Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
moana
Jun 18, 2005

one of the more intellectual satire communities on the web
Just read this article about how overtime pay is one of the biggest factors in unemployment: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/overtime-pay-obama-congress-112954.html?hp=rc3_4#.VG6eL4vF-ZP

Curious what you all think about the idea of slashing OT exemptions. Is it as much of a cure-all as it's portrayed in this article?

quote:

So what’s changed since the 1960s and '70s? Overtime pay, in part. Your parents got a lot of it, and you don’t. And it turns out that fair overtime standards are to the middle class what the minimum wage is to low-income workers: not everything, but an indispensable labor protection that is absolutely essential to creating a broad and thriving middle class. In 1975, more than 65 percent of salaried American workers earned time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. Not because capitalists back then were more generous, but because it was the law.

quote:

The Obama administration could, on its own, go even further. Many millions of Americans are currently exempt from the overtime rules—teachers, federal employees, doctors, computer professionals, etc.—and corporate leaders are lobbying hard to expand “computer professional” to mean just about anybody who uses a computer. Which is almost everybody. But were the Labor Department instead to narrow these exemptions, millions more Americans would receive the overtime pay they deserve.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bloody Queef
Mar 23, 2012

by zen death robot

moana posted:

Just read this article about how overtime pay is one of the biggest factors in unemployment: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/overtime-pay-obama-congress-112954.html?hp=rc3_4#.VG6eL4vF-ZP

Curious what you all think about the idea of slashing OT exemptions. Is it as much of a cure-all as it's portrayed in this article?

There's been a lot of talk about public accounting firms in California potentially needing to give overtime to their recent college graduate Associates due to some large lawsuits. The courts of course upheld that those Associates are exempt though.

The assumption was that regular pay amounts would be slashed to keep the overall annual expenditure per employee the same with the same hours worked. I'm assuming that's exactly what would happen if everyone got overtime.

moana
Jun 18, 2005

one of the more intellectual satire communities on the web
Argh, that's terrible. In the article it was talking about how "computer professionals" are exempt and basically anyone working with a computer will fall under that category if the lobbyists have their way.

I just left my salaried job, and my boss isn't replacing me, he's just having the other manager pick up all the slack. I told her to negotiate for a huge raise but she won't even do that. She used to write in her hours so that he could see she was working from 9 to 7 every day Mon-Sat but she says it's too depressing. I don't know what the hell will fix this problem; if you're working on salary nowadays, you're probably being overworked.

GanjamonII
Mar 24, 2001
I am a computer professional and I would appreciate getting overtime.

In my case my time is billed out to clients per hour without a cap, yet my pay is for 40 hours regardless of how much I actually work.
That's always struck me as really an unfair proposition. I know some contractors get paid hourly and they make serious money on their overtime, so I guess it is possible but I don't get why the distinction is drawn for full time employees.

And yeah, while there are overhead costs beyond just my salary that I'm sure the constant >40 hour billing pays for, my rate has been anywhere from 2.5 to ~6x my hourly earnings, so surely there is room there.

Elephanthead
Sep 11, 2008


Toilet Rascal
I think all pay should be based upon productivity rather then the ability to spend time at work.

CuddleChunks
Sep 18, 2004

Years ago I asked my boss about moving to salaried. He explained how that worked and I've been a happy camper on hourly ever since. Those little bits and pieces of overtime each week add up to a nice increase in my paycheck and I'd be miserable without there being an immediate recompense for more work.

Despite working with computers I haven't been in an exempt job and am thankful for that. Seeing some of my peers work 60+ hours a week as a norm is awful.

Dream Weaver
Jan 23, 2007
Sweat Baby, sweat baby
I actually make overtime pay regularly with 4x12 hour shifts some weeks, I will get a good 8 hours of OT which is great especially if I pick up a 4th shift. It is the regular weeks when I make 3x12shifts and don't make it to OT that I have a problem.
So personally I am for it, and when I was managing the ambulance company I used to run I would have no problem paying my employees OT, but that is me. The owner of the company didn't want to pay a living wage though so... Yeah problems.
In the medical field where everyone is always short staffed though OT pay should be mandatory(if it happens) and I would not work at a hospital that did not have it.

