3 ms·

Oh man, that is some serious proliterian rage. I have to wonder: why is it that someone thinks they can retroactively demand overtime pay for work that wasn't

• noonespecial 14y ago
  why is it that someone thinks they can retroactively demand overtime pay for work that wasn't agreed in advance They shouldn't. They then also have no duty to supply that work free of charge to someone who never agreed to its creation. (Which is what he was willing to give by open sourcing it btw)
• stdbrouw 14y ago
  If they want it, they pay. If they don't want it, don't pay, but don't get it either. Isn't that how you work as a contractor too? And doesn't that apply regardless of whether the work was agreed on in advance?
  • readme 14y ago
    The suggestion in the post I was replying to was to involve osha and demand overtime pay for work previously done in spare time. So no. The agreements the OP had with his company are irrelevant to his work hours. If OP did open source work on his free time, then later is asked by his company to take down said work, and complies, he is not entitled to any compensation, other than what his employer voluntarily offers him.
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    • readme 14y ago
      I'm not sure why this got downvoted, perhaps you're all missing the point: It's not that I don't like open source. I contribute to it myself. The point is that when you agree to something, that is binding.
    • stdbrouw 14y ago
      "If they claim ownership, despite the work having been done in your free time, demand the overtime pay." OP is not saying "make them pay for having to take chart.js down", OP is saying "make them pay if they want to claim ownership of chart.js and want to use it internally". Big difference.