4 ms·

I wonder what (if there is one) the logical reason behind this exemption is.

dpritchett 12y ago
Reading the DoL's advisory on this [1] suggests that it all hinges on the concept of blue-collar vs. white-collar or production vs. staff employees. I can only imagine that the 'production' employees are seen as more interchangeable and largely incapable of having multiplicative effects on the company's business model. A programmer or accountant who's getting a raw deal can find a better job (where better means pay commensurate with contributions), but a tier 1 help desk tech or factory worker will likely have a lower ceiling on possible pay to begin with, and (more) trouble finding a way to secure compensation that scales with corporate success. It is surprisingly hard to find explanations for this - the web is choked with articles explaining who's exempt and who's not, but not so many with justifications or reasoning or historical context. [1]: http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/preamble_final.htm http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/preamble_final.htm
walterbell 12y ago
One reason is lack of organized lobbying by IT/engineers: http://andreas.com/faq-overtime.html http://andreas.com/faq-overtime.html Another round of policy discussion is underway: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/politics/obama-will-seek-broad-expansion-of-overtime-pay.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/politics/obama-will-see...
- logicallee 12y ago
  (Edited to be less sure.) A third reason might be the argument from market power stemming from the fact that if you can personally create $10 million of cold hard cash value using nothing but a bit of time in front of a computer, and with no long-term detrimental effects on you of any kind, then the fact that you are minting money creates a seller's market (just as there will always be a seller's market for legal currency), and it [might be an argument for] allowing you to work whatever hours you wanted - or sleep in the office, be offered legal drugs, whatever. if you didn't like it you could go somewhere else. it's very different if you were cleaning staff at any of the same companies. they "need" more protection than you do! Edit: from your responses it is clear that many people it applies to should also be owed overtime. I was just throwing out one "logical reason". In addition I've thought of the crazy hours residents and doctors put in - so that high earnings / value add might not guarantee that much market power, if the conditions are the same at all hospitals. on the other hand much of computer labor is absolutely in a seller's market (from the point of view of the employee) and clearly does not need the same level of protection. there is a lot in many workplaces that a "computer professional" wouldn't put up with for a second.
  - krschultz 12y ago
    Nonexempt employees can still work crazy hours, they just get overtime for it.
  - serge2k 12y ago
    That's all the more reason to demand overtime pay.
    - logicallee 12y ago
      Yes, to demand it. My point is you can demand whatever you want. (Unlike the cleaning staff, who can "be shown the door if that's how they feel about it.") It's not like being exempt means an employer is not allowed to offer you overtime pay. They can still do it. You can still demand it.
      - roc 12y ago
        > "Unlike the cleaning staff, who can "be shown the door if that's how they feel about it."" Cleaning staff are (overwhelmingly) entitled to overtime pay, by law.
        logicallee 12y ago
        yes, that is my point. they're entitled to it precisely because they're not in a position to demand it. (according to this possible logic.)
        roc 12y ago
        I guess I didn't recognize your point, because I don't see a huge discrepancy in ability-to-demand overtime, between cleaning people and technology staff. Tech workers are more-well-paid than the cleaning staff and generally better situated to negotiate for any given job. But I don't see how that necessarily carries over to increased success in negotiating payment schemes that differ from the legal and industry standard for the position.
rmc 12y ago
Companies would like some free labour, and to not have to pay for free overtime.
superuser2 12y ago
It's intended to encourage growth by making employment cheaper.

Reading the DoL's advisory on this [1] suggests that it all hinges on the concept of blue-collar vs. white-collar or production vs. staff employees. I can only imagine that the 'production' employees are seen as more interchangeable and largely incapable of having multiplicative effects on the company's business model. A programmer or accountant who's getting a raw deal can find a better job (where better means pay commensurate with contributions), but a tier 1 help desk tech or factory worker will likely have a lower ceiling on possible pay to begin with, and (more) trouble finding a way to secure compensation that scales with corporate success. It is surprisingly hard to find explanations for this - the web is choked with articles explaining who's exempt and who's not, but not so many with justifications or reasoning or historical context. [1]: http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/preamble_final.htm http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/preamble_final.htm

walterbell 12y ago

One reason is lack of organized lobbying by IT/engineers: http://andreas.com/faq-overtime.html http://andreas.com/faq-overtime.html Another round of policy discussion is underway: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/politics/obama-will-seek-broad-expansion-of-overtime-pay.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/politics/obama-will-see...

logicallee 12y ago
(Edited to be less sure.) A third reason might be the argument from market power stemming from the fact that if you can personally create $10 million of cold hard cash value using nothing but a bit of time in front of a computer, and with no long-term detrimental effects on you of any kind, then the fact that you are minting money creates a seller's market (just as there will always be a seller's market for legal currency), and it [might be an argument for] allowing you to work whatever hours you wanted - or sleep in the office, be offered legal drugs, whatever. if you didn't like it you could go somewhere else. it's very different if you were cleaning staff at any of the same companies. they "need" more protection than you do! Edit: from your responses it is clear that many people it applies to should also be owed overtime. I was just throwing out one "logical reason". In addition I've thought of the crazy hours residents and doctors put in - so that high earnings / value add might not guarantee that much market power, if the conditions are the same at all hospitals. on the other hand much of computer labor is absolutely in a seller's market (from the point of view of the employee) and clearly does not need the same level of protection. there is a lot in many workplaces that a "computer professional" wouldn't put up with for a second.
- krschultz 12y ago
  Nonexempt employees can still work crazy hours, they just get overtime for it.
- serge2k 12y ago
  That's all the more reason to demand overtime pay.
  - logicallee 12y ago
    Yes, to demand it. My point is you can demand whatever you want. (Unlike the cleaning staff, who can "be shown the door if that's how they feel about it.") It's not like being exempt means an employer is not allowed to offer you overtime pay. They can still do it. You can still demand it.
    - roc 12y ago
      > "Unlike the cleaning staff, who can "be shown the door if that's how they feel about it."" Cleaning staff are (overwhelmingly) entitled to overtime pay, by law.
      - logicallee 12y ago
        yes, that is my point. they're entitled to it precisely because they're not in a position to demand it. (according to this possible logic.)
        roc 12y ago
        I guess I didn't recognize your point, because I don't see a huge discrepancy in ability-to-demand overtime, between cleaning people and technology staff. Tech workers are more-well-paid than the cleaning staff and generally better situated to negotiate for any given job. But I don't see how that necessarily carries over to increased success in negotiating payment schemes that differ from the legal and industry standard for the position.

rmc 12y ago

Companies would like some free labour, and to not have to pay for free overtime.

superuser2 12y ago

It's intended to encourage growth by making employment cheaper.