Who Owns Your Overtime? 381
HughPickens.com writes: Fran Sussner Rodgers writes in the NY Times that a little-noticed change in the American workplace is about to occur. Later this month the Department of Labor is expected to announce an adjustment to the Fair Labor Standards Act raising the salary threshold for overtime from $23,660 per year to at least double that threshold. In 1975, the last year the threshold was significantly raised, 60 percent of salaried workers fell within the requirement for overtime pay while today, only 8 percent do. The new requirement should be a welcome change for millions of American workers.
But the change also speaks to an issue that affects everyone, whether eligible for overtime or not — the clash between the finite amount of time employees actually have versus the desire of employers to treat time as an inexhaustible resource. Employees in the United States currently work more hours than workers in any of the world's 10 largest economies except Russia. When everything over 40 hours is free to the employer, the temptation to demand more is almost irresistible. But for most employees, the ones exempt from overtime rules, their managers have little incentive to look for ways to use their time more efficiently. "We are a tired, stressed and overworked nation, which has many negative consequences for our personal health and the care of our children. As a nation, we work harder and longer than almost all of our competitors, and much of that work is uncompensated," writes Rodgers. "Time is our personal currency. We parcel it out, hour by hour, to meet the demands placed on us. We all pay a steep price, as individuals and as a nation, when we can't meet our most important obligations."
But the change also speaks to an issue that affects everyone, whether eligible for overtime or not — the clash between the finite amount of time employees actually have versus the desire of employers to treat time as an inexhaustible resource. Employees in the United States currently work more hours than workers in any of the world's 10 largest economies except Russia. When everything over 40 hours is free to the employer, the temptation to demand more is almost irresistible. But for most employees, the ones exempt from overtime rules, their managers have little incentive to look for ways to use their time more efficiently. "We are a tired, stressed and overworked nation, which has many negative consequences for our personal health and the care of our children. As a nation, we work harder and longer than almost all of our competitors, and much of that work is uncompensated," writes Rodgers. "Time is our personal currency. We parcel it out, hour by hour, to meet the demands placed on us. We all pay a steep price, as individuals and as a nation, when we can't meet our most important obligations."
Russia's longer hours... (Score:2)
Russia works longer hours. Of course, that may have started during WW2 and just never entirely gotten back to normal. They amazingly shipped whole factories along the rail system to keep them away from the German advance, and they tied worker output directly to the food supply...
Efficiency (Score:3, Informative)
Contrary to popular belief: The number of hours worked do not correspond to the amount of work done
Take programmers, for example - The output of top notch programmers are often many times than those of the coding monkeys
I have had the privileges to work with legendary programmers, I saw with my own eyes the things that they have produced and none of the ordinary coding monkeys can even come close
Re:Efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
And they probably produce these miracle outputs in intense 3 or 4 hour bursts followed by paid sit-on-your-ass mental exhaustion.
Re: Efficiency (Score:5, Funny)
Also known as "meetings".
Re:Efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true, but employers are often greedy and treat their employees like robots...
Most people's optimal concentration span is relatively short, so anything that isn't ridiculously mundane can only be done efficiently for a few hours and regular breaks are needed... Even mundane work that doesn't require much thought will suffer from longer hours, as people will get tired and make more mistakes.
And ofcourse overworked, unhappy resentful employees won't expend any more than minimum effort.
I've seen many employers institute highly unpopular policies in an aim to increase output, only for it to have the opposite effect. Ofcourse then they blame the staff and never even consider that their own policies were the cause.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A lot of countries work longer hours:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
The US doesn't even make the top 10. Whoever wrote that article decided to (whether deliberately or not) cherry pick and say "ok, let's just filter among the largest grossing economies" and not necessarily the highest GDP per capita or even population. I don't know what number the US is, but I have a feeling we aren't even top 15, because I know Japan and China should probably fit somewhere closely after 10th.
In fact China may very well b
Re:Russia's longer hours... (Score:5, Interesting)
They get paid for their hours in China though. Our software engineers in Shanghai always asked for permission to work overtime before doing it. Could you imagine the cultural shift in the US if Americans did the same compared with the current situation where there's no hard boundary?
Re:Russia's longer hours... (Score:5, Interesting)
"A lot of countries work more hours"...
"Doesn't even make the top 10"....
Because your link included countries that somehow, amazingly, have even less worker protections than the US, and aren't our peers on the world stage.
Countries like Poland, Estonia, Greece, and Turkey.
Congratulations on making an stupid point with an improper comparison..
Meanwhile, among comparable countries (which, and this might be a shock to you, is the first step in making a valid comparison), we're among the most worked precisely because of our lack of time off, while other countries require more time off, yet manage similar output.
It's like excusing American gun violence by pointing to the murder rate in Somalia or Honduras.
And just as stupid.
