FPGA Central

Is it fair for programmers to work long hours of overtime and not get
paid for the work? If you are a programmer who has been working for a
while you probably
know there can be some issues with not getting paid for overtime.
Companies can take advantage of programmers with the long hours needed
to complete projects. If you feel you are having difficulty getting
paid for what you have
done, you are not alone. There are people out there who are willing to
lend a hand. Check out this site:
http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_.../computer.html
You can send them a complaint for free and they pass them along to
lawyers for evaluation. This one seems to be specifically for
programmers who have worked for Computer Sciences Corporation. There
is, however, lots of other info on the site that might be more to what
you need, but this is a currently hot subject. I hope this might help
somebody out.

kr0

The concept of "fair" really has no meaning. In a free market, fairness is
regulated by the ability to quit and go elsewhere if you don't want to work
free overtime, or, to look at it another way, lower your hourly wage.
Perhaps you mean "legal". But employers of salaried people have quite a bit
of leeway in this area.

Normally the laywers who file a class action lawsuit get a lot of people to
sign up and then make a settlement with the company that involves paying a
large sum to the lawyers and giving the members of the class a gift
certificate to Hardee's. The question of whether the overtime is legal or
not is probably beside the point, since the company would rather settle by
paying off the class action lawyers. The settlement actually hurts
employees, because some of the money that would have been available for
salaries goes to pay the lawyers. So I must guess that you represent the
lawyers.

-Kevin

"Kent Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ...
> Is it fair for programmers to work long hours of overtime and not get
> paid for the work? If you are a programmer who has been working for a
> while you probably
> know there can be some issues with not getting paid for overtime.
> Companies can take advantage of programmers with the long hours needed
> to complete projects. If you feel you are having difficulty getting
> paid for what you have
> done, you are not alone. There are people out there who are willing to
> lend a hand. Check out this site:
> http://www.bigclassaction.com/class_.../computer.html
> You can send them a complaint for free and they pass them along to
> lawyers for evaluation. This one seems to be specifically for
> programmers who have worked for Computer Sciences Corporation. There
> is, however, lots of other info on the site that might be more to what
> you need, but this is a currently hot subject. I hope this might help
> somebody out.
>
> kr0

Kevin Neilson wrote:
>
> The concept of "fair" really has no meaning. In a free market, fairness is
> regulated by the ability to quit and go elsewhere if you don't want to work
> free overtime, or, to look at it another way, lower your hourly wage.

A free market would include slavery and assorted other evils that we have made
political decisions to ban, and remember that "fair" has no meaning in a
completely unregulated market. "Fair" is a political concept. We have a
regulated market, that means that there are rules determing the relationships
between employers and employees. If you are "salaried", you don't get overtime.


> Perhaps you mean "legal". But employers of salaried people have quite a bit
> of leeway in this area.

The current law makes salaried people not get paid overtime. If you don't think
that is fair, you need to convince voters to elect people that will change the
laws.

Now, back to FPGAs...


--
Phil Hays

Phil Hays <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..

> The current law makes salaried people not get paid overtime. If you don't
think
> that is fair, you need to convince voters to elect people that will change
the
> laws.

Surely all the law says is that if you sign a contract of employment
which say you don't get paid overtime, then you can't expect to get
paid for overtime?

It's up to you whether you sign in the first place.

?


Nial

I've been a programmer for over 15 yrs. I'm still a programmer and I
employ programmers in my company.

Programmer output can vary (easily) by a factor of 10 from programmer to
programmer. (This is documented BTW - see "Rapid Development")

If you are an average or above programmer and you are *actually writing
code*, your output is so incredibly high that overtime will almost always be
unecessary. Also, average to above average programmers *love* to write code
and would work extra hours just for the enjoyment if they didn't have
families to go home to.

One more thing. As an employer/business owner - we have no incentive or
inherent desire for people to work unpaid overtime. We just need the work
done to keep the business moving forward. If you can do your part in 10
hours/wk. great, if not then whatever it takes is what it takes.

Ken


"Nial Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3fab93a1$0$12691$[email protected]. .
>
> Phil Hays <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>
> > The current law makes salaried people not get paid overtime. If you
don't
> think
> > that is fair, you need to convince voters to elect people that will
change
> the
> > laws.
>
> Surely all the law says is that if you sign a contract of employment
> which say you don't get paid overtime, then you can't expect to get
> paid for overtime?
>
> It's up to you whether you sign in the first place.
>
> ?
>
>
> Nial
>
>
>
>

I've always been amazed that at a big company there can be two coders
sitting next to each other with outputs that vary by a factor of ten, and
their pay varies by a factor of 5%. Companies seem to be very good at
laying off large swaths of workers, but not at firing really useless ones.
-Kevin

