onehitwonder writes "The class-action lawsuit that current and former Apple employees have filed against the company raises questions about what kinds of workers are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) — and thus, what kinds of workers are eligible for overtime pay. Some tech workers are covered under it; some are not though perhaps they should be. The lawyer who got IBM workers a $65M settlement from Big Blue for violating labor laws explains why employers often deny tech workers overtime pay and the circumstances under which certain tech workers may or may not be covered under the FLSA. From the article: 'It's not uncommon for employers to err on the side of classifying employees as exempt [from the FLSA], says Sagafi... In fact, the dirty little secret among employers and HR departments is that classifying employees as exempt — even if it means breaking the law — is in their best interest[,] provided... that they don't get caught... "In a sense, they may see it as economically viable for them to skirt the law and wait to see if they get sued because the exposure is not that huge [if they don't get sued]," Sagafi says. "If they can settle [a complaint] for less than 100 percent of what they owe people [for overtime], they've gotten away with a good deal."'"
Some government entities I know have simplified the exempt issue: only managers can be classified as exempt. All non-managers go by the clock. This removes most ambiguities and abuses. General labor law may also want to consider this (except in rare and well-documented circumstances).
Gotta love people who think that what they'd like is what everyone else wants. I prefer being salaried; I hate having to deal with time-cards and I hate being told I can't do something (ie: work 80 hours this week then work 20 the next). I like not having to deal with an ever changing income flow depending on how much overtime I took that particular month.
If I thought I was being paid too little then I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. If I thought I was working too long I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. And before you ask I can do this because I'm not an idiot and I put saving for a rainy day above everything else.
I wish I didn't have to deal with time sheets. Even when we were exempt, we had to fill them out for billing purposes (large contractor at a local government). I often long for the days when I don't have to fill one out, not so much because of the tracking but because our time sheet application works about as well as one would expect from Microsoft web application development principles of 1998.
In retrospect, our reaction when HR notified us that we were (mostly) being changed from exempt to hourly was not what one might expect. There was much indignation because for many, reaching exempt status in IT is a sort of badge of honor, a sign that one has made it out of the trenches. We felt like we were being downgraded.
Up until that point, we'd worked whatever was required to get the job done, and if that meant an hour or two (or sometimes three or more) over, then we usually did it. It generally wasn't from any pressure from management. It was just easier for us to get it done that night than to have to pick up again in the morning, when it would compete with whatever else was going on.
When we were changed to hourly, though, we got ominous warnings about overtime and how it was going to be strictly limited and subject to pre-approval and unauthorized overtime was grounds for disciplinary measures up to and including termination. Suddenly, the ability to go home with a clean checklist was in serious danger. However, reality hit management soon after, OT was regularly approved (and almost never actually required pre-approval), and our paychecks...
Well, let's just say that no matter how disappointed we were, the difference between a 60-hour paycheck and a 40-hour paycheck, especially under California overtime laws, was more than enough to chase away our depression.:)
"Professional" hourly workers (and I mean outside the IT world) generally don't bother with
time cards, except as a once-a-week formality ("You worked 40hrs?" "Yup" "okay").
I hate being told I can't do something (ie: work 80 hours this week then work 20 the next).
Well, can't help you with that one, except to say that it depends on the averaging period for what your
employer calls "full time". If they strictly insist you must work 40/wk for full-time status, then yeah, you
just need to use some of your PTO. More often, they average that biweekly or monthly, so yes, you can
still do exactly what you describe.
I like not having to deal with an ever changing income flow depending on how much overtime I took that particular month.
Um, hello? It only varies upward as a result of OT. I'd take that in a heartbeat over having my effective
hourly rate start slowly dropping after I hit 40 hours for the week, since my pay won't change no matter how
long I stay... But wow does my motivation level start dropping at that point.
If I thought I was being paid too little then I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job.
Managers and HR departments have learned the fine art of pushing "just barely okay". I agree with you, if
I worked 60hrs a week every week, I'd find a new job. But, liking my job otherwise, will I quit because I find
myself pushing 45 hours more often than not? Unlikely.
And before you ask I can do this because I'm not an idiot and I put saving for a rainy day above everything else.
Totally different topic. This doesn't involve hourly wage-slaves working for $8/hr at Wallyworld. Whether salaried
or hourly, IT professionals generally make decent money. Most of us have the option of finding a new job relatively
quickly; The uncertaintly, hassle, vesting schedules, and the fact that most companies pull the same BS, make
looking for a new job not all that appealing except in the worst cases.
Seems to me that litigation is pretty lousy substitute for negotiating skills.
But isn't it so that the "negotiations" have already been done, and the result was made into laws and indsutry-wide agreements. Now Apple is breaking the agreements (or at least somebody believes they are, if they are going to court over it), and therefore litigation is the way to go.
If one side wants to change the laws and wants the old agreements discarded, then it's their responsibility to initiate the negotiation/lobbying/bribing process to make it happen. Until then, stick to the law or face litigation.
The way I see it, if you agree to use the infrastructure created and/or supported by the society, and if you agree to take advantage of skilled people educated in society-supported schools, then you implicitly agree to follow the laws of that same society. You can't pick one and reject the other.
I don't see a company being forced to accept the laws, any more than I see a hungry unemployed being forced to take a crappy job. Both can choose to reject the agreement (not hire people, not eat), or to ignore the law (but possibly face the consequences if they get caught). Both can also move out of the country if they think it's a better solution for them. Etc.
Seems to me that litigation is pretty lousy substitute for negotiating skills.
So you're saying that Apple should be allowed to break the law? These laws are supposed to apply to everyone, and if you're claiming that it should be ethically okay for Apple to break the law as long as it doesn't get caught, you're giving Apple an unfair advantage over its competitors who go to greater lengths to pay their employees properly because they know they're legally required to.
If Apple doesn't like the law they should convince people and lawmakers that it should be changed. Until then they should follow it as far as I'm concerned. I'm often skeptical about the excessive use of litigation to solve problems, but in this case I think it makes sense, particularly if Apple is clearly and intentionally breaking the law at the expense of people who aren't.