Oh and you mocked unions again, even though they're the only reason for child labor laws, the 40hr work week, the weekend, holidays off, overtime pay, and a host of other worker rights. But again, your stupidity is nothing new. Leave it to a moron like you to act as though these are bad things.
Re: (Score:3)
Child labor laws were not brought about singularly by unions: [uiowa.edu]
Child labor began to decline as the labor and reform movements grew and labor standards in general began improving, increasing the political power of working people and other social reformers to demand legislation regulating child labor. Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined. . .
. . .and that's a generous assessment of union involvement with child labor laws in the US. Child labor had been on the decline, but the National Consumer League had been lobbying the US congress for some time, and finally made progress when sentiment changed largely due to the scarcity of jobs. [history.com]
This success arose not only from popular hostility to child labor, generated in no small measure by the long-term work of the child labor committees and the climate of reform in the New Deal period, but also from the desire of Americans in a period of high unemployment to open jobs held by children to adults.
This is not to say that unions weren't important, but they were as much a part of a larger social movement as they were a cause.
Re: Russia's longer hours... (Score:3)
Meh, it's not that bad. Just put down "Independent Contractor."
Re: (Score:3)
If you work one month into 2015, stop work, and then reenter the work force at the end of 2016, you still have all of the years on your resume covered, and could take a break as long as nearly two years. It's very unlikely anyone would question it, or check it.
Re: (Score:3)
Please check the bls.gov website. Your figures don't match reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, not so much. You're welcome to keep that tinfoil hat on, and keep buying gold though.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/... [usnews.com]
http://azizonomics.com/2013/06... [azizonomics.com]
http://www.bloombergview.com/a... [bloombergview.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"You'll always have your very rich who don't have to work and your very poor who choose not to..."
Huh? Run that by me again...
The "very rich who don't have to work" amount to perhaps the wealthiest 1% (or much less) of the population. So we can ignore them, as it's a vanishingly small proportion.
But "your very poor who choose not to [work]..."?
Surely someone who is very poor has the greatest incentive of all to work? According to all economics textbooks, anyway. Remember how the marginal value of income inc
Re: (Score:3)
Number of hours working and effective work are two different things. It's what you achieve that matters.
What baffles me is that there's a salary threshold for overtime at all. Only thing that matters shall be hours exceeding normal hours.
In some cases there may be two levels of overtime pay as well - like where I live where overtime is 1.5 or 2.0 times the hour pay for overtime hours. No ceiling on salary for overtime pay, but there's some union agreements on total number of overtime hours that may be worke
Salaries should be limited (Score:3, Insightful)
They have incentive to work you longer than the 40 hours a week a salary is calculated based on (FTE): the more hours you work the cheaper your labor rate is.
Re:Salaries should be limited (Score:4, Insightful)
No it isn't; you don't get anything more done, unless it is for one (maybe two) weeks out of 8-12 weeks, and even then it is limited to about a 15-20% increase for those weeks.
Speaking as an employer who needs to get an "honest week's work" consistently out of my employees, I discourage overtime. There are a few exceptions (deadlines must be met, sometimes people have to chip in more to cover for others on vacation our overloaded, etc.), and we pay straight hourly wages for salaried employees earning less than $80k. The big exception is entry level engineers, who generally need to put in more than 40 hours per week in order to cover both trip aiming and "working" time.
The alternative is hiring and firing, which doesn't really work for either side.
If we are forced to pay time-and-a-half overtime for an entry level engineer (more importantly is the idea of them being non-exempt-- which means they need to have scheduled breaks and lunch), we will never hire an engineer without appropriate experience in our field again. Young professionals being treated like factory, retail, or unskilled labor destroys a professional work ethic. Professionals manage their own time, take breaks when they need to, finish their work, and don't use a time clock.
Re:Salaries should be limited (Score:5, Insightful)
Professionals manage their own time, take breaks when they need to, finish their work, and don't use a time clock.
While it would be nice if this were true, many companies leverage the attitude in order to add unofficial overtime.
They are not demanding you work 50 or 60 hours. Instead the boss demands that workers finish a feature by a specific date. In order to meet that date the extra time must be submitted.
Usually that can be avoided by good interviewing and identifying those companies. I've had one job that had that mentality, and it lasted about six months (when the next job was lined up.)
If the workers are putting in unpaid overtime that is a symptom both of managers who abuse their workers, and workers who don't value their time. If the workers started to value their time they'd demand change within the organization and leave en mass if it didn't change. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, they don't. Fear, fear of security, fear of unemployment, fear of change, fear of whatever, something is messing it up.
While a union is a terrible fit for computer programmers due to the wide variety of work skills, it is something that comes up in discussions every few years. If tech workers and programmers as a collective demanded the change, it could happen quickly.