Veskit
Mar 2, 2005

I love capitalism!! DM me for the best investing advice!
Nobody will get yearly bonus's ever if employers are forced to pay overtime for those types of jobs, so if you work at a company in which you make up a lot of the time in the form of a bonus, then you'll cannibalize that. This is not only due from offsetting costs from having to pay overtime, but a big part will be from the FSLA Overtime Bonus Adjustment. It's a nightmare to calculate and explain but the short of it is that your overtime pay is calculated based on your total earnings, not just your hours times 1.5. So if you worked 40 hours and 10 overtime hours @ 10 dollars an hour, you'd effectively make 50*$10 for 500 dollars of straight time hours. Then you pay a premium of the average, which ends up being 5 dollars, so 5 dollars @ 10 hours makes 50 bucks. You make 550 dollars. HOWEVER, if you make a non discretionary bonus of 100 dollars, you instead made a total of $600 of straight time hours, which comes out to 12 dollars an hour, and half of that is 6, so you make 60 dollars of overtime dollars instead of 50.



FSLA Overtime Bonus Adjustment would give you an extra 10 dollars. It adds up fast. Also the work involved is well.... :suicide: It would probably kill a ton of bonuses for people.

Veskit fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Nov 22, 2014

adorai
Nov 2, 2002

10/27/04 Never forget
Grimey Drawer
I'm salaried exempt, and as a member of management, I think it's appropriate. All 8 of my direct reports (all computer professionals) are hourly. I think I could make a case, based on pay, that 2 of them should be salaried but that's dumb. If they are working significant amounts of overtime that is incentive for me to correct the problem and hire another person.

The Shep
Jan 10, 2007


If found, please return this poster to GIP. His mothers are very worried and miss him very much.
I've never worked a salaried position without overtime, but the thought of working extra without an immediate measurable compensation increase would be really depressing. Since union participation has gone down quite a significant amount over the years, I'm sure that correlates with the increase in salaried exempt positions. It may not be all bad though, and I know this is completely anecdotal, but all my friends that work in salaried professional positions make far more money than I do working hourly with overtime in the public sector. And on top of that most of them get bonuses at the end of the year.

TwoSheds
Sep 12, 2007

Bringer of sugary treats!
I get paid an odd sort of overtime where we're not paid by the hour, but we receive a flat rate per assignment completed. For some tasks that take less time to complete, this works out financially, as I can make about $24/hour, but for some work, which generally takes longer to do, it just plain sucks ($1-2/hour). Management wonders why it's harder to get people to bite at the kinds of assignments that take longer. Unfortunately, their solution to this problem is contracting the more profitable work to former employees that have left the company so that those of us that are still here are stuck with the lovely work that takes longer.

To answer the OP's question, I'm in favor of traditional overtime for everyone, but I feel like mandatory enforcement would lead to wage reduction and/or layoffs.

TwoSheds fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Nov 22, 2014

Pekinduck
May 10, 2008
I'm lucky to work at a place with a strong union presence so all non-management employees are hourly with overtime even though some jobs would probably be salary elsewhere. I never actually get any overtime hours which is kind of a bummer but on the flipside I never have to work a second past 5 so I cant complain. I've had to gently remind managers and workmates that setting up and taking down my workstation each day is "work" and is done on the clock but that's it. I'm not making the big bucks by any stretch but the security and stability is great.

moana
Jun 18, 2005

one of the more intellectual satire communities on the web

TwoSheds posted:

To answer the OP's question, I'm in favor of traditional overtime for everyone, but I feel like mandatory enforcement would lead to wage reduction and/or layoffs.
The article argues that layoffs would decrease drastically, because they can't just shunt the work off on another worker. Rather than paying overtime, they would have an incentive to hire more workers. I feel like that's an argument that a lot of corporations would make, but I can't see it happening in the real world. Wage reduction or bonus reduction, maybe, but when was the last time your bonus would have paid you as much as overtime?

