Takin' Care of Business and Working Paid Overtime 142
theodp writes "About 800 CA-based Siebel employees who held the job title 'software engineer' or 'senior software engineer' stand to pocket $27,000 each from the proceeds of Siebel's $27.5 settlement of an overtime dispute. And while IBM's 32,000 techies won't make out quite as well, they'll still divvy up $65M in OT pay that IBM's shelling out to settle a federal class action suit."
Wow! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
With Slashdot's crack editing staff? Unpossible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
The days of the lifetime job and having an employer reward you for longevity , productivity, and loyalty are long gone. This is the reason, that I will never work again as an employee if I can help it. Contracting is the only way to go. I get paid for every hour I work. I will work my ass off...I will stay and do what it takes to get a project done on time in the crunch times, but, I WILL get paid for it. My time is too valuable to me. Often, I'd rather have time off for myself than get a small amount of OT.After all, the ONLY reason I work, is to allow me to pay for my lifestyle I enjoy...if I were rich, I'd never work another day in my life.
I don't get time and a half usually....the govt. helped screw us IT guys on that years back, but, I make a good hourly rate...and straight time is good for me.
But, really....isn't the sweat off your back worth something? Since I've made the jump about a decade ago...I cannot see why I EVER, EVER submitted to that. If you know that extra hours are a 'part of the job' like the article said...why would a sane person go in there to work for free unless they are just out of school, and trying to get that foot in the door.
I'll tell ya....they aren't quite as anxious to keep you late hours and on weekends if they know they have to pay you, and when they do ask you, you know they really need you. There's nothing wrong with hard work, but, there is something wrong with not getting paid for you work. There is nothing wrong with time off for yourself....that, in fact is one of the most valuable things you have, your time....if they want to intrude on that, it must come with a price.
It is your choice as to how you will spend your time, and how much it is worth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you!!
A bit of advice...if you've not done it already...do make sure you have some FU money put aside....this will help you to more easily say "no".
Also, do give serious consideration to incorporating yourself...I recommend the "S"
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Informative)
Then you may become uninsurable *and* you won't get the negotiated rate at medical facilities any more. So it's a double whammy.
Re: (Score:2)
They can pull this shit at direct employers too....don't kid yourself, prior conditions there can get you.
The name of the game is...put as much $$ back as you can. Use common sense that isn't out there today in general. Don't get into CC debt...put every cent you can away for retirement, investments
Re: (Score:2)
Just die (Score:2)
That's the way they used to do it. Rather than lay there endlessly consuming costly resources for no good reason, just die. Everyone has to eventually, might as well leave something positive behind rather than be a net loss for the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Dignity is great for the young to push onto the old. Most people will fight to stay alive by any means fair or foul.
Me... i always pictured myself hobbling into some place, half blind, barely breathing and taking out a bunch of badguys and dying in the process.
Hero complex?
Re: (Score:2)
--
.nosig
Re: (Score:2)
Unless there is a "TEXAS" in another country...
Yes- in the US there is no national health care. If you have national health care then none of my advice applies. It must be sweet to live in a country where you can actually retire early if you work hard.
They have these lovely "negotiated" rates here.
97% of people pay them. So a test will be $100, an operation $4100. However.. if you are in the 3% who don't have insurance then you get the "street" rate (even tho almost NOONE pays that rate) and the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, lets ask this question...in a different way.
Ok, so you don't mind working over 40 when you need to as a salaried employee. The company surely doesn't mind this.
However, how well does the company loo
Re: (Score:1)
However, how well does the company look upon you when you, as a salaried employee, have finished your work early, and would like to leave early?? If salaried just means getting your work done, no matter the time required...should you not have it as easy to leave early when things are finished early, as it is to have you stay late when things are running late?
Actually, they don't really mind when there is down time, like between projects, and I leave early. And yes, I have actually done so before. Which i
Re: (Score:2)
BTW we can stop this crazyness quite simply. Did you know that there is a MINIMUM salary you can earn before you can be an exempt employee? Did you also know that the number hasn't changed in a LONG time (if I remember right, 1958 or so) Just adjust that number to a 2006 number, and tag it to inflation. It'd be up in the 400K range or so if I remember correctly.
