New Overtime Rules Have Short Shelf Life 501
rwiedower writes "So the House just voted to scrap the new overtime rules that went into effect August 23. The vote was 223-193. Were the new rules designed to shaft IT workers from getting overtime? Or were they merely designed to streamline outdated rules?"
Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:5, Funny)
Found the solution to that a long time ago:;-)
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
So yeah, scrap the law, get rid of all of these types of laws. Get the government out!
Management wanted OT... to cut their losses (Score:5, Insightful)
Overtime laws exist because businesses wanted them. It came with the 40 hour work week. You see, unions were strong and getting stronger 100 years ago. They were winning 35 hour work weeks. Management pushed for labor protection laws in an effort to cut their losses to unions and to undercut the labor machine by giving them some of what they wanted.
It worked. Labor unions maintained influence, but haven't been nearly as strong as they would have been had management not made concessions country-wide in the form of overtime laws.
So... you can thank management for overtime laws, circa 100 years ago. Methinks if overtime laws disapeared, you'd see a surge in union membership... something that I doubt you'd be very interested in.
Re:Union history slanted hard to the business side (Score:4, Interesting)
The "ridiculous practices" you refer to in such a vague way are worse than any modern wannabe-conservative-think-tanker cares to even consider when she's speaking glowingly of the private compact between worker and company. You mention specific business responses to Union activity -- the national guard and so on -- but you fail to characterize the terms of employment ordinary people lived with back then. They were striking for decent, human working conditions. Lining up around a business trying to shut it down doesn't come close to what they were subjected to in the ordinary course of their jobs. The business magnates of the day made the same arguments that they make today when they face any economic concession: if we have to give people working conditions that aren't appalling, that'll destroy our business. To describe them as not having the "moral high ground" is a ludicrous understatement. I mean:
That's about the "match girls' strike" of 1888 in Great Britain.
Like it or not, the U.S. isn't a pure laissez-faire economy. And you wouldn't trade your life now for one in such an economy, unless you're a Rockefeller posting as an AC out of shyness.
Re:Management wanted OT... to cut their losses (Score:3, Insightful)
A 35% raise does no good when one loses the job entirely.
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can appreciate that low income employees don't have much leverage, but I'm so sick of hearing the endless litany of regulations being passed. How long will it be until the rules are so complex that no one can understand them all and law enforcement can prosecute people at random because everyone's guilty of something if you look hard enough?
Oh, wait, that's already happened.
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well democracy can be though of as the ultimate union. The people of this country, through their elected representatives, voted themselves certain minimum requirements in their employment contracts with all employers. Among some of these requirements are minimum wage, unemployment insurance, overtime, family and medical leave, etc.
Even in the most union freindly environment, which certainly does not describe the current state of employment law or the enforcement there of, is it not possible for all workers to belong to a unions; the growing number of self-employed are a good example. Thus the government needs to set some levels of protection for these workers who do not have sufficient bargining power by themselves or through collective bargining organizations.
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mmmm. That's an interesting theory. Luckily it's also very easy to test. Throught the last couple of decades the minimum wage has been raised quite a few times. According to your theory after each raise in minimum wage there should be an increase in unemployment and an increase in inflation.
Well I have been alive for the last couple of decades and I certainly don't remember such a corrolation so perhaps the economy is more complex then your theory suggests. Why don't you do some research and see what happened to the economy after minimum wages were raised. You might find the results surprising.
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly - here's a quote (Score:3, Interesting)
"The organisation for business leaders has indicated that the minimum wage is working and would be happy to see it increased if the economic environment is right.
The CBI's director general, Digby Jones, said: 'The minimum wage has so far been a success and it should not wither on the vine, so business supports modest rises if economic circumstances allow.'"
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slippery slope is a fallacious argument.
That argument is identical to "It's cold, but don't turn up the thermostat, or next thing you know we'll all be cooked!" which ignores the fact that an equilibrium is often reached around 65-70 degrees.
"Judges can't show the 10 Commandments? Next thing you know they'll sneak into your house and take your Bibles!"
"Gay marriages? Next thing they'll demand the right to marry their pets!"
Give me a break.
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:5, Interesting)
IT is not immune either, the more time at the keyboard the quicker your wrists will degrade. You don't want the state to have to pay more for your, and everyone elses, medicare just because you worked 2 hours more a shift for 25 years, do you?
Safty First.