"Ken Land" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> I've been a programmer for over 15 yrs. I'm still a programmer and I
> employ programmers in my company.
>
> Programmer output can vary (easily) by a factor of 10 from programmer to
> programmer. (This is documented BTW - see "Rapid Development")
>
> If you are an average or above programmer and you are *actually writing
> code*, your output is so incredibly high that overtime will almost always
be
> unecessary. Also, average to above average programmers *love* to write
code
> and would work extra hours just for the enjoyment if they didn't have
> families to go home to.
>
> One more thing. As an employer/business owner - we have no incentive or
> inherent desire for people to work unpaid overtime. We just need the work
> done to keep the business moving forward. If you can do your part in 10
> hours/wk. great, if not then whatever it takes is what it takes.
>
> Ken
>
>
> "Nial Stewart" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3fab93a1$0$12691$[email protected]. .
> >
> > Phil Hays <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]..
> >
> > > The current law makes salaried people not get paid overtime. If you
> don't
> > think
> > > that is fair, you need to convince voters to elect people that will
> change
> > the
> > > laws.
> >
> > Surely all the law says is that if you sign a contract of employment
> > which say you don't get paid overtime, then you can't expect to get
> > paid for overtime?
> >
> > It's up to you whether you sign in the first place.
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> > Nial
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Kevin Neilson wrote:
>
> I've always been amazed that at a big company there can be two coders
> sitting next to each other with outputs that vary by a factor of ten, and
> their pay varies by a factor of 5%. Companies seem to be very good at
> laying off large swaths of workers, but not at firing really useless ones.
> -Kevin

And some companies are very good at promoting and throwing great
fistfuls of cash at coders with outputs of 100x the average who can also
solve other technical problems.

It's really hard to fire a useless person without being able to prove in
court that they guy really IS useless, was given the appropriate number
of chances to remedy his uselessness, and that the company bent over
backwards to keep him gainfully employed in spite of his limitations,
especially if said useless person is a member of some EEO "protected"
class. You have problems even if you give such a person a charity
layoff and a few months of severance pay.

Carry on...

--
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I don't care who your father is! Drop that cross
one more time and you're out of the parade!"

Followup to: <[email protected]>
By author: The Real Bev <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: comp.arch.fpga
>
> Kevin Neilson wrote:
> >
> > I've always been amazed that at a big company there can be two coders
> > sitting next to each other with outputs that vary by a factor of ten, and
> > their pay varies by a factor of 5%. Companies seem to be very good at
> > laying off large swaths of workers, but not at firing really useless ones.
> > -Kevin
>
> And some companies are very good at promoting and throwing great
> fistfuls of cash at coders with outputs of 100x the average who can also
> solve other technical problems.
>
> It's really hard to fire a useless person without being able to prove in
> court that they guy really IS useless, was given the appropriate number
> of chances to remedy his uselessness, and that the company bent over
> backwards to keep him gainfully employed in spite of his limitations,
> especially if said useless person is a member of some EEO "protected"
> class. You have problems even if you give such a person a charity
> layoff and a few months of severance pay.
>

What's much worse than deadwood are people who are active
obstructionists. They can also be really hard to get rid of,
unfortunately.

-hpa
--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
If you send me mail in HTML format I will assume it's spam.
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64

I have been very efficient in companies, because the environment was
positive and good: there are places where accomplishment are not only
reconized, but easy.

I have also been very inefficient, in other places, for the usual
reasons: too much politics, too many red tapes, unability to comply
with constantly changing specifications, or more simply a boss who
delayed on purpose or by incompetence a project.

So I would suggest here some prudence.
Accountability does only make sense (and a lot!) if proper authority
is given.
Most of us like what they do, and try to do it right a reasonably
fast.
If there is somewhere a non performer, blaming the non performer
beside being a hiring mistake, is a very convenient way to push under
the rug many structural problems. (a facist and/or network
administrator is a very common one, an undefined level of
authority/responsibility is another one).

To me if things works, appreciate the "boss", if they do not blame
"the boss", unless (s)he is not given and proper authority.
One common problem is that promotion to supervisory position is often
given to people who haye their job! This should be hierachily neutral:
a good single performer, is just as important as a good director in an
orchestra.
And by the way, in music the best musicians usually become orchestra
directors.
Do the same in engineering, things will be good.
- UL2K -
ps: false/fake achievements are so common.

The Real Bev <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Kevin Neilson wrote:
> >
> > I've always been amazed that at a big company there can be two coders
> > sitting next to each other with outputs that vary by a factor of ten, and
> > their pay varies by a factor of 5%. Companies seem to be very good at
> > laying off large swaths of workers, but not at firing really useless ones.
> > -Kevin
>
> And some companies are very good at promoting and throwing great
> fistfuls of cash at coders with outputs of 100x the average who can also
> solve other technical problems.
>
> It's really hard to fire a useless person without being able to prove in
> court that they guy really IS useless, was given the appropriate number
> of chances to remedy his uselessness, and that the company bent over
> backwards to keep him gainfully employed in spite of his limitations,
> especially if said useless person is a member of some EEO "protected"
> class. You have problems even if you give such a person a charity
> layoff and a few months of severance pay.
>
> Carry on...