Whatever Happened to Overtime?(politico.com)
politico.com
Whatever Happened to Overtime?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/overtime-pay-obama-congress-112954.html
12 comments
To be fair, even as an above average person, were still in the middle class, even if the upper portion of that class. Few of us in the software industry are rich, just very comfortable.
But that comfort could fade very quickly, given a few scant months of unemployment.
But that comfort could fade very quickly, given a few scant months of unemployment.
In 2011, a $100,000 salary gave you a higher individual income than 93.4% of all working-age Americans [0]. Around that same time, the nationwide median salary for a software developer was $93,350 [1]. Thus, today the majority of developers are easily within the top 7% of compensation in the United States. If that's the middle class, then what does that make the other 93%, who are worse off?
[0]: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/perinc/new01...
[1]: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...
[0]: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/perinc/new01...
[1]: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/s...
I don't think class is defined solely in terms of income is it? Isn't class more about background, education, politics, lifestyle, tastes and culture? You can be poor but upper class, and you can be a millionaire but working class.
In the US class is defined by either income or capital and nothing else.
Class is about whether or not you own all the tools necessary to produce a useful product and send it to market. If you own the means of production, you're a capitalist. If you must hire yourself out because you don't own the means of production, you're working-class.
What's a "useful product"? Who owns the means of production? The CxOs? The board? The product design team? The shareholders? You can be low-income and still be a shareholder of a publicly listed company - the broker I use here in Australia has a minimum trade of AU$500 with AU$19.95 brokerage fee. What class do I fall in to if my income is below average yet I have significant stock holdings?
Anyone with a computer, an Internet connection, and the gumption to do so, can send a product to market.
Anyone with a computer, an Internet connection, and the gumption to do so, can send a product to market.
>Who owns the means of production?
The shareholders and board, primarily.
>What class do I fall in to if my income is below average yet I have significant stock holdings?
Well, you're implying that you have to work for a living or starve, so you're working-class.
>Anyone with a computer, an Internet connection, and the gumption to do so, can send a product to market.
And yet only roughly 0.1% of the population actually lives off anything other than wages.
The shareholders and board, primarily.
>What class do I fall in to if my income is below average yet I have significant stock holdings?
Well, you're implying that you have to work for a living or starve, so you're working-class.
>Anyone with a computer, an Internet connection, and the gumption to do so, can send a product to market.
And yet only roughly 0.1% of the population actually lives off anything other than wages.
That's the 2010 census; if you look at the 2013 American Community Survey's 1-year estimate, someone making $100,000 is suddenly only making more than 87.7% of earners - and is $40,000 more than median for someone with a graduate or professional degree [0].
If you look at households, that percentage is much lower - at $150,000 they're in the 90.1%; at $100,000 a household (aka an individual earner living alone or as the sole earner in a household) is in the 77.4% [1].
> If that's the middle class, then what does that make the other 93%, who are worse off?
You've introduced a false dichotomy here. Just because an individual in the 93% (by your own figures) or a household in the 77.4% (by the ACS figures) is considered middle class doesn't mean that someone in the 57.5% (~$50,000) isn't also middle class. These things aren't linearly distributed.
On the other hand, it's pretty evident that neither one is upper class. But that depends on the definition of upper class, no?
What is your definition of upper class? Sheer income percentile, or what an individual can actually accomplish at a given income percentile?
General usage has upper class being those who can afford not to work if they so choose; those who not only are rich themselves, but whose families have been rich for several generations. They send their children to private schools with a higher tuition than a State university; they probably own more than one home. I don't know any SWE that can claim that unless they were born to it or got in just after (or before) the first round of investment at a unicorn like Google or Instagram.
"Upper middle class" is a pretty apt term, and usually reserved for those in professions like software development (surprise!), mechanical engineering, architecture, managerial, etc. Those under this label are usually comfortable, can easily afford to own their own home, and - in comparison to the creature comforts available - better off than royalty from two hundred years ago.
But in comparison to the creature comforts of those just 1-2% above them, they're paupers. And those in the 95% are, to those in the top 1% (generally considered the cutoff for Upper Class), simply one head of chattel among the unwashed, hepatitis ridden, gout prone proletariat.
0. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/p... 1. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/p...
If you look at households, that percentage is much lower - at $150,000 they're in the 90.1%; at $100,000 a household (aka an individual earner living alone or as the sole earner in a household) is in the 77.4% [1].
> If that's the middle class, then what does that make the other 93%, who are worse off?
You've introduced a false dichotomy here. Just because an individual in the 93% (by your own figures) or a household in the 77.4% (by the ACS figures) is considered middle class doesn't mean that someone in the 57.5% (~$50,000) isn't also middle class. These things aren't linearly distributed.
On the other hand, it's pretty evident that neither one is upper class. But that depends on the definition of upper class, no?
What is your definition of upper class? Sheer income percentile, or what an individual can actually accomplish at a given income percentile?
General usage has upper class being those who can afford not to work if they so choose; those who not only are rich themselves, but whose families have been rich for several generations. They send their children to private schools with a higher tuition than a State university; they probably own more than one home. I don't know any SWE that can claim that unless they were born to it or got in just after (or before) the first round of investment at a unicorn like Google or Instagram.
"Upper middle class" is a pretty apt term, and usually reserved for those in professions like software development (surprise!), mechanical engineering, architecture, managerial, etc. Those under this label are usually comfortable, can easily afford to own their own home, and - in comparison to the creature comforts available - better off than royalty from two hundred years ago.
But in comparison to the creature comforts of those just 1-2% above them, they're paupers. And those in the 95% are, to those in the top 1% (generally considered the cutoff for Upper Class), simply one head of chattel among the unwashed, hepatitis ridden, gout prone proletariat.
0. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/p... 1. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/p...
compared to the average MD, accountant or Lawyer with the same qualifications we are lower middle class
IMO they (Lawyer, MD, some C level execs) are lower upper class. Tech professionals are Higher middle class.
A friend of mine once shared learnings from a university class that talked about markers of each class.
Lower class can be marked by immediate gratification (sometimes out of need): Buying a bag of chips and soda because you need calories now, spend that tax refund on a TV because you want something to make yourself feel better and you "know" the end of your poverty/pain isnt ever coming, better to spend today than wait for a broken promise to come true.
One of the middle class markers is deferral of gratification for greater future gratification: buying a home instead of renting forever, going to school to eventually make more money, buying a jumbo pack of toilet paper today to save 12c a roll for the next year.
