New California law narrows overtime regulations for skilled tech workers
polycounter lvl 18
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/10/new-california.html
New California law narrows overtime regulations for skilled tech workers
6:33 PM, October 1, 2008
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Tech companies glum about their sagging stock prices can take cheer in
a bill Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law that aims to
make it easier for employers to determine which of their workers are
exempt from overtime compensation.
A number of technology companies, including Sony, Electronic Arts,
Apple and Cisco Systems, had been tripped up by California's overtime
regulations, which stated that highly skilled technology workers
earning less than $75,000 a year, or $36 an hour, were entitled to OT.
Sounds simple, but the devil is in the math. Companies have contended
that as long as the worker's annual salary was at least $75,000, he or
she was exempt from overtime pay, regardless of how many hours the
employee clocked. Labor advocates have countered that the number of
hours worked matters very much: They argued that the regulation in
fact required companies to pay $36 or more for each hour worked, or
else the employee was due OT.
As a result, programmers, engineers and graphic artists have filed
lawsuits in recent years demanding overtime compensation for working
long hours without extra pay. Some, including Sony and EA, have paid
tens of millions of dollars to settle those cases.
The new law, which Schwarzenegger signed late Tuesday and took effect
immediately, eliminates the hourly calculation. It says employers can
instead meet the overtime exemption by paying their workers a gross
salary of at least $6,250 a month. That equals the same $75,000 a
year, but it means that high-tech companies now don't have to worry
about keeping track of the number of hours their employees work, said
Carol Freeman, a partner at law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Palo
Alto. "There was an ambiguity in the law, and this clarifies that,"
Freeman said.
Labor advocates said the law, which applies only to highly skilled
tech workers, opens the door for companies to force employees to work
unlimited hours without paying them anything extra.
"Instead of hiring another worker, companies can just save money by
making their existing workers clock twice as many hours," said Caitlin
Vega, legislative advocate for the California Labor Federation.
The new law, however, does not clarify one controversial point about
the overtime exemption: whether extra compensation such as stock
options, bonus or profit-sharing count toward the $75,000 annual
figure. So if you're a highly skilled tech worker making $60,000 a
year in salary and $20,000 more in extra compensation that's paid out
in equal monthly installments, who knows if you're due overtime?
New California law narrows overtime regulations for skilled tech workers
6:33 PM, October 1, 2008
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Tech companies glum about their sagging stock prices can take cheer in
a bill Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law that aims to
make it easier for employers to determine which of their workers are
exempt from overtime compensation.
A number of technology companies, including Sony, Electronic Arts,
Apple and Cisco Systems, had been tripped up by California's overtime
regulations, which stated that highly skilled technology workers
earning less than $75,000 a year, or $36 an hour, were entitled to OT.
Sounds simple, but the devil is in the math. Companies have contended
that as long as the worker's annual salary was at least $75,000, he or
she was exempt from overtime pay, regardless of how many hours the
employee clocked. Labor advocates have countered that the number of
hours worked matters very much: They argued that the regulation in
fact required companies to pay $36 or more for each hour worked, or
else the employee was due OT.
As a result, programmers, engineers and graphic artists have filed
lawsuits in recent years demanding overtime compensation for working
long hours without extra pay. Some, including Sony and EA, have paid
tens of millions of dollars to settle those cases.
The new law, which Schwarzenegger signed late Tuesday and took effect
immediately, eliminates the hourly calculation. It says employers can
instead meet the overtime exemption by paying their workers a gross
salary of at least $6,250 a month. That equals the same $75,000 a
year, but it means that high-tech companies now don't have to worry
about keeping track of the number of hours their employees work, said
Carol Freeman, a partner at law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Palo
Alto. "There was an ambiguity in the law, and this clarifies that,"
Freeman said.
Labor advocates said the law, which applies only to highly skilled
tech workers, opens the door for companies to force employees to work
unlimited hours without paying them anything extra.
"Instead of hiring another worker, companies can just save money by
making their existing workers clock twice as many hours," said Caitlin
Vega, legislative advocate for the California Labor Federation.
