Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Dec 2011 22:43 UTC
Legal "A bill recently introduced in Congress would greatly expand the exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act for IT employees, ending overtime benefits for many more types of workers, including network, database and security specialists." The Democrat senator of North-Carolina has introduced an even worse version of the bill, which specifically exempts database and network specialists and security professionals from overtime benefits. Say, isn't some company building a huge data centre in North-Carolina? I'm sure it's all a coincidence.
Thread beginning with comment 498794
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not entirely accurate
by Alfman on Sat 3rd Dec 2011 01:40 UTC in reply to "Not entirely accurate"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

David,
"This isn't a 'ban' on overtime. It's allowing companies to make positions in these areas salaried without running afoul of the law."

Yes, understood.

"Salaried workers don't have to be in the office between certain hours, can come and go as they please, and are generally responsible only for fulfilling their duties."

This simply isn't true. If it is, I want to know where you work!


"Executives and engineers generally work under these terms, and this legislation simply allows companies to create salaried positions for other kinds of IT workers."

Again, I'd love to know where engineers are treated like executives! This has never been my experience ;)


"Seeing this as an assault on overtime pay is a tempest in a teacup."


Not really, technically it's probably correcting a misclassification of IT workers who were always intended to be captured under the original exemption. But the big question is, why should salaried IT workers be explicitly treated differently with regards to overtime benefits in the eyes of the law?

It seems incredibly odd for worker protection laws to single out a single profession like this.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Not entirely accurate
by WorknMan on Sat 3rd Dec 2011 09:25 in reply to "RE: Not entirely accurate"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

"Salaried workers don't have to be in the office between certain hours, can come and go as they please, and are generally responsible only for fulfilling their duties."

This simply isn't true. If it is, I want to know where you work!


Yeah, me too. From my experience (in America), the salaried employees are the ones working til 8 or 9 o'clock at night. Screw that ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Not entirely accurate
by syadnom on Mon 5th Dec 2011 16:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Not entirely accurate"
syadnom Member since:
2010-03-03

Agreed, as a salaried system admin, I don't get to come and go as I please and only fulfill my duties. I work 60 hours per week doing everything under the sun that involves something plugged into power (Hey, come fix the microwave, yeah...)

In America, salary is not a way to pay a person to complete a given amount of work in my experience. Salary is a way to overtime exempt an employee and nothing more.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Not entirely accurate
by rdean400 on Sat 3rd Dec 2011 15:51 in reply to "RE: Not entirely accurate"
rdean400 Member since:
2006-10-18

If you read the Fair Labor Standards Act section that this ever-so-cutely named "CPU Act" would modify, you would see that the IT workers are just one part of a section that enumerates many professions where the government allows businesses to create FLSA exempt positions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Not entirely accurate
by Alfman on Sun 4th Dec 2011 09:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Not entirely accurate"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

rdean400,

"If you read the Fair Labor Standards Act section that this ever-so-cutely named 'CPU Act' would modify, you would see that the IT workers are just one part of a section that enumerates many professions where the government allows businesses to create FLSA exempt positions."

I should have phrased it better. I just don't understand what the law is trying to solve by saying some occupations are entitled to fair labor standards and not others. Unless there's an external agenda, it just seems absurd. Presumably the FLSA was enacted to curb employer abuses such as non-compensated time, but this is exactly what's now happening with IT and other workers because we're exempt. I suspect this may have been a goal of the exceptions rather than a side effect. Some of us aren't even that well paid.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Not entirely accurate
by kateline on Sun 4th Dec 2011 05:57 in reply to "RE: Not entirely accurate"
kateline Member since:
2011-05-19

>>>>> It seems incredibly odd for worker protection laws to single out a single profession like this.


Doesn't it, though? From H1-B to OT we're the corporate whipping boys and girls. IT is a tough profession when the government tries to destroy it at every turn.

Reply Parent Score: 1