TL;DR: Until a critical mass of workers demand better work conditions, bad businesses won't change. Good businesses already treat people with respect.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm too lazy to look up the laws for you but I believe s/he just means they don't have a different pay modifier for overtime. The Fed works that way, once you hit a certain salary level instead of getting time and a half or whatever you instead get an arbitrary hourly rate that isn't quite as much of a boost. And once your salary reaches the point that you make that much money an hour anyways then you just earn your normal rate of pay for those extra hours. The current overtime rate I believe is around $37
Who owns your overtime? (Score:3)
Save Money and Just say no (Score:5, Insightful)
Save money, as much as you can. Then tell your employers NO. No pager, no cell phone, no email, no overtime, no working late. Leave that as the legacy to your kids. The MBAs want to leave the piles of money they steal for other workers as their legacy to their kids. Don't leave your kids workplaces of fear and intimidation. Show these companies that they don't own you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad Section 1706 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 makes doing that very hard (at least not if you want to not get in trouble with the IRS)
Re: (Score:2)
"Too bad Section 1706 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 makes doing that very hard (at least not if you want to not get in trouble with the IRS)"
I am not American. Can you please expand?
Re:Save Money and Just say no (Score:4, Insightful)
Without being american or knowing that piece of legislation I think I can take an educated guess. This will probably be legislation that says even if you are incorporated if you a trading your time for money with the same company you will still be treated as an employee for the purposes of tax an other legislation.
The equivilent in the UK would be the IR35 rules.
You get around this by having more than one client / changing employers on a regular basis or selling items to do with the business.
These pieces of legislation exist for two main reasons. The first is to protect the tax base. The second is to prevent companies from forcing their employees to incorporate to avoid employment law provisions.
Re:Save Money and Just say no (Score:4, Interesting)
Which has nothing to do with switching to a contractor instead of employee. The difference there is you're always paid per hour. If they want you to work more, you are guaranteed to be paid more. You don't get the luxury of paid holidays and sick leave that employment law gets you, but you tend to get paid a much higher hourly rate.
You'll probably end up paying the same in tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? I am talking about a piece of legislation that will define you as an employee irrespective of whether you are working via an incorporated company or not.
As for tax there is a huge difference. Firstly you are able to expense anything that you could conceivably put through as a company expense. All those coffee meetings, that new Oculus rift, your 4k monitors.
Then on top of that you will structure yourself to minimise your personal taxable income to where the band goes higher than corporate. You may
Re: (Score:2)
I showed companies that they don't own me by incorporating myself and becoming an independent contract laborer. Choosing not to live in the 'luxury' of the money I was making (and it was substantial). With the money I saved I retired before my 40th birthday.
This can backfire on you. If you ever run out of clients and decide to be an employee again, you will find that companies will look for "corporate" workers. In other words, people who have been enslaved to corporations and did not have the balls to actually go out and earn what the deserved.
Re: (Score:3)
He said he's not American, so he probably doesn't live in an insane country that ties health care to employment and insurance companies.
Um.. how? (Score:3)
Millennials have already cut the cord. They have Internet, but they needed that to get their jobs. In America where these abuses happen most you have to own a car or again, no job. Sure, you might get by for a year or two without
The current value is barely above minimum wage! (Score:5, Interesting)
In Washington state where I am, the current value is $9.47 (pretty high in the country and our economy is great, thanks). This current cutoff is the salary equivalent of making a little over $11 an hour, IF they only work you 40 hours a week. That's...pretty low. It also means that if they work you something like nine and a half hours a day on average, you're making less than minimum wage by hour. There's a lotta low grade QA jobs in the tech industry with hours like that and pretty low pay...
Additionally "computer professionals" are exempt (Score:5, Interesting)
In 1996, ...Congress amended the FLSA to include a specific exemption, at Section 13(a)(17), for “Computer Professionals.”
1. The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;
2. The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; [or]
3. The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems;
http://www.generalcounsellaw.c... [generalcounsellaw.com]
FLSA: FUBAR.
Re: (Score:3)
In 1996, ...Congress amended the FLSA to include a specific exemption, at Section 13(a)(17), for “Computer Professionals.”
1. The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications; 2. The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; [or] 3. The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems;
http://www.generalcounsellaw.c... [generalcounsellaw.com]
FLSA: FUBAR.
You might note that the Labor Act does not say that the company CANNOT pay you overtime. Just that they aren't FORCED to. A decent company that cares about it's employees and it's own long term viability would pay overtime to it's employees anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, sure, but what's your point? Do you think they put the exemption there for companies to differentiate themselves with their altruistic overtime policy?
Another thing to note is that many computer professionals make above the old max, *and* the new max -- but as was mentioned above these rates are ridiculously low, near minimum wage. So again, why the exemption?
Previously, computer professionals had been considered exempt under section 13(a)(1), along with the exemption for executives, administrators, and professionals, but under Section 13(a)(17) a specific exemption was provided for any “computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker”
(from the same site I linked to).