Let's play Devil's Advocate, not for the intent of trolling nor for flaming...
How about if this was a law in China but not here?
Well, I for one think it would be great if China had a law that required workers to be paid for the work they do. But what's so Devil's Advocate about that?
I've always held an exempt job and it's always been for internal IT. And believe it or not, I've still had to submit my time. They call it "project tracking". I call it "lying", but I've never hidden that fact. If they don't give me a bucket to log certain tasks, they'll get lumped in to whatever task I feel like padding that week. I don't really see how they can track projects at the level they want and get any sort of meaningful results.
But the point is, being exempt and not having billable hours, I still have to submit a timesheet. It just doesn't affect my paycheck.
Problem is... shit like [thechronicleherald.ca] 11 layers of management happens
I've heard the statistic that for every 2 employees that actually worked, 3 managers oversaw them. Bell (Canada) is a great example of a company that embodies fail in basically everything that they do.
Screw that. I don't want overtime. I'm a contract software engineer and I always request to be exempt from overtime. Overtime is a curse.
I want to be able to work when I want to. I want to be able to work 12 hours today and 4 hours tomorrow. I want to be able to work 60 hours this week and 20 hours next week. My boss generally wants exactly the same thing. Flexibility benefits us both. In return for providing that flexibility, I get paid more every hour of every day than other employees.
If I am paid overtime, I will most likely be restricted in my ability to adjust my hours to the work load and to my own schedule. This harms both myself and my employer, and dilutes the value that I bring as a contract employee. Ultimately I get paid less, not more.
Broadly speaking, highly trained, highly valued professionals are in a sellers market and have no need for overtime. Purely commoditized and unskilled labor are the ones who need overtime laws to protect themselves.
4. The employee has authority to hire or fire other employees.
"hire or fire" or "hire and fire" - there is a big difference.
From my observations, at most of my clients, any one "supervisor" or above can fire some one below them, but hiring requires approvals at every level up to the "vice president" level, any of which can veto the hiring decision.
And they have to be really punitive. They have to be high enough that Apple shareholders eyes bleed. Businesses of this size almost always act in a manner to forward their best interest without consideration of morals.
All Apple have done is what any large business will do when there is a law. If the PR implications and the impact on employee moral plus the risk of a court case times the cost of it are less than the cost of sticking to the law, they break the law. The only two variables we can change are how often they go to court and how much is extracted when they get there.
Agreed. Its really sad how easy we go on corporations.
remember Exxon-Valdeze (sp?)? I was reading that around 20 years after the fact, Exxon-Mobile has been still fighting, and finnaly recently won their case, they wont have to pay a dime in punative damages over the oil spill.
Of course there is an even better solution: institute a review process.
Its been shown time and time again that peoples decisions tend to be based more on the likelyhood of being caught than on the punishment if they do get caught. Take the example of Lo-Jack.
"It turns out that a 1 percent increase in LoJack sales can reduce auto theft rates by 20 percent or more...although it costs only $100 a year to have a LoJack, Ayres and Levitt estimate that each individual LoJack prevents about $1,500 a year in losses due to theft." -- Steven E Landsburg "More Sex is Safer Sex" p. 112
Thats all without increasing the penalties for stealing cars at all, just turning up the likelyhood of getting caught!
SO... clearly companies have been abusing the fact that there is no oversight. Its time to institute oversight.
"You posted anonomously, so you might not ever see this, but: when they do switch you to exempt, it's your chance to negotiate your rate. Go back several years and calculate how much you made in overtime vs regular time. Do market research on your job function and find out the salary range in your area as well as nationally. Do an honest evaluation of how you stack up to your co-workers."
Or, if they will not negotiate...leave for a new job. Unless you like your present job SO much that you will take a pay cut (as you described to the GP based on OT calculations), find another job. I prefer to work through my own company which is a "S" corp...on a corp to corp 1099 basis. However, if I do have to work W2, I require that I am paid hourly...and I get paid for all OT. Depending on the bill rate, well, sometimes it is straight time for OT rather than 1.5 rate. But, I learned years ago, I do NOT work for free.
My time is much to valuable. I generally prefer time off to OT...but, sometimes you gotta do it. Don't get me wrong, when they really need me for emergency down time, or if in dev. a deadline is looming, I'm there as long as it takes to get things done. I just refuse to do it for free. If they have to pay you for every hour you are there, they will think twice before making requests that you do so, and only do it when it is required.
Something to think about. How valuable is YOUR time?
Well, depending on your local laws and criminal penalties, your connections to the people already working in the car-stealing industry, and your current wealth and income, it may actually be in your best financial interests to start stealing cars until you get caught...
I hear fuel-efficient cars are in pretty high demand (compared to the supply) in some parts of the USA right now, so I think stealing those is a growing "business". Get in now, while it's a new trend!
Or not, if you don't like the idea of being a crook.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday August 13 2008, @12:32AM (#24578999)
I accepted my first IT Management position about 1.5 years ago. When I took the position I was familiar with the regulations as I had developed payroll software for a big U.S. payroll company for five years. The classification was the first question I brought up to HR. Fortunately, they had classified the employees correctly. However, when I started asking for timesheets, several of them complained.
I'm not a big punch-the-clock guy and have pretty much left it to my employees' discretion as to how they fill out their timesheets. However, I ALWAYS insist that they put in all overtime and account for the not-too-infrequent off-the-clock weekend support calls. It's money they're due, period!
Even if a company "gets away" with not paying overtime they are subject for stiff fines for violating labor law, often greater than the cost of paying the back overtime. It would also be a PR field day for their competitors. I know I would not buy from a company that didn't pay their employees due overtime.
FLSA or not, you get paid what you're worth. If not, then you move on. A strongly competitive market ensures that people will be able to find a new job. As long as they can do that, employers will have to pay an employee what they're worth if they want to keep them.
Usually one of the first questions I bring up upon being accepted for a position involves comp-time/overtime. Then I get it in writing.
They can (and often do) quote policy at length, but you can (and should) negotiate changes more to your liking. But unless the job is an entry-level/helpdesk position, or the market really, really sucks? Never trust an employer to look out for your best interests... that's supposed to be your job, eh?
