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.
I am planning to move to NC (Score:4, Interesting)
And if this idjit is still there, I know I am voting THEM out. What a maroon.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't help but notice how nobody from California, the most populous and technology influential state - where making $27/hr is actually a poverty pay rate, considering the cost of living.
I'd really like to know why government believes it needs to stick its nose into this industry - it should be working diligently to remove lobbyists from DC.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
If government didn't stick its nose into this kind of business interference, businesses wouldn't need to lobby government about the kind of interference. When government no longer sees itself as limited, then businesses and others have to form lobbies in order to try to protect themselves from the government.
Waddaminite.
Your theory is that if we didn't regulate business so much, then they wouldn't seek government protection?
Here's my theory. Businesses spend money where they see a potential return on investment. If they think they can use money to increase profitability, they'll do so. Nothing wrong with it. That's Capitalism. That's the American Way. Spending money to get favorable legislation is just a particular case. Businesses have done it since there have been businesses and governments.
One of the reasons government expands is because businesses successfully lobby for legislation they think will increase profitability.
Here in California we had the IT industry pushing hard for increases in H1B visas, so they could recruit from off-shore. Even as the dot-com bubble was dying they were still going for it, despite the streets filling with IT professionals of all skills and levels of ability. I attended a "job fair" and found over 300 people applying for one job, not even a very good job, but a job all the same. What IT industry and employers of IT people are looking for is government regulation of people, not the businesses. Disgusting is the best word for it.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you love it when a bill has bi partisan support. How else would we get fantastic bills like this one, the patriot act, and SOPA?
When is everyone gonna wake up to the fact that there are no parties anymore. Elephant or Donkey is irrelevant. The only thing that influences our government representatives, Republican or Democrat, is who happens to be paying them the best on a given issue.
I keep thinking of a scene from the movie Moon Over Parador [imdb.com]. 2 guys are discussing who they're going to vote for where the choices are blue or red. One says, "Vote for whoever you want. It's a free dictatorship." The government of the United States no longer represents the people. It represents the corporate interests that pay them the best. The constitution has been trampled so bad it's pretty much immaterial at this point. The fact that a blatant censorship bill like SOPA/PROTECT IP can even be considered is proof of that.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
why does congress hate free markets? (Score:5, Insightful)
IT workers propose bill requiring citizen referendum on any congressional pay raises
Re:why does congress hate free markets? (Score:5, Interesting)
IT workers propose bill requiring citizen referendum on any congressional pay raises
Better still, propose a bill requiring members of congress to serve 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, with full accountability of their whereabouts and activities during those periods.
Re:why does congress hate free markets? (Score:5, Interesting)
Every elected official should be paid exactly the median income of their constituents. Then to get more pay they have to raise their constituents' incomes first.
Plus any elected official should be paid to retire instead of running for reelection. Whatever they'd be paid for the term if they won, like 2 years for a House rep or 4 years for a governor, they'd get paid all at once to retire instead.
Re:Plead the 27th (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Plead the 27th (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the ammo box is the next box. You gun fetishists had your chance 10 years ago, but you never did anything. Now even with your arsenals you're easily outgunned by the military, police and national guard, who have been trained since then in fighting urban, suburban and rural militias. Lately the police have been out clubbing your fellow citizens, and will only increase the firepower to "mass lethal" when the "problem people" start fighting back.
You didn't use the soap box, the jury box or the ballot box to do anything but keep your fetish objects close. In fact you used all of them to give power to the people who have run the country into the ground.
You're never going to use your guns to fight the government. All your actions have proven otherwise, every time.
Re:Plead the 27th (Score:5, Insightful)
Your area has more people with guns than the million people in the US military, plus the millions more in the National Guard, the State Police, the state's various municipal, county and local police?
Yes, you are living in a fantasy world. A world from the 1780s, where the locals could have the same firepower and skill as the government forces, instead of little gangs facing satellite guided helicopter, plane and drone bombings and strafings, tank batallions, poison gas... Where the government forces were all from a foreign country, in terrain with no roads, mostly not populated, no databases of political affiliations...
Yes, you are living in a Teabagger fantasy world if you think the many armed Americans have any chance against the actually armed to the teeth military that's been just fine with fighting wars against "guerrillas" for many continuous decades, holding the countries in question under their power even when they're outnumbered there thousands to one by people who want them out.