The new law, however, does not clarify one controversial point about
the overtime exemption: whether extra compensation such as stock
options, bonus or profit-sharing count toward the $75,000 annual
figure. So if you're a highly skilled tech worker making $60,000 a
year in salary and $20,000 more in extra compensation that's paid out
in equal monthly installments, who knows if you're due overtime?
Replies
I just don't see how you can all of a sudden wipe out that system and expect people to just work? Either you're going to have a slew of pissed off artists or companies are going to have to get super efficient and go back to 40hr weeks. 40hr weeks sounds like utopia to me though.
I really wonder how some of the big vfx studios are going to handle this.
if you're contracted 40 hours a week, and a certain amount of pay for that time. work your 40 hours, then fuck off home and don't come back until next week.
simple.
if your boss says "you have to achieve this target within your 40 hours", and it isn't realistic, point it out. you have a right to do so, and they have no right to force extra hours because a target isn't met.
ie: if they ask you to complete a job, on your own, within 40 hours, that would normally take 3 people that amount of time. then your boss is an idiot, and any court on the planet would back you.
if he asks you to perform a task which could easily be completed by one man in that time period, and it takes you 60 hours, it's time to reevaluate your skillset, because this one isn't your forte.
my boss recently asked me to stay late on a thursday night, to finish up a task. knowing i had an hour and a half train ride home, and that the next train after he wanted me to finish, would mean i got home after midnight. i asked him if he felt that was reasonable. he said yes (of course). so i spun it on him; do you believe you could accomplish that task on your own in the same amount of time?
his answer was "i don't have to". kind of ambiguous, so i pushed the point, "if you think you can, then will you help me?".
"i have to get home to my wife"
"i have to get home to my girlfriend"
"are you going to do it or not?"
"no"
"you're refusing a reasonable request?"
"no, i'm refusing an unreasonable request from a line manager who is unwilling to offer all available support to his staff, as per his responsibility".
i was brought into a disciplinary hearing for it, my area manager pointed out the importance of hitting targets, i pointed out the importance of the following:
setting areas of responsibility
setting areas of accountability
setting "SMART" goals.
a SMART goal is a stupid anagram i learned years ago:
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Timed
basically meaning: set your goals, both long and short term, to be realistically achievable by any given time, within a specific time period. if it's not realistic, or achievable, then you either need to hire new staff, or reassess your goals.
i'm now a manager for the same company. and the manager who wrote me up for my actions, was relocated.
moral: work to live, don't live to work. if you aren't being paid for your time, then don't give them the time.
oh, and i also work a second job at a shitty studio in milton keynes. so while i may not have the artistic experience or skills of you guys. if anyone wants a better manager, hook me up xD
The problem isn't the workers though, or just doing as you did. Most people are too scared to take a stand like that, or are not in a position to stir up the hornets nest and lose their job. On top of that you have peer pressure, everyone else is staying-why aren't you?, and the fact that there are 1000s of qualified people lined to and just looking for a break in the industry. Makes for a very unyielding situation. If you can risk it great, if you can't, most people will shut up and just take it till they can find a better gig.
In terms of running an office, I do think producers can be very out of touch with actual time it takes to do something and time wasted. Mostly they just panic and throw more hours at a project, that will solve it. The equation is not so simple, but it is the most common solution. It works to some degree because more things can be approved. I've never been a fan of pre-emtive overtime.
I love your example with the manager though. "Can you stay and help me?" "No I have to go home to my wife." Awesome.
OT-pay is the great equalizer though. It kind of negates all arguments. Even when you are getting over worked, at least you are getting paid really well. Then it just becomes a personal choice as to whether you want to keep working there.
A large problem at my job is that alot of that is wasted work, due to poor management.
We have comp time at my office (we haven't had much need for it with things being so slow), but even so I make it a point to be out of there at 5, unless it is something life-or-death or just a little thing that I need to finish.
Exactly. Especially people that are supporting a family, have a mortgage, etc..
