Any IBM'ers get hit with the 15% pay cut?

[vrbaba]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: SunnyD
My current employer has the expectation that a typical work-week will be between 45-55 hours. We're all salaried employees, which means no overtime. He has even expressed that he gets "annoyed" with people who bolt out the door after an 8 hour shift. Be that as it may, I'm fine with it, except my family comes first in ALL cases. As long as that's understood, we're good.

If you are exempt from overtime laws then they can do that. BUT if you job is not exempt then tell him to pay up.

Just because you are salary does not mean you do not get overtime.

IBM specifically marks you as exempt when you join. It doesnt bother me. Overtime is kind of ovewrblown. I dont mind doing overtime work. IBM has a pretty good environment in that you can work 10 hours a week or 60, as long as your work is getting done as expected, noone will bother you. Of course it depends on the managers.

Im not in technical services or IT specialist - those 8000 employees that it affects and its a very SMALL percentage of people in that area. If they really want overtime cus they work longer, then so be it. employers prolly would do what IBM did.

 

[vrbaba]

Originally posted by: Ns1
How does a 15% paycut justify a class action lawsuit?

The 15% cut came after the lawsuit.

EDIT: nvm, looks like another lawsuit is in action after the paycut.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: vrbaba
IBM specifically marks you as exempt when you join. It doesnt bother me. Overtime is kind of ovewrblown. I dont mind doing overtime work. IBM has a pretty good environment in that you can work 10 hours a week or 60, as long as your work is getting done as expected, noone will bother you. Of course it depends on the managers.

Im not in technical services or IT specialist - those 8000 employees that it affects and its a very SMALL percentage of people in that area. If they really want overtime cus they work longer, then so be it. employers prolly would do what IBM did.

It doesn't matter what IBM marks you as. If you don't fall into the FLSA definition of exempt (assuming that you don't fall into the few jobs that aren't covered by FLSA), then you have legal recourse against them. Misclassification can be a huge drain on a company's bottom-line.

 

[Ns1]

sounds pretty logical to me

salary = no OT

salary = expectation that you're working more than 40 hours/week

 

[TruePaige]

This is why we have unions.

 

[jandrews]

lmao, talk about owned. From IBM's standpoint it sounds pretty reasonable. The whole point of salary is so when people need to work a little extra it doesnt matter and the initial salary should compensate for that already. Now if they were working 70 hour weeks that is something else. Not to mention if they are working 70 hour weeks they will be making bank.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
This is why we have unions.

Yep.

Unions have been going down but i think in the next 5 or so years you will see a jump in some areas. IBM is one of the companies, like wal-mart, that i think a union would help its employees a lot.
Of course a lot of people never join as they think it will never happen to me... and then when it does its to late.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Ns1
sounds pretty logical to me

salary = no OT

salary = expectation that you're working more than 40 hours/week

its not about being salaried or not its about IBM breaking the law when it comes to exempt and non-exempt.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
My current employer has the expectation that a typical work-week will be between 45-55 hours. We're all salaried employees, which means no overtime. He has even expressed that he gets "annoyed" with people who bolt out the door after an 8 hour shift. Be that as it may, I'm fine with it, except my family comes first in ALL cases. As long as that's understood, we're good.

see that is fucked up. just because you are salaried doesnt mean you are expected to work 40+ hours EVERY WEEK. if that was the case then your boss needs to give you a pay raise because your hourly wage just hit the toilet.

nothing like working for free uh?

 

[OutHouse]

i have a friend who works there... when you are salary there is a unspoken requirement to work at least 55 hours a week.. it is not forced but if you do not work that many hours you do not get a year end bonus and you will most likely get laid off

 

[Nitemare]

they should be lucky Big Blue hasn't outsourced their job yet...

 

[OutHouse]

i have a friend who works there... when you are salary there is a unspoken requirement to work at least 55 hours a week.. it is not forced but if you do not work that many hours you do not get a year end bonus and you will most likely get laid off

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: SunnyD
My current employer has the expectation that a typical work-week will be between 45-55 hours. We're all salaried employees, which means no overtime. He has even expressed that he gets "annoyed" with people who bolt out the door after an 8 hour shift. Be that as it may, I'm fine with it, except my family comes first in ALL cases. As long as that's understood, we're good.

see that is fucked up. just because you are salaried doesnt mean you are expected to work 40+ hours EVERY WEEK. if that was the case then your boss needs to give you a pay raise because your hourly wage just hit the toilet.

nothing like working for free uh?

See now that depends on your outlook on things. I took this job for a multitude of reasons, making the exception of additional hours. But to me, it really comes down to extra hours getting paid for something that I find fun & enjoyable, as well as what else will I do with those extra hours - sit at home playing a video game or reading ATOT? That's an exageration of course - I have a family, but that's also one of the reasons I'm accepting of this position... as I said: for now.

 

[alchemize]

Generally speaking when you sue your employer, your employer is not going to be happy with you.

 

[vrbaba]

Originally posted by: Citrix
i have a friend who works there... when you are salary there is a unspoken requirement to work at least 55 hours a week.. it is not forced but if you do not work that many hours you do not get a year end bonus and you will most likely get laid off

Its unfortunate that it happens, but in consulting, this "unspoken" rule exist for almost all companies, and not just IBM.

