Lesser Google employees to be switched to hourly wages

[kranky]

Zenmervolt is right. There are severe penalties for classifying a worker as salaried when it should have been hourly. That's what Google is doing.

I had a situation a couple years ago where an hourly person was working overtime but not reporting it (she was trying to improve her performance metrics by voluntarily putting in extra time). It came to light about six months later and we had to compute all the hours she had worked and pay her overtime wages for them. Even though it wasn't authorized, and even though she didn't ask for the money, and even though she didn't expect any money.

I was told that if an hourly person works overtime they must be paid even if it wasn't authorized in advance. Of course, if someone repeatedly works unauthorized overtime you can fire them - but you have to pay for the hours worked.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: jjsole
Didn't take long for them to start bending over for the sake of their stock price.


(/edit: as Zemmervolt posts below, this is probably not what's happening.)

Yup.

A company that could have actually DONE something is now just another big company.

 

[JS80]

steps to bankruptcy:
1) go hourly
2) unionize
3) bankrupt

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JS80
steps to bankruptcy:
1) go hourly
2) unionize
3) bankrupt

You forgot step 2a): be retarded.

Steps to sweat-shop:
1) ban unions
2) remove OT laws
3) shop at company store

What's your point?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Just curious but this is from the DOL site:

Exemptions from Both Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay
(1) Executive, administrative, and professional employees (including teachers and academic administrative personnel in elementary and secondary schools), outside sales employees, and employees in certain computer-related occupations (as defined in Department of Labor regulations);
(2) Employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments, employees of certain small newspapers, seamen employed on foreign vessels, employees engaged in fishing operations, and employees engaged in newspaper delivery;
(3) Farm workers employed by anyone who used no more than 500 "man-days" of farm labor in any calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year;
(4) Casual babysitters and persons employed as companions to the elderly or infirm.

I always thought that the piece I bolded about professional employees was how they determined this for most people. Is there somewhere in the minutia of that bill where they actually detail exactly what qualifies for that? I guess my simplistic view of it was if the job required a college education it was likely to be classified as professional.

Unfortunately, profession doesn't just mean college degree, it has to do with the job duties and classifications. And it is spelled out in more detail in further regulations. I don't deal specifically with payroll and benefits every day, I work in a project management/analysis role, but I have a large amount of interaction with payroll and benefits in the company I work for and the projects I work on require at least a high-level idea of what laws govern our process and systems requirements.

A general heuristic for what legally constitutes a "professional" employee is whether that employee has a say in the decision-making of the company, whether that be via some level of control over the direction/decisions of a project, department. Administration (office administration, not network administration), Clerical, Sales, and basic technical positions that do not carry official decision-making authority are all hourly according to FLSA. The general rule of thumb is that if you have no official say over what our tasks are or how those tasks are prioritized, then your job should be hourly according to FLSA. There's much more to it than that, but it's a workable generalization.

ZV

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JS80
steps to bankruptcy:
1) go hourly
2) unionize
3) bankrupt

You forgot step 2a): be retarded.

Steps to sweat-shop:
1) ban unions
2) remove OT laws
3) shop at company store

What's your point?

You are canadian. Your opinions don't count.

 

[FoBoT]

what Zenmervolt said, they have to follow Dept of Labor rules , federal and state labor laws dictate this stuff, it isn't up to the company entirely

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: redly1

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jjsole
Didn't take long for them to start bending over for the sake of their stock price.

This is NOT a business-preferred move. Salaried workers are less expensive.

These are positions that the Federal Government's "Fair Labor Standars Act" classifies as hourly positions. Google would face HUGE fines if the government audited them and found them to be classifying "hourly" positions as salaried. Trust me, as someone who works in HR, a company would much rather have everyone salaried than hourly. Hourly workers cost more in terms of overtime, plus there are a lot more administrative costs associated with payroll processing for hourly workers as well.