Re:Plead the 27th (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Plead the 27th (Score:5, Insightful)
No, my complaint is not that "you wackos didn't just start shooting up the place".
It's that you wackos just having the guns was no deterrent, though you claimed it would be.
It's that you wackos claimed that when the government started damaging our rights despite the deterrent, you'd actually start showing more than "I'm the NRA and I vote" bumper stickers. You claimed you'd show up with guns, presumably as reasonable and orderly but opposed to the damage. You never did anything of the sort. Instead, you wackos voted for the people who scared you with "confiscate your guns" boogeyman stories about liberals, then damaged our rights.
And even the few real hardcore wackos you run of the mill wackos implied would actually just start shooting up the place never did. Because you're the kind of wackos who don't care about freedom - you care about having guns, shooting them, and scaring regular people. The authorities are your kind of guys.
I'm not complaining that you wackos never did any of those things because I wanted you wackos to do them. I'm complaining because you cowards were lying about it all. Which flooded the country with guns, which gets more people shot, without the promised deterrent to crimes high and low. And which gives the cops the excuse to treat Americans like our soldiers treat Iraqis and Afghans. All while voting for the people who damaged the freedoms you said you'd protect, if only you had completely wacko access to guns.
This is like when people complain when the "family values" Republicans you voted for, who demagogue against gay people and for the drug war, turn up with a gay whore and a bag of meth. It's not the drugs or the paid gay sex that most of us complain about. It's that they got the power to do that by stopping others from doing it, by lying against being against it. With guns, it's how you lie about being against damaging our rights to get ever more guns, but then never keep your word about using those guns one way or another to protect our rights - you use them and the people giving them to you to damage our rights.
Do you get it? I doubt it. It's not like this is the first time it's been laid out in front of you. That happens every day, and you gun fetish wackos never change.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Interesting)
Harry Reid (D) sponsored President Obama's Job bill [govtrack.us] in the Senate, then voted AGAINST it.
This is done to bring the bill up to a vote, so it can be voted down.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't the first time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, this is basically the #2 punch in the set. Years back....IT guys could easily be classified at non-exempt, and paid hourly....and get 1.5 time for OT.
The Feds didn't like this...specifically for their contractors...the guys just plain worked too much.
So, IT guys were reclassified as 'professionals' just like doctors, lawyers, managers..etc.
However, still...on contracts...you CAN get straight time for OT hours. There are usually hoops to jump through to get all this approved by the gov. in advance of work...PITA.
I guess they're wanting to close this one off too.
I haven't understood why they do it for private sector and for gov contracting....maybe they have to do it for everyone and can't target just the federal contractors.
It doesn't seem fair, like you said...that they can target one class of worker, but this isn't the first time it has happened.
One thing they may be looking at...as we continue forward, with more and more tech taking over in ALL business....most everything is related to IT in some fashion...and they are maybe trying in broad fashion to use this to cut costs.
Of course, let's target the guys who actually do work...rather than the management.
Re:This isn't the first time... (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re:This isn't the first time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Time Warner and Cox tried to get all of their headend engineers and line tech qualified as IT workers so they could make them all exempt and voila, no more huge OT checks for being hip deep in a muddy hole trying to splice fiber.
Luckily, the unions jumped all over this and TW and Cocks quietly rolled back that idea. I guess they finally found another patsy.
Re:This isn't the first time... (Score:5, Informative)
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).’.
Re:This isn't the first time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. That whole thing about "network" is what will screw the cable workers. Most systems now use a DNCS, or Digital Network Control System, about half of which are provided by Cisco acquisition Scientific Atlanta.
At the heart of the headend is a big Solaris machine that handles provisioning for all of the cable boxes and acts like a supervisor blade in a large router. From there, the individual set-top boxes are addressed via IP on a hybrid fiber-coax network, making nearly every cable TV system in the United States a large network.
Headend engineers are already pretty much IT people, but the line techs have clung to their non-exempt blue collar status for years and it costs the cable companies out the wazoo. They've tried to enforce no-overtime policies, but their customer service rates and rate at which they can install new customers plummets.
