3 ms·

I'm not familiar with "at-will salary workers". How does that work? If they don't have contractual obligations, what do they get paid for?

jon_richards 10y ago
"at-will" refers to the employer being able to fire the employee "at-will", meaning for any reason or no reason (excepting reasons that it is illegal to fire for) and without warning.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  Technically, it also affords the similar right to the employee to leave at any time for any or no reason. However, with employee / employer relations and power balance as they are, it is a tool that is drastically more powerful for the employer.
closeparen 10y ago
Oh boy, welcome to employment in the United States. At-will: either party may alter or terminate employment at any time for any reason, and the other has no legal recourse. There is no contractual specification of what you're paid for because the employer does not need to prove anything about the relationship between actual and expected behavior to fire you. You get paid the rate that was agreed upon for time already worked, and then you're done. In effect, you get paid for not having been fired yet. Salary: your compensation is per unit of time elapsed on the calendar, not at your workstation. These conditions describe the vast majority of professional, intellectual, and managerial work in the United States. Working 40 hours per week, working 9am-5pm Monday-Friday, etc. are merely cultural norms, not legal standards, and some industries (like tech and finance) have very little respect for them. Working 40 hours per week is encoded as a legal standard for hourly workers (via overtime pay requirements), but only below a certain wage threshold. Many fields, including programming, are exempt from overtime requirements even when paid hourly.
- ouid 10y ago
  Is it reasonable to assume that you can still do alright by providing exactly the value that you are paid for, and no more? If you can fulfill that value in 20 hours a week, then it seems like you should go home at that point. Otherwise you're just creating an easily consolidated power vacuum above you and contributing to the collapse of civilization.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    Depends on the company. Survive? Sure. Advance? There will likely be many others competing for advancement, and longer hours will make them seem "hungrier" than you.
    - ouid 10y ago
      That seems false. What is my incentive, as an employer, to give such an employee a promotion or a raise? I'm not trying to get him to work harder for more pay.
      - falcolas 10y ago
        They have visibility. "Bob was here until 7 at night fixing bugs in the code! Where was Alice?" It won't matter that Bob didn't fix the bugs; Alice did when she came in the next morning. It won't matter that Bob caused the issue in the first place. Alice probably didn't even hear the above exclamation, it was an internal dialogue in their manager's mind, so she can't even offer a rebuttal. Bob was seen working "when it mattered". Perception trumps performance, sadly.
        ouid 10y ago
        I meant to say that I don't see why I should give someone a raise simply as a result of increased performance. it's my goal as an employer to extract more value from an employee than they cost. The only thing that would compel me to give out raises is a change in market conditions, which can usually be detected by an employee threatening to leave for a job which pays more.

jon_richards 10y ago

"at-will" refers to the employer being able to fire the employee "at-will", meaning for any reason or no reason (excepting reasons that it is illegal to fire for) and without warning.

jdmichal 10y ago
Technically, it also affords the similar right to the employee to leave at any time for any or no reason. However, with employee / employer relations and power balance as they are, it is a tool that is drastically more powerful for the employer.

closeparen 10y ago

Oh boy, welcome to employment in the United States. At-will: either party may alter or terminate employment at any time for any reason, and the other has no legal recourse. There is no contractual specification of what you're paid for because the employer does not need to prove anything about the relationship between actual and expected behavior to fire you. You get paid the rate that was agreed upon for time already worked, and then you're done. In effect, you get paid for not having been fired yet. Salary: your compensation is per unit of time elapsed on the calendar, not at your workstation. These conditions describe the vast majority of professional, intellectual, and managerial work in the United States. Working 40 hours per week, working 9am-5pm Monday-Friday, etc. are merely cultural norms, not legal standards, and some industries (like tech and finance) have very little respect for them. Working 40 hours per week is encoded as a legal standard for hourly workers (via overtime pay requirements), but only below a certain wage threshold. Many fields, including programming, are exempt from overtime requirements even when paid hourly.

ouid 10y ago
Is it reasonable to assume that you can still do alright by providing exactly the value that you are paid for, and no more? If you can fulfill that value in 20 hours a week, then it seems like you should go home at that point. Otherwise you're just creating an easily consolidated power vacuum above you and contributing to the collapse of civilization.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Depends on the company. Survive? Sure. Advance? There will likely be many others competing for advancement, and longer hours will make them seem "hungrier" than you.
  - ouid 10y ago
    That seems false. What is my incentive, as an employer, to give such an employee a promotion or a raise? I'm not trying to get him to work harder for more pay.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      They have visibility. "Bob was here until 7 at night fixing bugs in the code! Where was Alice?" It won't matter that Bob didn't fix the bugs; Alice did when she came in the next morning. It won't matter that Bob caused the issue in the first place. Alice probably didn't even hear the above exclamation, it was an internal dialogue in their manager's mind, so she can't even offer a rebuttal. Bob was seen working "when it mattered". Perception trumps performance, sadly.
      - ouid 10y ago
        I meant to say that I don't see why I should give someone a raise simply as a result of increased performance. it's my goal as an employer to extract more value from an employee than they cost. The only thing that would compel me to give out raises is a change in market conditions, which can usually be detected by an employee threatening to leave for a job which pays more.