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:3, Interesting)
But with property tax, business licenses, sales tax, etc the way they are. It's basically impossible for an impoverished pe
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Manager: "Look all of you other employees, when the cops come, you'd better tell my side of the story or you're all fired, and since WalMart has put all the other stores out of business around here, you won't find a job AND despite the fact that you could theoretically sue us, you can't afford to be out of work for a month and/or lose the medical insurance for you and your children for a possible payoff 4 years from now."
Oh, but that won't happen here right??? Because I read a web site once that explained that if I didn't pay taxes everyone would be happier and golly it makes sense because taxes suck and poor people are lazy.
Re:Not Scrapped Yet... (Score:4, Funny)
I can see it now, "I want overtime for working over 60 hours a week!"
"I can get someone for 70 hours a week without overtime, you're outta here"
Because, you know, we never would have had those laws if we never needed them.
The government is an extension of the people, the corporations influence it a lot, but in the end, it is an extension of the people. If these laws were completely unnecessary, we would never have needed them in the first place.
I'm still waiting (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm still waiting (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm still waiting (Score:2)
Re:I'm still waiting (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm still waiting (Score:3, Funny)
It's All A Mystery... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh.... that's what employers expect you to give voluntarily!
I remember years ago doing that, when I really loved my work and didn't care. Besides, I liked all the cool stuff I got to play with and the really neat server and top of the line PC on my desk with a spifftacular monitor and video card and even a cordless mouse. Then something happened, they realized I would do anything they wanted as along as I had the toys. Eventually I put in 16-18 hours days and began wrecking my health and I wouldn't qualify for any extra pay anyway because I was salaried, not hourly. The expectations piled up with the work load and I found I had scant time left to experience the joys of doing neat projects or learning new tools and languages after work, because I was burning out big time. Then they outsourced the jobs and said, "It was a good thing, win-win" Well, that might have been true because the contractor, if they signed me, wouldn't allow their employee to be treated like I had without them getting some really fat zorkmids for the above and beyond. I didn't sign with them and left.
Now it's kinda back to the old thing, hourly and no budget for overtime so don't ask for it, but if something really does need to get done???
BTW we don't have a lot of positions here where you'd get overtime or benefits for that matter as many are 4 hours/day, which even with a little overage wouldn't hit the 32 hours where benefits are required to be given. (Rhetorical question-<)The real puzzle is, why can't we find good workers?
Re:It's All A Mystery... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's All A Mystery... (Score:2)
Re:It's All A Mystery... (Score:3, Insightful)
What does salary have to do with anything? If you work overtime, you get paid overtime. Why the hell do people work overtime if they're not getting paid for it? Is this some strange ass-ramming only USians get? What a terrible system!
Re:It's All A Mystery... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind salary system, some days I work more, some days I work less than 8 hours (usually work more, but I enjoy my job). Last week most of the exempt employees took off at lunchtime in anticipation for the holiday weekend. The hourly had to stay working until the clock hit 5.
There are also situations where salaried employees get overtime because its the expection of their job, like supervisors for 12 hour shift employees.
The system isn't all that bad, but it does require more from the employee to demand expectations up front (so they don't keep loading you with projects) and to ensure they are managing their own time wisely.
Re:It's All A Mystery... (Score:4, Interesting)
However, in practice these salaried employees are often unaware of their rights, and in fact most of their management is unaware of the legalities of mandatory unpaid/uncompensated overtime. So, the effect is not just an ass-ramming but a group ass-ramming by all involved because none know any better.
That's one reason I enjoy working contracts at a set hourly rate. My ass remains strictly one-way and if somebody starts thinking about doing a little construction to make it two-way, I can just take off with no feelings of guilt or remorse.
Work once, paid once. Nice and simple.
Re:It's All A Mystery... (Score:5, Informative)
Salaried means that you get paid the same fixed ammount no matter how much you work, whether it be 10 hours a week or 100. Of course what ends up happening is that they shovel so much work on you to do that you end up having to work more than 40 hours a week to do what is expected of you, otherwise you get fired.
No, that is not necessarily true. Whether you are exempt from overtime really depends on how much self-determinism and supervision goes with your job. If get to select your own assignments and deadlines, are essentially allowed to work on your own with little supervision, do not have to meet any production quotas or work on a rigid schedule, then you are probably exempt from overtime.However, if your supervisor assigns you projects with deadlines, or requires to you record your time and can penalize you for failing to meet a minimum quota, or you are required to be "at work" according to a fixed schedule, then you are probably NOT exempt from overtime.