To me it's strange they call-out computer professionals explicitly, and that they added it in 1996 when progr
Re:Additionally "computer professionals" are exemp (Score:4, Interesting)
These rates need to be higher, and pegged to cost of living based on location.
Not really. The exemption just needs to be removed. Full stop. If a company would like a person to work more hours, then they can pay for it. If they want to exempt their C level employees or people for whom working extra hours may increase a bonus, stock option, or company stock, then that is fine.
Re: (Score:3)
2. Charge $50-$150 per hr, and collect all of it, rather than the paltry $20/hr or so equivalent you'd get as an employee with the employer skimming the rest.
As long as people want to take the "easy" way out and just be an employee so they don't have to deal with administrative tasks, there will be an excess supply of employees, and employers can get away with paying low wages and demanding excessive overtime. Finding clients on your own and doing your own
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY.
Amazing and dreadful, simultaneously (Score:5, Insightful)
If I call that a salary then it is a guaranteed weekly wage, but I can work that employee 60 (or 70 or 80) hours a week with no extra pay.
Fock me...There is no chance a system like that would be abused.
Re:Amazing and dreadful, simultaneously (Score:5, Insightful)
its worse yet. the employer's abuse of employees includes not hiring 'full time', but only hiring you as a 'contractor'. my last gig was as a contractor; unwilling, as I refer to it, since I really wanted to have benefits.
see, in the US (for those not from here) if we call you a 'contractor' in the software field, then we can have you work 40 hours/week minimum, likely ask for more and not pay more (just guilting you into working more, the unspoken threat is to cancel your contract the very next day). but the super sweet deal they get is that they don't cover your healthcare (not one penny), they don't cover the national holidays, the religious holidays or even your actual sick days. all that costs you a day's pay for each day you take off during those times. we have a lot of US monday holidays and, as a contractor, I hated it. I got 32 hours of pay that week, other fulltime employees got their full week's pay and 1 day loss of pay is actually a lot, when you add it up. and no, as a contractor, you do NOT get paid more than the f/t guys. that stopped happening 10 or 20 years ago, at least. today, the contractor in sw is the lowest rank, the most disposable and everyone knows it.
oh, and we were told to take our laptops home with us each nite. sometimes we would have to call in to a conf call at 7am or 8am and while its nice to be able to do that from home, it still was extra hours work and even taking company property home feels wrong to me, if I'm not 'part of them' and not a full employee. in fact, if the laptop gets lost/stolen/broken, I may very well be liable for it.
contracting sucks. don't let anyone tell you its good or fun. you take it because its all that's offered, not because you want it.
Re:Amazing and dreadful, simultaneously (Score:5, Insightful)
As a contractor, you get higher pay which more than compensates the additional taxes you need to pay and your health care costs. Unless you are stupid. I'll put it mildly, contracting is not for you..
Re:Amazing and dreadful, simultaneously (Score:5, Insightful)
contracting sucks. don't let anyone tell you its good or fun. you take it because its all that's offered, not because you want it
You're doing it wrong.
If you feel pinched by the fact that a sick day or a holiday isn't a billable day, then you have made some very poor choices about what you're selling, and how much you're charging for it. Why should anyone take advice from some one who hasn't done a little basic math before signing a contract?
Re: (Score:3)
Did you even read his post? Job offers don't just arrive in the mail every day in some places. Some people can't just up sticks and move their family to another city or commute 5 hours a day just for a slightly better job.
These companies are not dumb. They know that people come to rely on their jobs and that the market is such that they can't just quit the moment they feel undervalued. That's why they force them to become contractors and offer low pay. The market is broken because of a lack of supply and in
Re: (Score:3)
I wholeheartedly agree. As an S-Corp I negotiate a contract to perform a specific body of work. This does include attending and presenting at reviews so I don't get to work from home 100%, only ~98%. I do bill by the hour at a rate significantly higher than I pay myself, in fact I try to minimize my salary (more on that in a minute). This is to cover all the normal expenses for both employer and employee, such as maxing out my 401K, interesting that the employer can contribute more than the employee abo
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? Most contractors don't make time and a half but they are hourly workers. I make a lot of money as a contractor. Substantially more than a FT employee, even covering my own taxes, insurance and PTO days. Because working over 40 costs money they almost never ask for it. No one bothers me at home because they could easily rack up hours they don't have budgeted for.
As far as getting dismissed? Not really a factor. In most markets IT workers are in high demand. Canceling your contract risks being wi
Re:Amazing and dreadful, simultaneously (Score:5, Informative)
If you are in a " you're 1099 and here's your desk and working hours and no we're not paying you by the hour" situation then you need to file a grievance with the DOL and IRS. Trust me i work in an industry where we utilize contractors all the time, and i can promises you that they are violating the law, and you will win if you go after them (and the government will help you with that too). Sadly your "winnings" is usually that you are now a "employee" and the "employer" just fires you. But they end up paying a bunch of back taxes and fines/fees. So if you don't' like them and plan on leaving anyways, file a grievance.