The upper class marker is that of unlimited gratification and a separate economic; You can have anything you (reasonably) could want and the basis of your life is not monetary/material but more about economic power, political influence, access to inaccessible people and places. Examples might be anything that is actually "exclusive" (as opposed to the marketing term applied to everything), relating to and breeding with people at or above your ranks and, various markers of your importance in this world to show off to others (Awards, recognitions, philanthropy) ...
A friend of mine once shared learnings from a university class that talked about markers of each class.
Lower class can be marked by immediate gratification (sometimes out of need): Buying a bag of chips and soda because you need calories now, spend that tax refund on a TV because you want something to make yourself feel better and you "know" the end of your poverty/pain isnt ever coming, better to spend today than wait for a broken promise to come true.
One of the middle class markers is deferral of gratification for greater future gratification: buying a home instead of renting forever, going to school to eventually make more money, buying a jumbo pack of toilet paper today to save 12c a roll for the next year.
The upper class marker is that of unlimited gratification and a separate economic; You can have anything you (reasonably) could want and the basis of your life is not monetary/material but more about economic power, political influence, access to inaccessible people and places. Examples might be anything that is actually "exclusive" (as opposed to the marketing term applied to everything), relating to and breeding with people at or above your ranks and, various markers of your importance in this world to show off to others (Awards, recognitions, philanthropy) ...
Well I would argue that "engineers" are professionals eve if the liberal arts grads would have a fit. Certainly My co workers at Bt and in the scientific civil service consider themselves as such
And Upper class quite often go for a shabby look and can actually be quite poor
And Upper class quite often go for a shabby look and can actually be quite poor
This is an odd definition. Apparently India and China, with their 20% savings rates, are middle class. But the far richer US (savings rate ~ 0%) is lower class?
And if the poor Americans suddenly started behaving like responsible Indians, they would become middle class?
And if the poor Americans suddenly started behaving like responsible Indians, they would become middle class?
saving rates lol that's not how "class works"
I disagree.
I used to be an IT auditor. I worked in public accounting. The CPAs who really crushed it were partners. They usually had been with the firm for 10+ years minimum, and were basically in sales at that point. You have to buy into the company normally when you make partner, and less than 10% of employees ever make partner.
MDs, yes they're high earners, but many go into a ton of debt, and don't start earning a lot till pretty late in their career. Many blow through all their cash too.
Lawyers, yes obviously some make bank. But many make next to nothing. I have tons of friends who are just graduating and can't find work.
As a developer, I can clear 100K a year working remotely in a very affordable state. And I have no debt. That's a pretty good living. On top of that, I love what I do. Note that I don't have kids though.
The only concern I have about software development is that it seems to plateau around 100-150K a year. I guess that makes sense though. You'd have to go into management to make more, and you wouldn't be writing much code, which is what I like to do.
Anyways, I wouldn't call a good developer making a reasonable developer salary lower middle class.
I used to be an IT auditor. I worked in public accounting. The CPAs who really crushed it were partners. They usually had been with the firm for 10+ years minimum, and were basically in sales at that point. You have to buy into the company normally when you make partner, and less than 10% of employees ever make partner.
MDs, yes they're high earners, but many go into a ton of debt, and don't start earning a lot till pretty late in their career. Many blow through all their cash too.
Lawyers, yes obviously some make bank. But many make next to nothing. I have tons of friends who are just graduating and can't find work.
As a developer, I can clear 100K a year working remotely in a very affordable state. And I have no debt. That's a pretty good living. On top of that, I love what I do. Note that I don't have kids though.
The only concern I have about software development is that it seems to plateau around 100-150K a year. I guess that makes sense though. You'd have to go into management to make more, and you wouldn't be writing much code, which is what I like to do.
Anyways, I wouldn't call a good developer making a reasonable developer salary lower middle class.
In the UK the Average GP (family doctor) is on £120k most Ceng Engineers would be lucky to make half that and would have a Finaly Salary pension these days
The narrative is that overtime hours represent hard-work and dedication towards the employer and its mission. As the average worker is looking for an opportunity to advance their position, they accept overtime as a necessity, and sometimes as a badge of honor.
However, from a management perspective, unpaid overtime is great. It lets you be lazy in your management. You have no incentive to help an employee finish their tasks in 40 hours when you know they are going to stay 55 hours to complete it by brute force.
If you assign a cost to those overtime hours, the manager now has an incentive to actively participate in your workstream by coaching or seeking efficiences to get you home in 40 hours. And you have the incentive to do likewise since your overtime hours now represent an additional cost to your employer. It will transform overtime from a badge of honor into a topic to be avoided unless truly necessary. It will no longer be the norm.
We can discuss the virtues and detriments of labor unions at length, but they seemed to at least serve as a mechanism of protecting the worker from themselves (i.e. by placing a cap on hours worked, you could not stand out by putting in more time than everyone else).
We as a society need to decide if we want to prioritize time incurred in the workplace, or if we want to judge worker quality off of other behaviors. If we want to de-emphasize time incurred, adding incremental cost to overtime hours would be a useful tool.
However, from a management perspective, unpaid overtime is great. It lets you be lazy in your management. You have no incentive to help an employee finish their tasks in 40 hours when you know they are going to stay 55 hours to complete it by brute force.
If you assign a cost to those overtime hours, the manager now has an incentive to actively participate in your workstream by coaching or seeking efficiences to get you home in 40 hours. And you have the incentive to do likewise since your overtime hours now represent an additional cost to your employer. It will transform overtime from a badge of honor into a topic to be avoided unless truly necessary. It will no longer be the norm.
We can discuss the virtues and detriments of labor unions at length, but they seemed to at least serve as a mechanism of protecting the worker from themselves (i.e. by placing a cap on hours worked, you could not stand out by putting in more time than everyone else).
We as a society need to decide if we want to prioritize time incurred in the workplace, or if we want to judge worker quality off of other behaviors. If we want to de-emphasize time incurred, adding incremental cost to overtime hours would be a useful tool.
I work in a game company that has paid overtime and this is exactly what's happening. Management tries very hard to not have any overtime as it's paid 1-1 into vacation time and eats directly into their budget.
Those of us working, don't really want the overtime because we'd like to go home at night and are usually brain dead by the time 7pm hits.
Really, it works for everyone involved. The company has happier, healthier, and more productive employees, and the employees get paid for all of their work. The only downside is that when doing pre-production, estimates are usually on the higher side to avoid going over the time budget.
Those of us working, don't really want the overtime because we'd like to go home at night and are usually brain dead by the time 7pm hits.
Really, it works for everyone involved. The company has happier, healthier, and more productive employees, and the employees get paid for all of their work. The only downside is that when doing pre-production, estimates are usually on the higher side to avoid going over the time budget.
