OK, let’s pretend a year has 50 weeks, just for ease of arithmetic. If you make $60k/year, that’s $30/hour. Time and a half is $45/hour. Under my bright idea, everybody making up to $60k would get time and a half over 40 hours; everybody making more would get paid $45/hour over 40 hours. That’s all.
What problem am I trying to solve? Good question.
First problem I’m trying to solve: Most people work to live, rather than the other way around. The expectation ought to be that an employee gets a certain number of hours each week away from the job, and when the company wants some of those hours, it has to pay over and above the base rate for that time. I think the number and circumstances of employees exempted from this expectation ought to be highly circumscribed.
Second problem I’m trying to solve: defining ‘exempt employees’ by supervisory or professional status is easily gamed. When shift supervisors at McDonalds are categorized as exempt, we’ve got a problem. Compensation ought to be the measure.
Third problem I’m trying to solve: if compensation is the measure, then having a salary line where everyone below the line gets time and a half for OT, but employees above the line don’t, creates some really awkward disincentives: if everybody making less than $60,000 gets time and a half for overtime, and everyone above it is exempt,’ nobody would want to be making just over $60K.
So to solve those three problems, there are two solutions: one is time and a half for everyone over 40 hours, or a phase-out of some sort as income escalates.
This isn’t some ‘nobody has ever done this before’ idea. The U.S. government does something like this, IIRC - nonexempt employees over a GS-10 get paid for OT at the GS-10 rate, or some such.
It’s great that that’s your preference. And you know what? If time and a half over 40 hours is mandated for everyone, chances are that you’ll still be able to work unpaid OT like this if you really want to. You’d likely have to be more surreptitious about it, but few companies are going to keep a dragnet out there to catch and penalize people working a few extra hours.
OTOH, a great many people out there are having to work 50, 60, 70 hour weeks without any real choice in the matter, and no extra compensation for the extra time. Any reasonable set of priorities places their plight somewhat higher than your potential plight. If you’d care to make an argument that those priorities aren’t reasonable, go for it.
Hmmmm… As a former exempt employee making well over $60k, I am not sure I agree with that cut-off.
It’s easy to think that money buys choices, but that’s not always directly true.
I had a heart attack at age 40 (with no family history) and I contribute a large part of the reason (but still only part of the reason) to 20 years of high stress, deadline driven, 60-80 hour work weeks.
In the Internet Startup world, having a lot of short jobs (1-3 years) is not at all uncommon. Many companies just go out of business. So I also have the wonderful luck of having said heart attack between jobs (I had been off work less than a month and already had passed the interview process at a new company and was going to be going in and signing the papers to become an employee in a week or so). Meaning - I had no health insurance.
In an instant, all my savings, gone. My ability to go back to work in the same high stress environment, gone.
Five years later I am now living under the poverty level, even though I still have the skills to get a job easily (except it would kill me - minor deterrent).
I’m actually not unhappy, or complaining, or whatever; I’m just pointing out that the assumption that a well paid professional doesn’t need some rights and protection, and only ‘blue collar’ workers need unions, is in my opinion over-reaching. As always, YMMV.
I’m a strong believer in unions and have advocated for them many, many times on this MB. Unions are a key part of any free enterprise system. For libertarians, “free” doesn’t apply only to the company owners. It’s a common misunderstanding on this MB that libertarians would oppose unions. We oppose mandated unions, but are 100% behind any voluntary unions that people can put together as long as they don’t drag the government in to grant them special favors.
But why? Isn’t there something non work-related that you’d rather be doing in those other 16 hours a day? I know that I sure have plenty of other things I’d rather be doing.
And… considering that it doesn’t seem to matter how well I do my job or how many hours I work; I get the same pay over a 3 year period (well 1% raise) , I see no point in working more than a 40 hour week.
2080 work hours is 40 hours per week for 52 weeks. Most jobs include at least 2 weeks vacation, and I think you’ll find that most people (and most jobs) consider 2000 hours worked per year to be the norm.
Acceptable nitpick–although I’m technically “paid” for my vacation hours, and bill them in the same manner as my normal hours (with a different project title)
Wow! You have a job, to bad you do not have a life.
By 8-6 I assume you mean working 6 days a week. And you work at home and go back in for more time.