Re:Amazing and dreadful, simultaneously (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, sounds like a sucky culture in the USA.
I employ >50 (Australia: including >10 engineers) and I don't expect anyone to work more than 40 hours.
Sure, I could be richer if I flogged my salaried staff, but life is more than about work.
Re: (Score:3)
To be honest in Australia you probably wouldn't end up richer as your employees would walk if you pushed that hard.
Re: (Score:3)
ah, but remember while other countries think of jobs and the economy as tools that serve the people, in America we have it reversed: workers and citizens exist to drive the economy and make businesses and their executive richer.
Re: (Score:3)
In Washington state where I am, the current value is $9.47 (pretty high in the country and our economy is great, thanks). This current cutoff is the salary equivalent of making a little over $11 an hour, IF they only work you 40 hours a week. That's...pretty low. It also means that if they work you something like nine and a half hours a day on average, you're making less than minimum wage by hour. There's a lotta low grade QA jobs in the tech industry with hours like that and pretty low pay...
It's illegal to pay below minimum wage, no matter how you structure it. Of course, those $11/hour workers have no idea, so an employer can indeed get away with what you describe--but it's not legal.
I Do (Score:5, Insightful)
Every once in a while some manager will try to discreetly broach the subject of fudging the books so I work longer one week, take some time off the next week and smooth it all out. To which I usually respond, loudly, with a beautifully crafted note of surprise in my voice, "You want me to FALSIFY MY TIMECARD?" They usually quickly deny it and scurry off to harass the salaried employees some more.
I'm quite wary of offers to come onboard as a FTE, as that usually means the company has a lot of overtime in the cards in the next two or three months, and a layoff cycle coming right after that. Fortunately their offers are usually so laughably bad that they're pretty easy to resist.
Re: (Score:2)
"Leaning toward contract work, if I work an hour I get paid an hour."
Well, I of course don't know your exact conditions but as a general matter, if you are a contractor, you should be paid tad more than an hour for working an hour (I don't mean it literally but that your hourly rate should have to be quite higher than that of the equivalent salaried, which outcomes to the same).
Even Adam Smith, some 250 years ago, dedicated a few paragraphs to the issue .
Re:I Do (Score:4, Interesting)
You seriously need to look at what skills are in demand. There are MANY MANY MANY skills that pay over $100 per hour. Day rates of $1500 are far from unheard of. My direct experience sits outside IT but a Senior Highway Engineer c$130 per hour, a flood modeller c$90/hr, a Surveillance Superintendent $120/hr, an onshore rig supervisor $1500 / day
Re: (Score:2)
Software development, $100/hr.
Re: (Score:3)
$600 a day? I'm sorry, but nothing is worth that. Your employer is a sucker. Those lowly full time employees you look down your nose at are ultimately the ones paying your extortive rate of pay.
Either that, or you are completely full of shit and just trolling.
You are either very young, in a low paying field, not very good at your job, or live in rural Kentucky if you think $600 per day is extortion. That is not even $100 per hour. I make that as a software developer as an FTE even without including benefits in the midwest in my mid-30's. And my employer is getting a great deal and knows it, which is why I am paid extra for overtime which includes either extra bonus or extra PTO days to compensate. My young daughter and second on the way are what keeps me from ta
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
$600 a day? I'm sorry, but nothing is worth that. Your employer is a sucker. Those lowly full time employees you look down your nose at are ultimately the ones paying your extortive rate of pay.
Spoken like someone who has never done the actual math (let alone paid self-employment taxes, spent time arranging for that next contract, buying your own health insurance and all the rest). People who bill $600 a day are lucky to take half of that home at the end of the day.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are a contract worker, you should be charging about 2x your salaried hourly rate, to cover self employment tax, retirement plan, sick, vacation, and holiday pay, overhead costs, and ...profit!
When you charge that rate, for at least 1,600 hours billed per year, you come out ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
"he works 47 weeks a year and thus makes about $141,000 a year. That's not outrageous for an experienced, skilled technical professional."
That's not outrageous for a *salaried* experienced, skilled technical professional. For a contractor, which needs to pay for his healthcare, unemployment, retirement, sick days, marketing and accountability all out of his own pocket, much less so.
I think it is the fear of being sacked (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember when I lived in the States. It was the life of a slave. Working, working and more working. I was in a bilingual position in a school (it was a job exchange program between my country and USA).
One day, the principal gathered all the teachers and said:
"We have decided to help our students by giving them one hour more of tutoring classes after your (very long) school hours. These additional hours are strictly voluntary and they won't be paid. But please do it for the kids!"
Being a foreigner, I thought that everybody was going to reject such a clear exploitation. But all the teachers reacted with enthusiasm:
"Yes! We'll do it for the kids! For the kids!"