I can work anywhere from 10-60 hours, but I wont be laid off as long as the work I am doing is as expected and completed on time.

I hate how I get judged by the fact that i have to work more to be comparable to others just so I can show more billable hours, instead of the fact that I do my job in half the time than it would take anyone else to do it. Hence, i just tend to estimate how long they expect me to finish the work and log my time accordingly. Its almost making me inefficient, but hey if efficiency hurts my pay, i would rather use the extra time to write up a rant on ATOT.

p.s. i am billable right now

 

[WingZero94]

IBM also plans to lobby state and federal officials for changes to employment legislation that would allow high-tech companies to escape current overtime thresholds, according to the documents. "IBM believes aspects of the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the realities of the modern workforce. The company will continue to press the government to update and clarify the law in this area," the documents state.


This is disturbing. They are basically saying that people should work overtime now because it's what most people do. Crappy logic and who loses out? Both. You get employees not being paid fairly so they lose. You get employees who are pissed and leave, so the employer loses. Idiots.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Without knowing what the market rate is for these jobs there is no way to tell whether IBM is simply doing the correct thing or whether they are "screwing" people. If the market rate is $80,000 in total compensation when overtime is included, then IBM is absolutely right to reduce the base amount to account for the expected amount of overtime so that the total compensation remains around $80,000 after overtime has been paid out. If the market rate is higher and IBM is paying less, then it could be considered retaliatory, but that's honestly a very unlikely situation. IBM has a compensation department that studies market pay rates and works to ensure that IBM is paying market wages.

ZV

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: WingZero94
IBM also plans to lobby state and federal officials for changes to employment legislation that would allow high-tech companies to escape current overtime thresholds, according to the documents. "IBM believes aspects of the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the realities of the modern workforce. The company will continue to press the government to update and clarify the law in this area," the documents state.


This is disturbing. They are basically saying that people should work overtime now because it's what most people do. Crappy logic and who loses out? Both. You get employees not being paid fairly so they lose. You get employees who are pissed and leave, so the employer loses. Idiots.

Plus they have that supercomputer that always stays until 8pm...even on the weekends. It makes everyone look bad:|

 

[Vonkhan]

And they wonder why their jobs are going to India ...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: WingZero94
IBM also plans to lobby state and federal officials for changes to employment legislation that would allow high-tech companies to escape current overtime thresholds, according to the documents. "IBM believes aspects of the wage and hour laws have not kept pace with the realities of the modern workforce. The company will continue to press the government to update and clarify the law in this area," the documents state.


This is disturbing. They are basically saying that people should work overtime now because it's what most people do. Crappy logic and who loses out? Both. You get employees not being paid fairly so they lose. You get employees who are pissed and leave, so the employer loses. Idiots.

Being paid a salary rather than overtime does NOT mean that someone is being paid unfairly. When my job was reclassified from hourly to salaried I was overjoyed. No more worry about tracking every minute of my time. No more worry about having to explain every last minute of overtime I had to work. I would never go back to working on an hourly basis.

I make roughly the same amount of money as I did before, except now I have the freedom to work on my own terms. As long as I get my work done, the company is happy. They don't care if I'm here at 6am or 8pm. They don't care if I log in and work from home. The freedom is great.

What IBM is asking for is for the wage and hour laws to be updated to clarify the status of high-tech positions that did not exist when the laws were written. They aren't saying a damn thing about whether people should or should not work overtime. What they are saying is that there are currently many professional positions in the tech industry that are not well-defined in the wage and hour laws which is resulting in companies being exposed to risk. The analogues to these jobs in other industries are exempt (salaried), but because of ambiguity in the law, these jobs are hourly positions in the tech industry.

ZV

 

[darkxshade]

Obviously my math is going to be wrong(too lazy to crunch the actual numbers) but off the top of my head if what some say is true that over 50 hrs is expected of you then you're most likely going to get a higher pay since you're going to receive 25%(10 hours over 40) in ot vs receiving a cut in 15%. Of course I may be wrong because the 25% is after the 15% cut.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

.

 

[TallBill]

I don't see how IBM did anything wrong. I bet that the hours expected to work were the same from the beginning when they accepted the job. Now they get to track every second of their work week.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
IBM is one of the companies, like wal-mart, that i think a union would help its employees a lot.

Obviously, but as any other market segment a union assimilates, it severely damages company's hiring flexibility (imposed overturn let's call it) and it may inflate worker value to unprofitable levels, that is, worker wages no longer follow market demands for their services.

Quite honestly, I'd rather see them living on the street than be in a union. IBM's technological contributions are too valuable to be compromised by the worker's mafia. If you're not getting paid it, then you're just not worth it.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: TallBill
I don't see how IBM did anything wrong. I bet that the hours expected to work were the same from the beginning when they accepted the job. Now they get to track every second of their work week.

Nope. My wife would work 50, 60, sometimes more a week. When she left she was really mad at her boss and said how she had to work so much and sometimes at 1 and 2 am. Of course he came back with their policy that he never REQUIRED her to work more then 40hours a week and so forth. Mind you there was no way to get the level of work done in 40hrs and he knew it. And if you did not you get a low rating on your yearly review.

This is well known by people that work for IBM and those connected to them.