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

[AnonymouseUser]

In related news, some of IBMs top executives and recruiting agents have been spotted vacationing in India...

 

[Oyeve]

And this will follow them even if they quit. Most job applications ask if you have sued any previous employer. Legally it should have no bearing but in reality it does and will.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: 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.

Overtime is 1.5x pay rate. So if you're working 50 hours a week, you're effectively being paid for 55 hours at the base rate. So you're getting an increase of 37.5% pay above what you would make for 40 hours.

I'll use a simplified example since it's all percentage based:

Let's assume someone making $1,000 a week right now and working 50 hours. On salary, it's only $1,000 per week.

With the 15% pay cut the base rate becomes $850 per week for 40 hours. So that's $21.25 per hour base rate. Now, let's add in that overtime. 10 hours of overtime, multiplied by 1.5, multiplied by the base rate of 21.25/hour. A total of $318.75 in overtime pay. Total pay after the "cut": $1,168.75 per week.

After the 15% "cut", the employee is still making over 16% MORE than before.

ZV

 

[maziwanka]

there's something wrong still if they worked while they were promised the original salary and overtime. they can do this going forward, but can't retroactively apply the pay cuts

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Vonkhan
And they wonder why their jobs are going to India ...

They're the ones sending them there stupid.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: maziwanka
there's something wrong still if they worked while they were promised the original salary and overtime. they can do this going forward, but can't retroactively apply the pay cuts

They were never promised overtime before this. They will not get overtime until this reclassification comes into effect. They are currently "exempt" employees.

ZV

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 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.

Overtime is 1.5x pay rate. So if you're working 50 hours a week, you're effectively being paid for 55 hours at the base rate. So you're getting an increase of 37.5% pay above what you would make for 40 hours.

I'll use a simplified example since it's all percentage based:

Let's assume someone making $1,000 a week right now and working 50 hours. On salary, it's only $1,000 per week.

With the 15% pay cut the base rate becomes $850 per week for 40 hours. So that's $21.25 per hour base rate. Now, let's add in that overtime. 10 hours of overtime, multiplied by 1.5, multiplied by the base rate of 21.25/hour. A total of $318.75 in overtime pay. Total pay after the "cut": $1,168.75 per week.

After the 15% "cut", the employee is still making over 16% MORE than before.

ZV

IF!!! they were working that many before. You also see how it is left up to the managers to decide who gets overtime. Trust me its a way of hurting some and helping others. Then those that don;t get overtime will be a bad rating as person X got more work done then person Y. Well duh they had more time... etc... IBM has a LONGGGG history of doing this to employees.

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 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.

Overtime is 1.5x pay rate. So if you're working 50 hours a week, you're effectively being paid for 55 hours at the base rate. So you're getting an increase of 37.5% pay above what you would make for 40 hours.

I'll use a simplified example since it's all percentage based:

Let's assume someone making $1,000 a week right now and working 50 hours. On salary, it's only $1,000 per week.

With the 15% pay cut the base rate becomes $850 per week for 40 hours. So that's $21.25 per hour base rate. Now, let's add in that overtime. 10 hours of overtime, multiplied by 1.5, multiplied by the base rate of 21.25/hour. A total of $318.75 in overtime pay. Total pay after the "cut": $1,168.75 per week.

After the 15% "cut", the employee is still making over 16% MORE than before.

ZV

I know the time n half deal but I was told it's not a requirement of employers to pay that for salaried employees who are elegible for ot. Thus I didn't want to complicate it by throwing that idea in. I was just showing that even with a 15% base cut, most if not all employees will still come out making more than they did previously.

 

[theeedude]

I wouldn't buy an IBM product due to more disgruntled employees after this 😀

 

[Josh]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: 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.

Overtime is 1.5x pay rate. So if you're working 50 hours a week, you're effectively being paid for 55 hours at the base rate. So you're getting an increase of 37.5% pay above what you would make for 40 hours.

I'll use a simplified example since it's all percentage based:

Let's assume someone making $1,000 a week right now and working 50 hours. On salary, it's only $1,000 per week.

With the 15% pay cut the base rate becomes $850 per week for 40 hours. So that's $21.25 per hour base rate. Now, let's add in that overtime. 10 hours of overtime, multiplied by 1.5, multiplied by the base rate of 21.25/hour. A total of $318.75 in overtime pay. Total pay after the "cut": $1,168.75 per week.

After the 15% "cut", the employee is still making over 16% MORE than before.

ZV

And the employees not working overtime who suffered the cut because of these employees...have now created their Who to Kill list.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Let's assume someone making $1,000 a week right now and working 50 hours. On salary, it's only $1,000 per week.

With the 15% pay cut the base rate becomes $850 per week for 40 hours. So that's $21.25 per hour base rate. Now, let's add in that overtime. 10 hours of overtime, multiplied by 1.5, multiplied by the base rate of 21.25/hour. A total of $318.75 in overtime pay. Total pay after the "cut": $1,168.75 per week.