ZV

Hmm, my boss made everyone salary..even the shipping guy

The fact that you're talking about a single person in shipping tells a couple of things:

1) The company is small enough that the fines it would see won't be in the millions of dollars that Google's would.
2) The company is small enough not to worry about being audited by the government for FLSA compliance
3) With just one shipping guy, it's quite easy to give him a title of something like "Director of Shipping and Receiving", set up the org chart to show Shipping as a one-person department, and come out clean on the FLSA laws even if the company is audited.

Ever wonder why small companies seem to have everyone as a "Manager", a "Director" or a "VP"? It's because with a small company and one-man departments they can get around the FLSA requirements by having one-person departments. Larger companies can't do that. For example, you cannot have a call center with 1,000 "Managers of Customer Satisfaction" or some such title instead of phone operators or service representatives.

ZV

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JS80
steps to bankruptcy:
1) go hourly
2) unionize
3) bankrupt

You forgot step 2a): be retarded.

Steps to sweat-shop:
1) ban unions
2) remove OT laws
3) shop at company store

What's your point?

You are canadian. Your opinions don't count.

That's the best argument I've ever seen you make.

No. Really.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

To the employees of Google that are crying about this. Boo-fvcking-hoo. Your gravy train is leaving the station, time to actually work for a living.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JS80
steps to bankruptcy:
1) go hourly
2) unionize
3) bankrupt

You forgot step 2a): be retarded.

Steps to sweat-shop:
1) ban unions
2) remove OT laws
3) shop at company store

What's your point?

You are canadian. Your opinions don't count.

Oh would you just shut up? Why did you even bring up unions? No one at Google is going to start a union. How often do you see people in tech jobs in a union? :roll:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Pale Rider

Originally posted by: jjsole
Didn't take long for them to start bending over for the sake of their stock price.


(/edit: as Zemmervolt posts below, this is probably not what's happening.)

Yup.

A company that could have actually DONE something is now just another big company.

and what do you want them to do? this is a federal law..

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
To the employees of Google that are crying about this. Boo-fvcking-hoo. Your gravy train is leaving the station, time to actually work for a living.

Um...

The article didn't say a damn thing about pay cuts. Only that the jobs were becoming hourly. That means that the employees' total pay should still be the same per year if they work 40 hours a week.

In fact, most workers make _more_ money by being hourly.

ZV

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jjsole
Didn't take long for them to start bending over for the sake of their stock price.

This is NOT a business-preferred move. Salaried workers are less expensive.

These are positions that the Federal Government's "Fair Labor Standars Act" classifies as hourly positions. Google would face HUGE fines if the government audited them and found them to be classifying "hourly" positions as salaried. Trust me, as someone who works in HR, a company would much rather have everyone salaried than hourly. Hourly workers cost more in terms of overtime, plus there are a lot more administrative costs associated with payroll processing for hourly workers as well.

ZV

These "costs" are the responsibilities of running a business.

Corporations of all sizes love to put workers who are legitimately employees as independent contractors, which screws the system out of the withholding taxes the system depends on, costs the business less money, and exposes that worker to greater risk in terms of rights and protections according to law.

Believe me, as someone who has watched worker's rights become eroded year after year, and as one who was an I.C. and was switched to employee status early last year in order to avoid CA Dept of Labor action.
I now have a 401K, health insurance and am a much happier employee (read MORE PRODUCTIVE) this way. Before the switch, I was looking for another job and couldn't have cared less about "the company".

When companies stop this business school notion of employees being a cost to be controlled, and start thinking in terms of them as an asset to be grown, things will be a lot better for all, stockholder, employee and nation.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
To the employees of Google that are crying about this. Boo-fvcking-hoo. Your gravy train is leaving the station, time to actually work for a living.

Um...

The article didn't say a damn thing about pay cuts. Only that the jobs were becoming hourly. That means that the employees' total pay should still be the same per year if they work 40 hours a week.

In fact, most workers make _more_ money by being hourly.

ZV

It will be interesting to see if they make the switch at 40 hours = no pay cut. In which case whining about it really would be a dumb move by employees.

 

[ultimatebob]

So much for "Do No Evil"...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jjsole
Didn't take long for them to start bending over for the sake of their stock price.

This is NOT a business-preferred move. Salaried workers are less expensive.