TwoSheds
Sep 12, 2007

Bringer of sugary treats!

moana posted:

The article argues that layoffs would decrease drastically, because they can't just shunt the work off on another worker. Rather than paying overtime, they would have an incentive to hire more workers. I feel like that's an argument that a lot of corporations would make, but I can't see it happening in the real world. Wage reduction or bonus reduction, maybe, but when was the last time your bonus would have paid you as much as overtime?

Moot point since I don't get bonuses, but I feel ya.

Weatherman
Jul 30, 2003

WARBLEKLONK
If you are productively working more and as a result the company is earning more money, but the company management* believes that they do not need to increase your compensation in proportion to your extra work, then the company is taking advantage of you. If the company management give reasons such as "we can't afford to pay you more", then they are running the company badly, since this translates to "we're not charging enough to cover the costs of production". If the company is making more than a 0% net profit and yet the company management "cannot afford" to pay you overtime, then they are liars and you should unionise.

The last job I had before this one was a temp gig which I took as a bridge between my horrible former career and my new awesome one. At one point I raised the possibility of becoming a full-time employee (as background info, in my department, all staff except the six project managers -- which means all staff actually doing the boots-on-the-ground work -- were temp staff). The manager said that if they were to make all the productive staff fulltimers, they would go under. I did respond to this with "then you're not charging enough", to which he didn't have a rebuttal.

When your company's existence depends on screwing its staff as hard as possible in order to make money, it doesn't deserve to exists. Yes, I realise that makes me a Nazi fascist communist socialist tree-hugging hippie nogoodnik, but someone has to be.

* I think it's important to use the phrase "company management" (or executives or whatever) and personal pronouns "they/them/etc." rather than "the company says it" or "the company did this" in order to remind people that there is no conscious "company" entity making market-optimal, invisible-free-hand-guided actions on its own -- it's a bunch of people who are deliberately taking actions to save money for them by taking it away from you, and who point to "the company" to deflect any attention on themselves.

Weatherman fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Nov 23, 2014

AgrippaNothing
Feb 11, 2006

When flying, please wear a suit and tie just like me.
Just upholding the social conntract!

moana posted:

The article argues that layoffs would decrease drastically, because they can't just shunt the work off on another worker. Rather than paying overtime, they would have an incentive to hire more workers. I feel like that's an argument that a lot of corporations would make, but I can't see it happening in the real world. Wage reduction or bonus reduction, maybe, but when was the last time your bonus would have paid you as much as overtime?
My bonus pays me more than overtime did only because when I went to salary, I leveraged an increase that would cover the OT I used to make and I still get the 9-14% bonus everyone else gets.

I liked the OT when I got it but overall I viewed it as a way to pay less and get you to rely on OT as a way to get ahead and I can tell you that my company would always, ALWAYS prefer to pay 10 workers 10hrs of OT than hire 1 more position because of the overhead on adding a position. I also liked it because if you wanted me to do X task, you had to be willing to shell out the OT. Now no one cares if I'm working 45 or 90hrs in a week.

johnny sack
Jan 30, 2004

One day, this team will play to their expectations...

Just not this year..

Aristotle Animes posted:

My bonus pays me more than overtime did only because when I went to salary, I leveraged an increase that would cover the OT I used to make and I still get the 9-14% bonus everyone else gets.

I liked the OT when I got it but overall I viewed it as a way to pay less and get you to rely on OT as a way to get ahead and I can tell you that my company would always, ALWAYS prefer to pay 10 workers 10hrs of OT than hire 1 more position because of the overhead on adding a position. I also liked it because if you wanted me to do X task, you had to be willing to shell out the OT. Now no one cares if I'm working 45 or 90hrs in a week.