I suggest you read Overtime Pay Requirements of the FLSA [dol.gov] before wrongfully concluding whether you are exempt or not.Re:It's All A Mystery... (Score:3, Informative)
That is SO incorrect. Standard working hours and deadlines do not automatically qualify you for overtime.
Re:It's All A Mystery... (Score:4, Informative)
If you have a record of your hours, I'd recommend a second look at the laws, as sometimes a company will tell you you are "exempt" when you aren't necessarily.
If you are in a position where you are given general goals but don't set your agenda yourself and aren't responsible for it, you can make a case for yourself.
I've seen it happen!
They did it in Ontario too (Score:4, Interesting)
If anyone is in Ontario, is a geek, and in IT we must repeal the 2002 regulations putting IT into slave labour jobs!
Re:They did it in Ontario too (Score:2, Interesting)
May be difficult to do. When I was last in Toronto, the largest city in Ontario, you could have easily convinced me that it was in Asia. You know, where people are willing to knock themselves out for a fraction of what workers in the west expect. Heck, some of the imigrants probably see an opening for an IT job and one of their family or relatives is on the next flight from Bombay, China,
Re:They did it in Ontario too (Score:2, Interesting)
Exceptions for IT Professionals in Ontario [canlii.org]
Re:They did it in Ontario too (Score:2, Interesting)
(3) Part VII of the Act does not apply to,
(b) an information technology professional. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 4 (3).
Exemptions from Part VIII of Act
8. Part VIII of the Act does not apply to,
(l) an information technology professional. O. Reg. 285/01, s. 8.
Read the act, it says it all there
Re:They did it in Ontario too (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Unions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:IMHO (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IMHO (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean all the 24 adn under tech workers making way above average salaries for their area?
Or you mean the school dropouts on their first tech job who feel "abused" because they are the only tech guy and have to work long hours.
To form a union you need a bunch of people in the same boat with common interests, who are willing to pay money in order to collectively bargain... and I'm sorry, but the "tech" field is WAY too broad and varied, not to mentio
Re:IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)
After I stopped laughing (not really), I told her that she did not have the experience or skills to command such a salary and that $40-50K was more realistic. She was very indignant and said she could get that much in Boston
Maybe she could, I don't know. Many tech works have been abusing their employers for years demanding high wages for minimal skills. When starting Java coders fresh out of college command $50K sallaries (or more), something was wrong.
Tech workers drove the jobs overseas, and contributed to their own overtime problem because they got too expensive.
Tech people with skills and experience can still command $100K salaries. The only common thread in someone's long list of low paying, thankless jobs is themself. If they can't find someone to pay them what they are worth, maybe they aren't worth it and should look into something else, increase their skills, or accept it.
Re:IMHO (Score:2)
Re:IMHO (Score:4, Informative)
We don't get raises for another year at least. We had to pay more for our insurance co-pays. We had to have a restructuring of medical facitilies you can attend for certain co-pay levels. We had to pay more in dental... My personal favorite is that I fear striking. You know why? Because when you strike you don't get fucking paid. Perhaps everyone else can afford their mortagage while they are on strike but I couldn't. I have reserves and all that but it wouldn't last long enough for it to be benficial for me to save a couple bucks on a co-pay.
So fuck the Unionization. No one supports you when you go on strike because they are out of work or getting paid shitty. The Union doesn't pay your full salary while you're on strike so bills don't get paid.
That's my
Re:IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Unions and striking are about standing up to capitalists who have disproportionate power, and unions help prevent the middle class from becoming the lower class.
If you don't like being in a union, find a job with less troubles.
Re:IMHO (Score:3, Funny)
I think you're actually refering to university tenure.
Re:IMHO (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps you should consider that the devil you know is not as bad the devil you don't know. Before this country's organized labor movement, working conditions REALLY SUCKED. How would you like to go 9 hours without a meal, water or even a ba
Re:IMHO (Score:3, Interesting)
Pricing themselves out of jobs.
Promoting mediocrity.
Antagonising non-union workers / coercing people into joing.
Attracting organised crime.
(waiting for the pro-union flames)
Re:IMHO (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and it would have saved us from overseas outsourcing! After all, look what it did for the steel industry!
The steel industry's dying? Oh, well, look how it helped manufacturing!
No...no, wait, I mean textiles! Look how it saved textile industry workers!
Help me out here, somebody...