I would love to see exponentially expensive overtime.
That first hour of overtime isn't "just an hour," it's a whole eighth of that day's "leftover" waking time. Four hours of overtime is half of those hours left after getting a night's sleep, which cuts deeply into the limited windows of time people have for family and friends.
Beyond that, "unpaid" overtime is worse than that. The costs in productivity losses, health damage, and mental imbalance are still paid, just by the employee and society at large. Expecting IT workers to work 60-80 hours equates to dumping economic and psychological "toxin" into the local water supply. The employers don't mind, because they're buying bottled water with the profits. In short, we need an "Employment EPA."
That first hour of overtime isn't "just an hour," it's a whole eighth of that day's "leftover" waking time. Four hours of overtime is half of those hours left after getting a night's sleep, which cuts deeply into the limited windows of time people have for family and friends.
Beyond that, "unpaid" overtime is worse than that. The costs in productivity losses, health damage, and mental imbalance are still paid, just by the employee and society at large. Expecting IT workers to work 60-80 hours equates to dumping economic and psychological "toxin" into the local water supply. The employers don't mind, because they're buying bottled water with the profits. In short, we need an "Employment EPA."
> In short, we need an "Employment EPA."
http://www.dol.gov/
http://www.dol.gov/
Alright, an "Employment EPA" efficacious enough that I don't have to be reminded of its existence.
However, from an employee perspective, paid overtime is great. It lets you be lazy in your work. You have no incentive to help the company finish it's tasks in 40 hours when you know they are going to pay you to stay 55 hours to complete it by brute force.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that there are two sides to incentives and it's not obvious that one side is more important than the other.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that there are two sides to incentives and it's not obvious that one side is more important than the other.
Quality of life is one big reason not to work 55 hours a week. Even for additional compensation, I wouldn't want to be stuck at my job for all that additional time.
Also overtime does not mean that you can just stay late at work whenever you want and bill your employer. Overtime is for when the company tells an an employee that the employee has to stay late to finish an assignment. Then the employee is compensated for staying late, rather than being told they have to stay late and having to just deal with it.
Also overtime does not mean that you can just stay late at work whenever you want and bill your employer. Overtime is for when the company tells an an employee that the employee has to stay late to finish an assignment. Then the employee is compensated for staying late, rather than being told they have to stay late and having to just deal with it.
There are a ton of incentives to not work the 55-hour week as an employee even when it's paid 1.5 or 2x. Health and having time to do other things are probably near the top of the list, but there are many others like morale, avoiding fatigue/burnout etc. Having a cap on hours worked and forcing employers to pay for extra hours, even if it's at the same rate as regular hours, works incredibly well in practice. Not having such a cap and not paying for extra hours doesn't. Inevitably, at the very least, the work will suffer greatly, probably to the point where the extra hours become meaningless compared to what the workers could achieve if they were not overworked.
Empirically employees who get paid 1.5x or 2x for overtime seem to want to get as much overtime as possible regardless of the fact that it cuts into other activities in their lives. That's at least been my perspective. I'm not sure if there are any large scale studies done on this topic.
You might be correct that the best way to balance the competing incentives is to require overtime pay but not at a higher rate.
You might be correct that the best way to balance the competing incentives is to require overtime pay but not at a higher rate.
In large part that relates to the low pay of anyone that still qualifies for Overtime in the US. But also because it's calculated on a week by week basis. Work 60 hours in one week with double over time and you get to take 1 full week off. Change that to a monthly or yearly basis and people are less inclined to work overtime.
This should have not been down voted for non professional jobs there are a lot of "Spanish" practices around OT and Bonus's
the posties used to put some of the post posted on Friday to make sure that there was OT avable on Saturday.
And even in professional jobs I have seen some sketchy practices ie DBA's being on call 4 in 4 and getting called maybe twice a year BTW the rate was $600+ per week plus toil at OT rates
the posties used to put some of the post posted on Friday to make sure that there was OT avable on Saturday.
And even in professional jobs I have seen some sketchy practices ie DBA's being on call 4 in 4 and getting called maybe twice a year BTW the rate was $600+ per week plus toil at OT rates
At which point you get fired.
If you consistently can't meet deadlines and your boss isn't helping then people lose jobs.
There's - always - some variant of these laws, and all states have people who can abuse it.
For many jobs though, over time should be there, because many jobs have only a finite amount of output achievable by a human being.
If you consistently can't meet deadlines and your boss isn't helping then people lose jobs.
There's - always - some variant of these laws, and all states have people who can abuse it.
For many jobs though, over time should be there, because many jobs have only a finite amount of output achievable by a human being.
The employer holds a myriad of cards to deal with unproductive people. At will employment means they can lose that will at any sign of unproductive work. Outside of tech, and IMO, its much harder to replace a job than it is to replace an employee, so the scales are tipped in the employer's favor.
Indian, here. And this article is dead right!
This trend is getting common even here in India. In fact its already everywhere. My father routinely points out to me how ridiculous it has gotten. Back in his day(He was a bus driver, now a cab driver), you would be called to clock overtime anytime a fellow driver was on leave, sick or just absent due to same reason. And they would get paid handsomely for it. In fact overtime pay was the whole thing behind 'Work hard, get rich'.
When I started my career in Software, and I would routinely do late nighters and weekends. He used to be surprised we were ready to do so much work for free. Ideally you could argue that a bus driver and a programmer have very different kinds of jobs, but then it the same vein programmers should get paid proportional to what impact their work has, but that doesn't happen either.
I think the employers are having the best time in history. Which so many people ready to so much work for free, what else could you ask for?
This trend is getting common even here in India. In fact its already everywhere. My father routinely points out to me how ridiculous it has gotten. Back in his day(He was a bus driver, now a cab driver), you would be called to clock overtime anytime a fellow driver was on leave, sick or just absent due to same reason. And they would get paid handsomely for it. In fact overtime pay was the whole thing behind 'Work hard, get rich'.
When I started my career in Software, and I would routinely do late nighters and weekends. He used to be surprised we were ready to do so much work for free. Ideally you could argue that a bus driver and a programmer have very different kinds of jobs, but then it the same vein programmers should get paid proportional to what impact their work has, but that doesn't happen either.
I think the employers are having the best time in history. Which so many people ready to so much work for free, what else could you ask for?
Go for it. As I stated before, his last two years can be used to fix a lot or cause a lot of strife. The President has shown little concern for others in his party and does love sticking it to those who don't agree with him.