This is a good point about OT. The biggest reason I'm still with my current company is due to overtime. If there was absolutely 0 overtime, I would have been looking for another job long ago. However, I can work virtually as much overtime as I want. That being said, I have two toddlers and I can almost never accrue more than 6 hours of overtime per week between having to pick them up from preschool or doctor appointments or whatever.

I would much rather have a salaried position that was equal in pay than feeling like I have to work overtime to make a job 'worth it'.

down with slavery
Dec 23, 2013
STOP QUOTING MY POSTS SO PEOPLE THAT AREN'T IDIOTS DON'T HAVE TO READ MY FUCKING TERRIBLE OPINIONS THANKS
pretty much why I left my fulltime job (programming) and started my own consultancy firm

you can get so loving dirty on society with an accountant and lawyer it's hilarious

posh spaz
Jul 25, 2014

Weatherman posted:

When your company's existence depends on screwing its staff as hard as possible in order to make money, it doesn't deserve to exists.

I agree with your main point. If a firm can only compete with rock-bottom wages and rock-bottom prices, it would probably be better for the world for them to go out of business, letting the remaining firms charge more and pay better.

There's fairly strong evidence that better paid/treated workers are more than enough more productive to justify their wages. However, you need a corporate culture that supports initiatives like that. It takes a lot to turn a big ship (for better and worse), which limits what even fantastic managers can accomplish in a bureaucracy. It also reveals the limits to executive power and makes me question the efficacy of obscene compensation for ineffectual C-level managers.

N.N. Ashe
Dec 29, 2009
I think without a doubt it would restore a large part of the middle class and get so many more people working. The second businesses have to start paying for the actual hours of input at overtime levels, there would be a huge labor redistribution.
I don't need to tell you corporate profits keep climbing.
I don't need to tell you Americans are working more hours for less pay.
I don't need to tell you Millennials are putting off kids because they are either unemployed or work too many hours.
It's a drat shame and I hate it.

Dead Pressed
Nov 11, 2009

moana posted:

Rather than paying overtime, they would have an incentive to hire more workers.

As an engineer in management operations for a mining company, I'll just throw out there that it takes an absolute gently caress ton of overtime to justify the overhead of another employee. I'm talking like...40% OT. What you need to remember is the overhead cost of a new employee is going to be roughly 30~40% of base wages and this is increasing annually with health care premiums continuously creeping up. Also, pension/401k benefits etc.

Typically, we justify a new position due to wear on the EEs and resulting safety issues before we can justify it over cost.

Also, as a salaried employee it is easy to get overworked. This is why you always keep your options open and push the issue for moving up/getting raises as time progresses. If you're good, you'll get what you're due or you should five on. The company won't hesitate you cut you if it's profitable to do so, and you need to be in the same mentality.

Dead Pressed fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Nov 28, 2014

nikosoft
Dec 17, 2011

ghost in the shell, but somehow much worse
College Slice
I will never accept an FTE position again in IT if it is salaried and overtime is expected, especially if you have to work on-call. I have seen so, so many people get their time off work seriously abused because of a loving pager, especially in healthcare IT where everything is an emergency and has to be fixed right away.

I am so happy as a consultant. I am not allowed to work overtime (we used to be the ones that would work the really long command center shifts during implementations, but that stopped really quick once they did the math on our collective overtime payments) and I don't get health benefits or vacation, but as soon as I hit my daily hours I close my laptop lid with a smile and do whatever the gently caress I want without having to deal with getting paged every hour.

hayden.
Sep 11, 2007

here's a goat on a pig or something

GanjamonII posted:

In my case my time is billed out to clients per hour without a cap, yet my pay is for 40 hours regardless of how much I actually work.
That's always struck me as really an unfair proposition.

