I didn't even know that IT workers qualified for overtime right now as it is. I certainly never have and I haven't known any sysadmins or developers that got paid overtime. Maybe the law they pass should be the opposite of this one and force all IT workers to get paid hourly and qualify for overtime, then maybe I'd have to do fewer late night deployments!
Most IT professionals are on salary, and therefore don't get overtime anyway. Of all professions in the US, IT is one of the most underpopulated. Even at the height of unemployment rates in the last few years, I could walk off my current job and probably get a new job in a couple weeks. Pass whatever laws you want, I'll still get paid well with good benefits, because my employer knows if they don't treat me well, someone else will, and they'll have to find someone else, who will probably be at least as expensive as me, but without all the institutional knowledge that I have.
People who need laws protecting them are the ones that are in menial labor jobs that can be replaced by any schmoe off the street. IT professionals are not those people. For some reason, there just aren't enough people going into IT/Software... which is bad for the country, but good for those in that field.
" People who need laws protecting them are the ones that are in menial labor jobs that can be replaced by any schmoe off the street. " Nice to see you are no schmoe and know who needs protective laws. Unfortunate that IT professionals are a dime a dozen from my POV and this will just make it easier to cycle through cheaper labout from others POV. Anyways, good to get an opinion from someone inside the warming soup with such high opinions.
The definitions of exempt vs. non exempt in the FLSA have always seemed somewhat arbitrary to me. How about we just let employers offer what ever terms they want and employees decide to accept or reject them? As a bonus we can downsize government by getting rid of the FLSA enforcement bureaucracy .
It's as if you're saying "I don't understand what this part does, therefore it can't be that important."
Eliminating minimum wage or overtime pay would definitely have a material effect on the economy. Nobody disputes that. If you want to get rid of labor laws, you should either argue that that effect is desirable, or argue that while the effect is undesirable, freedom to contract is more important.
OK. I guess my description of voluntary contracts wasn't clear enough.
I think freedom to contract is more important than some national standard regarding minimum wage, sick pay, hours worked per day/week/month, vacation time, etc.
Regardless, I was commenting specifically on the exempt/non-exempt distinctions in the law which are terribly vague and open to interpretation as well as easily influenced via politics (i.e. certain industries and occupations will get favored treatment in the legislation due to lobbying efforts and not due to some justifiable public policy goal).
The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at a lower limit. If you leave market forces at work, you'll get people working at near slavery conditions because they lack other economic choices (or they think hey do, which is the same thing). Remember that some people used to choose slavery before it was outlawed. The lawmaker sets minimum standards so people don't get exploited because they come from a weak negotiating position.
Specifically speaking to this law, i don't think it matters as much because IT professionals don't have a weak bargaining position.
The reason behind labor standards is that without them companies will do everything in their power to take advantage of their workforce (see early 20th century America, specifically coal mining in Appalachia, which, to be honest, hasn't changed all that much - see modern day, specifically the Upper Branch mine disaster and Massey Energy).
Labor standards enforce a minimum acceptable standard and prevent the kind of race-to-the-bottom we see now (between states, between regions, between countries).
We all need to remember that many of our positions are the exception, not the rule (i.e. we often have the flexibility and freedom to negotiate) There are still hourly contracts in IT and these would be affected by a rule like this. MS gamed the system in WA state to avoid paying overtime while still being able to take advantage of hiring contractors instead of salaried employees (this was in the 90s - unsure if the same system is still in place). Meanwhile, chipping away at the higher salaried workers just makes it easier to chip away at the lower salaried workers (e.g. retail workers, restaurant workers).
> The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at a lower limit.
The people below the limit do not magically increase their productivity above the limit. It simply becomss illegal for them to work. They are the American untouchables, farmed by welfare agencies for grant money or simply discarded.
We should. The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating agreements between employers and employees. It has no real authority to do so in the first place, and nobody ever seems to consider the unintended consequences of even nominally well-meaning regulations.
For example, as somebody pointed out above, minimum wage laws don't make sure everybody makes a living wage, they just make sure that some people are essentially prohibited from working. I mean, if I wanted to work for, say, $3.75 / hour, compared to the alternative of $0.00/ hour, why should the government prohibit me from making that deal with an employer?
And there are lots of people who want to work for $3.75/hour. In particular people who have no experience need to offset that fact by charging less for their labor. For them, getting the experience is much more important than getting $8.75/hour + benefits.
I am not familiar with US law but if the name of this act ("Fair Labor Standards Act") is anything to go by then it sounds similar to what we have in South Africa, i.e.:
- this only covers basic conditions of employment; you're still free to negotiate things that the act doesn't guarantee you
- if you earn more than a certain amount or are in a management position, you don't get certain protections because such legislation would interfere with your freedom to enter contracts on your own terms
It seems pretty fair to me. It's really directed at protecting people who earn minimum or low wages and don't have much other choice. Somebody managing a startup for $1/month -- that's their right to take that risk, and obviously the pay-off is when things hit it big. Somebody who earns more than a certain amount/month doesn't need basic income protection and presumably has freedom to move to a new job to negotiate terms like overtime. (I did at my previous job; I'm currently an independent contractor because I prefer even more flexibility.)
How does legally excluding the possibility of overtime protect people earning minimum/low wages. I'm not familiar with SA or US employment law, but how does this work?
