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.'"
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Good - I didn't want to work those weekends anyway, and now I have a good reason not to do it.
You mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. And, now, apparently, you can't sue over that fact any more. :-P
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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
Try science (Score:5, Informative)
If you think IT is bad, try biomedical sciences, medicine, and science academia.
The concept of overtime does not exist for >90% of the workers in these fields. It's not uncommon to ASSUME that a 12-hour day is normal, at 6 days per week.
And yes, I am including students... because if your training extends into your 30s, you're an employee.
Oh, and by the way, ask your nearest ER resident (or even a junior attending) when was the last time they had a 40-hour week. Most of the time, the answer will be "high school".
Re:Try science (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh, the unfailing lament of the free market capitalist who believes that the market will solve all problems, and that any casualties of such an atrociously Darwinian and uncaring system are their own problem.
See, the free market really only tries to do a couple of things -- allow people to pursue their own interests with no regard whatsoever for everyone else. It largely tends to make a bunch of groups rich, and comple
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Informative)
No, capitalism doesn't have to do with being rich. The hatred of the rich is called "class envy" and it is a principal component of socialism. Capitalism is what RESULTS in some people being rich, but to claim that the system is good only for the rich is incorrect.
Capitalism is based on supply and demand. That includes services. If your services are not in demand, then you don't make a lot of money. If you go to your employer and say "I want overtime pay" and they can find someone else to provide the same service without paying overtime, then they'll hire him and fire you. In short, the supply is greater than the demand. There are more people offering to work than there are positions. That holds true for any job. If someone will accept lower pay than what you want, they'll get the job and you won't, all else being equal.
The times it doesn't hold true are when there are non-capitalist distortions to the system. E.g., a labor union that will coerce non-union members into not filling the gap in supply when union workers strike, or have in other ways artificially limited the supply.
In essence, if you want to blame anyone for your not being rich, blame the other people who will do the same job you do for less money. It's not the fault of the employer who seeks to lower costs and give the investors a return on their investment, it's the guy who lives next to you who will accept an offer to do your job for less than you. If every employer over-paid all of their employees, prices would skyrocket so that nobody could afford anything and pay would have to go up to match. Or investors would get no return on their investment in a company, no payback for taking the chance, and would stop investing. Fewer companies would exist. Fewer jobs, higher prices ...
Before you claim that you'd never do that kind of thing, how about this? You are looking for a lawn maintenance company so you don't have to mow the damn lawn every two days during the summer. There are two companies in town. Both have the same abilities and long lists of glowing referrals. One wants 15% less for the same job. Who do you hire? Are you altruistic enough to say "I'll pay more", or do you say "cheap is good"? Isn't paying less based on this example of unbridled capitalism good for you? Is it good for you because you are rich, or is it good for you because you save money and may become richer?
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
The times it doesn't hold true are when there are non-capitalist distortions to the system.
Such as when executives get exclusive control of their own pay.
Such as when corporations have the government passing laws to forbid overtime.
Such as when corporations pay no taxes, use local services, and get all the work done remotely by overseas workers.
The system is broken now.
Lack of overtime pay will fix itself because no one will enter such a field unless it pays well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know damn well that everything on that list has happened multiple times except the overtime law.
And you know equally well that the corruption of an unrelated bill to the purpose of outlawing overtime required a lot of corporate lobbying.
And as it has been reported multiple times, the laws are most often *written* by the corporations and just put into law by the legislatures without even changing a word. We can thank Microsoft Word, "Track Changes" for that (before they got wise to this gotcha).
In addit
Re:You mean... (Score:4, Insightful)
Walking away from the largest bank failure in history after only 3 weeks on the job with 20 million dollars in hand!