After the 15% "cut", the employee is still making over 16% MORE than before.

ZV

IF!!! they were working that many before. You also see how it is left up to the managers to decide who gets overtime. Trust me its a way of hurting some and helping others. Then those that don;t get overtime will be a bad rating as person X got more work done then person Y. Well duh they had more time... etc... IBM has a LONGGGG history of doing this to employees.

You can hardly expect IBM to take a 37.5% hit on payroll expenses by not adjusting the base pay. And IBM likewise cannot have large discrepancies in base pay between equivalent positions in the same markets otherwise they are wide open for additional lawsuits claiming inequity in pay rates. IBM really has no other legitimate option than the path they've taken.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: darkxshade
I know the time n half deal but I was told it's not a requirement of employers to pay that for salaried employees who are elegible for ot. Thus I didn't want to complicate it by throwing that idea in. I was just showing that even with a 15% base cut, most if not all employees will still come out making more than they did previously.

These people will not be salaried after the reclassification though. The lawsuit was regarding the classification of these people as exempt. The results will be that IBM will reclassify the positions as hourly, rather than has salaried exempt. At least, that was my reading.

Salaried OT positions are incredibly rare. And a salaried OT position can be "salaried" for any number of hours of work per week, which means that in order for OT to kick in, the employee has to work over the hours amount set by the employer, not the standard 40 hours. (That is, an employer can say that a salaried OT position is base rated on 60 hours per week of work, in which case the employee would not receive any overtime unless working over 60 hours.)

ZV

 

[Fingolfin269]

A union would kill IBM. Let's just put it this way, I know first hand that IBM will do anything it can to keep costs down. They are already getting beat on by Indian companies that can do the same labor for less. Granted there are other costs involved that the companies choosing between IBM vs. whoever don't see but for the immediate bottom line it doesn't matter.

 

[alkemyst]

the 9-5 mentality is much of what keeps America behind other nations in productivity. People here want to be paid as much as possible while doing as little as possible. The ethic in other parts of the world is to do as much as possible and find the job that pays you a fair wage to do it.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
the 9-5 mentality is much of what keeps America behind other nations in productivity. People here want to be paid as much as possible while doing as little as possible. The ethic in other parts of the world is to do as much as possible and find the job that pays you a fair wage to do it.

Just because you heard it on faux, random e-mail, etc... does not make it true. The US leads in productivity and even hours worked over the majority of nations. Several studies have shown that.

 

[Drekce]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
the 9-5 mentality is much of what keeps America behind other nations in productivity. People here want to be paid as much as possible while doing as little as possible. The ethic in other parts of the world is to do as much as possible and find the job that pays you a fair wage to do it.

I really don't think that we are behind other countries in productivity. Have you ever been to Europe or Australia? From what I have seen doing business over there they are a lot less productive and work fewer hours.

I can't speak for any Asian countries since I haven't been there or worked with them.

One of the reasons why America's economy is what it is (and don't even try to say that we don't have the #1 economy in the world, even in our current state) is due to the productivity of its workforce.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
the 9-5 mentality is much of what keeps America behind other nations in productivity. People here want to be paid as much as possible while doing as little as possible. The ethic in other parts of the world is to do as much as possible and find the job that pays you a fair wage to do it.

Americans spend more time at work than most other countries. And the US is one of the only countries in the world where annual working time is increasing. In Japan and in Europe annual working hours are on the decline.

Text

ZV

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Vonkhan
And they wonder why their jobs are going to India ...

Pay a decent wage with reasonable hours and the employers aren't going to get screwed.

If companies are greedy enough to screw over their ex-employees, I'm sure their future Indian employee's will do the same -- and they have; look at all the failed projects where companies have tried to outsource to "cheaper" countries.

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: Ns1
sounds pretty logical to me

salary = no OT

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

absolutely not.

Salary=no ot.. sure

Salary=expectation that you will get paid X dollars on each paycheck, regardless if you are sick, take vacation days, have the ocassional day off, etc.

Where I work, we do get OT as of last year, (its half time), and are salaried, but when I was hired on, it was a 40 hour week. Now they want 45 hours or so, but I still do 40ish.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: Ns1
sounds pretty logical to me

salary = no OT

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

absolutely not.

Salary=no ot.. sure

Salary=expectation that you will get paid X dollars on each paycheck, regardless if you are sick, take vacation days, have the ocassional day off, etc.

Where I work, we do get OT as of last year, (its half time), and are salaried, but when I was hired on, it was a 40 hour week. Now they want 45 hours or so, but I still do 40ish.

Well fuck, I don't know where you work, but here if your boss says "i need x done by Friday, GIT ER DONE" you get that shit done if it takes you 4 hours or 14 hours.

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: Ns1
sounds pretty logical to me

salary = no OT

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

absolutely not.