He really has nothing to lose, fixing the overtime rules would be a great step in restoring faith in the system; but I think 69k is aiming far too low. People should be allowed to work overtime, not be forced into it. Hence I am suggesting he aim really high, like the Roth income level cutoff. It already is a declaration of the government as the line between too well off to deserve the tax benefit.
He really has nothing to lose, fixing the overtime rules would be a great step in restoring faith in the system; but I think 69k is aiming far too low. People should be allowed to work overtime, not be forced into it. Hence I am suggesting he aim really high, like the Roth income level cutoff. It already is a declaration of the government as the line between too well off to deserve the tax benefit.
From the left, this president is considered far too accommodating the right. This is one of those issues that everyone can see needs to be fixed and would be popular enough to be incontestable. I'm sure the republicans will be against it because they did not think of it first.
To be fair, the President only works as hard as the votes he can get for his party. That's not over. Obama's job for the next two years is to do what he can to make it a possibility that another Democrat will come after him. That means he will do a lot, but whether or not he will take this specific action is hard to ascertain.
Are the workers powerless in this? I am not debating the premise, but it's a fair question. Wages are generally driven by market conditions (except in Union jobs, but that's another discussion..) so I wonder if the similar competition for wages ought not include hours worked. A 40 hour job paying 50k would be preferable to a 60 hour job paying 60k, yet most job seekers simply look at the salary and not the cost. It would seem that wage competition should naturally extend to hours competition. I see this in some startups.. They might offer you $125k yet imply an 80 hour week is expected. So that salary is dramatically lower than a 100k position at 40 hours. Yet that differential is rarely discussed. I think a mandatory, government imposed rule ultimately distorts the market. What if someone is willing to work extra hours as a part of their salary? I'm not sure the government 'protecting' us can actually be quantified so clearly. If an average position pays $55k and requires 55 hours, then with new overtime rules, there's nothing preventing that salary to become $40k. My point is that business will always optimize -- a business will never pay more than the value of the input. What would likely happen is either increased hiring of no benefits part timers or an increase in the product price which would then drive inflation. There's some serious unintended consequences that the original author seems to gloss over. I am not sure who this guy is but unless he's paying his workers overtime, then I don't much care what he has to say. If he's a "wealthy" entrepreneur who doesn't like the rules, he's free to pay his workers more. He's also making the suggestion that "corporate" profits have grown-- which corporations? All of them? The majority of businesses are small businesses -- what effect would these rules have on them?
I am not dismissing the premise, just suggesting that there is far more complexity and shades of gray involved.
I am not dismissing the premise, just suggesting that there is far more complexity and shades of gray involved.
You can't really negotiate on expected working hours, because the minute that comes up you will be off the list of prospects at most places. Salary is out there in the open and can be talked about, but the idea that you might not want to work 50 hours? Not so much.
I'm not working in the US but I'd definitely not take a job at any salary without knowing the office culture, overtime trends etc. I'd simply be very up front with that I'm not about to work more than 40h on average, and that the compensation is exactly for that.
When I recruit people, I fully expect them to have the same idea. If this makes me less eligible for the position then that's all the better: I wasn't interested anyway.
I read through the article, and I read through the comments here, and I did some online searching for other writings by the same author as the opinion essay kindly submitted here. The author describes himself as an "entrepreneur," but I haven't yet found some detailed sources about how his business ventures were formed or funded. I have found some strong criticism of his basic understanding of economics.
As for the law on the topic, the author may be correct that the President acting alone can use executive authority under established law to let the income threshold for mandatory overtime pay rise. I haven't checked whether or not that is entirely in the hands of the President under current United States law. If so, then the only politics around the issue would be the politics of what an incumbent President already in the second half of his second term (a "lame duck" President) thinks is an appropriate response to this issue among all the other issues he is dealing with.
What I don't know here for sure is how much any of this would matter economically to most people. Neither my wife nor I are employees of anyone (we both work as sole-proprietor business owners). We can work as many hours as we can stay awake without gaining overtime pay. What I hear about more often in the United States economy than employed wage-earners not being paid overtime is employed wage-earners not being offered even full-time hours, because shorter hours remove a requirement to provide employee health insurance benefits for many employers. I'm not at all sure what the author advocates here would have a big beneficial effect for the economy in general or for workers now working overtime in particular. Demand for labor working under any particular schedule is elastic, and maybe the proposal here will just result in fewer working hours being offered per employee.
As for the law on the topic, the author may be correct that the President acting alone can use executive authority under established law to let the income threshold for mandatory overtime pay rise. I haven't checked whether or not that is entirely in the hands of the President under current United States law. If so, then the only politics around the issue would be the politics of what an incumbent President already in the second half of his second term (a "lame duck" President) thinks is an appropriate response to this issue among all the other issues he is dealing with.
What I don't know here for sure is how much any of this would matter economically to most people. Neither my wife nor I are employees of anyone (we both work as sole-proprietor business owners). We can work as many hours as we can stay awake without gaining overtime pay. What I hear about more often in the United States economy than employed wage-earners not being paid overtime is employed wage-earners not being offered even full-time hours, because shorter hours remove a requirement to provide employee health insurance benefits for many employers. I'm not at all sure what the author advocates here would have a big beneficial effect for the economy in general or for workers now working overtime in particular. Demand for labor working under any particular schedule is elastic, and maybe the proposal here will just result in fewer working hours being offered per employee.
> What I hear about more often in the United States economy than employed wage-earners not being paid overtime is employed wage-earners not being offered even full-time hours, because shorter hours remove a requirement to provide employee health insurance benefits for many employers.
As someone in the States, that arbitrary cut-off drives me nuts. I would much rather have scaled benefits, all derived from formulas.
As someone in the States, that arbitrary cut-off drives me nuts. I would much rather have scaled benefits, all derived from formulas.
There are many things that we cannot be sure about. But I do share his concerns. If wealth inequality keeps growing, this will inevitably lead to social unrest. And shrinking wealth for the middle and lower classes will deprive many companies of their customers. Or will the top 1% only sell their stuff to each other?
The 1% will trade our labor back and forth to their gain in a cycle. Eg: a rich person will trade $100 for house cleaning service (basically costs lower/middle class time) for some other service (Casino black jack dealer?). In this way they can both experience the services produced by the lower/middle classes w/o degrading their total holdings. Plus, if they own the things the lower and middle class spend their income on then any money that does trickle down will eventually end up as revenues on the books of an asset they own (walmart or a utility for example).
IMO the best ways to break these cycles is to try and buy things from people poorer than you and to try and own as much of the economy as you can. The middle class could buy up much of the economy with little effort-- If 100m people spent ~$3k each they could buy walmart instead of outfitting a home theatre with 60" tv, ps4, accessories and a couch. There'd be some amazing change in america if this kind of thing started to happen.