Exempt employment was
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why I've decided to eventually find a way to make money off of the hourly rate, such as by selling a product. If your pay is tied to your hourly rate, you have hit the glass ceiling. The potential for more income beyond the hours you work (and the freedom that comes with this) is certainly worth it, no?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, whatever floats your boat. I personally also like the indenpendance I get contracting/consulting. I take time off when I want to...I put my money wherever
Re: (Score:1)
Since i'm in Europe, there's also the additional reason that in practice permanent jobs don't really offer that much job security (during the recession i saw friends of mine getting fired while many of the companies where i had worked as a permanent - were they had the expectation of us being loyal to the company - downsized much of their staff), and the reason that around here being a cont
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not satisfied?
I am the accountant you insensitive clod! I have money that grows on trees.
Remember the lawyers? (Score:2)
27.5m - 21.6m = 5.9m
Chances are that's about six million that's going towards paying lawyers and other related fees.
Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeh
M&P (mangerial and professional) grades tend get excluded from some labour laws in the Uk.
The optout does get abused but technicaly its for those people that define their own hours of work. (lawyers doctors directors)
I used to work for BT and we had self directed hours tecnicaly - though we did have OT and TOIL provisons.
I suspect that IBM got done for treating "saleried" employyes as efectivly hourly paid - ie refusing TOIL.
Having this self directed status is interestings as its one of the main indi
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I want it spelled out, in writing how many hours per week I am to work on average, how many hours maximum and what additional compensation I am to receive for working an extremely long week.
Hell, employers don't even need to use salary to cheat on labor laws. I once worked for a company that falsified time sheets. [computercomfort.com] If you worked 42 hours in a week, th
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to work for a Fortune 100 company and my boss worked a minimum of 90 hours per week. She came in at 5am and left at 7 or 8pm M-F. On Saturdays at least ten hours and a six-hour day on Sunday. When I figured her hourly rate, she was the lowest paid employee in the department.
I don't understand this whole unpaid overtime anyway. If these companies are so bought into capitalism, then they ought to buy more of your labor when they need more.
Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. I always wonder how we've gotten to this point. Henry Ford, who made positively vast amounts of profit at the time, did so not only through efficiency and affordable products (i.e., he sold below even what the market forced him to sell at), but also by *doubling* industry wages for his workers and creating the standard 8-hour-a-day, 5-day-a-week work-week. He wanted loyal, efficient workers, and that's sure one hell of a way to get them.
Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Greed and overweening pride. Greed on the part of employers; overweening pride on the part of employees who accept a title instead of what they are due (money).
So many people I know are in this position of being forced to work unpaid overtime and are constantly bitching about it. But I think that a lot of them get off on it because they think that it makes them feel like they have an important job. I actually think that it makes them unimportant--if their time was so valuable, you'd think that they would get paid for it.
Others act like they *have* to because they need their high salary (even though the hourly rate sucks) to afford their lifestyle. Then you look and see that their family of four lives in a five bedroom, 3.5 bath, 5000 square foot house. Often they say that they're "doing it for the kids," as if their kids wouldn't rather actually see their parents once in awhile instead of having stuff.
Ooops! Looks like I went off on a rant. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
yes Greed is the primary factor here, but you people forget you own stock in the same companies that treat you like shit, you're supposed to be hte owners but you all think you're helpless and as long as you are an individual instead of an organized group you're right you are.
personally i barely make more than minimum wage, i routinely work overtime i get fucked out of and i'm not salaried, and ye
Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws (Score:5, Insightful)
In the software development process, there's a negative feedback loop that affects the productivity of those developing the software. It goes like this:
- Those that constantly work long hours get more tired
- Tired people do more errors (bugs in the code, bugs in the design, incorrectly documented requirements)
- Fixing the extra errors consumes a disproportionatly big ammount of time - the problem has to be found (sometimes only on production), then tracked down to the root cause and then fixed (which in the case of design/requirements errors can include re-writting huge sections of the code).
I my experience from working both 8h/day and 10/day, the total daily productivity (as measured by requirement features successfully implemented) of those working 10h/day is actually lower than those working 8h/day. In other words, it takes more time to develop and deliver and application that fits the client's requirements if developers work 10h/day than it would if they work 8h/day.
From what i've observed, a similar effect might also be in play in other intelectual professions:
- From what i've seen, overworked managers are less organized, tend to forget things more easilly and do not as easilly recognize important information than those managers that work more reasonable work hours. In practice this means that they will make wrong decisions, will not make decisions on time or will not pass on all the necessary information to those that execute their decisions which results in a lot of fires and a lot of time and work (by the manager and also by those under his/her management) spent putting down the fires.