Sure ardent capitalists like to point out the failings of socialism without ever looking at the success stories (e.g. every Nordic country) without ever looking at the downside to uncontrolled libertarian capitalism. Which is this.. the stabilization point for it closely resembles what we see today: The top 1% of capital holders control everything and basically treat the rest of us peasants like cattle, not because they do anything special, but simply because they hold all the cash. They're a rich boys club. It's not class envy. I don't envy anybody if I can help it, especially people who earn their money. But I'm furious about stories like Alan Fishman's. He gets 20 million for doing nothing except being part of the club. No matter how hard you work, or how smart you are you will NEVER be part of the club. Hell even Bill Gates had to have about 10 billion in the bank before he got some kind of "honorary guest member" status in "the club". I'm still not sure he's even in "the club". It seems like actually EARNING your money is held against you by "the club".
But if you're some asshat moron legacy at an Ivy League, and your neighbors play golf with board members and CEOs, do you think your C minus average and your intolerable personality means you'll end up serving french fries? Yeah right. You won't even need a trust fund. Just a set of golf clubs and the right clothes so you can join in.
Capitalism has done much for this world, but like everything, it has a lifespan. It's evolved into a shell game (played with capital) won through backroom handshakes, business dinners, sleazy marketing, and the right friends. You're not even in the game, you're just a tiny plastic resource on the board.
You can call it class envy, but a lot people just want a chance to play the game.
Bottom line: We want a lot more meritocracy and a lot less oligarchy.
Capitalism might be totally great, if every 50 years we took all the capital, divided it up evenly, and then carried on with capitalism again. As it is, it's a bad game of Monopoly that never ends. You just keep rolling the dice and landing on somebody's hotels, over and over, as they build more, and you hope for a Chance card.
Pfft.
Re:You mean... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's not forget which country has the highest standard of living, and the highest per capita income. It's not resource rich UAE or Saudi Arabia, but us in America. If having a super wealthy class of people is the price we have to pay for near universal prosperity, I'm willing.
No one in this country needs to starve to death, and if anyone on this board were to have all of their possessions taken from them and dumped on a street corner of any town or city in the country in their underwear, the chance they'd stay at the absolute bottom of the socio-economic ladder approaches 0. We have high inequality, but also high mobility opportunity. I own a home despite being raised in the projects. I paid my own way through college, staying debt free. In America, there is opportunity aplenty, and that opportunity springs from the abundance of a free market economy.
As far as being in the super-wealthy club, you're right that we allow inherited wealth to have a large impact. The alternative is an estate tax that encourages the wealthy to consume near the end of life rather than produce. All things considered, I'd prefer that the people who produced their wealth keep control over their wealth. Even if that means hiring the asshat 2nd cousin of some other CEO. They will pay the price for their decisions, because the invisible hand will reward those who provide the most benefit. You are right that it rewards those who help those who have the most. But their is no better way to encourage wealth creation. And Free market economics is the best system anyone has ever discovered for creating wealth.
Without an engine that rewards production, the amassing of wealth must come from a zero-sum game. You have to take someone else's wealth. Under a free market economy, you get to trade something of less value to yourself for something of more value to yourself. The catch is that everybody gets to do this and some people have more things of value to trade. Those people end up ahead, because they deliver more value to others.
We have a whole lot of meritocracy. Look at the list of billionaires Forbes publishes every year and see how many of them are new, and how many are self-made. I will never be a billionaire, but there's a very good chance I will go from having inherited nothing to being a millionaire by the time I die, all without ever having to fear death by starvation. If that's not enough opportunity for you, I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the effect of many of these laws is not "equal." In many cases it's damn near impossible to fire someone from a protected class where you would have instantly fired a person of a non-protected class.
I'm not saying the intention is bad, but the implementation certainly has its downsides.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You mean... (Score:4, Funny)
Concur. Let's not rock the boat.
Hurts the economy, too (Score:5, Insightful)
We think it will really hurt the groups of workers who will be expected to work through the weekend and not get paid
Not only that, but as this legislation allowed massive abuse of employee's time, the state will suffer as skilled workers start looking elsewhere for employment.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, I have checked...