Of course its like all changes though, its hard to get the masses to do anything in unison.
IMO the best ways to break these cycles is to try and buy things from people poorer than you and to try and own as much of the economy as you can. The middle class could buy up much of the economy with little effort-- If 100m people spent ~$3k each they could buy walmart instead of outfitting a home theatre with 60" tv, ps4, accessories and a couch. There'd be some amazing change in america if this kind of thing started to happen.
Of course its like all changes though, its hard to get the masses to do anything in unison.
Well it's quite possible the top 1% are already selling to each other at huge scales through the firms they own.
What really helps is being able to capture new efficiencies uncovered by innovation.
What really helps is being able to capture new efficiencies uncovered by innovation.
> I have found some strong criticism of his basic understanding of economics.
Does anyone know what proponents of stock buybacks would say in response to his arguments? Given the downsides, why is it appropriate/fair/legitimate?
Does anyone know what proponents of stock buybacks would say in response to his arguments? Given the downsides, why is it appropriate/fair/legitimate?
> I'm not at all sure what the author advocates here would have a big beneficial effect for the economy in general or for workers now working overtime in particular.
The author does a poor job explaining the macro-economic effects. You get a glimpse of the reasoning in the last few lines, where he states that the ratio of corporate profits over GDP doubled, from 6% to 12% of GDP from pre-80s to nowadays.
We[1] have a problem with wealth distribution. I don't draw this problem in terms of fairness, because the concept of fairness is different from an individual to the next. We have a problem of income distribution that goes beyond the notion of fairness, becoming serious enough to be a menace to the stability of capitalism.
A balanced economy has a thriving consumption component, which creates demand, and a thriving investment component, which drives supply. These go hand in hand. If there is too much demand, and investment falters, you get high inflation economies. However, if you get too much investment and demand falters, you suddenly have no investment opportunities and you get a slew of ill effects as capital is trying to find out where it can get returns. The most visible such effect is the appearance of investment bubbles and the crashes when these burst.
People easily recognize the problems of investment-starved economies. The common citizen does not recognize the problems of demand-starved economies, because these are new.
Here, we can witness first hand how young economic science is. Inflationary effects on supply starved economies were the norm in the XX century, so these are very well studied. Demand starved economies? Not so much. The US and the EU are the first ones (possibly, in a slightly different fashion, preceded by Japan).
The causes for this do not lay squarely on politicians. It's easy to take a passionate view and find a target to blame. That is not the case, however.
The current demand starved economy is caused by a big mix of factors. I've never ran the numbers, so take my opinion with a grain of salt: I'd wager the two biggest factors are:
1. Technological evolution, which increases demand while causing a deflation of costs (and consequently, on the circulation speed of money)
2. Globalization. We have moved a great deal of added value to developing countries, namely in the East. If Japan can be used as an example of what to expect, it will take two generations for demand to occur there.
The globalization question is specially problematic. Not because there aren't enough resources for everyone. It is problematic because China is huge. The delay in consumption increase, coupled with huge inertia, can destroy western economies.
The technological question is important, but it has been with us ever since the industrial revolution. We have been able to cope with it, and the same methods should apply.
[1] I'm European. We are, however, in the same boat as North Americans in this problem, with slightly worse politicians. Europe is politically led by Germany. Historically, Germany is prone to fear investment starved economies so they are profoundly erring on identifying the issues and correctly acting).
The author does a poor job explaining the macro-economic effects. You get a glimpse of the reasoning in the last few lines, where he states that the ratio of corporate profits over GDP doubled, from 6% to 12% of GDP from pre-80s to nowadays.
We[1] have a problem with wealth distribution. I don't draw this problem in terms of fairness, because the concept of fairness is different from an individual to the next. We have a problem of income distribution that goes beyond the notion of fairness, becoming serious enough to be a menace to the stability of capitalism.
A balanced economy has a thriving consumption component, which creates demand, and a thriving investment component, which drives supply. These go hand in hand. If there is too much demand, and investment falters, you get high inflation economies. However, if you get too much investment and demand falters, you suddenly have no investment opportunities and you get a slew of ill effects as capital is trying to find out where it can get returns. The most visible such effect is the appearance of investment bubbles and the crashes when these burst.
People easily recognize the problems of investment-starved economies. The common citizen does not recognize the problems of demand-starved economies, because these are new.
Here, we can witness first hand how young economic science is. Inflationary effects on supply starved economies were the norm in the XX century, so these are very well studied. Demand starved economies? Not so much. The US and the EU are the first ones (possibly, in a slightly different fashion, preceded by Japan).
The causes for this do not lay squarely on politicians. It's easy to take a passionate view and find a target to blame. That is not the case, however.
The current demand starved economy is caused by a big mix of factors. I've never ran the numbers, so take my opinion with a grain of salt: I'd wager the two biggest factors are:
1. Technological evolution, which increases demand while causing a deflation of costs (and consequently, on the circulation speed of money)
2. Globalization. We have moved a great deal of added value to developing countries, namely in the East. If Japan can be used as an example of what to expect, it will take two generations for demand to occur there.
The globalization question is specially problematic. Not because there aren't enough resources for everyone. It is problematic because China is huge. The delay in consumption increase, coupled with huge inertia, can destroy western economies.
The technological question is important, but it has been with us ever since the industrial revolution. We have been able to cope with it, and the same methods should apply.
[1] I'm European. We are, however, in the same boat as North Americans in this problem, with slightly worse politicians. Europe is politically led by Germany. Historically, Germany is prone to fear investment starved economies so they are profoundly erring on identifying the issues and correctly acting).
> The author does a poor job explaining the macro-economic effects. You get a glimpse of the reasoning in the last few lines, where he states that the ratio of corporate profits over GDP doubled, from 6% to 12% of GDP from pre-80s to nowadays.
That's the last few lines of the first of three pages. I made the same mistake at first.
That's the last few lines of the first of three pages. I made the same mistake at first.
Oops. Thanks for the heads up.
The thing I always heard is that if you are any hourly worker you are paid for your time. If you are a salaried worker you are paid to get the job done regardless of how much time it takes. I think I've heard that cited in legal cases. It seems like a useful distinction.
Many jobs in the modern economy are flexible. You do your work whenever. Maybe you carve out six hours a day to program but if you need to take a client call or answer an email out of hours you do it and you don't feel bad because you can goof off during the day when you like to as long as the work gets done.
Tracking this would be ridiculous and most employers will actually remove that flexibility in order to make sure that they comply with the law. People who like flexibility will lose and so will the economy. We'll become much less responsive.