Re:IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is going to send their computer overseas to get it fixed, no one likes ringing up an indian call centre to get their mouse working again when they can call someone to come over and fix it.
Hardware doesn't install itself you know, viruses don't remove themselves.
Network cables don't magicaly worm their way through walls and networks don't subnet themselves.
Desktop support can't be sent overseas and without it (ie. strike) companies can go to the shitter pretty quickly, especialy during the next sasser outbreak.
Re:IMHO (Score:3, Informative)
What you imply about unionized textile jobs moving overseas is the most ridiculous because virtually none of the textile jobs moving overseas were union jobs. North Carolina has been the hardest hit state for textile outsourcing, and North Carolina is also the least unionized state in the country. This covers almost all of the North Carolina textile business as well.
As far as the s
Re:IMHO (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IMHO (Score:3, Insightful)
When steel workers strike, steel prices go up a bit.
When manufacturer workers strike, we don't get as many new clothes.
When IT workers strike, no one gets their email, and your CEO's blackberry stops working. Think digital Project Mayhem.
Which would cause the most reaction in your company?
IT workers are beyond unions. (Score:4, Insightful)
Professional and Union do not belong in the same sentence. If your worried about overtime then don't switch to a job that doesn't have real responsibilities and real deadlines. The people who put the most "overtime" in are already exempt, they are the small businessmen who provide the majority of jobs across the country.
If you think your employer is being unfair THEN LEAVE! The economy is no where near as bad as when the tech sector crashed. If your immediate skills are not valued then LEARN SOMETHING ELSE. No one is going to get you a job, especially a president or contender.
Its your responsibility to act. Do it and quit whining. Whining just makes you miserable and annoys the others who are having to put up with you.
Re:IT workers are beyond unions. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:IT workers are beyond unions. (Score:4, Interesting)
That only works if there is a labor shortage. With outsourcing dramatically expanding the labor pool and a never ending tide of illegal immigrants cratering wages for manual labor in the U.S. there is a near inevitability that there is going to be a huge labor surplus in the U.S. There probably already is though the government cleverly drops the long term unemployed out of the unemployment rate and labor statistics.
Employers are astute enough to know when there is surplus labor. They dream of it and pay their politicians to make it happen (which is why politician look the other way and allow massive illegal immigration and promote out sourcing). When the labor surplus arrives most greedy businessmen cut benefits and salaries, and praise be their profit margins go up. There are a few smart businessmen that value and nurture good employees but they are few and getting fewer.
American workers are going to really suffer in the near future, more than they already are. It is good you praised unions from the early 20th century. If it hadn't been for them everyone would be working 7 days a week 12 hours a day for poverty wages. It took violence to break greedy businessmen who thought thats all workers deserved. Without unions and with a labor surplus workers may well start marching back to the dark ages.
Unions did turn corrupt for the most part, it was to bad, but all big institutions corrupt, government and political parties included. But its also true business and the Republicans, starting with Reagan in particular, have worked hard to destroy them.
The disappearance of unions and the pressures of outsourceing, globalization and illegal immigrants are going to destroy the middle class in America. The U.S. is going to end up 95% poor and 5% filthy rich like most 3rd world countries. In the news today, Los Angeles is already there. The majority of people in LA are now functionally illiterate.
If your in the lucky 5% you wont care either. You will drive in to a gated community next to the golf course and just not care.
You might think you are just going to retrain and be immune I think you are wrong. Unless you have skills that can't be outsourced, or you have the benefit of being born affluent so you land in the 5% you simply wont be able to compete with workers and wage rates in China and India.
When manufacturing cratered they said retrain for IT. When IT got outsourced they said retrain for biotech. When biotech moved to India they said....
Re:IMHO (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IMHO (Score:2)
Veterans got screwed anyway (Score:2)
That explains if you're a vet, you get overtime for regular pay, gee, how nice!
I'd like to explain how I feel with a brick, sideways, in a not pleasant place, Bend over Mr. Bush..whats good for us is good FOR YOU!
Re:IMHO (Score:2)
Telecommunications - Unions have pretty much locked us into a system that is totally obsolete. While Japan and other countries are implementing state-of-the-art telecommunications systems, our system is relegated to 1940's technology.
Textiles - unions have p
Re:IMHO (Score:3, Interesting)
I know a lot of anti-union folks don't believe in class warfare- but face facts, the
Re:IMHO (Score:2)
Designed to (Score:2, Informative)
Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of designating workers as "professional" under the new law and avoiding OT pay, companies can currently just pay a salary. The only difference is that companies will no longer be able to shaft low income workers.
Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many (Score:2)
So I no longer work overtime.
Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many (Score:2)
Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many (Score:3, Insightful)
That is actually not true. It is entirely possible to be paid a salary, and also earn overtime. (The calculations get a little funky though.) At least under the rules *before* they got changed.
Your job had to be classified as Exempt from overtime, and that determination is made on a number of factors, including whether or not you supervise anyone else, and whether you have con
Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many (Score:3, Informative)
Having a good relationship with your employer is fine if they are sane/considerate/sensible/rational.
I used to work for a guy that wasn't. His name is Neil. I'm not hiding his name, because he still owes me $2,000.
I would pull in the 60 hours weeks, and instead of that translating into "boy, David went above and beyond this week, he needs an extra day this weekend" Neil translated it to "sweet, David is a sucker, I wonder if I can get him to
Re:Affect IT Workers? Not Too Many (Score:3, Interesting)
I
Change of Image for Geeks (Score:2)
Who knows - one of us here will one day be portrayed by Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, Ray Liotta, or Al Pacino!
Thats Crap (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thats Crap (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thats Crap (Score:3, Interesting)
During the recent democratic national convention in Boston there was a small, haphazardly organized attempt by the local sex industry to convince their clients during that week (i.e. a bunch of convention delegates) to support legalization of prostitution.
The plan was to wait until their clients were, "thorougly commited" to their current activities and then stop and say that they just co
If IT workers were to unionize...... (Score:2, Interesting)
Streamline the shafting of ALL workers! (Score:4, Insightful)
As an attorney, I have no problem not getting overtime pay when I work over 40 hours per week. I didn't spend 7+ years in school to spend my work day looking at the clock.
But anyone doing drudge work should certainly be paid overtime for more than 40 hours per week.
Re:Streamline the shafting of ALL workers! (Score:3, Insightful)
Overtime pay? No, I don't care about overtime pay. I'd gladly take straight pay for my hours over 40.
I didn't spend 7+ years in school to spend my work day looking at the clock.
Nor did I do the same to leave home and return in the dark every day. Oh, how I miss lying on the quad basking in the sun, rather than needing to take a walk down the hall just to tell the current weather.
But anyone doing drud
Huh what? (Score:3, Interesting)
am i the only one who thinks this is worded very strangely....cant really understand what it is saying. bush is threatening to veto a veto? they are vetoing a veto? or there is only one veto?
real confused on that one.
nonfree labor market (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:nonfree labor market (Score:3, Informative)
What about comp time? (Score:2, Funny)
What I haven't Figured Out is? (Score:4, Informative)
and...
What groups will this have an impact on? Nobody I know who makes over 100k is hourly. Doctors? Yah right.
Re:What I haven't Figured Out is? (Score:3, Interesting)
The employers have their heads together figuring out how to screw over IT workers, I think IT workers getting together to protect our interests is a good idea as well. You can take your pick of which group, Washtech, Techs United, the Programmers Guild and so forth. The CWA in New York has meetings were people come together and discuss things. The important thing is programme
Re:What I haven't Figured Out is? (Score:3, Interesting)
Many many people at the top of these professions can clear 100K at fortune 500 companies even though the base pay top out only $25-30/ hour. Note: these are people that WORK all day...walking the beat, tending patients, drawing prints, building machine tools or installing computer hardware..
Overtime, what's that? (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, I'd like to see the rules changed to be MORE inclusive- anybody getting a paycheck should have benefits if they work over 32 hours a week and overtime pay for over 40, regardless of who they are and what they do. Even managment deserves this.
This would be Bush's first veto. (Score:4, Insightful)
That should tell you something.
Intended vs practice (Score:2)
In all fairness to the politicos many well intentioned laws are twisted around when put in practice. For a recent example, see: McCain-Feingold
Note the change in focus (Score:5, Insightful)
Now look at how this measure is being cast. We want to give employers back their right to overtime pay because they need to work longer hours to make more money. In other words, we're not voting down this reduction in overtime because we think our working people are overtaxed and already work longer hours than any other country in the civilized world (they are). We're voting it down in affirmation of Joe Sixpack's right to work longer hours so he can put food on his table. Meanwhile, what has the government been spending your taxes on lately? [cnn.com] My, what a wonderful system we have.
