Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers • Hacker News Board

Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers

#41

Post by ars » Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 5:45 PM UTC

eternalban wrote: post #27

ars wrote: post #19

Earlier 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."

> 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.

Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers

#42

Post by gwright » Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 8:10 PM UTC

geoffschmidt wrote: post #12

gwright wrote: post #9

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).

Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers

#43

Post by gwright » Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 8:13 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #40

joe_the_user wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

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.

Teenagers are the classic example of this type of worker. See http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/update-on-wsj-editorial-... for some data.

Re: Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers

#44

Post by gm » Fri, Mar 16, 2012, 8:30 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #34

gm wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

No it's not. Not for programmers.

But, whatever.