But, yes, even in the argument over whether salaried positions should be paid overtime it’s certainly relevant that:
Salaried positions (in the US) don’t pay overtime now. And…
Salaried positions are desirable by employees and are preferred over hourly positions.
These two facts are certainly a powerful argument that there is nothing wrong with the current system and that workers by and large aren’t getting a bad deal.
Your argument that everyone is simply wrong because they foolishly think they are making out in the deal doesn’t carry much weight. People generally act in their own best interests, and people generally know what is in their own best interests. I get that you think you know what’s better for everyone, but I think you are wrong and that they are right.
Most people generally have a weak bargaining position against their employers as their employer can implicitly threaten them with the loss of their primary source of income and health care, much like a baron threatening to kick his peasents off his land. Except that corporate system is much more depersonalized.
But sometimes, yes, you do have to work long hours in certain jobs. Lawyers have to work long hours because they can’t show up to court half prepared and throwing more lawyers at a case isn’t always feasible. People in technology too, since they are often racing to get a product to market or they maintain critical systems that can’t wait for them to come back to work at 9 the next day.
But there are also plenty of jobs where you can just sit on your ass and clock out at five.
Taken in context with the other stats, I just think it’s interesting how people have a certain perception about a country that may not completely be accurate according to the facts.
If you go into a career like law or medicine you can expect you will be working long hours, especially at the beginning. This is done often for low pay because once you are finished with that residency or internship you are going to see a huge salary. Who are you to tell them that isn’t a good deal?
What’s wrong with having a job that requires lots of hours and in return pays a high salary? If that’s what people choose, why would you stop them?
But my cites show that there certainly IS something wrong with the system, because people are suing to be paid what they are owed. Not all salaried positions don’t pay overtime. Only those that fit the federal definition of exempt do, legally. In the real world though, employers treat ALL salaried positions as though they are exempt. Which is why people are suing for back owed pay, because they should not have been treated as exempt and were. Because it was in the employer’s best interest to do so.
The fact that the job market is heavily slanted in favor of employers right now should not lead to the conclusion that “everybody loves the way it is now”. I’m certain if you asked exempt salaried employees if they would like to be non-exempt and paid overtime for their work, they would probably say yes. It is in their best interest to be paid for work they do over 40 hours. Comp time is different, in your situation, where you discuss working 35/45 to make up for unpaid time off. Actual unpaid overtime is a different beast altogether.
See… this is the problem with the US system. You can just as easily spin it around and say “What’s so fucking important at work that you can’t stop and eat dinner for an hour?”
Or really, “What’s so fucking important at work that you can’t just do it the following morning?”
The real answer is ALMOST NOTHING. The US work culture has become one of a sort of idiotic machismo about working long hours and suffering personal privations in pursuit of ultimately unimportant work goals.
Having been in the workforce for 12 years or so by now, I can say that of the times that I’ve worked overtime, I remember working overtime and the binds it put me in, but I can’t say that I recall what it was that I was working on, and in the cases where I can, I can also say that it didn’t make a damn bit of difference, and we could have just as easily have taken an extra week to get it done, rather than work 3 nights until midnight.
The French have the right idea ultimately. Their jobs are something that enables them to live their lives, not the other way around, which unfortunately seems to be more common on this side of the Atlantic.
Also, the critical hardware support guys are more often than not paid hourly or are contractors.
Doctors, nurses, long-haul drivers, and pilots are probably a better example among salaried employees. But even here, though airlines or hospitals might want them working longer hours, there are laws limiting the consecutive number of hours they can work without at least an 8-hour break and limiting the overall number of hour they work per week.
The hell? Is this an America-wide thing? That sucks - our national labour laws mandate overtime pay for most everyone who makes an average salary (upper management and people who make over a certain amount are excluded, but even there, there has to be a contract, and IME it usually closely mirrors the Labour Act). Overtime is at 1.5 x normal pay rates minimum (or time off in lieu - again, 1.5 hrs per hour worked)
In the US it is normal for salaried employees to not get overtime. Hence the distinct between exempt and non-exempt employees in federal law.
Americans really have no idea how labor markets work.
For contractors it depends on the contract, under the restrictions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). For example, the federal contract I work under has EWW (Extended Work Week) for salaried employees below the level of Program Manager. EWW is straight time (1.0) overtime, as distinct from Premium (1.5) overtime, which hourly employees get.
Right, but that’s not what the associates get paid. It’s the same in consulting and accounting. The firm pays you a straight salary, but you are expected to bill as many hours as possible. Typically there is no marginal cost to the firm for having you work more hours. The upside for the associate is in 10-15 years when they become “partners” or “principles” are are eligible for profit sharing in the firm.
We know if we can get a job for more money with better hours somewhere else, that’s probably a better deal.
I’m reading your posts now. They seem dubious in the facts they are presenting.
Both cite only 2008 vs 2012 in the number of lawsuits against employers for overtime raising by 30%. Of course it’s going to be higher. You are comparing now to the year before the recession. I’m sure that raises have also been lower (or non-existent) during that time and that bonuses have also been lower.
This doesn’t mean anything. I can stipulate that the worse the economy is the more likely it is that employers will cut corners and force unpaid overtime on people who should be paid for it.
What’s this prove? Nothing. There are still most people working in salaried positions who are quite happy with the system and who would rather have a higher salary than overtime pay. We’d have such a system if that’s what people wanted. People prefer to have the flexibility and security of a salary.
Back to your original claim, which I asked for you to provide a cite for:
Your cites don’t prove this.
Companies being sued for abusing overtime laws has nothing to do with proving that the reason companies pay people salary is because it works to their advantage to force their employees to work unpaid overtime.
It’s like if I made the claim that banks only have money in their cash drawers because they like to be robbed. You dispute my claim. I provide a cite that bank robberies are up 30%. This doesn’t prove the intent.
Plant closures and layoff policies are mandatory subjects of collecting bargaining under the NLRA (as amended), and thus always subject to jurisdiction of the NLRB.
Just be be totally clear, for all of the people I know in the US with salaried jobs, not only do salaried jobs not pay overtime for extra time worked, they don’t even pay normal pay for those hours. As in, I worked an 11.5hr day on Monday, and I won’t see an extra penny for it. It just means there is a smaller pile of work for Tuesday.
About 3 years ago, my employer replaced everyone’s desktop computer with a laptop. Probably the best use of funds they ever did. Most of my co-workers regularly put in extra time from home, on weekends or evenings. We’ve cut our inside sales staff by about 40% in the last 5 years, but the number of quotes and orders has only gone up. No, we haven’t rolled out some fantastic new software. We’re all working longer hours.
I’ve heard that California is cracking down on what jobs can be classified as salaried and exempt. Good for them, and I hope the rest of the country follows suit.
Yes, but are employers required to bargain in good faith regarding the layoff policies ( which may have been in place for decades before a layoff) or the layoffs/plant closings themselves? There’s a difference and I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a union stopping or even delaying a layoff or plant closing because the company didn’t bargain about the layoff/closing itself.