Yup. A lot of studios in this industry have developed a culture where spending more and more time at the office is looked upon favorably.
Also have to agree with this - an employee could theoretically make a stand based on principle, but there are plenty of people outside the door who would be more than happy to take their place and do the OT without complaint.
i'm of the very firm opinion that anyone who works themselves into the ground, without actually being paid for it is a fool, and the "i have a family to support" argument, is made void by the fact that you're earning no extra money to support them by doing the extra hours, and you're actually taking AWAY from the family, valuable time spent with the wife, and kids.
work smart, not hard. much like in a position of management (i work in sales management, and i DO know what it's like not to hit targets etc), i basically sit in the back office, and hit F5 and watch the money come in now. not because i'm lazy, but because i promote self management in my staff.
the SMART thing works, and it works well. you discuss all your goals as a group, so the management know where the team is at in terms of skill and how long they think it will take. it also means that rather than having a manager dictate a goal to their team, the team effectively dictates it to themselves. and because of that they are not only more motivated to hit that target (knowing they can), and have no room to argue if they DON'T hit the target.
that's not to say management don't have any involvement in the process. part of making the targets realistic is to set them against company requirements. and that's where managers are accountable.
as a manager i'm accountable for making sure our sales targets are hit accross all boards, and that my team are motivated, happy, and safe in their workplace.
how do i achieve this? every saturday, after work, i invite my staff to attend a team meeting, and then go for beers. i don't pay for the beer, they do that themselves, i don't even make them come to the meeting. they are on the understanding that if they don't attend, and some targets are set that they don't agree with, they can't argue about it.
if my area manager calls me and says "you need to do an extra x of this today", that's when i'll get involved myself. i can already account for my team and their responsibilities (note, i'm accountable, they are responsible). i already know that they won't have time to do the extra, because they've already self managed themselves to hitting the targets needed. that means someone needs to magically pull some extra results out, and that isn't going to happen. so i'd be more happy doing it myself, and letting them hit the baseline target, than asking them to do it, and having the fundamentals fail.
the only time my staff do overtime is at christmas, and it's their choice, as i always have enough temps to fill the hours, to them the commission and bonus they earn is enough to cover the extra hours.
my own contract states i have to put 38.5 hours per week into the business.
an interesting issue came up with management conference calls, i was asked to join a conference call at 9pm one evening, i said sure. it took 2 hours, so i asked when i could take those two hours (i'm salaried, no overtime for meeee). the answer was "you can't". so i told my area manager, next time he wanted a conference call, he could come to my store and hold it there, during the day. and now my back office is his back office >_> some things don't work out
i guess, what i did took some balls, and at the time all i really had to lose was my appartment. but i felt it had to be done, as i'd rather lose a job and find a new one, than work in a place where effectively i'm not respected. if any of my staff asked me for help, i'd do it, it's the responsible thing to do. and i know i can do it, because i've worked up through sales.
working in the IT, games design business, if your boss doesn't know what he's doing enough to help you, then you need to find a new fucking boss asap.
/end rant.
oh, side note: year on year, we are 122% ahead of sales, which is great. but there are 2 areas where we're not hitting our targets, and i DO get my ass chewed over it, on an almost daily basis. but i know nothing can be done to change it unless i'm allowed to hire new staff. and i'd rather not have my team demotivated, or overworked, just to create some figures.
Everyone else is most often an "at-will" employee, depending on state. Meaning you can quit at any time with or without reason, and/or you may be let go/fired/dismissed at any time with or without reason. Often this is still built into employment contracts, there is simply a severance package and or timed non-compete agreement in addition.
Edit: HEHE 38.5 hours. I remember that number. It was what I was required to average under at one job to maintain "part-time" status so they didn't have to pay benefits,etc etc.
err.. make that 29.5. Sorry, its been a long 3 days.
Speak up- if something is wrong, say something. Bring it up with someone you trust, if it is outside of your realm of influence, find out more about the situation before it gets out of hand. Voice concerns. And if things become a problem, you need to stand up.