IIRC (IANAL), if you earn below a certain threshold in South Africa, and you're not in a "management" position, the law guarantees you overtime pay and pay on public holidays at a fixed rate (e.g. double in the case of public holidays).
It's a big enough deal that in the past when two public holidays fell on the same day in a given year the national worker unions have successfully requested the government declare a new public holiday since the workers they represent end up losing out on a day of double wages. For instance, 25 and 26 December 2011 fell on Sunday and Monday respectively, and by law public holidays that fall on a Sunday automatically move to the following Monday. That meant workers who would ordinarily work 25 and 26 December earning double wages two days in a row would only earn double wages for one day. In a country where per capita income is barely enough to survive on for the bulk of the population, that's a big deal.
If you earn above the threshold, or you're in a "management" position, the idea is that you don't need this protection and have freely negotiated your contractual terms. I think it's a good balance between:
1. legislating mandatory overtime/work hours (a bad thing, IMO; e.g. there are many entrepreneurs happy to work for peanuts for long hours out of choice, and plenty of managers who won't work for peanuts but accept long hours as part of the job and the rewards that implies)
2. ensuring that cheap (unskilled) labour is not abused (important in a country like South Africa where there is 30-40% unemployment).
When she says "IT Workers" what she should say is those involved in Software Development or Systems Analysis.
IT Workers implies help desk, phone techs, etc. Doesn't appear to affect these folks. And that's the most important as these jobs are typically hourly with overtime.
Most professional class (as defined by higher pay) jobs are already exempt:
Computer professionals: Section 13(a)(17) of the FLSA provides that certain computer professionals paid at least $27.63 per hour are exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.
So does this mean they are simply removing the $27.63 requirement?
I don't get it. Why would you want to remove the opportunity for overtime from any professional? Obviously the employer has a (potentially huge) finanial incentive. But what's the government's view here?
I do not like that line of thinking! Per your view, the employer can then claim your "thoughts" outside of the office as their "property". Anytime someone puts a[n] employment agreement that claims right to all my intellectual output while employed I say "Thanks, but no thanks."
My experience is that many, many contracts for programmer-types include a clause about intellectual property. In my direct experience, no employer has ever collected on this. I suspect if an employer did exercise it, it would be for IP directly related to their business/product. But...that's a hope, not necessarily a reality.
My last employer actually said something along the same thing during negotiations. I countered with "then why even have it in the contract?". He was a reasonable man.
Also that whole "related to their business" is over-reach as well. If I work for (say) a database company and am providing quality work but spend my nights at home designing a new kind of database, what possible (reasonable) claim can the employer have on my private work? All this and yet we are "employed at will".
> Per your view, the employer can then claim your "thoughts" outside of the office as their "property".
Yah, and in fact that is exactly what they do. Usually they make you give them a list of any prior inventions you already have, and they claim ownership of everything else.
Obviously you can negotiate and not sign it, but it's pretty typical clause.
The govt. view is rather simple: Someone has a lot to gain by eliminating overtime pay, and that someone (corporations are people too, in the US) is likely to be or become a donor to said bill sponsors.
I am also puzzled by this, but I live in the UK so I'm not familiar with US law or employment practices.
I can see why government would legislate to protect minimum or baseline employment rights, but why remove the possibility of earning overtime from a particular group of people? Is this law just about ensuring equivalent practices across all states, or was it simply bought by employers to reduce their costs?
It is about readjusting the base line. They aren't making it illegal to pay overtime. They are removing it from the list of positions that mandate overtime pay.
IBM was involved in some lawsuits about misclassifying workers as exempt. As a result, they said "OK, we agree you qualify for overtime, so we are reducing your base salary by 15% and you can earn overtime on top of that. Oh, and in unrelated news, now there is no overtime hours." It was pretty shitty for the workers in the end.
meh. most IT workers are classified as exempt anyways using any of a number of loopholes. The most common of which is making the employee a 'manager' which means they can't qualify for overtime pay. Nice to see my state's Senator as a sponsor on the bill (Isakson). Hopefully whichever hapless Democrat runs against him will may some hay but dragging this out as "anti-worker," but I doubt anyone will care. GIT ER DONE!
This is not good. Even if under the current law many people don't get the overtime pay they are entitled to receive, at least it is a legal ground which they can stand up to repeat abusive managers and get help from HR.
I've never had overtime pay as a web dev in Sweden but several of my employments, my current one included, offers an additional week of vacation per year as compensation.
I would be interested to know this too. In 2007 Infosys had settled with the CA Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) towards possible overtime payment for $26 million.
Amazing there are any scenarios remaining in the "plug the overtime loophole" game. It seems there is an article with this, or very similar, headline every year. How many times are they going to have to pass laws to expand the reach of these slave shops?
If it's at-will employment, then by definition it's not slavery.
And it's not a de-facto slave system either. Programmers are in extremely short demand, so leaving a job you are uncomfortable with is very highly feasible.
>If it's at-will employment, then by definition it's not slavery.
I don't think it's possible to convey how hard I just rolled my eyes over text.
This is utterly false. "At will" for the great majority of people refers not to their right to go work elsewhere at a moment's notice, but at their employer's right to fire the employee for no reason whatsoever. Considering the still poor shape of the job market, and with the rising cost of living, it is very possible for an unscrupulous employer to basically blackmail you into staying at a bad or abusive job.