""If they can settle [a complaint] for less than 100 percent of what they owe people [for overtime], they've gotten away with a good deal."'"
This is why when the DA can prove that there was a conspiracy to carry out just such a policy, then they should be sent to a Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison. I realize that there may not be any laws yet to cover this, but there should be.
This reminds me of the Fight Club when Ed Norton's character is explaining to the woman on the plane that if the total legal liability is less than the cost of recalling all the defective cars, a recall is not issued. There is just no other way to say it... that is some nefarious heinous shit. If laws are really meant to protect and nurture society then this is EXACTLY the kind of crap that needs to be stopped.
We worked in downtown Tokyo, he insisted on driving. (We all used public transport.) Except he didn't have a parking space, so he parked right in front of the building, on the street, illegally, every day. I asked him once how he avoids parking tickets. He said he didn't bother too much.
"Parking space costs about US$500 a month here. A parking ticket costs about US$100. They come around on the average three times a month to issue tickets. I actually only g
See, many people consider the idea of a Darwinist survival of the fittest and civilized society as oxymorons. You should not have to resort to Darwinist solutions to receive the pay agreed upon. Your compensation should not be a competition to see who can screw over who the most.
The idea that laws and contracts should be followed not because you will be penalized for being caught but because they are laws and contracts is significant. I would go so far as to say it defines much of our western society, or at least the ideals our western society strives for at its best.
Partially, yes. But I'm also partially serious. We're talking about a law that requires companies to pay over time to employees when neither the employee or the company want that.
For instance, I currently work a salaried position in IT which is exempt from over-time. I enjoy the benefits of that position. I can come in a little late. I usually stroll in around 9AM and leave around 5PM. I usually take a 1.5 hour lunch. No one cares because they all see the next day that I also worked from home that evening for about 3 or 4 hours. I enjoy my work enough to work more than 8 hours a day, but in a cubicle farm, I get interrupted so much that I can get more work done at home in the evenings. I participate in an on-call rotation, but even when I'm not on-call, I often times take notice of emergencies and hop online and help out my co-workers with on-call issues. I have no wife or children, am generally anti-social, so I sit at home and work. And I enjoy it.
Enter the law about over time. What happens when these law suits become all the rage and my employer decides that, even though my position doesn't appear to be affected by this law, they make it hourly anyway? Now, I've lost my flex time, have to punch a time card, and must be at work from 8AM to 5PM with a strict 12PM - 1PM lunch. At the very least, I will be unhappy enough that I will no longer work more than 8 hours a day. I will perform worse during the 8 hours that I am there. Sooner than later, I'll probably leave for greener pastures. This is now a negative for both me, my team, and my employer and it's all because someone else somewhere else that has no relationship to me what-so-ever opened his mouth and bitched and complained.
We've got to stop this kind of non-sense. Let me live my life the way I want to live my life for fuck's sake! I'm tired of people bitching about every little thing, going on to spawn new laws that destroy my lifestyle, and then proceeding to bitch about even more shit! We have to stop catering to these people who want life handed to them on a silver platter. It only makes all of us suffer. They need to take initiative to make their lives better through action rather than using a flawed legal system to their advantage. When companies do this, these same bitchers raise holy hell and cry foul. When they do it, it's a self-righteous holy war that is destructive to everyone around them.
This kind of behavior attempts to normalize the work environment for our entire nation. In the end, all this senseless bitching will do is end us all up in a THX 1138 world. That is what a normalized world would look like and whether they know it or not, that's what they're trying to achieve. They decide it's too much work to stand on their own, so they attempt to pull down those who can by constant complaining.
A previous poster had it right. This is people doing this to people, not the companies doing this to people. The companies are just adapting to the crap the people are throwing at them.
Now I'm going to use this to take a dig at the free market and capitalism. This is why pure capitalism doesn't work. Companies don't try to "compete", they will lie, cheat, steal and break the law just to make a buck. That's because people will lie, cheat and steal to make a buck. Which is of course why communism doesn't work either. Because of people. And the company will keep selling the products because this makes them cheap. And people will keep buying them because they don't care about whoever is getting cheated.
Remember, it's not the company doing this to people, it's just people doing it to people. In the end that's all it is.
Which is of course why communism doesn't work either. Because of people.
But that's the same reason that capitalism is so much better than communism. With communism, the incentive is that you'll be providing for others, and they'll help you in return. However, with capitalism, you get what you put into it. Because there's personal motivation, capitalism works. Sure, with capitalism, people will do whatever it takes to get money. But the truth is, even if they're lying and cheating to make that money, they're still ultimately helping their company and society in general. An
Most big companies wouldn't exist in a free market, and most small companies can't afford to 'cheat' employees, so your point is not very convincing. While there are exceptions, big companies generally rely on big government to keep new, small competitors out of the market, funnel taxpayers' money to them and protect them from irate employees and ex-employees with RPGs,.50-caliber sniper rifles and surface-to-surface missiles.
Because I haven't seen anyone here propose a pure capitalism, and you'll find very few people who advocate such. You'll also notice that countries that are capitalism aren't pure capitalism. Capitalism also DOES work because it is the only system I've seen that deals with people, specifically that they are lazy and greedy. While it is not true of all people or in all cases, as a general rule people are lazy and greedy. They'd rather not work, if given the option, and would like to have more stuff. Capitalism plays one off the other, using greed to overcome laziness. Not perfect and doesn't work in a pure state, but it is certainly better than anything else tried.
How about an employee and an employer agree to an amount of pay, a schema for that pay be it salary or hourly, and a set of duties. Then if either side decides at a later point the agreement is no longer suitable, the relationship can be severed.
That's quite an unequal bargaining table, stacked substantially in favor of the employer.
Laissez Faire capitalism was tried and failed in the US nearly a decade ago, precisely because the individual has such minuscule bargaining power compared to a large company.
It wasn't the free-market and contract law that ended sweatshops in the developed world.