Salary=no ot.. sure

Salary=expectation that you will get paid X dollars on each paycheck, regardless if you are sick, take vacation days, have the ocassional day off, etc.

Where I work, we do get OT as of last year, (its half time), and are salaried, but when I was hired on, it was a 40 hour week. Now they want 45 hours or so, but I still do 40ish.

Well fuck, I don't know where you work, but here if your boss says "i need x done by Friday, GIT ER DONE" you get that shit done if it takes you 4 hours or 14 hours.

Where I work, we have the concept of a team and we help each other out. Many of us have families/plans/etc that supercede work. For example, I might have a buildout that needs done ASAP, and if I want to work all night long on it, I will and get overtime for it, however, if I have a scouting meeting, soccer practice, or something else going on, I'll tell my boss that and we'll work around it. Most of the time though, we dont put ourselves in that position. Home life should ALWAYS supercede work life.. ALWAYS.

On that same note, I've worked weekends for colleagues who just couldn't do it for whatever reasons and the higher ups smile on this and reward us with a day off or leaving early a few days.

Ever heard of the phrase, "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part"? Learn to live it and your life will be much smoother and stress free.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: alkemyst
the 9-5 mentality is much of what keeps America behind other nations in productivity. People here want to be paid as much as possible while doing as little as possible. The ethic in other parts of the world is to do as much as possible and find the job that pays you a fair wage to do it.

Americans spend more time at work than most other countries. And the US is one of the only countries in the world where annual working time is increasing. In Japan and in Europe annual working hours are on the decline.

Text

ZV

Thank you. And whoever said that the US employee is the most productive in the world ... heh, wait, I'm posting on ATOT right now...

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: Ns1
sounds pretty logical to me

salary = no OT

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

absolutely not.

Salary=no ot.. sure

Salary=expectation that you will get paid X dollars on each paycheck, regardless if you are sick, take vacation days, have the ocassional day off, etc.

Where I work, we do get OT as of last year, (its half time), and are salaried, but when I was hired on, it was a 40 hour week. Now they want 45 hours or so, but I still do 40ish.

Well fuck, I don't know where you work, but here if your boss says "i need x done by Friday, GIT ER DONE" you get that shit done if it takes you 4 hours or 14 hours.

Where I work, we have the concept of a team and we help each other out. Many of us have families/plans/etc that supercede work. For example, I might have a buildout that needs done ASAP, and if I want to work all night long on it, I will and get overtime for it, however, if I have a scouting meeting, soccer practice, or something else going on, I'll tell my boss that and we'll work around it. Most of the time though, we dont put ourselves in that position. Home life should ALWAYS supercede work life.. ALWAYS.

On that same note, I've worked weekends for colleagues who just couldn't do it for whatever reasons and the higher ups smile on this and reward us with a day off or leaving early a few days.

Ever heard of the phrase, "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part"? Learn to live it and your life will be much smoother and stress free.

2 words: tax season. It's not like 1 person here gets shafted, ALL of us get shafted.

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: Ns1
sounds pretty logical to me

salary = no OT

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

absolutely not.

Salary=no ot.. sure

Salary=expectation that you will get paid X dollars on each paycheck, regardless if you are sick, take vacation days, have the ocassional day off, etc.

Where I work, we do get OT as of last year, (its half time), and are salaried, but when I was hired on, it was a 40 hour week. Now they want 45 hours or so, but I still do 40ish.

Well fuck, I don't know where you work, but here if your boss says "i need x done by Friday, GIT ER DONE" you get that shit done if it takes you 4 hours or 14 hours.

Where I work, we have the concept of a team and we help each other out. Many of us have families/plans/etc that supercede work. For example, I might have a buildout that needs done ASAP, and if I want to work all night long on it, I will and get overtime for it, however, if I have a scouting meeting, soccer practice, or something else going on, I'll tell my boss that and we'll work around it. Most of the time though, we dont put ourselves in that position. Home life should ALWAYS supercede work life.. ALWAYS.

On that same note, I've worked weekends for colleagues who just couldn't do it for whatever reasons and the higher ups smile on this and reward us with a day off or leaving early a few days.

Ever heard of the phrase, "Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part"? Learn to live it and your life will be much smoother and stress free.

2 words: tax season. It's not like 1 person here gets shafted, ALL of us get shafted.

Yeah, ok, but your workload comes in about a 5-6 month shotgun blast and then it levels off. Its not like that all the time. If it was, I'd find another job. Just not worth it man, not worth it.

 

[UTmtnbiker]

I think people are confusing two terms, salaried and exempt.

Two choices for the first category: salaried or hourly
Two choices for the second category: exempt or non-exempt

You can be salaried, exempt; or salaried, non-exempt (rare, but some companies do this); hourly, exempt (rare again); or hourly, non-exempt

Even with those 4 classifications, there is no STRICT definition of what gets OT and what doesn't. For example, at my company (Fortune 250), even though I am salaried, exempt, I still get paid OT for anything over 40 hours.