🏳️🌈🖖🏽
🇳🇱
Hahaha, if this is an hourly worker and he isnt paying overtime this is a completely valid response :) lol
Salaried employees are expected to make a fix amount no matter how much they are paid. That is the bargain.
@freemo @georgetakei That doesn't mean that they're obligated to have some sort of greater commitment to their job outside of their assigned duties.
Company loyalty is for suckers.
No one said anything about "greater commitment". Only that a salaried worker's job isnt a 9-5 job. They are expected to work longer hours when needed, sometimes do work after hours, and in exchange they get paid when they take off like vacations.
@freemo @georgetakei My dude, did you only read the comment of the OP and not what it was responding to?
Did you, no where in that quote image does it say anything about "greater commitment"
@freemo @georgetakei "I don't like that their commitment lasts for work hours only."
Implying he wishes they had more commitment.
Oh you meant greater than the commitment they currently have, or a greater commitment than they do to their personal life?
@freemo @georgetakei
Greater than the commitment they currently have.
Ahh then yes it is saying that. And since a salaried employee person is expected to have commitment outside of standard hours, how do you know their current level of commitment is appropriate to that?
@freemo @georgetakei Other than potentially being on call, being salary does not obligate you to take work home with you.
By definition salary means you dont have fixed hours, yu work when your needed, including after hours. You dont get extra pay. The bargain is the reverse is true, when you dont work a day you still get paid.
@freemo @georgetakei sounds like you've drunk the capitalism kool-aid for too long.
@freemo @scott_guertin @georgetakei if long hours are standard, despite agreed business hours, not when needed with proper plan and staffing it's just legalized time theft.
Thats generally not the case for salary unless explicitly stated in a contract (in which case it isnt threft). Typically you are expected to work whatever hours are needed to finish your job on time, but you are also welcome to exchange that by working fewer hours during down time. Typically you are expected to average 40 hours a week, where some weeks might be 60 hours others may be 20.
@freemo @scott_guertin @georgetakei are you in one of the less predatory environments? Europe maybe? I'm watching the salaried workers around me get burned out regularly. Sometimes they don't even get past orientation before they realize what's going on and quit. Take, no give.
I have worked as an employee as well as been a C-level manager (usually CTO or CIO) in many countries including quite a few european countries, the middle east, and USA.
As I said, if salaried employees are being abused with really high overtime and not enough pay, then they negotiated a shitty contract. Lots of people self-sabotage and negotiate bad contracts for themselves. But thats on them. At every stage of my career I have always negotiated strongly and as a result I have never had these issues. I would generally negotiate very high salaries, work the overtime, and negotiated 3 month vacation blocks to oppose the overtime (which was my standard as a Sr. dev and team lead). In cases where I couldnt negotiate the vacation time I eitehr ensured to put time limits in my contract or if i felt i could handle the excessive work would negotiate very high salaries to make up for it.
When I hire people I always as the hiring manager make it a point to keep my workers to an average of 40 hour weeks just to keep them at their best. Overtime happens, but when it does its offset by extra down time.
@freemo @scott_guertin @georgetakei it's not the contracts. It's the bosses expecting the employees to accept mission creep. It's an every day fight with the bully taking your lunch money. You're tilting at windmills in this thread.
@freemo @scott_guertin @georgetakei No, they are not. That's why we have something called "overtime pay". Because work in excess of agreed hours is something that is compensated separately.
Sakary employees do **not** get overtime pay, by definition a salary employee doesnt even have an hourly rate they have a yearly rate. Overtime is only an idea that applies to hourly employees.
First time I ever heard of any salaried employee getting overtime. How does that work considering a salaried employee doesnt have an hourly wage defined?
@freemo @black6 @scott_guertin @georgetakei At my company you calculate your hourly wage from salary divided by 30*8 then multiply it by 1.5 to get the overtime pay rate. Many companies expect people to work for free, like you've said, but they're not good companies.
@freemo @black6 @scott_guertin @georgetakei 23*8, not 30*8.
@freemo @black6 @scott_guertin @georgetakei To be honest I've never heard of overtime pay for hourly employees. How does that work? Where does the overtime start? It's just more hours.
By law, an by default, overtime is any time worked beyond 40 hours in a week. Overtime by law must be paid at 1.5x the base rate by default in most states.
There are of course exceptions on a per-contract or per-state basis. But thats the standard.
They literally get that back in equal measure. While a salaried empl,oyee doesnt have fixed hours or an hourly rate, and may be expected to work extra hours for free, they also get paid time off. When they take a day or even a whole month off they still get their full pay. It works both ways.
So an equivalent time exchange... isn't an equivalent exchange in bodily damages. And the money is far from enough to compensate. (Nevermind that for many damaged organs one quite simply cannot buy a replacement for any amount of money.)
More to the point, there is no (reasonable) expectation of loyalty from an employer (layoffs purely for investment figures are commonplace), so why should any of the employees provide such a thing to the employer?
> Hardly, not all moments in one's life are equal and the strain on one's body from accumulated overtime and stress is greater than the relief of a similar amount of time of rest.
If that is true for **you** then dont take a salaried position, and make sure to take a job that doesnt involve overtime. For many of us the opposit eis true. Working overtime for extended periods and then have longer periods of time off to compensate is FAR more relaxing than working every day on a 9-5.
You do you, but dont act like **financially** speaking it doesnt work both ways.
> So an equivalent time exchange... isn't an equivalent exchange in bodily damages. And the money is far from enough to compensate. (Nevermind that for many damaged organs one quite simply cannot buy a replacement for any amount of money.)
Then work hourly and not salary if you feel that way.
