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 498811
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It's the contract, stupid
by chmeee on Sat 3rd Dec 2011 05:21 UTC
chmeee
Member since:
2006-01-10

Everyone outraged about this is an idiot. All it does is exempt the employer from mandated overtime pay. Any sane employer will grant you overtime pay as part of your contract _if_ it's expected that you'll be working overtime. If you desire/demand overtime as part of your contract, you mention that when they ask about salary requirements. Simple. No need for Big Brother to get between you and your boss.

My employment contract (salaried) is for 8 hours per day. I work no more, no less, and get my work done. But I don't work in a data center or NOC. If I did, I would expect to be paid according to my work. Not a dime more or less than I negotiate. If you're in IT and don't know how to negotiate a reasonable wage/salary, you are an idiot.

Edited 2011-12-03 05:21 UTC

Reply Score: -1

RE: It's the contract, stupid
by Alfman on Sat 3rd Dec 2011 08:40 in reply to "It's the contract, stupid"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

chmeee,

"Everyone outraged about this is an idiot. All it does is exempt the employer from mandated overtime pay."

That's a gross generalisation. One certainly doesn't have to be an idiot to find problems with this law, which is being applied irrationally. Why should federal worker protection laws apply to some titles but not others? If the exclusions are intended to target well-paid employees, why don't they just do that explicitly and drop the IT job title exceptions all together?


"Any sane employer will grant you overtime pay as part of your contract _if_ it's expected that you'll be working overtime."

US work hours, unlike other industrialised nations, have been going up, why would companies want to pay for it when they can keep the status quo and not pay?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/08/30/ilo.study/

http://econ.ucsb.edu/~pjkuhn/Research%20Papers/LongHours.pdf



"If you desire/demand overtime as part of your contract, you mention that when they ask about salary requirements. Simple. No need for Big Brother to get between you and your boss.


I get the impression many people who don't have long hours are from places where long hours aren't expected of them in the first place. It's much more difficult to negotiate for something like overtime when your peers don't have it either. It's why corporations are lobbying against the rights of american employees to unionise; they know that individuals are too weak to stand up for their "rights".

Just this summer, Ohio legislators walked out of their own assembly to protest an unpopular bill being pushed through to abolish public unions.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/03/usa-wisconsin-idUSN022890...

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=129_SB_5&ACT=As~...

I share your view that ideally things just work themselves out without government regulation. But the problem with this is that the corporations won't stop influencing our governments to their own ends. Getting rid of employee protections without also getting rid of corporate ties seems to be a one sided goal.

Reply Parent Score: 4

chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

Public sector unions should be abolished, they're nothing but thieves guilds. But that's a topic for another discussion.

You are right that it still picks and chooses who gets it and who doesn't, but it's at least a step in the direction of abolishing federal requirements in the private sector.

I will go on record that there was one time where I was required to be "on call" for a weekend as a new project went live. I didn't like it, and protested as such. However, as a form of compensation, they did pay for conferences that weren't directly related to the job, that I was interested in. I consider that to be just compensation for random sporadic overtime requests. Any sane employer, however demanding, will come to some agreement. The employees _do_ have a leg to stand on, as they're the ones actually doing the work. Retarded employers will fire employees who protest, but those are also the employers that will go under because they lose talent.

If the federal government wants to have its hand in the relations of an employee's work hours, it should mandate only that employees work an "acceptably agreed upon work week, and justly compensated for overtime." No specifics, let the employer and employee work those out on their own. Again, that goes back to the title of my original comment: It's the contract, stupid. Big Brother could lay out the framing of the contract while not dictating every word of it.

Reply Parent Score: -1