This isn't the first time the industry has gone out of it's way to screw line techs either. About 8 years ago, Time Warner, Adelphia, Cox, and Comcast all, right around the same time, put policies in place to prevent workers over a certain weight from being certified to climb poles or operate in bucket trucks. The restrictions were based only on weight, not accounting for height, build, or experience, so tall muscular guys were being pulled off of poles that short fat guys were allowed to climb. The effect of this was that fewer and fewer line techs were allowed to do the work that paid a premium and were stuck in jobs like customer premise installation which had some very strict hour restrictions. Again, voila, less overtime.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
"How is this legal"
Good question: This sure smells like a bill of atainder, which is specifically forbidden under the constitution... It identifies a group of people and punishes them arbitrarily by stripping them of overtime because "why should those geeks get overtime?"
Want to see what happens when the people who make your iPhone "work," your electrical grid function, and your business applications process transactions get pissed off and band together? Thought not.
Yet it's horse-shit like this that leads to people in critical positions unionizing... Keep chiseling away, cutting salaries and outsourcing, and see what happens.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Funny)
It's ok Mr. Beck.
Just calm down.
I understand your problem. Now, will you show me on the doll where the government touched you?
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Funny)
I understand your problem. Now, will you show me on the doll where the government touched you?
Right here, on my left front pocket.
Yes, right there, in my wallet.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what has government ever done for us?
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
But since your glasses seem to be so rosy you might as well add: Oppression, Theft, False Imprissonment, Cover ups, Corruption, and Collusion to the list.
Any of those things I mentioned could happen in the private sector too, but you seemed to imply that the government was the only way those "good" things could come about and managed to leave out all the extra items that are "bad". I've added the "baddies" and readily admit the private sector could be involved with some of the same.
I'll be interested to see if if you can admit that the private sector could just of easily handled your list of goodies... It's okay if you can't. I'm just curious.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:4, Insightful)
No, there is only a semantic difference.
If they're not required to pay overtime, none will pay overtime.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
Most individuals suck at negotiating. This is a large part of the reason Unions were born in the first place.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
Most individuals suck at negotiating. This is a large part of the reason Unions were born in the first place.
It's not so much that most individuals suck at negotiating (which may be true), but that corporations usually have much more leverage. A corporation can say, "well, we have 100 other applicants, so we'll find someone who is more desperate than you," while the individual could be facing homelessness if they don't find a job within the next few months. You'd have to be an extraordinary negotiator to get a good deal in that situation.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not necessarily that they suck at it; it's that there's a much larger number of job seekers that the employers can play off each other. Plus they can refuse to raise their offers knowing that none of their competitors wants to do so either.
These days things are getting to be more like they were prior to unionization. They aren't as bad, there are still workplace rights that unions fought for, but there's always a lot of GOP pressure to undo as many workplace rights as possible.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes and individuals who aren't already in exempt positions (all high level IT positions are exempt already) don't really have much leverage for negotiation on an individual basis. Low level positions are on the wrong side of the many-to-one ratio with there many employees/applicants and only one employer. One-to-one, all else being equal, you have equivalent leverage. The minute there are two positions the employers leverage doubles while the employees/applicants leverage stays the same.
Unions help to restore the balance by consolidating the employees in order to bring it back to one-to-one.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it isn't just a semantic difference if there's a contract involved, and the contract stipulates time and a half for overtime. Would it invalidate the contract?
Oh, and BTW, you guys need to unionize (I'm out of the fight, I retire in 2 years). And a thought just occurred to me -- if I were required to work overtime at my normal rate, I'd just refuse to work overtime. Fuck 'em.
The God Damned 1% and their congressional stooges are still trying to remove the American workers' rights that have been fought for, and in many cases died for them [wikipedia.org].
Too bad assassination is immoral and illegal. But despite the fact that it is, these greedy Godless bastards had damned well better watch their backs. If they don't loosen up, there's going to be violence (see the link for a short history).
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... that is generous (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Safely Invested (Score:5, Funny)
It's safely invested in Greek, Italian and Spanish government bonds. They went with a conservative approach to investing.
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, does this mean that a company CAN'T pay them overtime or that they're NOT REQUIRED to pay them overtime? There's a big difference.
It's not even that. It's just clarifying that IT workers that make at least $27.63 an hour are explicitly defined as "exempt" under FLSA instead of "non-exempt". If you're a non-exempt employee, FLSA requires your employer to pay you time-and-a-half overtime whenever you work more than 40 hours in a work week. Often exempt employees are paid their regular rate as overtime, sometimes if you're salaried you don't get any.