Got a friend who shipped between 20 and 30 years. Right now he is dealing with angry daughters who fell like he was not there for them when they were growing up. At iyr 49th reunion one of my classmates wife aask my wife how long I had shiped out. When my wife told her that I had not shipped out since 1971 the other wife made the comment, “oh, you have a good marrage.” Not being there for your family can be very expensive.
Oh by the way if you are not truly an exempt employee and are not being paid for all hours worked you are not breaking the law, your employeer is. And you may be putting them in a hard spot.
I work for a company where no one has to work more than about 35 hours. But many people CHOOSE to work more the 35 hours. When the downturns hit, the people with the perceived highest value - who are often those emailing and attending meetings at 10pm - are usually the ones with the job. The ones skating are the first ones to go.
So while you can say “no one needs to work more than 40 hours” - you’ll still have the “mandatory” overtime - just a delay.
With RIFs being a common way for corporations to manage their labor, the fear of underworking is going to accomplish the same thing.
Unless you throw in statistical analysis so that you can sue so that you have affirmative action for the non-workaholic, you aren’t going to have any sort of enforceable system and won’t work change.
(Salaried - have worked 40 hour workweeks since I had kids and put my foot down - haven’t suffered myself - but haven’t been promoted to my abilities either - don’t want to, that would mean stepping up my commitment.)
The $60K was strictly hypothetical. I just didn’t want to get into simultaneous arguments over whether a system that worked this way would make sense, and whether the cutoff was in the right place.
Yes, this is the issue that gets ignored the most, and it is the primary driving force for employers who force overtime.
Overtime is, for the most part, a sign that you don’t have enough employees to get the job done and that you’re trying to cut corners by hiring less people.
Lots of salaried employees do not own part of the company. Do you have stock options or profit sharing? Do your employees?
You’re intentionally ignoring the fact that employers force workers to do overtime on pain of being arbitrarily fired or laid off. Imposing limits prevents employers from imposing overtime just to cut corners.
Wow, you sound like one of those managers in China.
Why does it have to be unpaid overtime?
When I had engineering projects to do, I worked longer hours early so I could relax at the delivery date and be in position to make last minute changes. Other guys didn’t and I often had to help them make their dates . But i got paid.
Poor management and scheduling should not just fall on the shoulders of the workers. If a company mis schedules, they should pay for it.
This is not just about widget machines. We overwork our air traffic control and airline pilots, too. It’s damned fortunate that one of them hasn’t brought a plane down recently because of fatigue.
I have had a friend who was killed by an overworked fatigued long haul truck driver.
Assuming you’re a seasonal worker, or perhaps a software designer (I’m given to understand crunch time in this field is CRUNCH whenever deadlines loom), most European nations have provisions for those - or they can require your employer to pay you more for the overtime, which is usually a result of poor management or rash executive decisions.
But on the whole, individual business find ways to work within and around the laws. For example, whereas in France the 35h week used to be a thing, there was also a program set up so that employees willing to work 40, 42, 45+h weeks could turn these “overtime” hours into additional vacation days. Overtime in scare quotes because it was paid at the normal rate.
Basically, if neither you nor your employer sees fit to complain about crunch time, then no fuss will ever be raised. It’s only when employers call for crunches without regards for the workers that trouble happens, and the law usually sides with the workers.
On the whole, I reckon it’s better than the Anglo-Saxon system of “do what you’re told or you’re immediately FIRED !”, which opens a lot of unrealistic doors for what you can be told to do.
There’s a middle ground somewhere between these two positions.
Ultimately, any sane policy will address three things:
Some jobs require periodic Herculean efforts with off times, and some jobs require steady day-by-day output. Some job descriptions (mostly desk work) can tolerate longer work days on average than others (like factory work and truck driving).
There should be a balance between social life and work life, ideally reflected in a baseline amount of hours beyond which an employer can not require employees to go. (The 2080/yr or 40 hr/wk marks are generally accepted in popular parlance here but by all means cases could be made for different values)
Some employees will prefer to work hard for the baseline amount of hours and then go home to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Some employees have incentive or desire to work longer hours for more money or more corporate prestige–they should be allowed to do so. Employers prefer the highest productivity/quality-of-work possible with the lowest payroll. All three of these needs should be met.
Personally, I prefer the idea of a system that removes the idea of “exempt” employees, such that every hour worked gets paid in some way–essentially, removing the idea of a “salaried” employee.
