Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers
techrepublic.com
I'm trying, but I can't quite wade through the legalese in order to verify what the article is claiming. This crap is worse than perl.
techrepublic.com
People who need laws protecting them are the ones that are in menial labor jobs that can be replaced by any schmoe off the street. IT professionals are not those people. For some reason, there just aren't enough people going into IT/Software... which is bad for the country, but good for those in that field.
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 are essentially prohibited from working. I mean, if I wanted to work for, say, $3.75 / hour, compared to the alternative of $0.00/ hour, why should the government prohibit me from making that deal with an employer?
Teenagers are the classic example of this type of worker. See http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/update-on-wsj-editorial-... for some data.
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.
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).
Specifically speaking to this law, i don't think it matters as much because IT professionals don't have a weak bargaining position.
The people below the limit do not magically increase their productivity above the limit. It simply becomss illegal for them to work. They are the American untouchables, farmed by welfare agencies for grant money or simply discarded.
The reason behind labor standards is that without them companies will do everything in their power to take advantage of their workforce (see early 20th century America, specifically coal mining in Appalachia, which, to be honest, hasn't changed all that much - see modern day, specifically the Upper Branch mine disaster and Massey Energy).
Labor standards enforce a minimum acceptable standard and prevent the kind of race-to-the-bottom we see now (between states, between regions, between countries).
We all need to remember that many of our positions are the exception, not the rule (i.e. we often have the flexibility and freedom to negotiate) There are still hourly contracts in IT and these would be affected by a rule like this. MS gamed the system in WA state to avoid paying overtime while still being able to take advantage of hiring contractors instead of salaried employees (this was in the 90s - unsure if the same system is still in place). Meanwhile, chipping away at the higher salaried workers just makes it easier to chip away at the lower salaried workers (e.g. retail workers, restaurant workers).
We're all in this together.
- this only covers basic conditions of employment; you're still free to negotiate things that the act doesn't guarantee you
- if you earn more than a certain amount or are in a management position, you don't get certain protections because such legislation would interfere with your freedom to enter contracts on your own terms
It seems pretty fair to me. It's really directed at protecting people who earn minimum or low wages and don't have much other choice. Somebody managing a startup for $1/month -- that's their right to take that risk, and obviously the pay-off is when things hit it big. Somebody who earns more than a certain amount/month doesn't need basic income protection and presumably has freedom to move to a new job to negotiate terms like overtime. (I did at my previous job; I'm currently an independent contractor because I prefer even more flexibility.)
It's a big enough deal that in the past when two public holidays fell on the same day in a given year the national worker unions have successfully requested the government declare a new public holiday since the workers they represent end up losing out on a day of double wages. For instance, 25 and 26 December 2011 fell on Sunday and Monday respectively, and by law public holidays that fall on a Sunday automatically move to the following Monday. That meant workers who would ordinarily work 25 and 26 December earning double wages two days in a row would only earn double wages for one day. In a country where per capita income is barely enough to survive on for the bulk of the population, that's a big deal.
If you earn above the threshold, or you're in a "management" position, the idea is that you don't need this protection and have freely negotiated your contractual terms. I think it's a good balance between:
1. legislating mandatory overtime/work hours (a bad thing, IMO; e.g. there are many entrepreneurs happy to work for peanuts for long hours out of choice, and plenty of managers who won't work for peanuts but accept long hours as part of the job and the rewards that implies)
2. ensuring that cheap (unskilled) labour is not abused (important in a country like South Africa where there is 30-40% unemployment).
IT Workers implies help desk, phone techs, etc. Doesn't appear to affect these folks. And that's the most important as these jobs are typically hourly with overtime.
Most professional class (as defined by higher pay) jobs are already exempt:
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/screen75.asp
Computer professionals: Section 13(a)(17) of the FLSA provides that certain computer professionals paid at least $27.63 per hour are exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.
So does this mean they are simply removing the $27.63 requirement?
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's just so you have at least an idea of the reasoning (since you asked).)
Also that whole "related to their business" is over-reach as well. If I work for (say) a database company and am providing quality work but spend my nights at home designing a new kind of database, what possible (reasonable) claim can the employer have on my private work? All this and yet we are "employed at will".
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.
I can see why government would legislate to protect minimum or baseline employment rights, but why remove the possibility of earning overtime from a particular group of people? Is this law just about ensuring equivalent practices across all states, or was it simply bought by employers to reduce their costs?
FLSA: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/FairLaborStandAct.pdf
Bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1747is/pdf/BILLS-112s...
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.
Slavery might not be that bad. If your employer owned you then they would at least have some incentive to take care of you.
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 the rising cost of living, it is very possible for an unscrupulous employer to basically blackmail you into staying at a bad or abusive job.
But, whatever.