Many jobs in the modern economy are flexible. You do your work whenever. Maybe you carve out six hours a day to program but if you need to take a client call or answer an email out of hours you do it and you don't feel bad because you can goof off during the day when you like to as long as the work gets done.
Tracking this would be ridiculous and most employers will actually remove that flexibility in order to make sure that they comply with the law. People who like flexibility will lose and so will the economy. We'll become much less responsive.
> The thing I always heard is that if you are any hourly worker you are paid for your time. If you are a salaried worker you are paid to get the job done regardless of how much time it takes.
Right, but this isn't some law of nature. It's something that some people have decided. So we can ask what are the consequences of this belief? What are the ways in which it can be abused? Who does it benefit?
For a limiting case, consider a job that needs to be done by the end of the day. No one on Earth can do it in less than 25 hours. Is it reasonable to expect the work to be done in a day?
In reality, the issue is that no one is exactly sure how long knowledge work will take, so employers and managers will tend to push for more work to be done in less time, and employees can't definitively say "no, that's unreasonable / impossible."
The problem with this mentality is that it doesn't sufficiently penalize managers for being bad at project management. If I'm your manager, I can do a terrible job of managing you, the project, and/or the company but I still have this fantastic way out -- I can just demand that you do what's necessary to make it work.
This is a huge moral hazard, and a broken feed-back loop. It's endemic in software and small owner-run companies.
Right, but this isn't some law of nature. It's something that some people have decided. So we can ask what are the consequences of this belief? What are the ways in which it can be abused? Who does it benefit?
For a limiting case, consider a job that needs to be done by the end of the day. No one on Earth can do it in less than 25 hours. Is it reasonable to expect the work to be done in a day?
In reality, the issue is that no one is exactly sure how long knowledge work will take, so employers and managers will tend to push for more work to be done in less time, and employees can't definitively say "no, that's unreasonable / impossible."
The problem with this mentality is that it doesn't sufficiently penalize managers for being bad at project management. If I'm your manager, I can do a terrible job of managing you, the project, and/or the company but I still have this fantastic way out -- I can just demand that you do what's necessary to make it work.
This is a huge moral hazard, and a broken feed-back loop. It's endemic in software and small owner-run companies.
It's all about trust.
If both parties trust one another, then it takes as long as it takes, and how to manage that is just an ordinary discussion. More people? Clear roadblock? Redefine requirements? Whatever.
Where there isn't trust, the salary position often gets abused.
If both parties trust one another, then it takes as long as it takes, and how to manage that is just an ordinary discussion. More people? Clear roadblock? Redefine requirements? Whatever.
Where there isn't trust, the salary position often gets abused.
The complicating factor and essential difference for worker / manager / owner relationships is the power differential. It's one thing to be in a relationship of equals where neither party can "pull rank".
In my experience, there are many managers who when confronted with their own performance shortcomings will tend to pull rank and resort to authority. Once this happens, there's no trust from the employee. I.e. as a manager, you can be arbitrarily bad at your job and my only recourse is to find a new manager or to leave the company. I accept that that's the way the world works, but it shows that true trust is difficult to maintain when one party has more power than the other, and a tendency to use it without consequences.
In my experience, there are many managers who when confronted with their own performance shortcomings will tend to pull rank and resort to authority. Once this happens, there's no trust from the employee. I.e. as a manager, you can be arbitrarily bad at your job and my only recourse is to find a new manager or to leave the company. I accept that that's the way the world works, but it shows that true trust is difficult to maintain when one party has more power than the other, and a tendency to use it without consequences.
I don't think "many" jobs are flexible the way you describe them. At least from my experience.
Yes, salaried employees are paid to get the job done regardless of how long it takes, so long as it takes no less that 40 hours. Companies will gladly let you work 50, 60, or 80 hours a week with no additional compensation (except promises of promotions or bonuses), but if you try to work less than 40, that's not allowed.
but if you try to work less than 40, that's not allowed.
This is completely false (in CA, at least). If I work 1 hour on Monday, say, and 12 on Tuesday, I'm paid for 8 hours for each day.
In fact, my company works like this. I don't often work less than 8 hours, but it happens. Accounting knows how to handle it, and does like a pro.
I've never been hassled.
This is completely false (in CA, at least). If I work 1 hour on Monday, say, and 12 on Tuesday, I'm paid for 8 hours for each day.
In fact, my company works like this. I don't often work less than 8 hours, but it happens. Accounting knows how to handle it, and does like a pro.
I've never been hassled.
Your situation is absolutely far, far outside the norm, even (especially?) in the software industry.
You may think that, but it is the law in CA.
It's the way that law is structured in many states, if not all, actually. In some states (and this includes CA), employers are actually entitled to withhold pay to exempt employees under certain circumstances (e.g. with respect to partial-day absences under appropriately structured PTO/vacation plans, which are trivial for companies to comply with).
That aside, the structure of the law and the practice of companies that are supposed to abide by it don't necessarily coincide. Generally even in labor-friendly states employers hold almost all the power and are unlikely to face any serious threat (e.g. via a lawsuit) from employees who challenge illegal labor practices like failing to pay for a full week in which any work is performed. They're especially unlikely to do so in the software industry, which as far as I can tell has a surplus of labor supply who: a) view themselves as Jon Galt or b) are all too eager to "prove" how great they are compared to other "devs" by, e.g., submitting themselves to onerous employment practices or c) believe, wrongly, that the entire industry is based on merit (intellectual, ability-based merit) and that "unfair" labor practices just can't happen to them (because they're so awesome) or d) some combination of all of that. These things have all conspired to help employers depress wages and maintain the completely farcical myth that "getting paid less for doing what you love" is fair.
That aside, the structure of the law and the practice of companies that are supposed to abide by it don't necessarily coincide. Generally even in labor-friendly states employers hold almost all the power and are unlikely to face any serious threat (e.g. via a lawsuit) from employees who challenge illegal labor practices like failing to pay for a full week in which any work is performed. They're especially unlikely to do so in the software industry, which as far as I can tell has a surplus of labor supply who: a) view themselves as Jon Galt or b) are all too eager to "prove" how great they are compared to other "devs" by, e.g., submitting themselves to onerous employment practices or c) believe, wrongly, that the entire industry is based on merit (intellectual, ability-based merit) and that "unfair" labor practices just can't happen to them (because they're so awesome) or d) some combination of all of that. These things have all conspired to help employers depress wages and maintain the completely farcical myth that "getting paid less for doing what you love" is fair.
The problem with that is the expectation for salaried workers is they are not working expanded hours at all time, that there is an ebb and flow.