To qualify for the computer employee exemption, the following tests must be met:
* The employee must be compensated either on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week or, if compensated on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour;
Yes, I'm salaried and I make over this amount.
* The employee must be employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer or other similarly skilled worker in the comput
Unreal... (Score:4, Funny)
Why is Arnold not doing something about this?
Do the lawmakers get overtime pay? (Score:2)
That's what I wonder. If they do, how about cutting that as well?
Re: (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 leg
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.
get what you pay for.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I work 9 to 5. I work HARD 9 to 5, but at 5 I log out and go home. If you want me to spend extra time at work then we need to do some negotiation for a new contract and you're going to be giving me more money.
I am not going to give up time with my family so some middle manager can get some slaps on his back for bringing in the project on a date he never should have agreed to in the first place. What ever happened to accountability? oh right.... they get $700bn bail outs.
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:get what you pay for.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are 2 ways to be paid: Based on Effort, or based on Results.
By and large, great employees want to be judged on results, and mediocre ones want to be judges based on effort. The problem is in many fields (including most IT jobs) it is difficult to turn results into a number you can be paid based on, so the industry by and large rewards effort instead.
That's one of the main reasons I work for a small company: We value results over effort. If I can get my job done in 1/2 the time allotted, that's great. If it takes me 2x as long, sucks for me. So it puts positive pressure on my to improve and be more productive in less time, the exact opposite of the pressure at most companies.
Re:get what you pay for.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again, the benefits of small companies shine through: If there's too much work, we either:
1) Roll in our piles of money,
2) Subcontract it, or
3) Turn down some jobs.
And we get to choose which option we want.
On the other hand, no matter what size company you are in, if you're working too much and/or not making enough money, you need to either improve your skills, change jobs, or change careers.
If you are intelligent, motivated, and willing to learn there is a good fit for you out there somewhere. It usually takes some hard work and sacrifice to find it and get your foot in the door though.
Compensation should absolutely be based on performance, not seat warming. That's the idea behind why we pay more senior people more, because we assume they perform better. The problem is we suck at rating performance.
This is why it often makes sense for people with extraordinary talent to start their own enterprises, as entrepreneurship does pay based on results.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'm quite that good, and am happy to share the work, risk, and rewards with others at the moment.
Re: (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
Re: (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
Re:get what you pay for.... (Score:5, Funny)
I work 9 to 5. I work HARD 9 to 5 -- Friday September 26, @02:38PM
Slashdot break time is it? ;-)
Re:get what you pay for.... (Score:5, Funny)
Says someone who has made 19 of his last 24 posts on Slashdot during business hours, including this one.
Why work it then? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are not getting paid for your time or getting equivalent time-off in-lieu of, why would you work it?
This may sound simplistic... (Score:2)
...but, just quit and get a job in another state. Why subject yourself to a job that you hate to work that much? The laws in Cali obviously favor the companies and not the workers. So...move. The cost of living is a lot cheaper anywhere else. If you are a good coder, you will get a job.
Re: (Score:2)
...but, just quit and get a job in another state.
Where they still won't get guaranteed overtime?
Re: (Score:2)
Where they still won't get guaranteed overtime?
Where you can at least sue when you aren't paid for overtime. Some states have much friendlier labor than Cali.
It's in the programmers' best interest though (Score:2)
Thanks a lot
the trade off (Score:5, Insightful)
I've worked some unpaid overtime in my life, but the amount is miniscule in comparison to the amount of time I've spent during normal working hours surfing the web, reading usenet, emailing my buddies, checking sports scores, ordering stuff from amazon, everything the internet allows. Easily two to three hours a day on an ongoing basis.
I just can't get mad about a couple hours of evening work or blowing a sunday afternoon in the office once a month when I'm just going to read slashdot while waiting for a batch job to finish.
That's not the problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is when you have employees who come to work and do a good job without slacking off, and are then expected to work weekends because of mistakes made by management.