This is literally the basis of capitalism. A company is profitable because it takes in more than its expenses. You have taken no risk or investment in your employment, so it makes sense that you wouldn't reap the benefits of its profits. It's not any more unfair than capitalism in general is.

posh spaz
Jul 25, 2014

hayden. posted:

You have taken no risk or investment in your employment, so it makes sense that you wouldn't reap the benefits of its profits.

Except firms that provide profit sharing are more productive, and more profitable for both employees and capitalists.

Also a lot of knowledge is distributed throughout a company, and you can't get people to act on that knowledge without incentives.

I also disagree re: risk and investment. If you have skills that make your company profitable that they didn't pay you to learn, you paid for them in time, money and effort, and maybe the gov't paid as well. You took a risk investing in your human capital and you should be treated as a capitalist as well.

posh spaz fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Nov 28, 2014

Eyes Only
May 20, 2008

Do not attempt to adjust your set.
I'm exempt salaried but quite happy with it these days. Nobody cares when I come in or leave, results are all that matters at my firm. Some weeks I work 70hrs, others can be 25-30. I averaged 45hrs last year.

I've learned over the past few years that even the best managers are going to be primarily reactive. They will not generally work to fix problems if you are doing it for them; you have to let poo poo hit the fan to get a response. I used to be the type to put in more hours to make up for personnel shortages or whatever, but eventually I just stopped doing it (while also being clear that we needed more resources). As a result a Big Project went bad and suddenly we started hiring more people and management listens to requests for more resources now. It's the equivalent of kicking a schoolyard bully in the balls.

Of course, this works because the job market for my profession is pretty hot and having recruiters contact you ever other week makes it really easy to find a new job if this poo poo backfires.

tumblr hype man
Jul 29, 2008

nice meltdown
Slippery Tilde
Since my case seems to be out of the norm, at least so far, I'll throw it in. I work at a company where I am Salaried Exempt, I don't get OT. 8 hours w/ 1 hour unpaid lunch. We're busy in the summer, we hired a temp for awhile for just the summer. My entire group/team had to work an extra 6-8 hours each during those 4 months and did not earn OT. Starting a few weeks ago we all now work 1 less hour a day, pay staying the same again. 7 hours w/ 1 hour unpaid lunch. Our pay has stayed the same throughout but we've now actually worked fewer hours for that pay. Granted I haven't seen what they do with any bonus pay or a raise for next year especially w/r/t to last year when we weren't doing this.

The Dipshit
Dec 21, 2005

by FactsAreUseless
Short of a literal act of congress (or maybe some kind of martial law national emergency?), I don't get overtime. On the other hand, I get in trouble if I do work more than 40 hours a week, and my immediate supervisor told me straight up to take all of Christmas week off, even though I don't have the vacation time to cover it as a new hire, and I can make it up with unofficial flex time work.

Government labs are amazing. I just wish they got material orders in faster so I could do more projects.

Saros
Dec 29, 2009

Its almost like we're a Bureaucracy, in space!

I set sail for the Planet of Lab Requisitions!!

Employee culture in the US is toxic.

I work in a company with large offices in both NY and London and the differences between the two are enormous. Here we have 35 hour weeks (7/day + whatever time we want for lunch), 25 paid vacation days (+1 per year of service capping at 30), fully flexible time, ability to 'buy' days off, unlimited sick leave, bereavement leave and a bunch of other minor stuff. Sometimes you work late but you make it up easily with the flex time and it's expected that you do that..

In the USA its all about the clockwatching, not working less than everyone else and they only get 13 paid holidays and sweet gently caress all sick leave. They will regularly clock 45-50 hours a week while not actually being more productive.

So uh sucks to be you guys I guess?

Duckman2008
Jan 6, 2010

TFW you see Flyers goaltending.
Grimey Drawer
I'm all for overtime. I work in retail sales, and the salaried positions in sales are just not a good idea. I just got promoted to a management position which is still hourly, and I'm really unsure if I'm willing to move up to the next step in a year (salaried). Personally, OT is insurance that you get compensated fairly. If I work extra hours, I get paid extra. And because I get paid extra, the company has only so much incentive to push me to work extra. So I do OT when I want to, and have a life when I want to. That goes out the window with salary, everyone I see has a constant battle with just trying to not be forced to work extra.