These are positions that the Federal Government's "Fair Labor Standars Act" classifies as hourly positions. Google would face HUGE fines if the government audited them and found them to be classifying "hourly" positions as salaried. Trust me, as someone who works in HR, a company would much rather have everyone salaried than hourly. Hourly workers cost more in terms of overtime, plus there are a lot more administrative costs associated with payroll processing for hourly workers as well.

ZV

These "costs" are the responsibilities of running a business.

Corporations of all sizes love to put workers who are legitimately employees as independent contractors, which screws the system out of the withholding taxes the system depends on, costs the business less money, and exposes that worker to greater risk in terms of rights and protections according to law.

Believe me, as someone who has watched worker's rights become eroded year after year, and as one who was an I.C. and was switched to employee status early last year in order to avoid CA Dept of Labor action.
I now have a 401K, health insurance and am a much happier employee (read MORE PRODUCTIVE) this way. Before the switch, I was looking for another job and couldn't have cared less about "the company".

When companies stop this business school notion of employees being a cost to be controlled, and start thinking in terms of them as an asset to be grown, things will be a lot better for all, stockholder, employee and nation.

You've obviously got not idea about those costs.

The average cost for a contractor where I work is double the cost of an employee including the cost of benefits to an employee.

Despite what a lot of misinformed people would have you believe, contractors cost companies vastly more than employees. Companies use contractors for a few reasons:

1) "Try before you buy" - a no-committment way to evaluate a potential employee. I contracted for 9 months before transitioning to FTE actually. Took a pay cut (my contracting company was providing benefits, so I did not gain benefits in exchange for the pay cut, all I gained was a permanent position).
2) "Need it now" - when a skillset is in high demand and the normal interview process is too long to accomodate the speed with which a resource is needed a company will contact a contracting firm for the appropriate talent rather than using the company's internal recruiting department.
3) "Temporary need" - when there are skillsets for which the company has a temporary need but will not need indefinitely. This usually comes up for specific projects of limited duration where the employee will not be needed after implementation is completed.

Companies do NOT use contractors to save money. I've seen the rates contractors charge and I've seen what the internal rates are for those positions. Even counting benefits, employees are vastly less expensive.

In any case, contractors weren't even being discussed, so I really have no clue why you went off on that tangent. The discussion was hourly versus salaried employees. And it's a fact that hourly employees are more expensive to the company than salaried employees for a given pay grade.

ZV

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jjsole
Didn't take long for them to start bending over for the sake of their stock price.

This is NOT a business-preferred move. Salaried workers are less expensive.

These are positions that the Federal Government's "Fair Labor Standars Act" classifies as hourly positions. Google would face HUGE fines if the government audited them and found them to be classifying "hourly" positions as salaried. Trust me, as someone who works in HR, a company would much rather have everyone salaried than hourly. Hourly workers cost more in terms of overtime, plus there are a lot more administrative costs associated with payroll processing for hourly workers as well.

ZV

These "costs" are the responsibilities of running a business.

Corporations of all sizes love to put workers who are legitimately employees as independent contractors, which screws the system out of the withholding taxes the system depends on, costs the business less money, and exposes that worker to greater risk in terms of rights and protections according to law.

Believe me, as someone who has watched worker's rights become eroded year after year, and as one who was an I.C. and was switched to employee status early last year in order to avoid CA Dept of Labor action.
I now have a 401K, health insurance and am a much happier employee (read MORE PRODUCTIVE) this way. Before the switch, I was looking for another job and couldn't have cared less about "the company".

When companies stop this business school notion of employees being a cost to be controlled, and start thinking in terms of them as an asset to be grown, things will be a lot better for all, stockholder, employee and nation.

You've obviously got not idea about those costs.

The average cost for a contractor where I work is double the cost of an employee including the cost of benefits to an employee.