This really just codifies the way employers have been classifying IT workers anyway, and avoids a lot of court cases.
Nothing new here (Score:5, Informative)
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 :)
Re:Nothing new here (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say you're naive. The "free market" (i.e. heavily tilted in favor of large companies) would settle on a wage that isn't quite enough to pay your rent and groceries, much less Internet access. How does a schedule of 12 hours a day, 6 days a week sound? That's what the "free market" used to offer, back before employment law came into being.
It was great for the owners of large companies, but it sucked for the 99%.
Re:Nothing new here (Score:5, Interesting)
You are right, we don't have an absolute free market.
Above I said government screws things up by putting their thumb on the scale. To clarify, I don't consider labor laws to be altering the scales, but to be changing the rules.
Unions served the purpose of getting the "rules changed". With OSHA, a minimum wage, and other labor laws, the grievances of unions became law.
IMHO - Unions have served their purpose. In non right-to-work states, they're more like an extortion racket who hold the keys to good paying jobs. You have to pay them a kick-back out of every check for a job it seems to me. I'm sure some people appreciate the benefits the Union provides, but to force people to be a member? Seems damn near legalized organized crime to me.
Re:Nothing new here (Score:5, Insightful)
Particularly in IT, you can't just bring in part timers to bridge the gap when you need more work done than your current staff can accomplish in 40 hours. Sometimes it takes a month or more to bring a new guy up to speed.
The reason they have mandatory time and a half rules is because typically the lower you are on the hourly wage scale, the more badly you need the job, and the easier you are to replace. Without this, companies would just demand 80 hours or more from their employees rather than hiring new employees. Each employee has a fixed cost, so one person doing 80 hours work is a higher profit than two employees each doing 40 hours work at the same salary. If you don't agree to that work schedule, they'll replace you, and soon all jobs in your skill range require this.
The point is to incentivize employers to maintain a reasonable work/life balance for their employees, while not totally crippling them when there's a short term work load glut. Time and a half over 40 hours strikes me as a particularly good balance. Many hourly workers are happy to have the bonus pay at that rate, while employers are typically willing to pay it since this work glut represents unusual profitability on their part. If you're consistently paying 20 hours of overtime, then you probably should increase the size of your work force.
Unfortunately most IT jobs are already overtime exempt. At first I misread the title and though, "About time they made non-IT managers eligible for overtime!" What I mentioned above about unreasonable work schedules is pretty true in many corners of the industry. If you're a software tester or software engineer, chances are you have felt pressured to donate time to the company on a regular basis. Each extra hour they can squeeze out of you just increases their ROI on your salary, so they're incentivized to find the highest number of hours they can convince their workforce to commit. In many shops, you'll be consistently found to be under-producing if you go home before 10 or 12 hours, and you may be let go as a result.
Re:Nothing new here (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree to some degree...
I believe that the time and half vs exempt employees has created a caste of worker who is now forced to work for free. IT, salaried, then gets stuck working 50-60 hours or more.
Let's say an IT worker is salaried at $100,000 ($48/hr) for a 40 hour work week. But more often than not said IT worker is working 60 hours a week. They lost the other network engineer and the economy is too challenging to hire a replacement. Said IT worker's true salary is actually only $66,666. Or about 2/3 of their reported salary.
Even at 50 hours, it's an equiv to $38/hr, or $80K.
Meanwhile, the non-salaried worker with overtime who works 50 hours a week. Will earn $80K on a mere $28/hr pay rate. And a $100K on a mere $35/hr rate.
Good luck! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, good luck to them getting anyone one to work on Senator's computers ever again. Email, internet, and computers frequently have problems. Nobody has to crash them... we just don't have to fix them once they do. A day without IT can be a real bitch, just like some Senators.
"Ah, gee, Senator. My shift ended at 5pm and I don't do overtime. Call back tomorrow between 8 and 5pm."
You have got (Score:5, Funny)
Hurray.. ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hurray, no more working late!
Wait.. they still expect people to work without being compensated for their late hours?
Did EA send out lobbyists again with briefcases full of money?
Re:Hurray.. ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I think we all understand that, if hard choices have to be made, everybody likes a team player, yes?
Re:Hurray.. ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep! That's why I play for the winning team. And the winning team treats employees with respect and therefore gets a quality 8 hours of work out of them. The losing team has me working for 16 hours and gets 6 hours of quality work + 10 hours of web surfing from me.
