Salaried workers being "forced" to work regular unpaid overtime -- right or wrong?
Here is an interesting article about Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, who claims that she always goes home at 5:30:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/16/tech/w...html?hpt=hp_c1
This drew some controversy because many tech workers are expected to work as many as 40 unpaid overtime hours per week, and often fear losing their jobs if they don't.
Many years ago, the concept of "exempt" employees was established in regards to overtime. Employees are "exempt" (from overtime payment requirements) if they meet various criteria, including minimum pay level, salaried pay structure (as opposed to hourly), and have a certain job type.
A lawyer's website about the matter explains exempt jobs as the following:
Quote:
The job duties of the traditional "learned professions" are exempt. These include lawyers, doctors, dentists, teachers, architects, clergy. Also included are registered nurses (but not LPNs), accountants (but not bookkeepers), engineers (who have engineering degrees or the equivalent and perform work of the sort usually performed by licensed professional engineers), actuaries, scientists (but not technicians), pharmacists, and other employees who perform work requiring "advanced knowledge" similar to that historically associated with the traditional learned professions.
Professionally exempt work means work which is predominantly intellectual, requires specialized education, and involves the exercise of discretion and judgment. Professionally exempt workers must have education beyond high school, and usually beyond college, in fields that are distinguished from (more "academic" than) the mechanical arts or skilled trades. Advanced degrees are the most common measure of this, but are not absolutely necessary if an employee has attained a similar level of advanced education through other means (and perform essentially the same kind of work as similar employees who do have advanced degrees).
So basically the engineer has the exempt job, and the cable installer has the non-exempt job, even if the cable installer is making more money than the engineer.
Being an exempt worker is generally NOT a good thing for the employee. This is because you completely lack rights when it comes to work hours and overtime.
This was done in response to employers' concerns that "professional" workers occasionally need to work extra hours in order to accomplish a certain task, but that this should be considered part of the job and shouldn't cost the employer extra.
For example, if a programmer is trying to finish a certain module of his program, but 5:00 hits and he feels he has two more hours of work left to get it done, he should be able to finish his work without the employer having to make the choice to either stop him in the middle or pay him time-and-a-half to continue. Same with a teacher who spends extra hours in a given week preparing lessons or grading papers. She shouldn't be eligible for overtime, either, and that makes sense.
However, like many laws making exceptions, this has unfortunately evolved into a situation that is far from its original intention and spirit. It went from a common-sense solution to one-size-fits-all overtime requirements to a legalized form of employee abuse.
Many employers came to realize that this exemption from overtime pay, while originally intended for only occasional use, gave them the right to demand unlimited free work from their employees. If you're paying someone for 40 hours per week, but can legally ask them to regularly work much more than that, why bother hiring another 40-hour employee when you can simply ask your existing employee to work 80 -- and not pay him a penny more!
The free market takes care of this problem to some degree when the job market is good, but in times of recession (like now), people are terrified of losing their jobs and will do pretty much anything their boss asks. It also doesn't help that a "monkey see, monkey do" situation tends to occur here. A new employee sees his peers working 60-80 hours a week, and he actually feels guilty (or fears being judged as lazy) if he only works the 40 hours he's being paid for. Indeed, the guy making noise about regular unpaid overtime is probably the first one to go when layoffs come around, and it's very tempting for an employer to replace him when 100 resumes are flowing into the HR department daily for that guy's job.
The exempt employee law needs to be modified. If I were crafting the law, I would allow for 10 extra hours to be worked per week without pay, and a 4-week-per-year exemption for unlimited hours. However, for the other 48 weeks, any hours worked over 50 should be compensated at an hourly rate equivalent to what they are making per hour through their salary. I feel this would be a happy medium, allowing employers to occasionally (4 weeks per year) get free overtime out of their professional employees during "crunch time" (such as a deadline), but not to routinely force people to work 60+ hours per week for no additional pay.
