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
>