Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: 41magsnub on December 02, 2011, 02:44:23 PM
-
http://www.standalone-sysadmin.com/blog/2011/11/usa-computer-professionals-update-act/ (http://www.standalone-sysadmin.com/blog/2011/11/usa-computer-professionals-update-act/)
There is a bill in the Senate to make IT folks earning more than $27.63 an hour not get paid overtime automatically for time beyond 40hr/week. Technically it makes them a professional employee which the main thing somebody is going to care about is no overtime.
It is currently in committee. Anybody know anything about this?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1747 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1747)
-
So the government can say who can or cannot get overtime?
Why can't that decision be left to an agreement between employees and employers?
-
I haven't made that little an hour (based on 40hr week) in over 10 years and have never earned OT.
Hell, I've only spent 1 year as an hourly employee, the rest of the time has been straight salary.
Why can't that decision be left to an agreement between employees and employers?
Probably because employers wanted a law they could point to absolving them of responsibility.
"Gee, we'd like to pay you OT for that 60hr week, but the Gov says no".
Chris
-
i would like to work on your problem, next week
-
I get paid for actual hours, but not 1.5x "overtime."
Been that way for a long time, but a few years back there was a little dustup when I had to go out to WA for a couple weeks and work almost straight through to finish a project that the customer kept putting off. I guess there was a WA requirement to pay 1.5x overtime ???
In the end, since I was only working part time from home, we spread the extra hours out over several weeks. Fine by me as it saved on the withholding.
-
Probably because employers wanted a law they could point to absolving them of responsibility.
"Gee, we'd like to pay you OT for that 60hr week, but the Gov says no".
I worked for a small company a decade ago (~100 employees) that told us something along the lines of "we need you all to put in a minimum of 16 hours per weekend for the forseeable future to meet some big customer orders, you are all salaried and expected to do as such."
Us guys (and gal) in production had a little palaver about this and went back back to management and said "erm, no."
They immediately agreed that they would pay us overtime for the amount that we would get if our salaries would be broken down to hourly.
Same situation with my current employer.
You don't need a union to get paid fairly if you have valuable skills and refuse to knuckle under...
-
That works for small companies (BTDT), not so much with large or very large ones.
Chris
-
This is probably an effort to try and manufacture an "IT" union.
-
Slight threadjacking, but if anyone out there needs an IT job, I noticed that leviathian is hiring quite a few in Tejas, as is the FAA.
Just FYI.
-
I'm salaried so I don't get overtime but we've worked out a comp time deal. If I work more than 45 hrs a week then I get paid time off equal to my "over time" somewhere down the road. This works out better for ME. I'd rather spend more time with my family or have that time banked for emergencies or a little extra vacation or whatever...
-
I'm a salaried employee in non-IT; regularly work 60 hour weeks with no comp time or overtime. Meanwhile, our company has decided to cut costs by instituting a "no-overtime" policy for hourly employees. The result? My hourly coworkers leave--"sorry, out of hours"--and I get even more work with no extra pay.
But I hate the government and think that mandatory overtime laws violate freedom to contact freely. I stay at my current job because it pays the bills and I have little negotiating power and I know it.
-
Technically, I'm not IT because I do actual work for customers.
Really, software development and V&V is a whole different skillset than keeping a network running.
-
Basically, it makes it not mandatory to pay OT to hourly geeks above a threshold overtime. Companies can, if they wish. But do not have to do so. Not a huge deal, all and all. It will really royally suck for some geeks, and be "meh" for a lot more. If you are hourly, they will still have to pay you for the extra time, just not OT pay.
If I was under those circumstances, I'd only work straight pay OT when it was really crucial, otherwise... no. I'm not a type of person to drop the cat5 or keyboard at 5pm (or 2am, or whatever) and walk. I finish up what I do, just because it's easier in the long run. Working insane hours? Not unless it's a critical problem or project. That said, I do regular out of hours maintenance, which I chalk up to "part of the gig". Boss is a bit flexy on hours.
But regular IT death marches? Nope. Ain't happening.
Full text of the law:
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to modify provisions relating to the exemption for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or other similarly skilled workers.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Computer Professionals Update Act’ or the ‘CPU Act’.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.
Section 13(a)(17) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(17)) is amended to read as follows:
‘(17) any employee working in a computer or information technology occupation (including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--
‘(A) the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;
‘(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;
‘(C) directing the work of individuals performing duties described in subparagraph (A) or (B), including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties; or
‘(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the performance of which requires the same level of skill;
who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1).’.
-
So what is the reason they are giving to justify this bill?
-
What justification should they need for the bill? It makes America more free.
-
So what is the reason they are giving to justify this bill?
I don't know. It appears to me that they're "doing something" when nothing needs to be done. They're just making the status-quo law.
They might as well be making a law that says you have to ingest food through your mouth. The impact will be about the same.
-
What justification should they need for the bill? It makes America more free.
He says this in jest, but I am in complete agreement with De Selby's words and in complete disagreement with his intent.
-
He says this in jest, but I am in complete agreement with De Selby's words and in complete disagreement with his intent.
I would like for lawyers fees to be deregulated as well. I can't figure out why more people aren't outraged about the fact that they can't agree with me to be billed whatever I want, and why the government forces me to charge a "reasonable fee".
In a real free country I'd be making my living rorting people who believe that lawyers don't need to be regulated.
-
I would like for lawyers fees to be deregulated as well. I can't figure out why more people aren't outraged about the fact that they can't agree with me to be billed whatever I want, and why the government forces me to charge a "reasonable fee".
In a real free country I'd be making my living rorting people who believe that lawyers don't need to be regulated.
I'm for deregulating bloodsucking lawyers, too. There's a MASSIVE oversupply of lawyers right now. Go ahead and charge greater fees.
(Also, the regulation of lawyer fees has to do with the fact that you are in a field that the government has, by threat of imprisonment, limited competition. I'm for doing away with that, too.)
-
I'm for deregulating bloodsucking lawyers, too. There's a MASSIVE oversupply of lawyers right now. Go ahead and charge greater fees.
(Also, the regulation of lawyer fees has to do with the fact that you are in a field that the government has, by threat of imprisonment, limited competition. I'm for doing away with that, too.)
Actually I agree with this - deregulation means even higher odds I'll devour the other guy in the courtroom. The fees are fine for competent lawyers - there's a shortage of those right now, and their prices are limited by the regulations that also include the flunkies. Those are only going up.
-
What justification should they need for the bill? It makes America more free.
Thread win.