See here:
Can somebody explain what the rationale for this is? Where is support coming from for this bill? Why is the US government stepping into the employer-employee relationship in such a manner?
Your link did not work for me, so I do not know if this bill is outlawing paid overtime or unpaid overtime. There are two reasons to outlaw unpaid overtime. First, employees will not have to work more than forty hours or less a week. Second, employers will be required to hire more employees.
I suppose the support for this bill is coming from IT professionals. The government is intervening because the high rate of unemployment strengthens employers while weakening employees. If you are afraid of losing your job you are unlikely to complain when your boss gives you more assignments without raising your salary.
The Fair Labor Standards Act already includes many overtime exceptions, which are listed in §1. NDD, the bill would allow employers to stop paying certain classes of computer professionals for overtime. They are currently *not *exempt.
The rationale for adding IT professionals is that IT professionals nowadays resemble the traditionally overtime-exempt classes of employee: learned professionals and management. They set their own hours, are compensated above the level of most single-degree fields, and exercise independent judgment and discretion.
I’m not an IT professional so I don’t know how true any of this stuff is, or why the original FLSA included such exceptions.
It’s not anything new, just new for these job roles
Dept of Labor link (warning .pdf)
I think IT professionals fit this description pretty well, and are justifiably categorized as Exempt Professionals.
I agree.
I’m not sure what the exact change is intended to do. It may be a reflection of the changing nature of the IT industry.
Back in the olden days, when there was actually a difference between programmer/coders and programmer/analysts, the guys at the bottom rungs in my company were eligible for overtime while the guys one step up were not. At that time, the distinction regarding exempt or non-exempt was based on grade level, (that was, more or less, consistent throughout the industry).
The folks who were eligible for overtime were the ones who were handed spec sheets or pseudocode and told to crank out the programs. As soon as one was doing a bit of analysis and writing the specs, (with, one hoped, a suitable raise in grade and pay), the overtime went away.
With the vast changes in actual IT tasks, along with the disappearance of “coders” from the industry, this might be just an effort to bring existing pay rules in line with actual employment practices, reducing the number of complaints lodged with the NLRB. (Or, of course, it could be a malicious attempt by IT overlords to allow them to stop paying their lowest rung employees a fair wage for hours worked 
.)
I agree with the possible exception of “specialized intellectual instruction”. For other learned professionals, that generally equates to a postgraduate degree, or at least a bachelor’s and a non-degree certification of some kind.
Don’t IT professionals mostly stop at the bachelor’s?
Well, a lot of IT professionals have different certifications, and no matter how you feel about the value of those, that could be considered “specialized intellectual instruction”.
I’ve been in IT my entire adult life and I’ve never been paid overtime. They wouldn’t hire me if they had to pay overtime, because night work is part of the job. While I’d love to be paid overtime pay for anything over forty hours, I wouldn’t have a job if it was required.
The rationale is employers of IT professionals would like to not pay time and a half rates to employee’s who work over 40 hours.
Clearly employers of IT professionals support such a bill because it would save them money.
This would be an example of the government stepping out of that specific employer-employee relationship. A 40 hour work week is government interference. Most Americans approved of only having to work 40 hours in the past and asked the government to help enforce that.
With this bill passing IT professionals will be forced to work longer hours without extra compensation. Sounds like a shitty situation for them. If they had representatives in the government or as a union they might have some ability to stop such deregulation. It looks like their government representatives will happily ignore their IT constituents for a few bucks from the IT constituents employers.
I’ve also been in IT my entire adult life and I disagree with this. They would have to hire you help if they had to pay you overtime. It’s not like they can’t afford more workers. Most IT workers I know have been working longer and longer hours over the last 3-5 years with no additional compensation. This is companies trying to get away with paying the same people the same money for doing more work. It’s called getting screwed. Og forbid they actually hire additional help. Off-hours and extended hours are part of IT, but when it gets to the point of needing to be every week and employers wanting the ability to not pay for the consistent extra hours, things are going in the wrong direction.
Would a systems analyst be considered an “IT professional”?
California has a law, of which I am a beneficiary, that says that “computer professionals” (however defined, I’m not sure) must be paid for all the hours they work, but at straight time, not time and a half.
I believe this was in reaction to those companies that would expect extended 12-hour or more days out of their employees, but would only pay them for 8. This was in the wild and woolly days of shoot-from-the-hip programming and development, where there were really intense periods where coders wouldn’t leave their desks for weeks.
Conditions in the industry may have changed. On the other hand, if this federal law supersedes California state law on this point, this means that I will potentially have to work extended hours for no additional pay. This on top of not having had a raise for over 4 years. This does not make me happy.
Roddy
I don’t see why IT professionals can’t demand more money if it’s become expected of them to work extra hours. Isn’t that all integrated into the salary negotiating? “Gee, boss, I’d take $60k to do this job, but since I know you’re going to want overtime, I want at least $75k.” If someone else comes along and says “I’ll do the overtime for only $60k,” then good for them. Sucks to be you.
Note that the law only applies to people making over $56k (heh) annually by the hour or drawing a salary. Anyone under that is non-exempt.
So what’s the problem, again?
The issue is that employers want IT professionals to be exempt. Exempt means that they do not have to follow minimum wage and overtime rules. There has been a long trend of trying to extend the exempt status to more and more workers. The original idea was that exempt employees were those that were either management or in professions that were not really clock dependent. In IT, if you are an IT manager, or working on data analysis or design, exempt makes sense. If you are at a service desk, it does not.
Traditionally technicians have been non-exempt, while engineers an designers have been exempt. Companies have actually extended the title engine to more and more technician jobs to also extend the exempt status.
For reference, several years ago the semiconductor industry had a big shake up when a field service engineer sued one of the big players and won. Over night, across the industry, these guys started getting overtime.
If night work is a regular part of the job, then you probably should not be exempt. Are you claiming that if they had to pay you overtime, the job would not exist? That make no sense. I could believe that they might hire a night worker, or just eliminate night work, but someone needs to do what you do, right?
Really? I’ve been in IT all my life, all in California, and have never been paid by the hour.
An example is our email systems. If I need to perform maintenance, then I put in for a maintenance window, which will always be at night. I still have lots of systems that I have to take care of during the day, however, so I can’t just be off. They wouldn’t hire a night worker, it’s my system and my responsibility. But, I’m a bad example, because I did know this going in and negotiated it a part of my salary. And for anything insane (monthly patching) we either don’t come in or come in half a day.
There is a local IT shop that’s infamous for this. I was offered a job and told the working hours were typically 60-70 hours a week. I asked for more money, and they said no.
Curious. I’ve been a programmer* for the last 25 years, and I’ve always gotten overtime. Although at some jobs I’ve gotten only straight time for it.
*I’m equating programming with “in IT”.
I’m on the other side, the server/network side. Always been salaried, except when I was a contractor.
Would this bill actually outlaw overtime for IT professionals? That would mean it criminalizes overtime for IT professionals. Ostensibly the employer would just no longer be mandated to pay overtime, right? They wouldn’t be prohibited from paying overtime?
While it may surprise some, many companies have more generous OT policies than are required by the FLSA. For example I know many people who are regularly earning “triple time”, which isn’t required under any FLSA regulation of which I am aware.
Exempt employees are absolutely not outlawed from being paid overtime. I have been exempt for 2 decades, and when someone needs my services and I’m already fully booked, you better believe I get paid overtime. I’ve probably earned tens of thousands of dollars in paid overtime over the years.
I would by no means be opposed to eliminating the exempt status for all professions, because being forced to work unpaid overtime is a shitty way to do business and hides the real cost of goods and services.