7 ms·

I don't know much about US employment law, and what I do know, I don't like. But what I do know is this: No employer has ever, ever given me free money, and I

by alan_cx 15y ago

I don't know much about US employment law, and what I do know, I don't like. But what I do know is this: No employer has ever, ever given me free money, and I have never expected it. There for, I have never ever given an employer free time, and never ever will. To do different is insane. It lowers one's worth since the deal is an exchange of money for time. It makes the employer think your free time is theirs to exploit and frankly damn wrong. Like I say, the day employers give out free money is the time I give out free time.

BadassFractal 15y ago
It's at-will employment, if you don't like it, you can leave at any point. Basically if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with. As people pointed out though, it's a different story once health care is part of the equation.
- Tichy 15y ago
  That's so weird. As if there was some kind of conspiracy between health care providers and employers. I mean you probably take it for granted that health care is tied to a job, but that really isn't the case at all. Where I live (Germany) it is organized in a completely different way. If you lose your job, social insurance will keep paying your health insurance. It's ironic because "your way" actually seems to be taking freedom away from you, yet the US seems to consider a model like the German one to be the ultimate slavery (socialism).
  - Natsu 15y ago
    They've tried to change the health insurance problem. I'm not sure how much Obamacare will do in that regard, as a practical matter, but we'll eventually find out one way or another, assuming it's not repealed or struck down first.
  - alan_cx 15y ago
    Yeah, the thing is the USA is the flip side of the USSR. One was the definition of socialism, the other capitalism. Here in Europe we consider both systems as tools to use, rather than rules for running a state. Part of me wonders if the US obsession with uber capitalism is some sort of historic anti Europe thing, or a way that they remain different and separate. Its US identity. Having booted the Europeans and gained independence, the last thing they want to do is embrace European ideals.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      I don't really understand the logic, because it seems to me that as long as they pay taxes in the US, they are just as "socialist" as, say, Germany with their health insurance. What is the difference if you build roads for the common good or buy health insurance for the common good. Also I don't understand how capitalism makes health care tied to employment. In theory shouldn't there be health insurers who are willing to ensure you just as long as you pay your rates? What do they care if you are employed or not - except perhaps for some statistics like "employed people are less/more healthy on average", which could be factored into the rates.
      - bdunbar 15y ago
        In theory shouldn't there be health insurers who are willing to ensure you just as long as you pay your rates? There are, in actual fact, insurance companies in the US that will do this. Some make it a business to cater to self-employed folks who don't have company insurance. It's been a while since I thought about this, but (IIRC) the 'private companies pay for insurance' deal got started in World War II, as a perk. Companies could not compete for scarce labor (salary freeze) so they offered basic health insurance to attract workers. From there it just grew. So why do so many of us accept it, when there are free-market alternatives? I think it's the convenience. Take my dental plan at work. For about $10 a month I'm covered for all routine stuff at the dentist. Extraordinary work will cost me a bit off the top, but not _that_ much, for the care I'm getting. Which is pretty much the plan I'd get if I eschewed the work plan and bought one on my own. The convenience is that work has a team of guys who deal with the insurance companies, getting deals, selecting plans, negotiating rates, basically dealing with a lot of hassle so I don't have to. Now, I could get a better rate on my own, and I probably _should_ if I were really worried about being laid-off but .. it's just easier this way. A trade-off. For a lot of us, this is okay: the plans our employers offer are pretty good. For some people, who have sucky employers and rotten plans ... it's sub-optimal.
- alan_cx 15y ago
  Yes, and people really should quit. If they did, then employers might just get the message. As a former employer (Im now 39 and retired), I never ever expected people to work for free. Never. That is literally slave labour to me. The health care thing, as it exists in the US, is a nasty whip by which people are beaten. It is one very good reason why the US could do with a national health care system for all. As it stands, I do understand why people are too scared to take risks. Health should never be a reason for exploitation. Sadly, what you are saying is that its fine for business to exploit human beings. I say no. I have enough self respect and confidence to walk. I will not be abused by these people. Having read that previous article about that woman who went to work in one of those huge warehouses, my view has hardened. Essentially, in the USA you have Indian business practice now. Why? Because everything is driven down by price. Ironically, the people who have to work in those places are the very people who need those prices, and so we see condition and prices decline. Seriously, aren't things supposed to get better with time? Or os that only for the few at the top? This Uber capitalism thing will end in tears. IMHO, capitalism is a tool to be used, not a way of life. As is socialism. Society needs to embrace both, and use both where appropriate. But hey, I live in the UK. Things are a bit better here. For now...
  - bmj 15y ago