Which team is your company on?
Re:Hurray.. ? (Score:5, Funny)
So, um, does the winning team happen to be hiring?
Re:Hurray.. ? (Score:5, Informative)
Guess what? There is nothing more to the story. It's exactly what it sounds like: a money grab.
Re:Hurray.. ? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hurray.. ? (Score:5, Interesting)
(Posting Anon as IBM employee. Opinions are my own, I don't speak for them etc etc)
I've worked for IBM in two countries. I have been paid overtime in neither one. The flip side of this is that I haven't been expected to work ovetime.
Sure, I've put in a few extra hours at crunch time, but nobody forced me to. And crunch time means just that - a couple of weeks before an important deadline, if there's something critical needing fixing. Doesn't even happen every release, or every year.
As far as I can tell, Big Blue respect the whole concept of work/life balance, and having people well rested and working sensible hours. I doubt very much they would have lobbied for this.
Re:Hurray.. ? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're salaried. You're paid to do a job, whether it takes you 20 hours or 80 hours a week. If you want, I'll pay you an extra 50% of your hourly wage when you work more than 40 hours a week. Your hourly wage is $0/hour, here's $0.
I'm done! I can go home early, right?
Why IT workers? (Score:5, Interesting)
IT work already has a terrible education:pay ratio and the pay is nothing special in relative terms, that's a strange sector to target...could it have something to do with outsourcing?
Re:Why IT workers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good (Score:5, Funny)
That means I get to go home at six, right?
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah because no IT workers are tied to the... hold on. I got a call.
Simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
8 hours work for 8 hours pay.
Don't work for free, people. After all, you're just an employee to them, not a BFF.
I recently saw a guy who had worked at my current place of work get given the shove after nearly 20 years. Escorted him out of the building and everything. He sat in the pub blubbing like a baby and asking how they could be so cruel after everything he'd given them.
I've vowed never to work a minute past what I'm contracted to do, and if I have to I simply come in late the next day.
Re:Simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen brother.
I only take hourly paying jobs now. That salary shit wont fly with me.
I tried it once and it was the worst mistake I ever made.
Went from a 60k/yr hourly contract to a 48K salary position with supposedly similar pay in the form of A+ benefits like a 0% copay medical (yes zero) and free legal care and the list goes on.
I went from working 40hrs and getting regular overtime easily bringing 2400 after taxes every two weeks, to working 50-60 hour weeks with absolutely no recognition for $1450 twice a month.
The job lasted 4 months before I got the hell out of there back into a 70K hourly contract. FUCK THAT.
Re:Simple solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I used to be a nut case, working 12 and 15 hour days for weeks on end... then I realized that morons who were producing shitty code and working 6 hour days + 2 hour lunches were getting the same promotions and pay increases I was, so that was a ME problem, not a THEM problem. ME is easier to fix than THEM.
8 hours work, 8 hours pay, pure and simple. Don't kill yourself over your job. If you love coding, join an open source project and contribute freely to the world, not your employer's pocket -- he/she probably doesn't care that you're working 12 hours -- you're being used.
tell us that place you worked (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Simple solution... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
One SlashDot link... (Score:5, Funny)
... and their site is down. If only they had some IT guys who could do overtime to bring it back up...
Prk
I'd support this ... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is madness (Score:5, Insightful)
$27.63 seems oddly specific
But with the amount of overtime pay in the IT community someone will pretty soon realize that unless people actually sometime work overtime to fix problems it won't be long before people start cutting up old tires to make body armour.
Re:This is madness (Score:5, Funny)
What? IT Workers GET OVERTIME? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What? IT Workers GET OVERTIME? (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:What? IT Workers GET OVERTIME? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm no democrat but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm no democrat but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...this is still surprising to see this coming from someone with a D after their name. This is not because they are fundamentally more decent, but their usual constituency doesn't really seem to buy the "blame the middle class" argument, at least not as much. This seems like a really, really dumb idea, if for no other reason than the political fallout it will create.
Don't know about this one, but several Democrats are indistinguishable from Republicans - other than the 'D' after their name.
Solution to a non-existent problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't most IT workers exempt anyway? (Not that I think they necessarily should be, but still.)