Stand up- yes you can be fired for this. But you know what? I can't think of anyone I know who has gotten fired or laid off from a job that was taking advantage of them that didn't end up in a better place. That includes people with a family. One person standing up can inspire others to do the same. It is hard to be the first, but you have to do what you know is right, because it will make you much happier- being miserable and safe, I don't think even slaves enjoyed that.
Stop digging a hole for yourself- Why are you working 60 hours a week, when no one is asking? Why are you under-estimating how long something will take, so you can pretend you completed it in half the time it actually took? This doesn't help you or your co-workers- it creates an artificial metric that you cannot and should not sustain and puts undue pressure on your coworkers. If this sort of crap gains you a raise or promotion, it has come at the cost of your coworkers and friends, not just yourself. Once in a while I need to work some overtime, it is the nature of technical stuff- lots of things break at the same time and you need to stay extra. But I never feel obligated to stay later than my boss, and the only reason I do work at home is so I can release it publicly.
Yes, management, and management alone, is responsible for sustained overtime. But we know this and don't do a goddamn thing about it. We know it and then not just don't speak up about the problem, but actually feed into it.
We are the ones that make games. We hold the power, but we are so afraid to use it. For many of us, our jobs cannot be outsourced (yet) and it is not easy to replace a veteran on a team where so much knowledge is unwritten and accumulated. With this OT law or not, if a company is abusing its workers, you stand up- and if it isn't fixed, you leave. If more people did this, companies would think twice before abusing their workers.
if one person is unhappy with something at work, chances are others are unhappy about it too.
you might be the first, and you might be fired, and you might have to look for a new job. but you never know, the knock on effects of your actions might mean others get to work in better conditions, and then the new company you work for will see the old as a rolemodel.
happy workers = productive workers.
saleswise, and i should probably expect a kick in for this, i work for Phones 4 u.
Thankfully there's many companies that are completely honest and upfront with your overtime workload.
thechaosengine.com seems to have good information on a per company basis as well.
HAH! I Hear plenty of bitching about overtime at my job
Anyways, I think this is a better model than the "they love thier job they will do anything" model we have now, and i for one would love to see this implemented across the world.
It would stop the managers I've worked with expecting 20 hours overtime, because they arent doing their job properly.
Gir, I've worked in deep red , the whole character dept left because Clive and the rest of the management/muppet team were clueless and expected you to work overtime, no matter what you said to them.
Perhaps they have changed since, but over the years I've noticed the same pattern through out the UK industry with the bottom feeder devs.
anyway, he seemed like an ok guy and i sent over some of my work, which he shot down. but being the only studio i knew of locally, i kept trying until around january he said he could take me on.
i made it abundantly clear to him, though, that i would only be working certain hours on certain days though, due to my management commitments, and the fact that if this job were to fall through, not only would i have taken a huge paycut to work for a backwater studio, but he would have left me high and dry.
For the most part, as an industry we're expected to work 60+ hours a week, with zero compensation, and considered to be HIGHLY replaceable.
:S
Luckily there are still a few companies out there that don't expect overtime.
do the big companies (i say big, i'm sure there are others equally as big) such as rockstar, epic, or ID, ask for the same thing from their employees? because i would doubt it. on the basis that i've yet to play a game by any of them that feels particularly rushed, or unpolished. like they've put a lot of love into their games, and the only way to achieve it is to ensure their staff love what they are doing too.
maybe if more companies followed such an example, and said to producers "you'll get your game when it's actually ready to be played, and not when it's ready to be sold", you'd be on a win win?
take assassins creed, the force unleashed, and other titles that by rights, should have been huge multi-sequal franchises, that didn't just survive on the first months sales because of bad reviews, or people saying "you know, the first hour was awesome, but then it was like playing the same first hour over and over, and not in a good way."
It's for those reasons you should actually fight the mismanagement.
- Why have a mortgage if you're not going to have a home?
- Why have a family if you're never going to be there?
"I'm not going to say anything, I'm just going to find a new job and leave."
Personally I'd say something long before that, but that's just me. Finding a new job and starting over sucks. Theres a chance it could actually look better and end up worse. If I can make my current job into the job I've always wanted and balance it with my personal life I will.