From my experience working in several countries, both with and without chronic overworking i believe the fault lies with two factors, often in conjunction:
a) Bad managers. These are usually people that are not experienced enough to realize that the negative implications of overworking in intellectual occupations and thus keep demanding long working hours from those they manage (and often themselfs) under the wrong impression that more-hours-at-work = faster-results. Also, management errors often result in a lot of extra work on the development side (say, for example, because a "simple looking" new requirement from the customer was blindly accepted) which means that in practice everybody in the group is pressured into overworking to cover up the incompetence of the manager. One can often spot this kind of managers, even during a job interview, because they are more disorganized and relly heavilly on giving soft rewards (examples: the team's night out; "ultra-flexible" hours; extra relaxed clothing standards).
b) Consultancies doing fixed priced projects for external customers. They sell a project to do "something" for $x. Bad estimations, incorrect requirements, time lost waiting for things (examples: interface specifications from the client; hardware required for the project), time lost due to issues in the choosen technologies - all these things mean more time spent working in the project. If the extra time is payed then the profit goes down. Making people work more hours seems at first sight to be a way to "keep on target" without extra costs (as to why this isn't true, see explanation above).
Henry Ford Quote: (Score:4, Insightful)
Henry Ford said:
We've completely forgotten that last bit over the last 50 years.
If you want to take these "radical" ideas of ultra-capitalists further, and get even wilder with a true "Free Market" -- compared to the joke we have today -- you also might like to note that shareholders are entitled to exactly one thing: a share of the residual profits. They are NOT entitled to tell buinesses how to run, nor to demand that residual profits be maximized. This whole idea of "shareholder value" is completely broken, and is anti-competitive and anti-innovation (and I mean real innovation, not the Microsoft kind). Look it up.
.Re: (Score:2)
The system might not work all that well in practice, but at least the incentives point in the right direction. And the sy
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Important point: I've always thought that the best argument for paid overtime is that it encourages management to use people more efficiently and prevent burn-out. If my boss can get me to do the work of two people for the pay of one, he'll do it even if it means I'll do a lousy job because I'm tired, hungry, and overworked. On the other hand, if it's going to cost him what
Re: (Score:1)
It sounds to me like the companies you refer to are thoroughly bought into capitalism. Why should a company buy overtime when employees will work for free?
If employees (and their elected representatives) allow employers to set up software sweatshops, they will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's easy to fix. When 40 hours rolls around, you get up from your desk, look at your watch and say "Looks like it's time to go home", and leave.
They might fire you eventually, but they'll do that anyway, so there's really no loss.
Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Why did you work 75 hours per week? Were you kept there at gunpoint?
Companies I've been with have tried shenanigans with me. I just didn't play along. I came at 9, I left at 5, and when the manager whined I ignored him. I didn't get fired because I did a good job, and had they tried they would have had an expensive lawsuit on their hands. I even had the president of the company call me one weekend, and I cut him off in mid-harangue telling him to get back to me on Monday.
Yet I survived three rounds of layoffs. Obviously they liked me.
I'm sorry, but if they scammed you into working 75 hours a week through mere words, you're a patsy.
Re: (Score:2)
But, there is a different way to view this OT issue. There are times when my group needs to finish a project on time in order for a second group to deliver their project on time. If we slip, they slip. When it's getting close to tape-out time, it makes sense to put in
Re: (Score:1)
Sure it sucks, but the only choice that we have is to quit. But, even though we have to work a lot of extra hours, very few complain in my IT de
Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Termination with/without cause (Score:2)
It almost never means you were "terminated for cause" -- this is almost always an enitrely different standard requiring significant documentation showing that the employee had problems with absenteeism, repeatedly broke written rules, committed a crime, etc. Didn't suck up to the boss doesn't count. Employees not fired for cause are generally due unemployment
Re: (Score:2)
All in all I would prefer the flexibility to work 30 hours some weeks then the guarantee of getting overtime when I have to w
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but if they scammed you into working 75 hours a week through mere words, you're a patsy.