I'm sorry, but if you're salaried, why do you... (Score:4, Insightful)
...believe you deserve extra pay? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just really don't understand the justification. I've been salaried since I got out of school and I've always accepted that working beyond normal business hours was a possibility (and quite often a reality.) If you have a salaried job and don't like the overtime you have to put in, find a better job. Saying that, I now it isn't easy for everyone to do such a thing but there are significant differences (usually) between the benefits, hours, flexibility, and types of jobs when discussing an hourly position and a salaried position. I mean, the whole reason companies offer salaries is for this reason (afaik.)
Oh Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
"the tracking of hours generally is anathema to the creative and free thinking computer professional employees,"
Indeed. As is the tracking of inventory.
I'm getting my overtime pay one way or another.
Bunch of Ungrateful Serfs (Score:4, Funny)
You should be glad we give you a job in the first place. Now, quit whining and get back to work before you are replaced.
What is your life worth? (Score:5, Insightful)
A friend of mine worked a high tech job that required lots of flying to other cities and living out of a hotel room. He would spend weeks away from home, fly home for a weekend on occasion, then fly out again. One day he realized he was missing his little girl growing up and he was becoming a stranger to his family. After completing a particularly grueling job that took several months, he chose to take two weeks off and spend it with his wife and daughter. His boss thought otherwise because they had already booked him for another job. He flat out refused to go to it. They fired him. He took them to the labor board. They lost big time. My friend had documented every minute he had spent waiting in airports and in the air. Under California law those were paid times (at least they used to be). As he had never been paid for the travel time, they not only had to pay him, they had to pay a penalty to him. He's now much happier with a local job. He gets to have dinner with his family and sleep in his own bed. The pay is only slightly lower and he is much happier (and so is his family).
So what is your time worth to you? If you are willing to work unpaid overtime, then you put a very low value on your life. I flat out refuse to work unpaid overtime on a regular basis. Yes, I've occasionally put in a couple of extra hours, but this is the exception, not the rule. Typically, if an emergency requires me to work late, I'll leave early the next day (or come in late). If a project consistently requires overtime, management has not done their job. Either they didn't assign enough people to the project, or they set too short of a deadline. Improper planning on their part does not constitute an emergency on mine. One or two days of crunch time isn't a problem. Shit happens. But weeks or months of it is not acceptable and your project is NOT going to be on time because my life is worth far more. You say you'll fire me if I don't work unpaid overtime? Not a problem. Go ahead and fire me. We'll talk further in a hearing.
I should repeat this. Emergencies happen and require extra time. Failure to set a reasonable deadline (or changing the requirements at the last minute) is NOT an emergency. Also, if I'm expected to carry a pager and be on call, my salary better reflect that requirement. I don't get up at 3am to fix your server for free. At one job, they decided to stop authorizing overtime pay, so I changed nagios to never send out alerts outside of work hours. Five nines of uptime aren't free. In this case, management didn't have a problem with it. The systems did not need to be up 24/7. Oddly enough, an ecommerce job, where 24/7 uptime was essential, was least willing to make the investment to keep things running (thus one of the reasons I no longer work for them).
Re:It's time to start a union how long before more (Score:5, Insightful)
No thanks, I much prefer individual bargaining than collective bargaining. I'm making more money and working at a vastly cooler company than ANY unionized employee could possibly be.
Re:It's time to start a union how long before more (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whenever I read a little Republican screed, I always think of this from an American master of rhetoric:
Re:It's time to start a union how long before more (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not laziness to want to eat dinner with one's family. Nor is it laziness to want to spend the weekend caring for them.
It is ridiculous to think that the company owns so much of your life that work should take the highest priority in one's life.
Re: (Score:2)
AMEN! If I had mod points, I would give them all to you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Take your strawman and go home please.
My point was that if your work environment is sub-satisfactory, you're a technology worker, and you're good at your job, you can go find a new job with conditions you approve of without too much trouble. Not that you need to work insane hours and give up your family life.