> More to the point, there is no (reasonable) expectation of loyalty from an employer (layoffs purely for investment figures are commonplace), so why should any of the employees provide such a thing to the employer?
Who said anything about loyalty. The equivelant of not being able to layoff people would be saying employees cant quit. Loyalty is not expected from eithe rside.
> Who said anything about loyalty. The equivelant of not being able to layoff people would be saying employees cant
quit. Loyalty is not expected from eithe rside.
The vast majority of people would a lot more hard-pressed to quit their job on a whim without ending-up with significant problems than their employer would be in laying them off. The power relationship is *very* strongly skewed here.
As for the earlier statement I made, it is true both for chronic work-acquired injuries and for accumulated organ-damage from stress. The perceived relaxation doesn't indicate rest remotely approaching that sufficient to compensate.
The heart itself cannot cope with all that much sleep deprivation and stress in a short period (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoshi). Unsustainable high-effort isn't sustainable, that's simply not how human bodies work.
That's not to say 9-5 is exactly healthy either, because it isn't.
True but irrelevant. No one is suggesting a person do 40 hours worth of work in 5 minutes. I'd also be very curious to hear how that would even be possible.
Kinda obsurd we went from "yea a salary worker might occasionally need to do work outside of 9-5" to "oh my god is he working constantly and going to die from lack of sleep and his organs will shut down!"... lets stop being absurd.
@freemo @lispi314 @georgetakei such a romantic view of what it's like to be a salaried employee. Believe it or not, at good companies, even the salaried employees get to have personal lives without having to use their PTO.
Thats a weird way of agreeing with me while trying to sound like you didnt.
No one is claiming they dont "get to have personal lives", only that your job has flexible hours and your personal life gets the same flexibility. And no at a good company there is no such thing as "using PTO".. at good companies when you work late one day as a salaried employer you can come in late the next or even take a day off. And no when you do it wont count against your PTO in fact you probably dont even have a fixed PTO, you take off what you want within reason.
Karoshi is the acute type and most dramatic example, but damage to long-term life expectancy (or desirable life-expectancy, one can be stuck miserable for a while longer) happens at much lower thresholds.
>> You do you, but dont act like financially speaking it doesnt work both ways.
> So? I am not even sure what your disagreeing with or how you think that is relevant to any points I made.
I'm disagreeing with the implication that there's anything approaching equality in the power dynamics involved. What reprocity there is doesn't reach that far.
---
Your position seems to rely on what, to me, is a fairly absurd expectation one can find work that is non-straining, pleasant and not under abusive conditions.
> working a little later
In quite a few places, that would be a few hours. That adds up, especially with commute.
> A few days of work-related sleep-deprivation (crunch time?) can very easily lead to death. Doing the same amount of work over the span of a week or two usually won't.
Who said anything about being allowed to work an employee so hard they cant sleep or need to cut their sleep short... no one in this thread... again why are you bringing up things no one is even discussing? To what end?
> I'm disagreeing with the implication that there's anything approaching equality in the power dynamics involved. What reprocity there is doesn't reach that far.
I pointed out the pay worked both ways, you work extra days you dont get extra pay, you dont work a day you dont get less pay. That is a correct statement, full stop. Why your going off on matters of equality int he power dynamic makes no sense, I get your trying to make that point, but that point is not even being discussed in the thread, so what makes you feel that is in any way relevant to what I said?
> Your position seems to rely on what, to me, is a fairly absurd expectation one can find work that is non-straining, pleasant and not under abusive conditions.
Certainly describes most job I ever worked, it also describes about 15 positions I'm hiring for right now, at least to most people. Me and my team are having a blast, I feel bad though that you've never found that, truly.
> In quite a few places, that would be a few hours. That adds up, especially with commute.
As you pointed out, spread out is not the same as all at once. an hour extra here and there does not add up to sleep deprivation and failing organs, especially when its offset with paid vacations.
"I pointed out the pay worked both ways, you work extra days you dont get extra pay, you dont work a day you dont get less pay."
@freemo That's a fair trade. This employer is looking for "commitment" that lasts beyond working hours. That's douchebag code for unpaid, un-otherwise-compensated overtime work.
Right, unpaid uncompensated overtime, with fixed pay when you work less hours in a week is just called salary pay. If you get paid for overtime, or if there is even a concept of overtime then you simply arent a salary worker then by definition.
> The vast majority of people would a lot more hard-pressed to quit their job on a whim without ending-up with significant problems than their employer would be in laying them off. The power relationship is *very* strongly skewed here.
So? I am not even sure what your disagreeing with or how you think that is relevant to any points I made.
> As for the earlier statement I made, it is true both for chronic work-acquired injuries and for accumulated organ-damage from stress. The perceived relaxation doesn't indicate rest remotely approaching that sufficient to compensate.
That makes a lot of assumptions such as the idea that work equates to stress and damage. True for some, not for others, again pick a job that offers you the right balance for you. I myself find work fun, I would and do do it for free, the fact people are willing to pay me a bunch of money to do it is simply a bonus.
> The heart itself cannot cope with all that much sleep deprivation and stress in a short period (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoshi). Unsustainable high-effort isn't sustainable, that's simply not how human bodies work.
No one is suggesting answering a call or two after hours or occasionally working a little later is the same as sleep deprivation or even a stressor, particularly when it is offset with relaxing vacations you get paid to take.
@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.
And there is still no "commitment" outside normal working hours, it's a discussion "ok, sorry, we're gonna need to do this thing on a Saturday morning, who's in?"
The way the Quora poster phrased it, it sounds like they're paying for 40 hours and hoping for 50.
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 @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.