I also was a union employee and overall I think the hugely reduced role of unions is a disappointment. They have some downsides, but the upsides for the employees and for society I felt were pretty good.

Emmideer
Oct 20, 2011

Lovely night, no?
Grimey Drawer

down with slavery posted:

pretty much why I left my fulltime job (programming) and started my own consultancy firm

you can get so loving dirty on society with an accountant and lawyer it's hilarious

What do you mean?

down with slavery
Dec 23, 2013
STOP QUOTING MY POSTS SO PEOPLE THAT AREN'T IDIOTS DON'T HAVE TO READ MY FUCKING TERRIBLE OPINIONS THANKS

Mad Rancher posted:

What do you mean?

The tax and legal system is blatantly set up to favor business owners as opposed to employees

It's really lovely tbqh but you gotta play the game

Missing Donut
Apr 24, 2003

Trying to lead a middle-aged life. Well, it's either that or drop dead.

hayden. posted:

You have taken no risk or investment in your employment, so it makes sense that you wouldn't reap the benefits of its profits.

That is a really interesting thing to post, considering that I take tremendous risk in my financial life being an employee where I work. I can only have one full time job at a time, so my full time hours are invested in the company and I have great opportunity costs in choosing one employer over another. My employment and health insurance are based on the company being competitive and profitable, and I have relatively limited ability to ensure its profitability (although in my position I have more ability than most of my co-workers).

I am being only partially tongue-in-cheek here. But there is very poor correlation berween risk and reward.

ZentraediElite
Oct 22, 2002

A recruiter contacted me about a position that paid roughly 12% more than what I currently make. When I asked more about the position I learned that it required mandatory 12% overtime (45 hour weeks).

I said no thanks.

Nocheez
Sep 5, 2000

Can you spare a little cheddar?
Nap Ghost
Unpaid OT is the #1 reason I'm leaving my current job. I wouldn't mind 55-60 hour workweeks if I was being paid extra for the extended hours.

To Vex a Stranger
Mar 15, 2004
Rawr!

Nocheez posted:

Unpaid OT is the #1 reason I'm leaving my current job. I wouldn't mind 55-60 hour workweeks if I was being paid extra for the extended hours.

Agreed. Sitting in the office for 60+ hours at a consulting company because they think it looks better and you can charge the client more is a joke. Everyone stopped working at 35 hours, why are you forcing us to waste our time and sanity, not to mention the client's money?

In short, this large consulting firm is the pits.

SiGmA_X
May 3, 2004
SiGmA_X

To Vex a Stranger posted:

Agreed. Sitting in the office for 60+ hours at a consulting company because they think it looks better and you can charge the client more is a joke. Everyone stopped working at 35 hours, why are you forcing us to waste our time and sanity, not to mention the client's money?

In short, this large consulting firm is the pits.
Do you work with SloMo? Is this why he gets sketchy hours revoked?

My coworkers who are salary do the 50-60hr/wk thing during busy closes, like quarter end or when we have a lot of complex transactions (swaps mainly) happening. Bad times.

Brian Fellows
May 29, 2003
I'm Brian Fellows
I'm a manufacturing engineer, which means I put out fires on an assembly floor all day, then I have to work a ton of overtime to do the computer part of my job. To add to that, my chunk of the company was split up between me and one other engineer. The other guy quit in June and it's been all mine since (though to be fair, my company is TRYING to hire someone new).

So for me it's twofold - I'd love to be hourly right now because I'd be making a TON more. But at the same time, no one's forcing me to work the overtime. Everyone else just does and I would have no chance at keeping my head above water if I didn't. For instance, yesterday I walked into work and had 102 technical documents to approve. I got about 18 of them. Today I came in and had 124. So really the only time I have a CHANCE to catch up is when other people aren't there throwing more work at me.