It is not hard to determine whether or not your own role qualifies as exempt or non-exempt. Where it gets interesting is if you have seasonal duties, such as being a software developer for part of the year (which would be exempt from overtime pay) and then providing technical support for that software during a different part of the year (which would be non-exempt, or due overtime pay). A good example might be developers at Turbo Tax that code in the fall and do tax software support during the spring (which is tax season in the United States). If more than 20% of your work during the year is non-exempt then your employer cannot classify you as exempt and you must be paid for all overtime as if you were non-exempt year round.
Also bear in mind that, for the IT field, California has additional laws about who's overtime-exempt and who's not based on, among other things, salary and effective hourly rate. Relevant law is California Labor Code section 515.5 [ca.gov]. As of 2007 the effective hourly rate needed to qualify as overtime-exempt was $49.77/hour. SB 929 [ca.gov] changed that effective 1/1/2008 to $36/hour, or not quite $75K/year in salary. Anyone in the IT field not being paid at least that amount is not exempt from overtime in California regardless of other qualifications (the exemption requires that all conditions hold).
Why is it that "tech workers" are virtually the only group singled out for getting the shaft on overtime pay. Sure, other groups have exceptions in state and federal law (truck drivers, fruit pickers, etc), but if you look across the board - virtually all states have sections just for us in the overtime part of the law and no other group gets screwed in such a wide swath of area. This even extends to Canada.
I left an employer who stiffed me on overtime pay "accidentally" and when I talk to other people in town, the general consensus is their employers "don't pay overtime... and they have lawyers on hand to ensure they don't start paying."
I really don't get overtime for programmers. Well, perhaps if you need to ship in a few days and aren't quite finished yet, so you work overtime for a few days. That could work.
But constant overtime? It just doesn't work.
If you're building a wall and putting one brick on another, you're probably going to do about twice as much work in twice the time. This does not apply to programming. I've noticed that I have about 4 to 6 hours of programming in me each day. Some days it's more; perhaps up to 10 hours. But most days, it's around 4 to 6 hours.
After I've run out of "programmming" time, I have to stop programming, because if I continue to write code, I'll have to spend time rewriting it the next day. I simply start writing crap code after about 4 to 6 hours of writing code. I can't properly concentrate on writing code anymore, I guess. Once I reach this point, I typically start doing administrativa, replying to mails, answering support calls, writing documentation and such. Or I just go home (happily, I can do that at my current work place; as long as my output is good, I don't need to put in the time).
In my experience, most programmers work the same way. Nobody codes well for 10 hours a day, each day.
This gets us to overtime. If you force people to continue writing code after their natural code writing limit is exhausted, they will write crap. And they will have to refactor that crap. So in effect, forcing programmers to work overtime will slow down your project, because they'll start spending more and more time fixing broken code instead of writing good fresh code.
I'm not so sure I agree with where your going with your argument. Sure, if your a programmer, you may not be able to program for more than 4-6 hours, but that doesnt mean you've "stopped working". Doing all that administrative bullshit IS WORKING, and you should be compensated for it. Every worker should be compensated for every second they perform or are forced to sit "on the job".
While I am fervently anti-socialism/communism, I do not agree with the whole "time and a half" and "double time". However, everyone should be paid for every hour they work. In the long run, no business works for free. Your software company doesnt give away its software for free. Your IT services company charges for every second you are on the job. Why shouldnt you get paid the same?
Lets face it, the days of being a "company man" are over. Every individual needs to treat themselves as a "business". Since we are forced to pay for our own training (some people will let their companies pay for their training, and then sign "reimbursement contracts" for x amount of time, but I digress) and are simply a "cost" on a "chart". If you work for free (aka: uncompensated overtime), then you should look at it this way: I just gave my boss and his boss money that I actually earned (because most management types get bonuses for cutting down on "hours paid"). So the next time you want to argue against over time (not directed to the parent), go ahead and give a piece of your earned paycheck back to your company because it is the same thing.
Seems like somebody forgot to read the FAQ [slashdot.org]. Not all the articles on slashdot are US centric, but I think that anything that involves the law or politics tends to be very much U.S. centric.
One could take the libertarian view that says, "if you don't like the work conditions, go elsewhere". Of course, during recessions that's often not a viable choice.
But libertarians tend to be social darwinists in that regard: "let the harsh markets weed out the weak". However, it may lead to the "ugly capitalism" found in 1800's Britain that inspired tons of novels and discourses bashing capitalism.
These issues are still not settled in the US: the progressives and conservatives (semi-libertarians[1]) fight over these views endlessly.
(It's ironic how conservatives tend to reject darwinism in biology, but embrace it in economics and distribution.)
[1] Conservatives tend to be economic libertarians but regulation-oriented when it comes to sex. This is the main thing that distinguishes them from libertarians in my opinion.
First of all, what we had in the 1800s was mercantilism, more than capitalism. There was an awful lot of trading in government favors, tariffs, interference with competitors, etc. Secondly, even with those distortions in the market, the industrial revolution is what made our current standard of living possible. There weren't any gangs rounding people up off the farms and forcing them to go work in factories in England or the United States (it was Lenin who came up
The suit is being filed by a Network Engineer. These are the guys who keep the local infrastructure running - its tough to outsource that kind of thing to India.
Just have an Indian support professional walk any secretary though any network maintenance procedures over IP phone. Easy! Efficient! Almost free! Then you can "let go" a few better paid network professionals, and hire an extra secretary or two (at minimun pay of course) to be the hands and eyes of the Indian network professionals. Guaranteed to save you big bucks on the long run!
And remember, young female secretaries in skirts reaching up to change some cable is a much more aesthetic view, than a slightly overweight, bearded male engineer doing the same, Even assuming he doesn't wear a skirt... (Just try not get a mental image of him doing it in a skir...AAaaieee
One solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Some government entities I know have simplified the exempt issue: only managers can be classified as exempt. All non-managers go by the clock. This removes most ambiguities and abuses. General labor law may also want to consider this (except in rare and well-documented circumstances).
Re:One solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta love people who think that what they'd like is what everyone else wants. I prefer being salaried; I hate having to deal with time-cards and I hate being told I can't do something (ie: work 80 hours this week then work 20 the next). I like not having to deal with an ever changing income flow depending on how much overtime I took that particular month.