There is no ebb in the modern salaried worker's time, they just work more for less.
In reality if you're salaried and you get the job done in less time than your coworkers, you're simply given more work to do. It would be great if you could finish your work by noon and go home, but very few workplaces are actually like that.
One thing i'm working on right now is basically building a bit of a "Blue book" for mundane components of the services we offer.
This seems to have some very positive "work life" balancing effects - it motivates engineers to learn things at a deeper level and develop solutions that cut down on inefficiency. It also encourages people to invest thought into solutions and proposals, as opposed to micromanaging how every hour of a project will get spent.
I think its also more fair to clients, too. Inevitably new things take longer the first couple times you do them, and traditionally the full cost of that learning period gets passed on to the client in one way or another. However, something that took two days to put together and figure out the first time may only take two hours to implement the next time - but it's hardly fair that Client B is only billed 2 hours and Client A is billed 16, simply because they were first to market with something.
This seems to have some very positive "work life" balancing effects - it motivates engineers to learn things at a deeper level and develop solutions that cut down on inefficiency. It also encourages people to invest thought into solutions and proposals, as opposed to micromanaging how every hour of a project will get spent.
I think its also more fair to clients, too. Inevitably new things take longer the first couple times you do them, and traditionally the full cost of that learning period gets passed on to the client in one way or another. However, something that took two days to put together and figure out the first time may only take two hours to implement the next time - but it's hardly fair that Client B is only billed 2 hours and Client A is billed 16, simply because they were first to market with something.
Usually the claim is then you goto your boss and say "see? i did 2x my coworkers and want a raise of 2x" . In reality there is a ton of FUD, lack of transparency etc. which stop that from happening.
While working abroad j can say that while flexibility is nice having defined parameters is way better. A lot of employers take advantage of the ambiguities in labor laws. Look at how many people are misclassified as 1099.
If I'm taking client emails outside of office hours it's because I'm on call. If I'm on call I'm getting paid for it. Simple as that.
If I'm taking client emails outside of office hours it's because I'm on call. If I'm on call I'm getting paid for it. Simple as that.
Then bill appropriately or don't do the job. You aren't a slave.
"get the job done regardless of how much time it takes"
Here's the problem. In my previous job as a programmer (video game development) we were given more work than was possible in the usual working hours. So we had to do work additional hours (unpaid) to catchup - which was pretty much constant throughout a project. This meant my employer was getting work done for free.
Honestly the additional hours nearly made me quit full-time employment. I felt stressed all the time, and took it out on my friends and family.
Never again.
Now I work for the government and get full overtime pay. All is well :)
Here's the problem. In my previous job as a programmer (video game development) we were given more work than was possible in the usual working hours. So we had to do work additional hours (unpaid) to catchup - which was pretty much constant throughout a project. This meant my employer was getting work done for free.
Honestly the additional hours nearly made me quit full-time employment. I felt stressed all the time, and took it out on my friends and family.
Never again.
Now I work for the government and get full overtime pay. All is well :)
That's a fairly recent "mutation".
Traditionally, a salary was like a retainer... You get paid for 35-40 hours a week, and have that commitment as the work waxed and waned. Hourly workers only work when there is work.
Overtime had everything to do with the type of worker you were, not the way you were paid. For example, a policeman is paid on an annual salary basis, but is eligible for overtime is needed.
In recent years, political and legal efforts have watered down the bite of the depression era regulations. (This helped fuel the economic tranformation of the South) So now a department "lead" at a store like WalMart making someone like $10/hour can be classed as a exempt employee in many states.
I first discovered this at a previous employer, where all of the help desk staff were "supervisors". Some schlub on a phone all day could easily see a 30% dilution of their hourly wage due to mandated, unpaid overtime. That was a real political awakening for me!
These laws exist to discourage employers from abusing overtime and reducing hiring. The "efficiency" of some über productive sap working 80 hours a week means that 1-3 other people don't have a job.
Traditionally, a salary was like a retainer... You get paid for 35-40 hours a week, and have that commitment as the work waxed and waned. Hourly workers only work when there is work.
Overtime had everything to do with the type of worker you were, not the way you were paid. For example, a policeman is paid on an annual salary basis, but is eligible for overtime is needed.
In recent years, political and legal efforts have watered down the bite of the depression era regulations. (This helped fuel the economic tranformation of the South) So now a department "lead" at a store like WalMart making someone like $10/hour can be classed as a exempt employee in many states.
I first discovered this at a previous employer, where all of the help desk staff were "supervisors". Some schlub on a phone all day could easily see a 30% dilution of their hourly wage due to mandated, unpaid overtime. That was a real political awakening for me!
These laws exist to discourage employers from abusing overtime and reducing hiring. The "efficiency" of some über productive sap working 80 hours a week means that 1-3 other people don't have a job.
> Many jobs in the modern economy are flexible.
But we're talking about a national level. To go back to the current top voted comment in this thread - we need to put this into perspective. I think a more accurate statement would read "More high end tech jobs are becoming flexible."
I'm in the same boat you are - I have the luxury of working from home and the mentality is basically as long as i'm meeting a certain number of billable hours per week, nobody really cares about the mundane details of when the work is getting done.
However, one thing I have noticed in the tech industry is that there are a lot of unwritten expectations on both employees and employers. A very common one is what you cited - "Get the job done if it takes 40 or 60 hours". And thats reasonable in my opinion, given competition in the US and the need to deliver projects on time.
But there are Employer commitments made as part of that, too, which are rarely fulfilled. Every company i've worked for in the past 10 years has had some type of policy around bonuses. And every year, measures outside of my control dictate the terms of those. Whether its the economy, stock price, or sales performance (I have nothing to do with sales) there's a different excuse every year, and the payout is laughable compared to the level of bonuses senior management get.
So it seems like we've got a situation where people "Go the extra mile", "Play on the A Team", or otherwise make personal sacrifices to help an employer, whereas employers regularly remit on the obligations they've set to their employees.
But we're talking about a national level. To go back to the current top voted comment in this thread - we need to put this into perspective. I think a more accurate statement would read "More high end tech jobs are becoming flexible."
I'm in the same boat you are - I have the luxury of working from home and the mentality is basically as long as i'm meeting a certain number of billable hours per week, nobody really cares about the mundane details of when the work is getting done.
However, one thing I have noticed in the tech industry is that there are a lot of unwritten expectations on both employees and employers. A very common one is what you cited - "Get the job done if it takes 40 or 60 hours". And thats reasonable in my opinion, given competition in the US and the need to deliver projects on time.