Re:Note the change in focus (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly.
Karl Rove has his fingerprints on this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Problem solved. There is always after the election to bring the rules back...
Idiots. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because those are the only two possibilities.
For those of you keeping score at home, this is known as a false dichotomy, one of the classic logical fallacies. Basically, you present two options as if they are the only options, when in reality there are one or more other possibilities. A classic example is when a lawyer asks a defendant, "Did you murder John, or do you expect us to believe that he shot himself?" when there's the obvious third possibility that someone else killed John. (Assuming John was found dead of a gunshot wound.)
A third possibility about the overtime rules, and the most likely answer, is that they were the result of a complex miasma of conflicting goals, much like most of politics. Of course, most people seem to feel a need to simplify these complex situations into some kind of simple either-or choice. Which is retarded.
It doesn't matter we'd get shafted anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
That is, unless you were an entry level IT staffer on an hourly basis, and then overtime had to be approved by management before you could work it.
Who really wins.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll have to work overtime to find one.
Overtime equals... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear and understand the comment of the small business owner with respect to not wanting to pay overtime. He wants his employees to work hard just like he does.
And so if they work just as hard as he does and he sets them up on a salary basis as exempt workers, do they get to sell part of his company when they retire? Do they get a portion of the proceeds of his sale of the business? Do they get a portion of the company when his son or daughter inherits it?
Obviously not, so their investment in the company's well being is lower. And the small businessman only has one incentive with which to motivate his employees to work as hard as he does, money.
Paid overtime is money. And lots of people across the US are living (at least partially) on their overtime. Which says something about what has happened in our society since the 1930s and before (which is where the right wing of the Republican Party wants to return us). It used to be possible to buy a home and raise children with one income. Now couples need two. And single people need overtime in order to do the same.
But the real reason why the government took issue with this ruling of the Bush administration is that when a worker makes overtime, so does the government. Essentially, what Bush is doing with this ruling is he is setting up for an even larger ballooning of the federal deficit because workers making more than subsistence income may easily be exempted from overtime pay and that middle-class segment of America pays the most taxes.
To a certain extent, moderate Republicans will vote with Democrats on this issue because they want to win re-election and it's hard to face an electorate when your opponent claims you just caused everyone to take a pay cut. And some conservative Republicans may be wooed on this issue if they are budget deficit hawks. The article seems to suggest that the Senate won't pass the amendment. Lets hope they do.
I make around $100,000 yearly and greatly benefit (as well as does my State and the Federal Government) from my overtime pay. Under the DOL's ruling, I'd be forced to take a pay cut to around $87,000 yearly. And that means the difference between living comfortably (in the NYC area) and having trouble paying bills.
Regular hours would still be paid (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fair
And the toll-free number: 1-866-4USWAGE
Looking at this quote (taken from the fairpay site) it appears that we will only be out the half part of the time-and-a-half. Nowhere does it say that you would not get the straight time portion for the hours that you worked.
The FLSA requires that most employees in the United States be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek
I checked with my ex-wife, and she agrees that this is the correct interpretation of the rules. Whether the DOL agrees or not is a different thing...
For me it's academic, so far I have managed to maintain my goal of zero hours of OT for the year
John
Got to collect the kids at school .. (Score:5, Informative)
I live and work in Denmark and our working conditions are a bit different from the American.
From the first year I worked (as a programmer) I've had 5 weeks vacation every year. With 3 days extra off to "take care of the kids". The last part has been changed so people without kids can have days off as well
I do not get paid for doing extra hours, unless I have a specific agreement (from time to time) with the company. Extra hours, "within reason" are included in my salary. So, all I have to do is having an excuse to go home at a reasonable hour every day, thus avoiding extra hours. (dificult at times but it works)
Fair?
Well, the company pays my IBM T30 (a few years old now), my DSL line, my land line, and my mobile phone (usage on all included).
Dental and Health is taken care of by the State and my overall taxes last year was 45%.
I am not a member of the union, but benefit from the deals they strike anyway. If the company piss on me, I have to let them, unless I become a member and have the union piss back..
Something rotten in the State of Denmark?
not really..
Re:It's for the managers... (Score:2)
Well, I guess that's a lot better than wronging your rep...
Re:Devils Advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats ok, as long as there is some ballance, such as when theres slack time, you tell them to get out of there. I also expect developers under me to work hard to, if im working hard, thats my responsibility to divide up the work properly.