|
When I was salaried it was frowned upon to work less than 50-60 hours/week with unpaid overtime (they used to pay OT (but only between 48-56 hours, anything under or over you were SOL) but it was the first to get axed when budget cuts came) and office morale was at an all-time low. The CEO's response to people calling him out on running a company everyone hated was "Morale is fine! There's no problem! Get back to work!" then they were confused when people started leaving in droves. Now that I'm hourly I've never been asked to work OT since any and all OT I work is paid time and a half so I get to peace out at exactly 40 hours every week. It's lovely. I get paid enough per hour that I don't NEED the OT either.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
I work in a quality lab so we're tied pretty closely to production, who naturally is running round the clock so we have lots to do. I get time and a half for any hours over 40 each week, which is anywhere from 5-10 depending on what's going on (usually closer to 5). If I wasn't getting overtime I would look for a different job as soon as I could move out of the boonies and closer to more employers. When I first came on I was told that my shift was a specific timeframe each day, yet I'm constantly working outside that and coming in nearly every weekend they need people to come in. I also wouldn't have to work extra if my department was staffed properly (down one headcount since this time last year and no plans to expand, with more responsibilities foisted on us in that timeframe) or if it was staffed by people with any sort of motivation (a lot of my co-workers fit that "lazy, entitled millennial" caricature that out-of-touch white men throw around, which scares me to say because I'm only slightly above the average age in my department). If I'm going to carry my department as much as I do I need some sort of motivation, because my hourly rate on its own sure isn't worth it (if translated out to a yearly salary for 40-hour weeks, it'd be 20% below national average for my education background). And I'm not a great data point for this, because before I came into my current job I was in grad school, where I wasn't getting poo poo for overtime and working 60 hours a week on average (all for a $21k yearly stipend), and 18 months removed from grad school I still think it's a steal to get paid for the amount of time you put in at work. Elephanthead posted:I think all pay should be based upon productivity rather then the ability to spend time at work. This is very true but at least in my department, if you looked at exactly 40 hours of work for each employee you'd find that the people who work the most overtime still get the most done in a fixed span of time. The thing that lets me be smugly superior over the rest of my equals-in-position is that I'm always looking for stuff to do and trying to keep busy, where some of them are clocking 40.000 hours week after week. C-Euro fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Aristotle Animes posted:A couple years ago my company went through all the trouble of building a facility and hiring people in Germany where it's basically the leave/scheduling policy you describe. Of course the bosses sing the chorus of "more time off and working less hours would kill us!" yet it's somehow profitable enough and even a worthy of throwing more capital at for expansion 3 years running. The Germans genuinely feel bad for us. According to the state labor laws I've read for my state, and I would be surprised if it wasn't federal law, if you are so much as asked a work-related question during your lunch, then you don't have to count it as unpaid lunch. Of course this doesn't mean 3 coworkers going to Chipotle, shooting the poo poo about what they're going to do for the rest of the week. But what you're describing sounds exactly like the kind of thing that, even in the US with all of its lovely labor laws, would be considered a work function and therefore paid. As for me, I am hourly with overtime after 40. Most weeks, I work between 2 and 5 hours of OT. I've worked as many as 10 OT hours, and then it's pretty awesome. The flipside, however, is for things like doctor appointments and such. Couple weeks ago, I had an appointment at 8am which caused me to arrive to work at 10am. Normally I start about 6:30am. That appointment ate up all of my overtime for the whole week. In fact, I ended that particular week with only 39.5 hours worked (thus a smaller paycheck). When I was salaried, I had a hard time working more than 8 hours on a given day. If I had worked 9 hours one day, then the next possible day that I could, I would be leaving after 7 hours. Sure there'd be particularly busy weeks where I'd work 45-50 hours per week. I would document every single one of them and make it up during slow times. Anyone who doesn't do this is basically a sucker. johnny sack fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Dec 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
They are in their annual cost cutting mode where I work, and the big thing they came out with is "no overtime." Not literally absolute 0, but you better have a good reason. I'm enjoying having an extra 5-15 hours a week at home right now and waiting for the inevitable "why are sales down" questions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Where I work, they changed us from hourly to salary with no OT with very little notice. We were told it was because we were working too much OT and they wanted to contain costs and give us time with out families. We were given a small raise to compensate for not having OT. In one month so far I have worked enough "OT" that if I still got paid for it I would have made more than the yearly raise I got.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
SubjectVerbObject posted:Where I work, they changed us from hourly to salary with no OT with very little notice. We were told it was because we were working too much OT and they wanted to contain costs and give us time with out families. We were given a small raise to compensate for not having OT. My next step up management wise is salaried, and I better get a pretty a pretty good offer when I move p to it (that's 1-2 years away). Unless there is a huge income difference, I'd rather be capped OT working a Max of 40 hours a week rather than salaried and required to work a MINIMUM of 40 hours a week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Duckman2008 posted:My next step up management wise is salaried, and I better get a pretty a pretty good offer when I move p to it (that's 1-2 years away). Oh and the CEO got a 100% raise and told us inflation is negative, and that we don't deserve raises this year. But I did get a 3.9% bonus... What a crock of poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:This is how I feel. But I'm in accounting, and everyone past Accountant (lowest ranked accountant, which I am now as a fresh grad with, now, 6mo experience) is salary and weeks start at 45 and go up to 70 hours... It feels like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. If I want to move up, I have to take an hourly pay decrease and add about 20% average hours... Sure, it's 20-30% more money, but it works out to less per hour and less hours to spend doing things I love besides work.. We just had an analyst (2 grades above me) and a sr actg (1 above me) quit last week, in large part due to hours demanded. Hahaha, how can your CEO get away with that against a bunch of accountants? It was in January's CPI, due to plummeting energy costs (which, you may have noticed, are no longer plummeting). That's why one of my Econ professors used to call the CPI the "completely pointless indicator"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
canyoneer posted:Hahaha, how can your CEO get away with that against a bunch of accountants? It was in January's CPI, due to plummeting energy costs (which, you may have noticed, are no longer plummeting).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 02:59
|
|