If I thought I was being paid too little then I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. If I thought I was working too long I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. And before you ask I can do this because I'm not an idiot and I put saving for a rainy day above everything else.
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish I didn't have to deal with time sheets. Even when we were exempt, we had to fill them out for billing purposes (large contractor at a local government). I often long for the days when I don't have to fill one out, not so much because of the tracking but because our time sheet application works about as well as one would expect from Microsoft web application development principles of 1998.
In retrospect, our reaction when HR notified us that we were (mostly) being changed from exempt to hourly was not what one might expect. There was much indignation because for many, reaching exempt status in IT is a sort of badge of honor, a sign that one has made it out of the trenches. We felt like we were being downgraded.
Up until that point, we'd worked whatever was required to get the job done, and if that meant an hour or two (or sometimes three or more) over, then we usually did it. It generally wasn't from any pressure from management. It was just easier for us to get it done that night than to have to pick up again in the morning, when it would compete with whatever else was going on.
When we were changed to hourly, though, we got ominous warnings about overtime and how it was going to be strictly limited and subject to pre-approval and unauthorized overtime was grounds for disciplinary measures up to and including termination. Suddenly, the ability to go home with a clean checklist was in serious danger. However, reality hit management soon after, OT was regularly approved (and almost never actually required pre-approval), and our paychecks...
Well, let's just say that no matter how disappointed we were, the difference between a 60-hour paycheck and a 40-hour paycheck, especially under California overtime laws, was more than enough to chase away our depression. :)
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:4, Insightful)
"Professional" hourly workers (and I mean outside the IT world) generally don't bother with time cards, except as a once-a-week formality ("You worked 40hrs?" "Yup" "okay").
I hate being told I can't do something (ie: work 80 hours this week then work 20 the next).
Well, can't help you with that one, except to say that it depends on the averaging period for what your employer calls "full time". If they strictly insist you must work 40/wk for full-time status, then yeah, you just need to use some of your PTO. More often, they average that biweekly or monthly, so yes, you can still do exactly what you describe.
I like not having to deal with an ever changing income flow depending on how much overtime I took that particular month.
Um, hello? It only varies upward as a result of OT. I'd take that in a heartbeat over having my effective hourly rate start slowly dropping after I hit 40 hours for the week, since my pay won't change no matter how long I stay... But wow does my motivation level start dropping at that point.
If I thought I was being paid too little then I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job.
Managers and HR departments have learned the fine art of pushing "just barely okay". I agree with you, if I worked 60hrs a week every week, I'd find a new job. But, liking my job otherwise, will I quit because I find myself pushing 45 hours more often than not? Unlikely.
And before you ask I can do this because I'm not an idiot and I put saving for a rainy day above everything else.
Totally different topic. This doesn't involve hourly wage-slaves working for $8/hr at Wallyworld. Whether salaried or hourly, IT professionals generally make decent money. Most of us have the option of finding a new job relatively quickly; The uncertaintly, hassle, vesting schedules, and the fact that most companies pull the same BS, make looking for a new job not all that appealing except in the worst cases.
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that litigation is pretty lousy substitute for negotiating skills.
But isn't it so that the "negotiations" have already been done, and the result was made into laws and indsutry-wide agreements. Now Apple is breaking the agreements (or at least somebody believes they are, if they are going to court over it), and therefore litigation is the way to go.
If one side wants to change the laws and wants the old agreements discarded, then it's their responsibility to initiate the negotiation/lobbying/bribing process to make it happen. Until then, stick to the law or face litigation.
Parent
Re:Law != both sides agreed (Score:4, Insightful)
The way I see it, if you agree to use the infrastructure created and/or supported by the society, and if you agree to take advantage of skilled people educated in society-supported schools, then you implicitly agree to follow the laws of that same society. You can't pick one and reject the other.
I don't see a company being forced to accept the laws, any more than I see a hungry unemployed being forced to take a crappy job. Both can choose to reject the agreement (not hire people, not eat), or to ignore the law (but possibly face the consequences if they get caught). Both can also move out of the country if they think it's a better solution for them. Etc.
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that litigation is pretty lousy substitute for negotiating skills.
So you're saying that Apple should be allowed to break the law? These laws are supposed to apply to everyone, and if you're claiming that it should be ethically okay for Apple to break the law as long as it doesn't get caught, you're giving Apple an unfair advantage over its competitors who go to greater lengths to pay their employees properly because they know they're legally required to.
If Apple doesn't like the law they should convince people and lawmakers that it should be changed. Until then they should follow it as far as I'm concerned. I'm often skeptical about the excessive use of litigation to solve problems, but in this case I think it makes sense, particularly if Apple is clearly and intentionally breaking the law at the expense of people who aren't.
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's play Devil's Advocate, not for the intent of trolling nor for flaming...
How about if this was a law in China but not here?
Well, I for one think it would be great if China had a law that required workers to be paid for the work they do. But what's so Devil's Advocate about that?
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:4, Funny)
I'm with you, they should have found a job somewhere else than the silly idea of expecting the company to obey the LAW.
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:4, Insightful)
And then add 5%.
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:4, Insightful)
And then add 5%.
And then double it for deadline crunches.
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always held an exempt job and it's always been for internal IT. And believe it or not, I've still had to submit my time. They call it "project tracking". I call it "lying", but I've never hidden that fact. If they don't give me a bucket to log certain tasks, they'll get lumped in to whatever task I feel like padding that week. I don't really see how they can track projects at the level they want and get any sort of meaningful results.
But the point is, being exempt and not having billable hours, I still have to submit a timesheet. It just doesn't affect my paycheck.
Layne
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Problem is... shit like [thechronicleherald.ca]
11 layers of management happens
I've heard the statistic that for every 2 employees that actually worked, 3 managers oversaw them.
Bell (Canada) is a great example of a company that embodies fail in basically everything that they do.
Re:One solution (Score:5, Insightful)
All non-managers go by the clock.
Screw that. I don't want overtime. I'm a contract software engineer and I always request to be exempt from overtime. Overtime is a curse.