    Yes, and people really should quit. If they did, then employers might just get the message. In some industries, maybe. I've worked in several "old school" design agencies (doing a bit of interactive work), and many designers and production folks are absolutely worked to the bone (frequent all-nighters, weekends, etc). Sure, some of them quit, but there's always somebody else to take their place. And working long hours is all "career development" until you're out of the trenches every day. Some industries just function this way (gaming, as others have pointed out), and people entering those industries seem happy to accept it.
  - khyryk 15y ago
    I imagine quitting would just be a minor annoyance until they find someone who does exactly what you used to do. Not many are in the position where they would actually be considered valuable and perhaps beginning to approach irreplaceable. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in ideology, but many people are in ugly situations.
- Intermernet 15y ago
  "if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with." Does anybody like being exploited?
- batista 15y ago
  It's at-will employment, if you don't like it, you can leave at any point. Basically if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with. No, it's not at-will employment. At will employment would be, "I want to work at Google", and snap you're working at Google. Real life employment is more like: how is the general economy? how is your specific field's economy? If you quit this job, can you last for a while while seeking a new one? Are local firms hiring or do you have to leave your town to find a job? Are your skills still relevant? Do you have a family to feed? Do you have mortgage payments? Are you 1 in 100 kind of programmer, where companies compete to hire you, or 1 in 20, where you can shop around a little? Maybe you are one of 19 in 20, ie average, and you don't get much say. Do you even have had an education, or couldn't afford one? Are you/any member of your family sick, do you absolutely need health coverage?
  - gaius 15y ago
    Nevertheless, "at will" is the common term for what he describes.
mseebach 15y ago
So, I agree with the point made in another comment about this not being so much about overtime, but about crap jobs. But: > the deal is an exchange of money for time It's not really, no. It's an exchange of work for time. If you're doing an exchange of time, you'll be punching in and out, and the boss worrying about your "butt in seat" productivity metric is reasonable. It doesn't necessarily follow that you should work 80-hour weeks for months on end, but the case where some extra hours in a crunch is warranted makes more sense. Of course, a good employer would seek to offset that, either with money, time off in lieu or otherwise, but that ties back to the crap jobs again.
- neutronicus 15y ago
  There's an asymmetry here: I want to see the exchange as money for time, because my work is not valuable to me (I don't get to keep the product!), but my time is. I want an upper bound on how much of the resource that's valuable to me that the company is entitled to in exchange for their money. The employer wants to see the exchange as money for work, because they couldn't care less how the work gets done. They want a lower bound on the amount of the resource that's valuable to them that they get for their money.
  - dodedo 15y ago
    And a difference of opinion: I want to see the exchange as work for time, because I work much more effectively than many other people. An hourly-rate job is simply not attractive to me, because the hourly-rate will not effectively capture my value. As explained by grellas above, overtime in the US is typically applied to replaceable workers who's hourly value is a more or less quantifiable resource. If I'm flipping burgers, painting a house, or banging out simple webapps based on someone else's design then it's fairly easy to quantify the value of my time. However, if I'm working in an industry where force multipliers abound, for example software engineering, or any sufficiently advanced executive/management position, I would much rather capture the value of what I produce -- there simply cannot be a good fit with shoehorning me into an hourly value rate. It simply isn't an accurate way to represent my value. This is best exemplified by jobs which supply equity stakes. If you give me a chunk of your company I'm no longer working for free, when I work overtime.
andylei 15y ago
> No employer has ever, ever given me free money, and I have never expected it some firms offer a bonus. i guess that counts as free money way in the way that overtime counts as free time. > the deal is an exchange of money for time if that really was the deal, then you'd be paid hourly. i think most programmers exchanging results for money.
- grecy 15y ago
  > some firms offer a bonus. i guess that counts as free money way in the way that overtime counts as free time. I've always disliked this way of thinking. A bonus is a reward for the good work (already) done, NOT incentive/payment to add additional work.
  - hpguy 15y ago
    Why not both? I'm not advocating overtime, but if overtime is needed in a certain period then what's wrong with the company gives out bonus?
    - teamonkey 15y ago
      In my experience of working for companies that justify overtime with discretionary bonuses, the bonus is always less than what I'd expect to earn if I was paid overtime.
    - grecy 15y ago
      What if the company was going to give you a bonus anyway (it's part of your employment contact), then asks you to work overtime. Will they pay a bigger bonus? If not, then you are working unpaid overtime.

by alan_cx 15y ago

BadassFractal 15y ago

It's at-will employment, if you don't like it, you can leave at any point. Basically if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with. As people pointed out though, it's a different story once health care is part of the equation.