But there are Employer commitments made as part of that, too, which are rarely fulfilled. Every company i've worked for in the past 10 years has had some type of policy around bonuses. And every year, measures outside of my control dictate the terms of those. Whether its the economy, stock price, or sales performance (I have nothing to do with sales) there's a different excuse every year, and the payout is laughable compared to the level of bonuses senior management get.
So it seems like we've got a situation where people "Go the extra mile", "Play on the A Team", or otherwise make personal sacrifices to help an employer, whereas employers regularly remit on the obligations they've set to their employees.
IT workers are an exempt class is Canada.
In the US as well.
In case readers don't understand what "exempt" means as applied to hourly overtime:
US: http://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/ Canada: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/overtime.p...
US: http://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/ Canada: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/overtime.p...
And specifically IT guidelines for US: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17e_compute...
Not all computer and technology related jobs are exempt. As I read it, the exemption focuses on employees that are primarily creating hardware and/or software.
Not all computer and technology related jobs are exempt. As I read it, the exemption focuses on employees that are primarily creating hardware and/or software.
It would make good political sense as well, as the conservative talking point is that hard work should be rewarded.
Then workers ought to demand a raise if they are feeling undercompensated. The market pays what the market allows. Any distortion of that market would have deleterious effects somewhere in the chain. Any time you artificially increase the price of something, that rational response is to seek a substitute; which might mean that more overseas offices are opened and more jobs would be offshored. Which would actually increase the desired effects -- perhaps even increasing unemployment and wages. To paraphrase Jurassic Park: markets will always find a way.
>> Any distortion of that market would have deleterious effects somewhere in the chain.
Regulation, collusion, and asymmetric information all seem to be "distortions" we're dealing with today; "The market pays what the market allows" seems to be an oversimplification as we're not operating in a free market.
Regulation, collusion, and asymmetric information all seem to be "distortions" we're dealing with today; "The market pays what the market allows" seems to be an oversimplification as we're not operating in a free market.
"The president could, on his own, restore federal overtime standards to where they were at their 1975 peak, covering the same 65 percent of salaried workers who were covered 40 years ago. If he did that, about 10.4 million Americans would suddenly be earning a lot more than they are now."
But the president doesn't have control over the budget - Congress does. Raising pay without having the money to write the checks isn't really an option.
And unless Congress wants to cut other government services, that extra money needs to come from somewhere, so this would just be a transfer of wealth from non-federal workers (whose taxes would be raised) to federal workers. Taxing the rich corporations to pay for this isn't easy either - they can afford armies of lobbyists to fight against higher taxes (and they'll be the ones making the big campaign contributions in the upcoming elections).
But the president doesn't have control over the budget - Congress does. Raising pay without having the money to write the checks isn't really an option.
And unless Congress wants to cut other government services, that extra money needs to come from somewhere, so this would just be a transfer of wealth from non-federal workers (whose taxes would be raised) to federal workers. Taxing the rich corporations to pay for this isn't easy either - they can afford armies of lobbyists to fight against higher taxes (and they'll be the ones making the big campaign contributions in the upcoming elections).
TFA isn't talking about Obama raising pay for federal workers, but instead about changing labor regulations that cover all workers, including the private sector.
Swedish software company (not new-ish):
Almost all developers work their nominal work hours. A few work a little more on their own choice. There is no pressure to do so, but it's also not frowned upon (unless it's obvious that there's some cultural misunderstandings going on, e.g. in the case of someone moving in from a non-scandinavian work culture, perhaps thinking that they really, really have to prove themselves by working hard to get to stay.)
At crunch time sometimes key people get asked/ordered to work paid overtime (each overtime hour ends up something like 2x a normal hour, I forgot the exact constant). Estimate max 50 overtime hours/person/year, and not every year. There is some sort of social pressure that makes you feel bad when ordering this overtime....
Senior managers tend to work more hours, but they are also better compensated.
Almost all developers work their nominal work hours. A few work a little more on their own choice. There is no pressure to do so, but it's also not frowned upon (unless it's obvious that there's some cultural misunderstandings going on, e.g. in the case of someone moving in from a non-scandinavian work culture, perhaps thinking that they really, really have to prove themselves by working hard to get to stay.)
At crunch time sometimes key people get asked/ordered to work paid overtime (each overtime hour ends up something like 2x a normal hour, I forgot the exact constant). Estimate max 50 overtime hours/person/year, and not every year. There is some sort of social pressure that makes you feel bad when ordering this overtime....
Senior managers tend to work more hours, but they are also better compensated.
It's pretty common to have unpaid overtime (including crunch periods) in Sweden as well. Actually, I've not heard anyone having overtime pay while working in IT. The lack of overtime pay is usually "compensated" through an additional week of vacation or similar.
If you are getting paid vacation, it has the double benefit that 1- you are getting paid, 2- you are forced to take time off to compensate and avoid burn out.
Most companies I have dealt with in the past (in Quebec/Canada) usually compensated with 1.5h of vacation time for each hour of overtime. A normal work week is 37.5h, and overtime starts at 40h, so you have a bit of leg room. It's a good way to avoid systemic overtime and bad management.
Most companies I have dealt with in the past (in Quebec/Canada) usually compensated with 1.5h of vacation time for each hour of overtime. A normal work week is 37.5h, and overtime starts at 40h, so you have a bit of leg room. It's a good way to avoid systemic overtime and bad management.
"Unpaid overtime" in this context usually means no extra compensation, other than the 1-1 compensation if working less next week or next month. That is, a 50h week followed by a 30h week. Ordered overtime still has to be paid, but just at the normal rate. Having this in your contract isn't very good, and you should have at least 10-20% extra compensation. An extra week vacation isn't a good compensation for this, but it's common, sadly.
If one has traded overtime pay for a weeks vacation you won't get overtime pay for ordered overtime either. The overtime just can't be "planned/scheduled", it's rather vague unfortunately.
In the first company I worked for for, that was the case (a sixth vacation week, compensating for overtime). I think it's a bad idea for both the employer and the (ambitious) employee though.
None of my friends are average.
The odds are very good that, if you are reading HN, you are not an average person either.
Please take that into consideration when discussing economic measures meant to improve the lives of the middle class. You are probably better educated, earn more, work in a less physically strenuous job, have better employment prospects, are more likely to start a company, have more respect from your management, and are more likely to leave a job in order to be happier.
Now put yourself in the position of most people, which are all the opposites of the above: if you have a job, you are desperate not to lose it, because you are less likely to get another one. You don't have the financial resources to give up paychecks for a couple of months while you look for another job. Your company considers you an interchangeable, entirely replaceable cog.
Have some empathy, people.