I want to be able to work when I want to. I want to be able to work 12 hours today and 4 hours tomorrow. I want to be able to work 60 hours this week and 20 hours next week. My boss generally wants exactly the same thing. Flexibility benefits us both. In return for providing that flexibility, I get paid more every hour of every day than other employees.
If I am paid overtime, I will most likely be restricted in my ability to adjust my hours to the work load and to my own schedule. This harms both myself and my employer, and dilutes the value that I bring as a contract employee. Ultimately I get paid less, not more.
Broadly speaking, highly trained, highly valued professionals are in a sellers market and have no need for overtime. Purely commoditized and unskilled labor are the ones who need overtime laws to protect themselves.
Martin
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not really an either/or.
You can be a salaried employee who is paid for OT.
And really, I don't need the government telling me how I can work. I'm a grown man. If I want to work for salary w/o OT, that's my call.
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:5, Informative)
Is there an actual codified definition of what constitutes a "manager"?
Yes. It'd be better if you RTFA, but since you didn't, all of the following must be true:
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:5, Interesting)
4. The employee has authority to hire or fire other employees.
"hire or fire" or "hire and fire" - there is a big difference.
From my observations, at most of my clients, any one "supervisor" or above can fire some one below them, but hiring requires approvals at every level up to the "vice president" level, any of which can veto the hiring decision.
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. Even a VP usually can't hire or fire someone without HR approving the decision.
But what if he wants to fire HR ... ?
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The solution is actually just two words.
Punitive Damages
And they have to be really punitive. They have to be high enough that Apple shareholders eyes bleed. Businesses of this size almost always act in a manner to forward their best interest without consideration of morals.
All Apple have done is what any large business will do when there is a law. If the PR implications and the impact on employee moral plus the risk of a court case times the cost of it are less than the cost of sticking to the law, they break the law. The only two variables we can change are how often they go to court and how much is extracted when they get there.
Everything else is just loopholes.
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. Its really sad how easy we go on corporations.
remember Exxon-Valdeze (sp?)? I was reading that around 20 years after the fact, Exxon-Mobile has been still fighting, and finnaly recently won their case, they wont have to pay a dime in punative damages over the oil spill.
Of course there is an even better solution: institute a review process.
Its been shown time and time again that peoples decisions tend to be based more on the likelyhood of being caught than on the punishment if they do get caught. Take the example of Lo-Jack.
Thats all without increasing the penalties for stealing cars at all, just turning up the likelyhood of getting caught!
SO... clearly companies have been abusing the fact that there is no oversight. Its time to institute oversight.
-Steve
Parent
Re:One solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, if they will not negotiate...leave for a new job. Unless you like your present job SO much that you will take a pay cut (as you described to the GP based on OT calculations), find another job. I prefer to work through my own company which is a "S" corp...on a corp to corp 1099 basis. However, if I do have to work W2, I require that I am paid hourly...and I get paid for all OT. Depending on the bill rate, well, sometimes it is straight time for OT rather than 1.5 rate. But, I learned years ago, I do NOT work for free.
My time is much to valuable. I generally prefer time off to OT...but, sometimes you gotta do it. Don't get me wrong, when they really need me for emergency down time, or if in dev. a deadline is looming, I'm there as long as it takes to get things done. I just refuse to do it for free. If they have to pay you for every hour you are there, they will think twice before making requests that you do so, and only do it when it is required.
Something to think about. How valuable is YOUR time?
Parent
not getting caught (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:not getting caught (Score:5, Insightful)
It would only be like that, if the punishment for stealing a car was less than the purchase price of that car.
Parent
Re:not getting caught (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, depending on your local laws and criminal penalties, your connections to the people already working in the car-stealing industry, and your current wealth and income, it may actually be in your best financial interests to start stealing cars until you get caught...
I hear fuel-efficient cars are in pretty high demand (compared to the supply) in some parts of the USA right now, so I think stealing those is a growing "business". Get in now, while it's a new trend!
Or not, if you don't like the idea of being a crook.
Parent
Overtime (Score:3, Insightful)
I accepted my first IT Management position about 1.5 years ago. When I took the position I was familiar with the regulations as I had developed payroll software for a big U.S. payroll company for five years. The classification was the first question I brought up to HR. Fortunately, they had classified the employees correctly. However, when I started asking for timesheets, several of them complained.
I'm not a big punch-the-clock guy and have pretty much left it to my employees' discretion as to how they fill out their timesheets. However, I ALWAYS insist that they put in all overtime and account for the not-too-infrequent off-the-clock weekend support calls. It's money they're due, period!
Even if a company "gets away" with not paying overtime they are subject for stiff fines for violating labor law, often greater than the cost of paying the back overtime. It would also be a PR field day for their competitors. I know I would not buy from a company that didn't pay their employees due overtime.
It's simply not worth it...pay your employees!
FLSA or not, you get paid what you're worth (Score:5, Insightful)
FLSA or not, you get paid what you're worth. If not, then you move on. A strongly competitive market ensures that people will be able to find a new job. As long as they can do that, employers will have to pay an employee what they're worth if they want to keep them.
Caveat Employee (Score:5, Insightful)
Usually one of the first questions I bring up upon being accepted for a position involves comp-time/overtime. Then I get it in writing.
They can (and often do) quote policy at length, but you can (and should) negotiate changes more to your liking. But unless the job is an entry-level/helpdesk position, or the market really, really sucks? Never trust an employer to look out for your best interests... that's supposed to be your job, eh?
FPMITA Is the solution (Score:5, Interesting)
""If they can settle [a complaint] for less than 100 percent of what they owe people [for overtime], they've gotten away with a good deal."'"
This is why when the DA can prove that there was a conspiracy to carry out just such a policy, then they should be sent to a Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison. I realize that there may not be any laws yet to cover this, but there should be.
This reminds me of the Fight Club when Ed Norton's character is explaining to the woman on the plane that if the total legal liability is less than the cost of recalling all the defective cars, a recall is not issued. There is just no other way to say it... that is some nefarious heinous shit. If laws are really meant to protect and nurture society then this is EXACTLY the kind of crap that needs to be stopped.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of a guy that I used to work with.
