IP: Re: disturbing reference to overtime for high-tech workers in NY Times

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> X-Sender: larry () pop walltech com (Unverified)
> Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:13:14 -0700
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: Larry Tesler <larry () nomodes com>
>
>
> Despite one sentence in the column to the contrary, it is not true that 
> only managers are exempt from overtime laws. Jobs based on hourly work and 
> pay tend to be subject to overtime laws. Salaried "white-collar" positions 
> based on contribution that do not correlate with clock hours tend to be 
> exempt. To minimize ambiguity, the law specifies what jobs are exempt and 
> non-exempt. For example, an executive secretary is an exempt position. So 
> is a software engineering position generally filled by a person with a 
> specialized degree.
>
> The new proposal seems to be motivated by the advent of new jobs that did 
> not exist when the classifications were last updated (except for "funeral 
> directors", most of whom, I suspect, used to be self-employed but are now 
> often employed by corporations).
>
> Although it is true that employers who wish to avoid overtime will 
> instigate such reclassifications, it is, in my experience, just as often 
> employees who want to be viewed as salaried professionals (with flexible 
> schedules) who seek to be classified as exempt. Of course, professional 
> employees expect their weekly salary as an exempt to materially exceed 40 
> times their former hourly wage.
>
> The main issue raised by the NY Times column is that of overworked 
> employees, forced to work more than they want, even past the point of 
> fatigue, especially in jobs that can endanger their health or their lives 
> or the lives of others. This is a serious issue. As the column points out, 
> the situation arises both because employers demand the extra hours and 
> because many employees welcome the extra pay, often at time-and-a-half or 
> double-time rates.
>
> The "bonus in lieu of salary proposal" seems odd. I believe it is legal 
> now to do it, as long as the wage rate does not drop below the minimum. 
> Any company that tried it today would probably lose unmotivated workers 
> and attract overachievers. But the company might also attract lawsuits 
> from workers who feel that their pay has been cut without cause. That is 
> probably what the proposed legislation is designed to protect employers 
> against in this sue-happy country. It is part of the trend these past few 
> decades towards a more flexible labor force that has been a significant 
> contributor to the prosperity and low unemployment that the economy has 
> recently enjoyed.
>
> Larry Tesler
>
> At 11:01 AM -0400 9/17/00, Dave Farber wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 07:39:36 -0700
> > To: farber () cis upenn edu
> > From: Wulf Losee <wlosee () cisco com>
> >
> >
> > Dave:
> > Maybe some of your readers could shed some more light on the following
> > statement in a NY Times article on overtime ("Overtime Rises Making Fatigue
> > a Labor Issue", URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/17/business/17STRE.html )
> >
> > The article says that Congress is considering...
> >  > Measures ... [to]... identify several types of information-economy
> > workers — including computer network analysts and database administrators
> > and even funeral directors — and specifically define them as management,
> > barred from receiving overtime pay.
> >
> >  > Yet another provision being considered would go further, allowing
> > employers to reduce workers' regular pay and make up the difference in
> > bonuses. Employees' total pay for every hour worked would be unchanged, but
> > overtime compensation would fall since it would be calculated on a lower 
> > wage.
> >
> > Anybody know who's pushing this Bill?  Is this on any labor advocacy
> > group's radar screens?
> >
> > best regards,
> > --Wulf