*sigh* Yes, I'm a patsy. Or I was for a 17 months. People, don't let this happen to you. Really. And don't start down the road of "it's only for a couple weeks". "Only until we're not so busy." Guess what -- they can make sure it's always busy, if you make sure they know they can squeeze that much work out of you. Before you know it, those exceptional circumstances are now the norm, and what was wor
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Companies use salary to circumvent labor laws (Score:5, Informative)
i'm the payroll coordinator for a medium sized company so i know a thing or two about overtime law and salary vs. non-salary.
truth be told, being "salaried" is not a relevant issue. the relevant issue at hand is classifying whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt status. so what do these two classifications mean you ask yourself. the basic theory for these two classifications depends on how employers derive productive (production being a generic term referring to making money for an employer) value from their employee.
in the case of non-exempt employees, employers derive value from an employee from the TIME the employee invests to increase production for the employer. for example, say that you work for a burger joint and it's the end of the week and you're about to clock out and go home because you're going to hit 40 hours. however, the manager asks you to stay 5 extra minutes to flip the 20 burgers on the grill before you go home. is the company better or worse off for having kept you for 5 extra minutes? the argument would be that the company was better off as you aided the efficiencies of production by ensuring that the burgers were properly cooked and ensured that there were no customer complaints.
in the case of exempt employees, employers derive value from the SERVICES that an employee provides. these services have NO PERCEIVED time value and employees can expect to receive the same amount of pay whether they work 20 hours or 40 hours in a week. for example, let's say a you're a doctor at a hospital and the hospital pays you $7500 every time you perform a tonsilectomy (i don't know how much a doctor would charge for a tonsilectomy so the number is arbitrary). it normally takes you 1 to 1.5 hours to perform a tonsilectomy. now, let's say you ended up with a particularly difficult tonsilectomy and it took you 5 hours to do it. the hospital does not have to pay more than $7500 because it took you longer to do a tonsilectomy. it's a service that you provide with an amount that has already been agreed upon.
if you want it simple and easy, exempt employees get overtime and non-exempt employees don't.
so what does being "salaried" have to do with exempt vs. non-exempt status? absolutely nothing. an employee can be classified as non-exempt status and still be paid a salary as long the employer pays the employee for any work past 40 hours so time would still have to be kept for the employee. however, an employer CANNOT EVER, in any way, shape, or form, pay an exempt employee hourly.
now, in the u.s., there are hundreds of thousands of pages worth of laws and court orders in local, state, and federal governments that protect non-exempt employees from abuse by employers (and much less protecting exempt employees). among those hundreds of thousands of pages are rules that differentiate exempt employees and non-exempt employees. one thing a government agency does when it comes in to audit an company's employee status is that it ONLY EVER audits employees that are classified as exempt. if an agency comes into audit a company that classified ALL of its employees as non-exempt, they'll wish a nice day and walk right out. the reason being, and i'm sure it's already obvious given what the topic is about, is there is a hell of a lot more potential for abusing employees classified as exempt than employees classified as non-exempt.
so the best way to derive how an employee needs to be determine an employee's status is the job description of the title you are working under. this is actually a legally binding document. you guys probably got it when you got your job, glossed over it, and put it away where it's out of the way but in the grand scheme of things, this is your evidence of proving whether or not you should be paid overtime. in fact, when a government agency comes into to audit a company's employees, they'll ask for 2 things: a list of all employees with status and job title and all job descripti
Re: (Score:1)
This has got to be the most informative post I've ever read on slashdot. I've been in the s/w development field for almost 30 years and I am finally in a great company where I get paid for my actual work, without having to continually fight for it. However, I wish I'd had this to back me up all the times I had to go up against my bosses. Most of them understood, but it was still stressful and wasted time.
Thanks again for a great post!
Re: (Score:2)
in the case of non-exempt employees, employers derive value from an employee from the TIME the employee invests ... burger joint ... stay 5 extra minutes ... the company was better off
in the case of exempt employees, employers derive value from the SERVICES that an employee provides. ... you're a doctor ... the hospital pays you $7500
every time you perform a tonsilectomy ... normally takes you 1.5 hours ...
[say it] took you 5 hours to do it. the hospital does not have to pay more
than $7500 because it took you longer to do a tonsilectomy ...
From your description (which fits my own understanding, I'm an exempt employee, salaried, etc), the following statement is bass ackwards:
"if you want it simple and easy, exempt employees get overtime and non-exempt employees don't."