We worked in downtown Tokyo, he insisted on driving. (We all used public transport.) Except he didn't have a parking space, so he parked right in front of the building, on the street, illegally, every day. I asked him once how he avoids parking tickets. He said he didn't bother too much.
"Parking space costs about US$500 a month here. A parking ticket costs about US$100. They come around on the average three times a month to issue tickets. I actually only g
Re:FPMITA Is the solution (Score:4, Insightful)
See, many people consider the idea of a Darwinist survival of the fittest and civilized society as oxymorons. You should not have to resort to Darwinist solutions to receive the pay agreed upon. Your compensation should not be a competition to see who can screw over who the most.
The idea that laws and contracts should be followed not because you will be penalized for being caught but because they are laws and contracts is significant. I would go so far as to say it defines much of our western society, or at least the ideals our western society strives for at its best.
Parent
Re:FPMITA Is the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Partially, yes. But I'm also partially serious. We're talking about a law that requires companies to pay over time to employees when neither the employee or the company want that.
For instance, I currently work a salaried position in IT which is exempt from over-time. I enjoy the benefits of that position. I can come in a little late. I usually stroll in around 9AM and leave around 5PM. I usually take a 1.5 hour lunch. No one cares because they all see the next day that I also worked from home that evening for about 3 or 4 hours. I enjoy my work enough to work more than 8 hours a day, but in a cubicle farm, I get interrupted so much that I can get more work done at home in the evenings. I participate in an on-call rotation, but even when I'm not on-call, I often times take notice of emergencies and hop online and help out my co-workers with on-call issues. I have no wife or children, am generally anti-social, so I sit at home and work. And I enjoy it.
Enter the law about over time. What happens when these law suits become all the rage and my employer decides that, even though my position doesn't appear to be affected by this law, they make it hourly anyway? Now, I've lost my flex time, have to punch a time card, and must be at work from 8AM to 5PM with a strict 12PM - 1PM lunch. At the very least, I will be unhappy enough that I will no longer work more than 8 hours a day. I will perform worse during the 8 hours that I am there. Sooner than later, I'll probably leave for greener pastures. This is now a negative for both me, my team, and my employer and it's all because someone else somewhere else that has no relationship to me what-so-ever opened his mouth and bitched and complained.
We've got to stop this kind of non-sense. Let me live my life the way I want to live my life for fuck's sake! I'm tired of people bitching about every little thing, going on to spawn new laws that destroy my lifestyle, and then proceeding to bitch about even more shit! We have to stop catering to these people who want life handed to them on a silver platter. It only makes all of us suffer. They need to take initiative to make their lives better through action rather than using a flawed legal system to their advantage. When companies do this, these same bitchers raise holy hell and cry foul. When they do it, it's a self-righteous holy war that is destructive to everyone around them.
This kind of behavior attempts to normalize the work environment for our entire nation. In the end, all this senseless bitching will do is end us all up in a THX 1138 world. That is what a normalized world would look like and whether they know it or not, that's what they're trying to achieve. They decide it's too much work to stand on their own, so they attempt to pull down those who can by constant complaining.
A previous poster had it right. This is people doing this to people, not the companies doing this to people. The companies are just adapting to the crap the people are throwing at them.
Parent
A dig at the free market and capitalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'm going to use this to take a dig at the free market and capitalism. This is why pure capitalism doesn't work. Companies don't try to "compete", they will lie, cheat, steal and break the law just to make a buck. That's because people will lie, cheat and steal to make a buck. Which is of course why communism doesn't work either. Because of people. And the company will keep selling the products because this makes them cheap. And people will keep buying them because they don't care about whoever is getting cheated.
Remember, it's not the company doing this to people, it's just people doing it to people. In the end that's all it is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is of course why communism doesn't work either. Because of people.
But that's the same reason that capitalism is so much better than communism. With communism, the incentive is that you'll be providing for others, and they'll help you in return. However, with capitalism, you get what you put into it. Because there's personal motivation, capitalism works. Sure, with capitalism, people will do whatever it takes to get money. But the truth is, even if they're lying and cheating to make that money, they're still ultimately helping their company and society in general. An
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There was a joke in Russia
"In Capitalism, man exploits man. In Communism it is the reverse"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is why pure capitalism doesn't work."
Most big companies wouldn't exist in a free market, and most small companies can't afford to 'cheat' employees, so your point is not very convincing. While there are exceptions, big companies generally rely on big government to keep new, small competitors out of the market, funnel taxpayers' money to them and protect them from irate employees and ex-employees with RPGs, .50-caliber sniper rifles and surface-to-surface missiles.
Ok but that's a straw man argument (Score:4, Insightful)
Because I haven't seen anyone here propose a pure capitalism, and you'll find very few people who advocate such. You'll also notice that countries that are capitalism aren't pure capitalism. Capitalism also DOES work because it is the only system I've seen that deals with people, specifically that they are lazy and greedy. While it is not true of all people or in all cases, as a general rule people are lazy and greedy. They'd rather not work, if given the option, and would like to have more stuff. Capitalism plays one off the other, using greed to overcome laziness. Not perfect and doesn't work in a pure state, but it is certainly better than anything else tried.
Parent
Crazy idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Crazy shit, I know.
Re:Crazy idea. (Score:5, Informative)
That's quite an unequal bargaining table, stacked substantially in favor of the employer.
Laissez Faire capitalism was tried and failed in the US nearly a decade ago, precisely because the individual has such minuscule bargaining power compared to a large company.
It wasn't the free-market and contract law that ended sweatshops in the developed world.
Parent
Read for yourself... (Score:3, Interesting)
The FLSA is actually pretty clear and easy to follow: http://finduslaw.com/fair_labor_standards_act_flsa_29_u_s_code_chapter_8#2 [finduslaw.com]
It is not hard to determine whether or not your own role qualifies as exempt or non-exempt. Where it gets interesting is if you have seasonal duties, such as being a software developer for part of the year (which would be exempt from overtime pay) and then providing technical support for that software during a different part of the year (which would be non-exempt, or due overtime pay). A good example might be developers at Turbo Tax that code in the fall and do tax software support during the spring (which is tax season in the United States). If more than 20% of your work during the year is non-exempt then your employer cannot classify you as exempt and you must be paid for all overtime as if you were non-exempt year round.