So I don't get paid overtime, but because of this off the record overtime I'm banking, I have no moral qualms with taking off early whenever I feel like it, as long as I make sure my boss knows and I've got anything that's urgent taken care of. Also comp days are an unofficial thing, where if my boss actually needs me to come in to support for a couple of Saturdays in a row I'll get random Mondays off if I want them.

So good in some ways, but at the end of the day I only work because I get paid. Given that I'm an engineer that actually sees how much money he saves the company, and how much my company bills for my time, you can imagine I'm pretty good at spreadsheets, budgeting, etc. So basically mandatory unpaid overtime isn't driving me crazy right now... but I have no intent to work past age 45 or so exclusively BECAUSE I think it's bullshit that every job thinks you're slaves to them and if you're not making a reasonable effort to work overtime regularly, you're not a team player. Cool, I can play that game. For a few more years. Maybe if I was paid overtime or it was less informally "mandatory" I wouldn't be so annoyed with engineering in general, and you'd have a good employee for more than a few years.

To Vex a Stranger
Mar 15, 2004
Rawr!

SiGmA_X posted:

Do you work with SloMo? Is this why he gets sketchy hours revoked?

My coworkers who are salary do the 50-60hr/wk thing during busy closes, like quarter end or when we have a lot of complex transactions (swaps mainly) happening. Bad times.

I don't know, we employ a couple hundred thousand people, but it's always super sketchy and the projects I've been on you are expected in before the client, and to stay until way after the client leaves. First person that gets up to go before 8 pm gets looked at like he is an rear end in a top hat.

Sometimes we don't bill for the hours we work, sometimes we do, but we always only get our salaries. Bonuses at the end of the year are based almost entirely upon if your manager likes you or not, and the entire culture revolves around loving everyone else over to look better than them so you can get a promotion and then quit to go to a different company.

Incredibly odd culture to me.

AgrippaNothing
Feb 11, 2006

When flying, please wear a suit and tie just like me.
Just upholding the social conntract!

Saros posted:

Employee culture in the US is toxic.

I work in a company with large offices in both NY and London and the differences between the two are enormous. Here we have 35 hour weeks (7/day + whatever time we want for lunch), 25 paid vacation days (+1 per year of service capping at 30), fully flexible time, ability to 'buy' days off, unlimited sick leave, bereavement leave and a bunch of other minor stuff. Sometimes you work late but you make it up easily with the flex time and it's expected that you do that..

In the USA its all about the clockwatching, not working less than everyone else and they only get 13 paid holidays and sweet gently caress all sick leave. They will regularly clock 45-50 hours a week while not actually being more productive.

So uh sucks to be you guys I guess?

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.

I'm even told to do my internal pr presentations about current marketing activities/sciency things for the general edification of the associate during lunch so people can attend, unpaid. Because taking them off the production floor for 20 mins to tell them what their company is doing and how we play a role in society and the work you do is important is a hardship our numbers could not endure.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MoxSquad
Jun 17, 2005

To Vex a Stranger posted:

I don't know, we employ a couple hundred thousand people, but it's always super sketchy and the projects I've been on you are expected in before the client, and to stay until way after the client leaves. First person that gets up to go before 8 pm gets looked at like he is an rear end in a top hat.

Sometimes we don't bill for the hours we work, sometimes we do, but we always only get our salaries. Bonuses at the end of the year are based almost entirely upon if your manager likes you or not, and the entire culture revolves around loving everyone else over to look better than them so you can get a promotion and then quit to go to a different company.

Incredibly odd culture to me.

This sounds awfully similar to public accounting. Actually it's exactly the same culture especially since the public accounting firms often have a consulting arm as well. Worse yet, there's no shortage of new grads willing to give their left nut to work there because of the value of having those firms name on your resume.

  • Locked thread