Just thought I'd point it out. This is not the same as being a grammar nazi. This is more like a semantic nazi :-D
/b
All the same, interesting...
IBM overtime (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
It's politics. In the US, the party that is most backed by big labor just took over the congress. I think that this is IBM's way of making the issue disappear before any congressional hearings are held.
LK
Re:IBM overtime (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In most companies, the only thing to "mysteriously go away" is you and/or your job.
Re: (Score:2)
The Charter specifies a working week of max. 48 hrs. (averaged over 3 or 6 months) and annually 4 weeks of paid holidays.
There is one country, the UK, that has in the days of a Margaret Thatcher insisted on an opt-out for this charter.
More recently the UK has been (kind of) forced to enact a lot of those Charter rules because of the overriding European safety laws.
These safety laws are based on studies that showed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being very senior and having worked in many different places (i'm a freelancer), i have yet to see a case of unpaid overwork which did not boil down to management failure. Some examples of chronic overwork i saw:
- In one of the companies i worked for we developed a software application
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a slippery slope. Once your boss knows that you'll work the 50 hour week, he'll task you until you're working that on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:1)
Now if only.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Lucky bastards !! (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's when you find a new job that is saner than that one and then tell your manager that you want a divorce.
I'm sorry, but there are more important things in life - like life. You can bet that the people who own the company are enjoying theirs.
Per hour pay vs. fixed salary (Score:1)
If I had been paid a fixed salary and still been expected to work 70-90 hrs a week, I would have resigned after a few months.
On the other side, I think paying overtime and having flexible hours is better for the companies too - they then only pay out a lot of money when they have a lot of work, and do not have to hire more people immediately whenever
I used to be an IBM Software Engineer (Score:1, Insightful)
In the months before a product shipped we typically worked 50-BIGNUM hours a week. During the rest it was closer to 40. I probably averaged in the mid/high 40s over my last several years there.
Personally, I think anyone who is making a salary should be paid the higher of:
* 2x what he would mak
Re:I used to be an IBM Software Engineer (Score:5, Insightful)
No kidding. That's less than $20/hour. You wouldn't need to go to college to make that. Both of my high school education brothers-in-law make way more than that and are home in time for supper.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I used to be an IBM Software Engineer (Score:4, Insightful)
This is how employers pit employees against each other to milk them for free labor. If employee A wants to get ahead, he's going to put in an extra half-hour. Employee B also wants to get ahead so he decides to outdo employee A by working an extra hour. And so on and so on. And then, in the end, the boss' lazy nephew or some other politically-connected individual--who rarely puts in more than 35 hours per week--gets the promotion.
And what are employees A & B left with? Heart disease and diabetes from eating crappy convenience food, getting no sunlight and no exercise. Some bargain.
I worked in a union workplace for many years and thought it sucked, but I have to admit that it's probably a good thing that the unions are there.
weasel managers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is retarded (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It has to do with what is exemmpt from overtine and what is not. These people where told to work for nothing because they were exempt. The company lied to them and mistreated them.
Salary is not "you always work when we want you to, all the time."
Similar situation (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a very small IT community. There aren't a lot of IT-related jobs that don't have something to do with my company. At some point even if I did leave this job for another in the area I will likely work for or with one of the people that I believe is causing these problems at my company. I don't particularly want to move to a new market. I'm hopeful that the people causing the problems at this company will leave. However, having been in a similar situation before I know that the chances of that are slim to none. In the mean time my medical and financial health suffer.
Since we're talking about OT, maybe someone here can explain to me what our position is (by "our" I mean all of us in IT) thanks to Bush's changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in 2003. My understanding of his pro-employer changes to the FLSA mean that I can now be classified in such a way to prevent me from being eligible for OT. If that's so then how are these 2 lawsuits proceeding? The Sieblel article says 2000 to 2005 but my understanding is that 2004 and 2005 and the last 5 months of 2003 are times when OT wouldn't have applied. I'm assuming that's why my company decided to re-evaluate their position on job classifications. Comments?
Re:Similar situation (Score:4, Informative)
If you work in a different state, you're probably screwed. If your employer is based in a different state, they must still follow California law for workers based in this state.
Other important labor points in California:
There is no such thing as use it or lose it vacation time. If the company won't give you the time off to use it, they must still pay you your vacation time.