I said no and everybody look at me with hostility. Afterwards, I realized that I had tenure in my home country and was able to say no. All the American teachers could say no but the principal could fire them with no reason at all. Hence, they did anything that the principal said.
I went back to my home country and keep on working in my high school and, afterwards, in the government and the World Bank. I never worked as much as worked in the States (and the salary was not good).
Re: (Score:2)
May I ask what state you taught in? In most areas of the US the principal cannot simply fire a teacher. Usually that's because teachers have relatively strong unions, but even in non-union areas it's not my experience that the principal has control over personnel like that without cause.
Re: (Score:2)
It was in Houston (Texas). I don't know if it is the same in other school districts.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is his inferred perception of events was that the teachers must've feared termination to agree to a such a one-sided deal.
The truth may be even sadder, since the parent is correct about the strong teacher unions. "Better to go along with the program!" Than to be the tall poppy. [wikipedia.org]
Re:I think it is the fear of being sacked (Score:5, Informative)
Teachers' unions have been under brutal attack for over 30 years now and there are today very few teachers with "strong" union protection left. Cf Wisconsin. Some - although not a large percentage - of K-12 school districts have a concept called 'tenure' which is often confused with elite university tenure but in the K-12 world generally means "can't be fired without the firing party following HR procedures and going through an appeal process". Which doesn't mean much in the end either.
sPh
Re: (Score:2)
Teachers' unions have been under brutal attack for over 30 years now and there are today very few teachers with "strong" union protection left. Cf Wisconsin. Some - although not a large percentage - of K-12 school districts have a concept called 'tenure' which is often confused with elite university tenure but in the K-12 world generally means "can't be fired without the firing party following HR procedures and going through an appeal process". Which doesn't mean much in the end either.
sPh
Isn't it the difference between at-will firing and for-cause firing, plus a few extras on the union side (e.g. an appeals process). The former incentivizes much more doing-what-the-boss-wants. The latter provides better job security, because the transaction costs of firing you (including risk of a lawsuit) go way up.
Re: (Score:3)
In New York, our governor is trying to undo any form of tenure that public teachers have by using high stakes tests rigged to have students fail. These tests count for half of a teacher's evaluation. If a teacher fails their evaluation two years in a row, they can be fired within 90 days. If a teacher fails their evaluation three years in a row, they MUST be fired (for incompetence) in 30 days. There is no defense they are allowed to give for this except for fraud. In short, our governor has ensured th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure where you are from, but culturally the work ethic in the US can be quite different than elsewhere. The assumption you have that the teachers agreed out of fear of termination is probably unfounded. Teachers in the US tend to have strong union representation where cause for termination must be meticulously documented before any action is taken. The hostility directed at you may have simply been because they volunteered and you didn't.
Re: (Score:3)
One day, the principal gathered all the teachers and said:
"We have decided to help our students by giving them one hour more of tutoring classes after your (very long) school hours. These additional hours are strictly voluntary and they won't be paid. But please do it for the kids!"
Being a foreigner, I thought that everybody was going to reject such a clear exploitation.
Your assumption is that everyone else thought it was exploitation. This is probably not the case. Most teachers in the USA do it because they like teaching. The pay in the USA for teachers can be quite poor and a lot of teachers have a spouse that is a doctor or a business owner that actually supports the family. My mom was a teacher for many years making a small fraction of the money that my dad made. She did it solely for the enjoyment not for the money. She routinely worked extra hours many times t
Re: (Score:3)
It was exploitation and the teachers went along with it pretending enthusiasm because dissent is the first step to open rebellion and is thus punished.
Except that most the teachers I know could quit tomorrow if they wanted. Most don't even need the money. It's hard to exploit someone who doesn't have to work. Yes, teachers (and the principal) are being exploited in some way by society with low pay but that doesn't mean there aren't a large number of teachers who still want the job even though they can make higher pay working elsewhere. They want to be there, they want to work, they want to do whatever they can to help their students. There is no fear
Efficiency (Score:2)
If I parsed the sentence correctly then it should be up to the employee to look for ways to manage his or her time more efficiently. If you have to rely on your manager then you're in wrong job.
Re: (Score:2)
"If I parsed the sentence correctly then it should be up to the employee to look for ways to manage his or her time more efficiently."
Humm... yes. That's exactly what a manager's work is: *manage* his or her resources the most efficient way.
And there's an non explicitly laid out understandment there: there's no incentive for the (fool) manager to make better use of their reportees time, but there's also a strong incentive for the (clever) employees to not make efficient use of their time either.
"If you hav
We've only got ourselves to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Brit now living in the US I can clearly see the reason. Even though many companies in the EU won;t stop trying, this endless free overtime malarkey generally does not fly at all because most people there just won't go along with it.