It really depends on you and your situation, for me personally, I would rather quit then be cowed into doing something I felt was going hurt my family and me not being there would be hurting them. My wife needs a break, my daughter needs a fresh playmate and I need some time to unwind and relax. I feel like I have a lot of opportunities open to me and I don't need this job. Your situation might be reversed, not really sure.
But as long as an employer thinks they have you over a barrel they'll probably keep you there. It might be a pretty bawlsy bluff but having the attitude of "you need me more then I need you" but it might help shift the balance of power in your favor. If you're tired of getting hit, then maybe its time to stop being a punching bag...
"I really don't want to bring it up, it would go against my passive aggressive nature"
If you're working long hours and smiling thru gritted teeth, they might not think anything is wrong. It might not hurt to sit down with them, and go over some post mortem type issues make sure to point out that angry disgruntled employees aren't going to do the type of work they want and neither are new inexperienced workers. They can try to wring blood from both but they'll just get a pulpy mess. If they want to succeed, they need to give the workers the things they need to succeed. If they come back with an attitude of well we don't care just get the work done, then its time to leave, and encourage others to do so. It's a horrible place to work, but make sure you're not just projecting that on them, hear it straight from them first.
no fecking way? milton keynes uk? if so I am only a ten minute train ride (one after bletchley) away, ahh what are the odds
i know mightypea lives about a 45 min train ride from me, same with spacemonkey, and mop.
actualy I live in Linslade the better part- well slightly haha.
You cant miss me on the train i will be the tallest one there (which i get on to go to mk college- bletchley campus), well over 6"5 bush beard and floppy hair, with lots of leather braceelts rocking the hippy look!
I know some ohers are in london but thats about it, I know there is a guy on the crazybump forums from milton keynes...but if you ever see me say hi:)
sorry wayyyyyyyyy off topic.
Being in the last year of college I have to make a choice whether to commit to a uni course. But many of the UK courses sound pretty basic and I could be more advanced (and im terrible hahaha), so would it really be worth all that money and come out the otherside into a market oversaturated? hmm I will have to make my mind up sharpish.
I think you're looking for a job in a tough market with a better then average portfolio. I'm not in the market where you're at, but I've heard it can be a tough place to find work and isn't booming like it once was.
I imagine any added wow factor you can add, you should be doing. Which I think includes getting your own site and putting your best pieces front and center. You've got some great pieces in your portfolio and some amazing 2D skill but when someone hits your flickr page they have to go digging. I also don't see a lot of environmental art which is kind of the classic foot in the door position. Amazing 2D skills are great but if its only 35% of the job they are considering you for it might not be enough.
I'm lucky to have a mediocre skill set and live in an area full of "shit companies" one of which hired me, and 2 others offered me jobs and contract offers keep rolling in. I can't say its fair but location and timing are fickle bitches.
Have you thought about doing contract work to bolster your portfolio?
Scott
However, even with the best will in the world, shit happens. Hopefully it's very brief, sometimes it can drag on. But the last thing you want when that happens is for uppitty little arseholes to refuse to pull together with everyone else, to start waving bits of paper about and quoting chunks of employment law. Get up in my face with that and i'll kick you in the shin. Please just understand what's going on, and if you're gonna stew, well fucking well stew quietly, honestly you aren't helping.
Not accusing anyone of anything of course, just hypothesising. Twats
Generally though, people just need to know what they are getting into. You can be perfectly happy doing OT witout pay if you love your job, coworkers, great environment, good base salary, and bonus system. Or any combination of that. The problem with this law is it is potentially changing the "rules" in the middle. And for what? Shareholders? Executives? Really it seems to favor factory-style studios or small underfunded studios, and in CA, 75k is not a lot of money to be cutting OT off.
of course if they are making a fuss during a period where EVERYONE feels the need to pull together, they are being an ass.
but still if you feel you're being treated poorly, or that your colleagues are. then raise the issue when the time is there for it to be dealt with.