A credit check of a prospective employee can NOT be required and can NOT be a condition of employment (positions requiring a government security clearance being an exception).
California is a right to work state. Non-compete agreements are generally unenforceable.
IANAL.
Remember the Federal Rule Changes... (Score:1)
My company offered paid OT last summer for a project, we've yet to see any money from that. So guess what, we are not working any OT now. Oh and at completion we had $18mil in new sales.
What are you on? (Score:2)
Not everyone can switch jobs easily (Score:2)
That's not the case for everyone. We're not "patsys" we just don't have as many options. Not everyone lives in a good I.T. job market.
So when employers oblige you to work overtime for free, you do it. There is always another guy willing to take your job and do what the boss wants, but there is not always another job available for you where you will not have to do that.
So you make the best of it an
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Their bosses then threaten them with firing if they don't work free overtime. The headhunters; paid part of their wages plus the interest on the debt; threaten to cut off limbs and bash in heads , and some even occasionally do so, are done to keep everyone in line. Then, they pay them
Re: (Score:2)
Couple that with outsourcing to countries where your shiny new replacements can live like kings on a quarter of your salary and can race you to the bottom faster than speeding bullet. The average worker is more expendable as ever.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I'm concerned, until I can get my food for free, and a plumber to clean my drains for free and an electrician to fix my lights for free, I can't afford to work for free. But because there are people out there prepared to work for free, I am pushed up against a wall. So far, I've been lucky for the last 3 yea
Worst. Writing. This week. (Score:2)
That should have been phrased to explain that it took turnover into account. Otherwise anyone capable of arithmetic will read the rest of the article looking for clues about how half-time employees were filing overtime claims.
This is not good for US techies (Score:4, Insightful)
The risk of hiring employees in the US is already high, and cases like this are driving it higher. When the risk and overhead per employee goes up there is less hiring, and more conservatism in hiring, which means the applicant with anything odd on his resume gets summarily rejected.
I often see slashdotters complaining that companies won't take a chance on them; the company demands skill X and the applicant thinks he could learn X in no time. Well suppose they hire you and you don't learn X? How hard is it to fire you? In the US, a fired employee has many ways to sue.
If we continue down this road, we'll end up like France, where it's almost impossible to fire someone. Students there recently protested against a proposed law that would let employers fire them within the first N months. Needless to say, they have high unemployment.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Stronger employee protections mean higher unemployment.
As for crazy overtime, everyone should do it for a few months at least, to find out what it's like and find his own limits. After that, you learn to probe for this when interviewing for a job. My last several jobs have all been about 40-45 hours per week, plus rare crunches.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Are you one of those sorts that advocates that either people work for minimum wage and lose their house, or gets strong-armed into working unpaid overtime instead? Sounds like it.
You then proceed with this gem:
Re:This is not good for US techies (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not advocating that someone should get "shafted". But government interference in employer-employee relations is a two-edged sword. Personally I have no desire to sue my past or future employers over things like this. If I feel I am being treated unfairly, I'll explain my position. If they don't fix the issue, I'll leave. Those who do pursue these issues hurt the economy and the job market for all of us.
Job security by government fiat is not a good idea. It has a chilling effect on the employment market. Imagine if cell phone carriers had "job security". You sign up for Verizon, and then you can never "fire" them unless they do something horrible. This would cause:
If you have never hired an employee with your own money (I have), it may be hard to understand the employer's perspective. However it is crucial that you understand. Employers are not just magical money faucets. They are people and organizations trying to accomplish specific goals with limited resources. Hiring an employee is a big and scary decision.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the labor market is not free. State and federal governments impose many limits on what employers can do. That's the basis of this lawsuit. The employer did not break a contract. The employer broke labor law, which sets rules for overtime.
It's a miracle (Score:1)
Wow, 800 people getting $27k each from $27.50. It's obvious that Jesus is working at Siebel.
Damm Right You NEVER Work for Free (Score:1)
Employer Reference ? (Score:2)
Why doesn't someone set a website up where people can write references for their employers that prospective job candidates can lookup ? Imagine going to a job interview knowing how much unpaid overtime is "expected" of you or that your lunch breaks are stopwatched .
Am I the only one... (Score:3, Interesting)
Have fun working hard; I'm enjoying my 35 hour workweek and 2 hour lunches.
Re: (Score:2)