California law applies too (Score:5, Informative)
Also bear in mind that, for the IT field, California has additional laws about who's overtime-exempt and who's not based on, among other things, salary and effective hourly rate. Relevant law is California Labor Code section 515.5 [ca.gov]. As of 2007 the effective hourly rate needed to qualify as overtime-exempt was $49.77/hour. SB 929 [ca.gov] changed that effective 1/1/2008 to $36/hour, or not quite $75K/year in salary. Anyone in the IT field not being paid at least that amount is not exempt from overtime in California regardless of other qualifications (the exemption requires that all conditions hold).
I think the important question to ask is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is it that "tech workers" are virtually the only group singled out for getting the shaft on overtime pay.
Sure, other groups have exceptions in state and federal law (truck drivers, fruit pickers, etc), but if you look across the board - virtually all states have sections just for us in the overtime part of the law and no other group gets screwed in such a wide swath of area.
This even extends to Canada.
I left an employer who stiffed me on overtime pay "accidentally" and when I talk to other people in town, the general consensus is their employers "don't pay overtime... and they have lawyers on hand to ensure they don't start paying."
Interesting, no?
I don't get overtime (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't get overtime for programmers. Well, perhaps if you need to ship in a few days and aren't quite finished yet, so you work overtime for a few days. That could work.
But constant overtime? It just doesn't work.
If you're building a wall and putting one brick on another, you're probably going to do about twice as much work in twice the time. This does not apply to programming. I've noticed that I have about 4 to 6 hours of programming in me each day. Some days it's more; perhaps up to 10 hours. But most days, it's around 4 to 6 hours.
After I've run out of "programmming" time, I have to stop programming, because if I continue to write code, I'll have to spend time rewriting it the next day. I simply start writing crap code after about 4 to 6 hours of writing code. I can't properly concentrate on writing code anymore, I guess. Once I reach this point, I typically start doing administrativa, replying to mails, answering support calls, writing documentation and such. Or I just go home (happily, I can do that at my current work place; as long as my output is good, I don't need to put in the time).
In my experience, most programmers work the same way. Nobody codes well for 10 hours a day, each day.
This gets us to overtime. If you force people to continue writing code after their natural code writing limit is exhausted, they will write crap. And they will have to refactor that crap. So in effect, forcing programmers to work overtime will slow down your project, because they'll start spending more and more time fixing broken code instead of writing good fresh code.
Re:I don't get overtime (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not so sure I agree with where your going with your argument. Sure, if your a programmer, you may not be able to program for more than 4-6 hours, but that doesnt mean you've "stopped working". Doing all that administrative bullshit IS WORKING, and you should be compensated for it. Every worker should be compensated for every second they perform or are forced to sit "on the job".
While I am fervently anti-socialism/communism, I do not agree with the whole "time and a half" and "double time". However, everyone should be paid for every hour they work. In the long run, no business works for free. Your software company doesnt give away its software for free. Your IT services company charges for every second you are on the job. Why shouldnt you get paid the same?
Lets face it, the days of being a "company man" are over. Every individual needs to treat themselves as a "business". Since we are forced to pay for our own training (some people will let their companies pay for their training, and then sign "reimbursement contracts" for x amount of time, but I digress) and are simply a "cost" on a "chart". If you work for free (aka: uncompensated overtime), then you should look at it this way: I just gave my boss and his boss money that I actually earned (because most management types get bonuses for cutting down on "hours paid"). So the next time you want to argue against over time (not directed to the parent), go ahead and give a piece of your earned paycheck back to your company because it is the same thing.
Parent
Article should be titled "What *US* Tech Workers" (Score:5, Insightful)
Article should be titled "What *US* Tech Workers Need to Know About Overtime".
Very few stories on here are US-specific, and they should be labelled as such.
Re:Article should be titled "What *US* Tech Worker (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Article should be titled "What *US* Tech Worker (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't care about the stories being US-centric (which is what the FAQ is about), but it would be nice to see US-centric articles marked as such.
Parent
Re:Wow.. (Score:4, Insightful)
One could take the libertarian view that says, "if you don't like the work conditions, go elsewhere". Of course, during recessions that's often not a viable choice.
But libertarians tend to be social darwinists in that regard: "let the harsh markets weed out the weak". However, it may lead to the "ugly capitalism" found in 1800's Britain that inspired tons of novels and discourses bashing capitalism.
These issues are still not settled in the US: the progressives and conservatives (semi-libertarians[1]) fight over these views endlessly.
(It's ironic how conservatives tend to reject darwinism in biology, but embrace it in economics and distribution.)
[1] Conservatives tend to be economic libertarians but regulation-oriented when it comes to sex. This is the main thing that distinguishes them from libertarians in my opinion.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the "ugly capitalism" found in 1800's
First of all, what we had in the 1800s was mercantilism, more than capitalism. There was an awful lot of trading in government favors, tariffs, interference with competitors, etc. Secondly, even with those distortions in the market, the industrial revolution is what made our current standard of living possible. There weren't any gangs rounding people up off the farms and forcing them to go work in factories in England or the United States (it was Lenin who came up
Re:All they need to know: "india" (Score:5, Funny)
I once saw a cartoon where the boss simply put up a big India national flag behind his desk. Nobody bothered to ask for raises.
Parent
Re:These are IT people (Score:5, Funny)
The suit is being filed by a Network Engineer. These are the guys who keep the local infrastructure running - its tough to outsource that kind of thing to India.
Just have an Indian support professional walk any secretary though any network maintenance procedures over IP phone. Easy! Efficient! Almost free! Then you can "let go" a few better paid network professionals, and hire an extra secretary or two (at minimun pay of course) to be the hands and eyes of the Indian network professionals. Guaranteed to save you big bucks on the long run!
And remember, young female secretaries in skirts reaching up to change some cable is a much more aesthetic view, than a slightly overweight, bearded male engineer doing the same, Even assuming he doesn't wear a skirt... (Just try not get a mental image of him doing it in a skir...AAaaieee
Parent