The problem exists in the US because for some reason, the average American employee's mentality is to just accept and give in to whatever employers do to you without any questions or push back at all. If US employees saw their employment contract as what it actually is, a business deal between equals that exchanges time for money at a fixed rate, The problem would end overnight.
People that complain about having to work endless unpaid overtime just need to grow a pair and stand up to being abused. Do exactly what you're paid for, then go home. Seriously.
Re:We've only got ourselves to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans, for the most part, have bought into the "American Dream". Whatever it was before, the American Dream is now:
It's not might, it's not could, it's will. Despite the fact that anyone can look around them and see it's not true, they've bought into this idea that working long hours, for free, will rocket them up the chain into power and money, and then they can work short weeks and command others to work long weeks. It's the same reason that ~50% of America keeps voting for Republicans who promise tax cuts (for the rich) and end to subsidies (for the poor), even when those same voters don't benefit from the tax cuts and would be hurt by loss of those subsidies.
And, on top of that, the promises pit those voter against themselves: if you don't do your expected 80hrs/week, the other guy might, and then he'll become rich and powerful. And who will you have to blame if that happens? That's right, no one but yourself.
We have this weird lust for capitalism, making excuses when it beats us down. "Oh, that's out of love. Capitalism knows we need to hurt in order to get better." The outcome of this is profits > people, even when someone who seriously spouts such nonsense is harmed by the very policies. Because, in the end, we're told that we're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires, and we're willing to hurt ourselves in the present if we can benefit from those same policies in the future.
I think that America has immense potential, but at the moment the majority of us are stupid crazy.
Re: We've only got ourselves to blame (Score:2)
Well, not ALWAYS the case (Score:3)
I will add one thing for the non-US audience. This summary suggests that in America all salaried employees get paid for 40 hours but can be required to work unlimited hours. This is NOT universal. There are many professional jobs that pay the full hourly rate to employees for required time beyond 40 hours, including travel time. My company has thousands of employees and pays fairly. My coworkers from other large engineer firms generally have similar experiences, though some have told me that the first 4 hours of OT always was free, with compensation beyond that.
If I was switching jobs I'm not sure I'd take one where workers regularly are expected to work (significantly) beyond 40 hours. Don't just accept it because you think that's the way it has to be in America.
Re:Well, not ALWAYS the case (Score:4, Informative)
Overtime is not guaranteed for anybody classified as a professional -- and our last president decided to expand professional to include "anybody who who uses a computer for a primary function of their job." Smart companies who don't like to burn out workers will provide benefits like OT past 40 hours (or in your case, 44), and discourage work outside of business hours. Companies that see employees simply as Human "Resources," no different than copiers or PCs will often get as much as they can out of them without regard to efficiencies, health or happiness.
After the stock market crashed, I saw the shift at my own place of business. Positions were cut or not re-filled after retirements, and more and more workload was added to the job. The number of hours started creeping up -- slowly at first, but then as it happened it became normal then expected. Where we should have two full time shifts we have one. All the after-hours changes and maintenance work is done by those that work the day shifts. It's caused quite a few people in our department to look for new jobs.
I used to work at Intel, and they had a very strong, employee-focused approach at their jobs. They highly discouraged anything beyond 40 hours, and if you did (it happened every so often), we got paid. Projects that required additional resources generally got them either via temporary help or from others in the organization. Places like that do exist, but they are becoming rarer and rarer.
Re: (Score:2)
Places like that do exist, but they are becoming rarer and rarer.
In the big companies. In smaller companies, I'm seeing more and more job ads that promise work/life balance and/or unlimited PTO. So I think the pendulum has started to swing back at least a little.
It's our own fault (Score:4, Interesting)
We allowed ourselves to be convinced we are overpaid. We are extremely prosperous and have a large population. There is no reason not to go to the 6 hour day/30 hour week and employ more people. Overtime is supposed to be for unforeseen circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
"Overtime is supposed to be for unforeseen circumstances."
Well, man, my new yatch ended up being more expensive than I thought, so can you throw some more free time for me, pretty pleeeease?
Re: (Score:2)
Not uncompensated (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, it's compensated all right, it's just not the poor bastard doing the overtime that's getting the dough, it's the directors and the shareholders.
If you work for free, that's called slavery and you're a mug. And American holidays are a joke. And the American health care system is a joke and the internet competition is a joke. Brainwashed.
In Sweden,,, (Score:2)
Working harder and longer? (Score:2)
You must do extremely productive then.
Unless the truth is you're not working harder, just longer to make up for being a slacker.
You're a slacker McFly.
Middle Management (Score:2)
So I wonder what percentage of middle management this will push into hourly employees?
As it is, I've notice a seemingly endless half-days for them as they bitterly complain about those below them demanding comp. time as a minimum.
Now they are in the same boat. I see a lot of bloat being cut from their ranks.
Who am I kidding? They will just give raises to just clear the threshold of of being salaried while demanding even more time since everyone just got a raise.