Tichy 15y ago
That's so weird. As if there was some kind of conspiracy between health care providers and employers. I mean you probably take it for granted that health care is tied to a job, but that really isn't the case at all. Where I live (Germany) it is organized in a completely different way. If you lose your job, social insurance will keep paying your health insurance. It's ironic because "your way" actually seems to be taking freedom away from you, yet the US seems to consider a model like the German one to be the ultimate slavery (socialism).
- Natsu 15y ago
  They've tried to change the health insurance problem. I'm not sure how much Obamacare will do in that regard, as a practical matter, but we'll eventually find out one way or another, assuming it's not repealed or struck down first.
- alan_cx 15y ago
  Yeah, the thing is the USA is the flip side of the USSR. One was the definition of socialism, the other capitalism. Here in Europe we consider both systems as tools to use, rather than rules for running a state. Part of me wonders if the US obsession with uber capitalism is some sort of historic anti Europe thing, or a way that they remain different and separate. Its US identity. Having booted the Europeans and gained independence, the last thing they want to do is embrace European ideals.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    I don't really understand the logic, because it seems to me that as long as they pay taxes in the US, they are just as "socialist" as, say, Germany with their health insurance. What is the difference if you build roads for the common good or buy health insurance for the common good. Also I don't understand how capitalism makes health care tied to employment. In theory shouldn't there be health insurers who are willing to ensure you just as long as you pay your rates? What do they care if you are employed or not - except perhaps for some statistics like "employed people are less/more healthy on average", which could be factored into the rates.
    - bdunbar 15y ago
      In theory shouldn't there be health insurers who are willing to ensure you just as long as you pay your rates? There are, in actual fact, insurance companies in the US that will do this. Some make it a business to cater to self-employed folks who don't have company insurance. It's been a while since I thought about this, but (IIRC) the 'private companies pay for insurance' deal got started in World War II, as a perk. Companies could not compete for scarce labor (salary freeze) so they offered basic health insurance to attract workers. From there it just grew. So why do so many of us accept it, when there are free-market alternatives? I think it's the convenience. Take my dental plan at work. For about $10 a month I'm covered for all routine stuff at the dentist. Extraordinary work will cost me a bit off the top, but not _that_ much, for the care I'm getting. Which is pretty much the plan I'd get if I eschewed the work plan and bought one on my own. The convenience is that work has a team of guys who deal with the insurance companies, getting deals, selecting plans, negotiating rates, basically dealing with a lot of hassle so I don't have to. Now, I could get a better rate on my own, and I probably _should_ if I were really worried about being laid-off but .. it's just easier this way. A trade-off. For a lot of us, this is okay: the plans our employers offer are pretty good. For some people, who have sucky employers and rotten plans ... it's sub-optimal.
alan_cx 15y ago
Yes, and people really should quit. If they did, then employers might just get the message. As a former employer (Im now 39 and retired), I never ever expected people to work for free. Never. That is literally slave labour to me. The health care thing, as it exists in the US, is a nasty whip by which people are beaten. It is one very good reason why the US could do with a national health care system for all. As it stands, I do understand why people are too scared to take risks. Health should never be a reason for exploitation. Sadly, what you are saying is that its fine for business to exploit human beings. I say no. I have enough self respect and confidence to walk. I will not be abused by these people. Having read that previous article about that woman who went to work in one of those huge warehouses, my view has hardened. Essentially, in the USA you have Indian business practice now. Why? Because everything is driven down by price. Ironically, the people who have to work in those places are the very people who need those prices, and so we see condition and prices decline. Seriously, aren't things supposed to get better with time? Or os that only for the few at the top? This Uber capitalism thing will end in tears. IMHO, capitalism is a tool to be used, not a way of life. As is socialism. Society needs to embrace both, and use both where appropriate. But hey, I live in the UK. Things are a bit better here. For now...
- bmj 15y ago
  Yes, and people really should quit. If they did, then employers might just get the message. In some industries, maybe. I've worked in several "old school" design agencies (doing a bit of interactive work), and many designers and production folks are absolutely worked to the bone (frequent all-nighters, weekends, etc). Sure, some of them quit, but there's always somebody else to take their place. And working long hours is all "career development" until you're out of the trenches every day. Some industries just function this way (gaming, as others have pointed out), and people entering those industries seem happy to accept it.
- khyryk 15y ago
  I imagine quitting would just be a minor annoyance until they find someone who does exactly what you used to do. Not many are in the position where they would actually be considered valuable and perhaps beginning to approach irreplaceable. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you in ideology, but many people are in ugly situations.
Intermernet 15y ago
"if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with." Does anybody like being exploited?
batista 15y ago
It's at-will employment, if you don't like it, you can leave at any point. Basically if you don't like being exploited, quit and get it over with. No, it's not at-will employment. At will employment would be, "I want to work at Google", and snap you're working at Google. Real life employment is more like: how is the general economy? how is your specific field's economy? If you quit this job, can you last for a while while seeking a new one? Are local firms hiring or do you have to leave your town to find a job? Are your skills still relevant? Do you have a family to feed? Do you have mortgage payments? Are you 1 in 100 kind of programmer, where companies compete to hire you, or 1 in 20, where you can shop around a little? Maybe you are one of 19 in 20, ie average, and you don't get much say. Do you even have had an education, or couldn't afford one? Are you/any member of your family sick, do you absolutely need health coverage?
- gaius 15y ago
  Nevertheless, "at will" is the common term for what he describes.