Unions are great if you're in an industry where geography or market dynamics mean that you don't have a choice as to who your employer is, and said employer can take advantage of that monopoly. As softw
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"My point was that if your work environment is sub-satisfactory, you're a technology worker, and you're good at your job, you can go find a new job with conditions you approve of without too much trouble. Not that you need to work insane hours and give up your family life."
That demands on a lot of factors. Economy, location, companies not needing to treat you like a human.
The bubble burst, and it was very hard to find work for a number of years, and with the way unemployment is going, software developers ma
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.
I must disagree (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrats are joiners; they consider groups rather than individuals; they believe that centralized power in the hands of a large organization is the best way to run things, while the peons have no responsibility for themselves. They like to receive healthcare, pensions, and womb-to-tomb "care" from such an organization, and believe the rest of us should as well.
Republicans are more likely to be self-sufficient go-getters, to work at startups where they have a hand in the direction, focus, and success of th
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
I'd have modded you "funny" for that one, myself.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Both are quite OK with entitlement. The difference is that republicans don't like it when someone else is receiving it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We have a winner.
You missed part though. Republican's don't like it when someone else is receiving it. Democrats don't like it when they're the ones that have to give it away.
Re: (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 d
Re: (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 d
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
While this has nothing to do with labor laws such as overtime exemptions, I feel compelled to correct some misconceptions of yours.
Banks, in an effort to make money have been gradually giving higher and higher value loans to people with relatively stagnant income. This was magnified by the fact that stupid consumers, often those with insufficient or bad credit, have been using their homesteads as short-term credit cards. They bank on the fact that the value of their house will go up to compensate for their lack of spending control.
While you may be right(sort of) about the demographics of those people, it had nothing to do with affirmative action. This is what happens when greedy banks deal with desperate and/or uninformed homebuyers.
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Next I suppose you'll be telling us the Democrats are the party of wealthy elites.
Allow me: The Democrats are the party of wealthy elites.
Re: (Score:3)
Pot, meet kettle.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Informative)
You are parroting what you have been taught to believe.Democrats do not believe in self sufficiency less than Republicans. What we do believe is that some people are truly unable to take care of themselves and we have a deep moral obligation to care for them as if they were our favorite family member.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
i've noticed a lot (Score:5, Funny)
of my fellow workers here on the farm collective lean monarchist theocrat, while my former unit in military intelligence leaned green anarchist. but hey, that could just be me
anecdotes, shmanecdotes
Re:well (Score:5, Informative)
When I used to be a nurse (not many years ago), I built up six weeks worth of unpaid overtime, or 'time in lieu' as they called it, during a period of low staffing.
I was supposed to be either paid it or given an equal amount of time off, but what actually happened was they said it was too much, wiped it out and gave me a long weekend off. They hadn't seemed to mind the potential cost whilst working me half to death and taking advantage of the legal requirement to not leave patients without care to force me to work 20 hour shifts.
I left shortly after and gave up nursing, just one of many people leaving in droves due to this sort of thing and other pay related nonsense in the UK.
Now I'm a programmer If any employer tries that crap on me again I'd quit and go elsewhere.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
So when they hired you and you never saw your overtime on your paycheck, what would you do then? Seeing as how you can't sue them...
Automatically add it by editing the paycheck printing routine ? After all there *has* to be some kind of advantage to being a programmer.
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. The "free market" does cut both ways; however, both sides are rarely equally sharp.
For instance for a worker to leave his or her job that worker would have to take a loss in income. With rising debt and unemployment currently seen in this nation it is unlikely that many could afford to leave their companies. Also such high barriers to entry still largely apply to employees leaving one company and moving to another. It will still take months to learn a new code base.
Companies don't have families, they don't need to eat, sleep or breath and they can't be sent to jail. Also they don't have balls.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What?! Since when?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Look up from the keyboard. Higher. Now look around.
