

Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT workers - jredwards
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/career/computer-professionals-update-act-seeks-to-remove-overtime-pay-for-it-pros/3699
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.
======
Osiris
I didn't even know that IT workers qualified for overtime right now as it is.
I certainly never have and I haven't known any sysadmins or developers that
got paid overtime. Maybe the law they pass should be the opposite of this one
and force all IT workers to get paid hourly and qualify for overtime, then
maybe I'd have to do fewer late night deployments!

------
TheSouljourner
Most IT professionals are on salary, and therefore don't get overtime anyway.
Of all professions in the US, IT is one of the most underpopulated. Even at
the height of unemployment rates in the last few years, I could walk off my
current job and probably get a new job in a couple weeks. Pass whatever laws
you want, I'll still get paid well with good benefits, because my employer
knows if they don't treat me well, someone else will, and they'll have to find
someone else, who will probably be at least as expensive as me, but without
all the institutional knowledge that I have.

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.

~~~
novalis
" 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. " Nice to see you are
no schmoe and know who needs protective laws. Unfortunate that IT
professionals are a dime a dozen from my POV and this will just make it easier
to cycle through cheaper labout from others POV. Anyways, good to get an
opinion from someone inside the warming soup with such high opinions.

------
gwright
The definitions of exempt vs. non exempt in the FLSA have always seemed
somewhat arbitrary to me. How about we just let employers offer what ever
terms they want and employees decide to accept or reject them? As a bonus we
can downsize government by getting rid of the FLSA enforcement bureaucracy .

~~~
Joeri
The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at
a lower limit. If you leave market forces at work, you'll get people working
at near slavery conditions because they lack other economic choices (or they
think hey do, which is the same thing). Remember that some people used to
choose slavery before it was outlawed. The lawmaker sets minimum standards so
people don't get exploited because they come from a weak negotiating position.

Specifically speaking to this law, i don't think it matters as much because IT
professionals don't have a weak bargaining position.

~~~
locopati
Expanding on your comments...

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.

------
lusr
I am not familiar with US law but if the name of this act ("Fair Labor
Standards Act") is anything to go by then it sounds similar to what we have in
South Africa, i.e.:

\- 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.)

~~~
andyjohnson0
How does legally excluding the possibility of overtime protect people earning
minimum/low wages. I'm not familiar with SA or US employment law, but how does
this work?

~~~
lusr
IIRC (IANAL), if you earn below a certain threshold in South Africa, and
you're not in a "management" position, the law guarantees you overtime pay and
pay on public holidays at a fixed rate (e.g. double in the case of public
holidays).

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).

------
pragmatic
When she says "IT Workers" what she should say is those involved in Software
Development or Systems Analysis.

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?

------
alpad
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GET OVERTIME?!

~~~
Kaizyn
Of course not, now get back to work.

------
helloiamdave
I don't get it. Why would you want to remove the opportunity for overtime from
any professional? Obviously the employer has a (potentially huge) finanial
incentive. But what's the government's view here?

~~~
ars
A very general difference is being paid for your labor vs your thoughts.

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).)

~~~
eternalban
I do not like that line of thinking! Per your view, the employer can then
claim your "thoughts" outside of the office as their "property". Anytime
someone puts a[n] employment agreement that claims right to all my
intellectual output while employed I say "Thanks, but no thanks."

~~~
bmj
My experience is that many, many contracts for programmer-types include a
clause about intellectual property. In my direct experience, no employer has
ever collected on this. I suspect if an employer did exercise it, it would be
for IP directly related to their business/product. But...that's a hope, not
necessarily a reality.

~~~
eternalban
My last employer actually said something along the same thing during
negotiations. I countered with "then why even have it in the contract?". He
was a reasonable man.

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".

------
smackfu
IBM was involved in some lawsuits about misclassifying workers as exempt. As a
result, they said "OK, we agree you qualify for overtime, so we are reducing
your base salary by 15% and you can earn overtime on top of that. Oh, and in
unrelated news, now there is no overtime hours." It was pretty shitty for the
workers in the end.

Source: <http://www.informationweek.com/news/205917177>

------
nhebb
So basically it's reclassifying IT workers as indirect labor, subject to the
same overtime laws as engineers?

------
jsherer
For those who want to read the current Fair Labor Standards Act and the new
Bill, here are the links:

FLSA: <http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/statutes/FairLaborStandAct.pdf>

Bill:
[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1747is/pdf/BILLS-112s...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1747is/pdf/BILLS-112s1747is.pdf)

------
prpatel
meh. most IT workers are classified as exempt anyways using any of a number of
loopholes. The most common of which is making the employee a 'manager' which
means they can't qualify for overtime pay. Nice to see my state's Senator as a
sponsor on the bill (Isakson). Hopefully whichever hapless Democrat runs
against him will may some hay but dragging this out as "anti-worker," but I
doubt anyone will care. GIT ER DONE!

------
utopkara
This is not good. Even if under the current law many people don't get the
overtime pay they are entitled to receive, at least it is a legal ground which
they can stand up to repeat abusive managers and get help from HR.

------
enr
I've never had overtime pay as a web dev in Sweden but several of my
employments, my current one included, offers an additional week of vacation
per year as compensation.

------
ryanhuff
California has a separate state law dealing with IT worker overtime. Does
anybody know if this federal bill would supersede state law?

~~~
mavelikara
I would be interested to know this too. In 2007 Infosys had settled with the
CA Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) towards possible overtime
payment for $26 million.

------
droithomme
Amazing there are any scenarios remaining in the "plug the overtime loophole"
game. It seems there is an article with this, or very similar, headline every
year. How many times are they going to have to pass laws to expand the reach
of these slave shops?

~~~
gm
If it's at-will employment, then by definition it's not slavery.

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.

~~~
Karunamon
>If it's at-will employment, then by definition it's not slavery.

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.

~~~
gm
No it's not. Not for programmers.

But, whatever.

