you pay for, and if this bill makes it through it will cause a further decline of the American status which hasn’t looked too hot lately.
  • Re:Plead the 27th (Score:5, Informative)

    by greenbird ( 859670 ) on Friday December 02, 2011 @04:19PM (#38242412)

    They go in expecting to overreact to a threat - that doesn't actually exist. None of these cops, who have violently arrested, maced without provocation, and beaten hard with clubs now thousands of people were actually threatened. If they felt threatened, it's because they refused to accept the reality happening to them. We have now had many second times, both in the same place and just across the country, for weeks and months.

    Have you ever been in a riot? I have. There's a palpable energy generated that's pretty damn scary. I have no idea what it is but it exists. I'll give you that in most of the current situations the police have been the instigators of creating a situation where they had to fear that energy.

    It's a no huge step going from macing some trouble making punk kids (mindset of the police, mind you, not my opinion of them) to shooting them in the head.

    For anyone but a complete sociopath it is. Killing people (and living with it) isn't easy.

    Big enough to find plenty of thugs already in the armed forces ready to kill other Americans, especially ones they see as "spoiled, lazy rich kids".

    I think you need to poll the actual grunts on this one. I think you'll find you're way off base here. Yeah, they do exists but they are a small minority and US Army doesn't do anywhere near a good enough job of brainwashing it's recruits to override their moral compasses. The moral ones are more likely to just shoot the idiots. Hell, I got in trouble for telling a Sergeant to fuck off when he tried to get a cruit to empty the garbage in the Sergeant's room. What do you think I'd do if he told me to start shooting civilians? Mind you, I got in trouble for telling him to fuck off not for telling the Sergeant and cruit that he didn't have to and wasn't supposed to do it. Actually I was told I was right about that but was wrong about the way I handled it. In the US military you're told you have an obligation NOT to follow illegal orders. And shooting civilians is WAY over on the illegal order side of things.

    And to my original point, it was perfectly clear that this would happen when the gun fetishists spent years voting for Republicans and Democrats who enable them who created this police state in waiting.

    At least you're not blaming one political party because the Obama administration has taking Bush's oppressive policies quite a but further towards the wrong end of the scale. But if you think the pro-second amendment people are the primary cause, or even a major one, of the current movement towards a police state you need to broaden your viewpoint. I really don't think it's a big factor at all. The main one is the revolution in communications brought on by the advance of technology. Information is a far more potent weapon against oppression than any number of guns are. The US government is finding that the historical control they've had over information is rapidly eroding and in the process their myriad of sins are more and more coming to light.

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn

Working...