See all the computer manuals? Those are books. Your books.
You arrange them in a certain order. You know the material contained within. You occasionally loan them out to your friends, and you get them back and put them exactly where they belong.
That makes you a libertarian.
Re: (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 gover
Re:well (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the uppercase word should be suit, not government. Government is not preventing you from negotiating for overtime pay with your employer. Free market is still operating. What they are preventing is a lawsuits on a premise which is absurd to start with, i.e. that you can get a job with an employer that doesn't pay overtime, work overtime while knowing that you won't get paid for it, then sue the employer. A real libertarian would say if overtime pay is what you're after, a) don't take that job, or b) don't work overtime, of c) if the employer insist you work overtime anyway, find another job
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"if the employer insist you work overtime anyway, find another job"
and when all employeers insist that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of you IT people are libertarians, this is what a free market does to you. Don't like it? Find another job.
What does the government of CA setting legislation that prohibits people from suing their employer over what they perceive to be unfair treatment have to do with a free market?
Re:It's a balance (Score:5, Insightful)
You basically answered your own question. Those who excel (or at least believe they do) have no incentive to give up their freedom and opportunities for advancement to protect those who don't perform as well.
Re: (Score:2)
By joining a union, an individual gives up personal freedom and the opportunity for exceptional advancement.
That's a myth, unless you're in the Teamsters (I was in the Teamsters when I worked for Disney in the early '80s, the union and management were in bed together). In my present job, the union HELPS YOU gain advancement, even into management if you wish.
As to giving up freedom, you do that when you get a job, union or non-union.
Like companies, there are good unions and bad unions. A bad union is a waste
Re: (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 themse
Re:It's a balance (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, did you just advocate REMOVING Right To Work laws? Are you insane? Should we just go back to a guild system where if you want to learn a trade, everyone already working the trade can decide you're not allowed to? Wasn't that awesome?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we put control over everything in the hands of the employers, they'd all decide to screw over the employees. You now have to work 200 hours/week for 80% less money -- because we said so.
The reason that government mandates this is to provide minimum standards, and not create abjectly crappy working conditions for people. You know, try to improve people's lives inste
Re: (Score:2)
You have to realize that there's not exactly a surplus of good IT workers. Companies have to compete for the good employees, and you can be certain that overtime is going to be one of the ways they draw people in.
You see it as a step backwards, I see it as a step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It treats people like commodities (Score:3, Insightful)
Ultimately, to the corporations, we are.
Re:Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
Who modded you "insightful", someone else who didn't even read the summary?
You think it's OK to work someone for free? You actually believe that if I work for you and you don't pay me I shouldn't be able to sue you?
No wonder the economy is headed down the toilet; it's people like you who run things who are running them into the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thank you (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Title IX says (paraphrasing, don't have reference in front of me) that any exempt, hourly wage earner should be compensated by means determined for working more than 40 hours in a week.
But I've never met an IT worker in California who is paid an hourly wage. Pretty much everybody who has a job in an office building is paid a flat monthly salary. (If you're a contractor and you're billing hours, that's different -- it's up to you to negotiate your own rates.)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
WTF? Really Hollywood? That's gotta be one of the worst neighborhoods in LA.
I agree that Dallas is a much better market than LA, but in Dallas the same programmer making $75k in LA, is making $50k.
And seriously, who do you know making less than $100k/year * 2 people that "take extended vacations" and have "$30,000 cars"?? I seriously don't know anyone.
$1200 for mortgage in the suburbs of LA? HAH!. Even in Riverside county (which sucks), you're paying $400-500k for a house (used, sucky house).
Yeah in Dal
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But we're not talking about one person, the problem comes with people that have families to support.
Presume an average family of 4. First, account for taxes, health insurance, worker's comp, etc fees. From $75k/yr, you're left with $50k/yr. Next, you're probably going to want a 3 bedro
Re: (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.