🏳️🌈🖖🏽
🇳🇱
Hahaha, if this is an hourly worker and he isnt paying overtime this is a completely valid response :) lol
@freemo @georgetakei Nah, it's valid no matter what kind of worker they are. The idea that we should be emotionally loyal to employers is patently absurd.
Salaried employees are expected to make a fix amount no matter how much they are paid. That is the bargain.
@freemo Maybe that's the norm where you are, but in many places a salaried worker is supposed to have regulated working hours and paid overtime at a rate higher than regular hours.
That doesnt even make sense, how can you paid more when you arent even paid an hourly rate? Even iof there was some way the law was worded this way it would just mean that you arent salaried, if you have a hourly rate at all, and thus there is a sense of "overtime" by definition you arent salary.
@freemo Where I come from, overtime is a thing only for salaried workers, because it's time that goes outside your default working hours, it's an exception for exceptional circumstances and offers exceptional pay, 1.5–2 × your prorated hourly pay (monthly salary / 165 h), or 1.5–2 hours of comp time off.
If you're an hourly worker there's no "overtime", everything is just "time", possibly at different rates still.
But ok, it's clear that we are from different markets and don't speak the same domain language, neither of us is right or wrong, but as long as we're aware of the difference in terminology we should be fine.
I think we're agreeing that the deal for the employment should be clear and fair, either you get more pay if you work more, or you work less some other time.
Where we disagree (?) is that it's 100% obvious to me that this person is disappointed that workers aren't working more than they were paid to ("commitment" outside "working hours").
@clacke Thats very very strange, in my years of both working and hiring I never heard of a salaried worker getting overtime. But some people claim they got it, so I stand corrected.
That said I dont think any salaried worker should expect it if it isnt part of their contract. If you are salaried under most circumstances you should expect to work extra for free, but in exchange you get advantages.
Thats not time theft, at least not if it is within the bounds of the contract. If your contract says the time must average to 40 hours (Which is common) then it isnt time theft as it balances out int he end. Now if that isnt in the contract then it isnt time theft because thats what you agreed to when you were hired, and if you were smart you were sure to negotiate a higher price as a consequence of that.
Now if you choose to negotiate a very poor contract for yourself that still isnt theft, thats you making poor life decisions when accepting a job.
@freemo @clacke theory and practice are different. In practice many people are loaded up with extra work because getting it done by salaried workers gets a larger return without any extra cost to the company. It's externalizing extra costs. Time theft.