Full text of the bill (Score:5, Informative)
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:Full text of the bill (Score:5, Informative)
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.
i think this might be a good idea if.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am going to take a page out of the great depression. the Kellogg cereal company during the great depression lowered the max hours one of their workers could work from 40 to 30 or so. while the people who were working at first did not like the lowering of their income they did like the effects it had on the city around the plant. kellogg to fill the gap hired more workers who in turn only worked the shorter amount of time, but it helped prop up the rest of the city. costs of food and the like there went down and even though the average income went down the people there including the people who had their hours cut ended up liking it. especially the increased time with their family. if they eliminate overtime and the position had scheduled overtime before they should then fill the gap by hiring someone else.
The U.S. senate decides on overtime pay? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Where I live, the government can enforce things like minimum wages, but if my contract includes overtime pay, then the only way it can disappear is if my employer and I renegotiate the contract.
Karl Marx nailed this one (Score:5, Interesting)
His theory of capitalism was, in a nutshell, that an employer's goal was to increase profit by increasing the amount they could make their workers work without paying them anything extra. Which is, of course, exactly what is being codified in this law.
Consider some widget that cost $300 to make $250 in materials and $50 for 1 worker to work 6 hours on it. But our capitalist wants to make more money, so he makes his worker work 12 hours instead of 6 (which the worker accepts, because being unemployed is so much worse), so now he has $600 worth of widgets, which are now $500 in materials, $50 in labor, and $50 in profit.
Regardless of what you think about communism, Marx's theories of capitalism need to be taken seriously, because the guy was predicting, in the 1870's, a lot of the economic behavior we see today.
Re:Karl Marx nailed this one (Score:5, Insightful)
He wasn't "predicting" anything. He was merely describing what was already going on then.
Re:Karl Marx nailed this one (Score:5, Funny)
Bring up Karl Marx before the Senate and see what kind of response you get.
Not Congress's Business (Score:5, Insightful)
So....what? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this different than the plight of software engineers, hardware engineers, or designers that work outside of the IT industry? How is it different than the legions of R&D folks that are listed as exempt employees?
I'm not saying it should happen. Far from it. But the real battle is that technical professions all over have been moved to exempt status and their employees continue to be forced to work exceedingly long days for 8 hours of pay. It's not the IT guidelines that need reform, it's the ones for all technical professions.
More update than addition (Score:5, Informative)
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).’.
Read the bill (Score:5, Informative)
They want to change it to this:
Re:Another Good Move--Not (Score:5, Informative)
If you want a good job vote this man OUT!
I think you mean, "vote this woman OUT".
Sure looks like... [senate.gov]
Re:This is not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Yes if you pick up your smartphone and answer an IT question after hours you most certainly did work overtime. If it is after hours.. work is OVER. and you took TIME to work.
Re:This is not a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are doing work, you should get paid for it. Period.
If your employer wants to cheap out and go with "on call" instead of real staffing, they still get to pay for your labor.
Re:This is not a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
But that is work done beyond your normal 8 hours. Are you saying, that if the boss calls you 24 hours at day at home, he doesn't have to pay you even though your extending your expertise? Fuck that, these supports calls can go on an hour often multiple of times. You basically be working several (often large amount of) hours for free. Why shouldn't they get paid for the thing support they give, which is much like what they do normally at their job. You obviously never worked in most IT environments. Excessive offcalls is extremely common and time consuming (something much more then the job itself).
Re:All About The Unions (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael Bennet [D-CO]
Scott Brown [R-MA]
Michael Enzi [R-WY]
John Isakson [R-GA]
Are in the pocket of big labor, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Now, in the broader sense of Nikolay Chernyshevsky's "The worse, the better" theory of what actually drives the poor to organize and/or unionize and/or devour the rich in an orgy of redistributive bloodletting, they may actually be more effective labor leaders than most actual labor leaders; but not in the direct sense...
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does this make sense for govn't.. isn't this a Private sector issue?
It *is* a private sector issue. You see, people who wanted to pay less for IT guys bribed these senators to pass this bill. The senators rubbed their hands together and agreed. Now they each have a new car.
Re:why? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does this make sense for govn't.. isn't this a Private sector issue?
It's a government issue because the government defines what overtime means in the first place.
If it were purely left up to the private sector, people would still be routinely working 12 hour shifts 7 days per week for base wages, like they did in the 19th century before governments got involved.