mseebach 15y ago

So, I agree with the point made in another comment about this not being so much about overtime, but about crap jobs. But: > the deal is an exchange of money for time It's not really, no. It's an exchange of work for time. If you're doing an exchange of time, you'll be punching in and out, and the boss worrying about your "butt in seat" productivity metric is reasonable. It doesn't necessarily follow that you should work 80-hour weeks for months on end, but the case where some extra hours in a crunch is warranted makes more sense. Of course, a good employer would seek to offset that, either with money, time off in lieu or otherwise, but that ties back to the crap jobs again.

neutronicus 15y ago
There's an asymmetry here: I want to see the exchange as money for time, because my work is not valuable to me (I don't get to keep the product!), but my time is. I want an upper bound on how much of the resource that's valuable to me that the company is entitled to in exchange for their money. The employer wants to see the exchange as money for work, because they couldn't care less how the work gets done. They want a lower bound on the amount of the resource that's valuable to them that they get for their money.
- dodedo 15y ago
  And a difference of opinion: I want to see the exchange as work for time, because I work much more effectively than many other people. An hourly-rate job is simply not attractive to me, because the hourly-rate will not effectively capture my value. As explained by grellas above, overtime in the US is typically applied to replaceable workers who's hourly value is a more or less quantifiable resource. If I'm flipping burgers, painting a house, or banging out simple webapps based on someone else's design then it's fairly easy to quantify the value of my time. However, if I'm working in an industry where force multipliers abound, for example software engineering, or any sufficiently advanced executive/management position, I would much rather capture the value of what I produce -- there simply cannot be a good fit with shoehorning me into an hourly value rate. It simply isn't an accurate way to represent my value. This is best exemplified by jobs which supply equity stakes. If you give me a chunk of your company I'm no longer working for free, when I work overtime.

andylei 15y ago

> No employer has ever, ever given me free money, and I have never expected it some firms offer a bonus. i guess that counts as free money way in the way that overtime counts as free time. > the deal is an exchange of money for time if that really was the deal, then you'd be paid hourly. i think most programmers exchanging results for money.

grecy 15y ago
> some firms offer a bonus. i guess that counts as free money way in the way that overtime counts as free time. I've always disliked this way of thinking. A bonus is a reward for the good work (already) done, NOT incentive/payment to add additional work.
- hpguy 15y ago
  Why not both? I'm not advocating overtime, but if overtime is needed in a certain period then what's wrong with the company gives out bonus?
  - teamonkey 15y ago
    In my experience of working for companies that justify overtime with discretionary bonuses, the bonus is always less than what I'd expect to earn if I was paid overtime.
  - grecy 15y ago
    What if the company was going to give you a bonus anyway (it's part of your employment contact), then asks you to work overtime. Will they pay a bigger bonus? If not, then you are working unpaid overtime.