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.
Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
31–40 of 44 posts
Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
A very general difference is being paid for your labor vs your thoughts. People paid for their labor are paid by the hour and get overtime. People paid for their thoughts usually get paid per year, and don't get overtime. I guess the general idea is that you are always thinking, so how would it be possible to decide when you are or are not on the clock? (Obviously this is a generalization with lots of exceptions, it'…
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.
Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
#34Amazing 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.
Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
#35Most 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.
Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
#36For those who want to read the current Fair Labor Standards Act and the new Bill, here are the links:
FLSA: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/FairLaborStandAct.pdf
Bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1747is/pdf/BILLS-112s...
Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
#37Most 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, som…
" 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.
Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
#38When 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:
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/screen75.asp
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?
Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I understand that. What I don't understand is why this is being done: what are the drivers?
Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
#40The 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 .
Sure, and let's let employers remove all other protections as well as the minimum wage and "employees decide to accept or reject them"!
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?