My developers work 37 hr weeks (Score:3, Informative)
Honest Employers.... (Score:3)
Give you 1 hour of comp time for every hour of overtime you work. I am salaried and when I work over, I take each over hour as time off.
Honest employers do this, Dishonest ones just tell you the "sucks to be you" line.
Free Saturdays! (Score:3)
My employer makes all salaried employees work Saturdays. Thankfully it's only a half-day, but had they been up-front about this, I would not have agreed or would have asked for significantly more money. I'm appreciative that they only ask me to work every other Saturday but there's zero pay for it. I put in about 200 hours per month while salaried positions elsewhere only require 160 hours a month. And to top it off, I've only earned 3 paid time off days in over a year, because all the additional time I work isn't counted against time off for doctor's visits and the like. It's bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not gonna argue tooooo much, but remember that the pool of good jobs is a lot smaller than the pool of people who want them. Slackers and people who don't advance their own skills won't get too far, but if everyone did their damnedest, a lot of people would still get stuck with the jobs nobody wants.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
remember that the pool of good jobs is a lot smaller than the pool of people who want them.
The pool of good jobs is smaller than the pool of people that want them, but bigger than the pool of people that are qualified for them. I live in San Jose, California, and nearly every company here has vacancies they can't fill. Also, neither the pool of jobs, nor the pool of workers, is fixed. Companies will expand if they think skilled workers will be available. Likewise, people will enter the labor market, and improve their skills, if they see jobs being offered. Economics is not zero sum.
Re: (Score:3)
I live in San Jose, California, and nearly every company here has vacancies they can't fill.
Are they offering a competitive wage for those jobs? One that's appropriate for the high cost of living there? We still see dozens of applicants for every opening, and we have openings across the country.
Re:*I* own my overtime (Score:5, Insightful)
2) News flash, most industries have competition "across the street", yet they still manage to train their employees. The trick is to ALSO pay them a decent wage. If it's worth it for the competition to hire them out from under you, then you're under-paying them. Training isn't a form of compensation, it's a capital investment that also incurs maintenance expenses.
The job market is a big place, and there's probably only a handful of jobs that demand all the skills you require. Why should I spend MY precious time training for your job, when that job will filled long before my training is complete?
Re: (Score:3)
We often pay people for training, but that comes with a commitment to stay with the company for a period or reimburse the costs. It may still be more lucrative for the employee to leave, but for us, we often attempt to determine if the employee's value has increased based upon that degree/certification. It's not difficult to deal with.
Why such short employment (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we should ask why the average employment length is so short? I really doubt it's because the employee's skills are no longer needed, and it's probably not because the employee thinks a different work environment will be substantially more pleasant.
I suspect the usual culprit is an industry culture that doesn't give regular raises to employees to ensure that they remain appropriately compensated. If the only way I can get paid what I'm worth is to get a job at a different company, then what do realistically expect me to do?
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps we should ask why the average employment length is so short?
Three years stuck in the same job is not "short". People should changes jobs at every 2-3 years to learn new things, and cross pollinate ideas between companies. That makes both people and companies more productive. Places where job hopping is easy tend to be more productive and innovative than where culture or rigid labor markets discourage it.
Re:Why such short employment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"I get paid a salary with the understanding that I am being employed to work well over 40 hours a week on most weeks"
I really can't conclude if you are a troll or just stupid.
I had a look at your lattest posts, so I'm inclined to think the former.
But just to be constructive and offer some substance to the answer:
What kind of contract is this that gets one side fully tied (the wages) but the other comes with no top boundary (the hours in exchange to the fixed wages)? It isn't neither liberal nor logical.
You
Re: (Score:2)
So, someone decides they're ok with working longer hours for more money and you conclude that this is so bizarre that they must be a troll? Hell, there's a name for it: a workaholic. Or maybe he just likes the extra money that he brings in when choosing to work at jobs that demand longer hours. It's not all that unusual for people to enjoy making more money. Maybe he's young and single, or doesn't have kids, and so can choose to spend his free time earning money. Who knows?
No, it's not a choice I'd mak
Re: (Score:2)
"So, someone decides they're ok with working longer hours for more money and you conclude that this is so bizarre that they must be a troll?"
No, I explicitly said that I couldn't conclude if he was troll or just stupid. It was reading his post history that inclined me towards troll more than to stupid. Have you any reading comprehension problems, mate?
"Hell, there's a name for it: a workaholic."
Ok, I concede you that and change "either troll or stupid" for "either troll or insane".
"Or maybe he just likes
Re: (Score:2)
"What? People are working for free in the USA? What kind of slavery is that?"
Worse than that. It's communist.
Re: (Score:2)
More like they've decided their salary's necessary to keep a roof over their family's heads and food on the table, and they aren't willing to risk that when the boss says "Work however much I tell you to or I'll replace you with someone who will.".