Despite what a lot of misinformed people would have you believe, contractors cost companies vastly more than employees. Companies use contractors for a few reasons:

1) "Try before you buy" - a no-committment way to evaluate a potential employee. I contracted for 9 months before transitioning to FTE actually. Took a pay cut (my contracting company was providing benefits, so I did not gain benefits in exchange for the pay cut, all I gained was a permanent position).
2) "Need it now" - when a skillset is in high demand and the normal interview process is too long to accomodate the speed with which a resource is needed a company will contact a contracting firm for the appropriate talent rather than using the company's internal recruiting department.
3) "Temporary need" - when there are skillsets for which the company has a temporary need but will not need indefinitely. This usually comes up for specific projects of limited duration where the employee will not be needed after implementation is completed.

Companies do NOT use contractors to save money. I've seen the rates contractors charge and I've seen what the internal rates are for those positions. Even counting benefits, employees are vastly less expensive.

In any case, contractors weren't even being discussed, so I really have no clue why you went off on that tangent. The discussion was hourly versus salaried employees. And it's a fact that hourly employees are more expensive to the company than salaried employees for a given pay grade.

ZV

He's not talking about 'real' contractors.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
So much for "Do No Evil"...

Can someone explain why this is a bad thing?

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jjsole
Didn't take long for them to start bending over for the sake of their stock price.

This is NOT a business-preferred move. Salaried workers are less expensive.

These are positions that the Federal Government's "Fair Labor Standars Act" classifies as hourly positions. Google would face HUGE fines if the government audited them and found them to be classifying "hourly" positions as salaried. Trust me, as someone who works in HR, a company would much rather have everyone salaried than hourly. Hourly workers cost more in terms of overtime, plus there are a lot more administrative costs associated with payroll processing for hourly workers as well.

ZV

These "costs" are the responsibilities of running a business.

Corporations of all sizes love to put workers who are legitimately employees as independent contractors, which screws the system out of the withholding taxes the system depends on, costs the business less money, and exposes that worker to greater risk in terms of rights and protections according to law.

Believe me, as someone who has watched worker's rights become eroded year after year, and as one who was an I.C. and was switched to employee status early last year in order to avoid CA Dept of Labor action.
I now have a 401K, health insurance and am a much happier employee (read MORE PRODUCTIVE) this way. Before the switch, I was looking for another job and couldn't have cared less about "the company".

When companies stop this business school notion of employees being a cost to be controlled, and start thinking in terms of them as an asset to be grown, things will be a lot better for all, stockholder, employee and nation.

You've obviously got not idea about those costs.

The average cost for a contractor where I work is double the cost of an employee including the cost of benefits to an employee.

Despite what a lot of misinformed people would have you believe, contractors cost companies vastly more than employees. Companies use contractors for a few reasons:

1) "Try before you buy" - a no-committment way to evaluate a potential employee. I contracted for 9 months before transitioning to FTE actually. Took a pay cut (my contracting company was providing benefits, so I did not gain benefits in exchange for the pay cut, all I gained was a permanent position).
2) "Need it now" - when a skillset is in high demand and the normal interview process is too long to accomodate the speed with which a resource is needed a company will contact a contracting firm for the appropriate talent rather than using the company's internal recruiting department.
3) "Temporary need" - when there are skillsets for which the company has a temporary need but will not need indefinitely. This usually comes up for specific projects of limited duration where the employee will not be needed after implementation is completed.

Companies do NOT use contractors to save money. I've seen the rates contractors charge and I've seen what the internal rates are for those positions. Even counting benefits, employees are vastly less expensive.

In any case, contractors weren't even being discussed, so I really have no clue why you went off on that tangent. The discussion was hourly versus salaried employees. And it's a fact that hourly employees are more expensive to the company than salaried employees for a given pay grade.

ZV

You forgot one of the most important arguments against this statement: "Corporations of all sizes love to put workers who are legitimately employees as independent contractors"

Companies can get in SERIOUS legal trouble for keeping contractors and treating them like employees (term of employment, expectations same as those of employees, giving them employee type perks like bonus and company events, etc.) Microsoft went through a huge lawsuit and lost on this. It got all the tech type companies all jumpy about contractors and they barely keep them long enough to get to know their names now.

 

[randym431]

modern "hip" company

memo: This "is" the new description of a modern "hip" company. Not to slack, but play by ALL the rules. Right to the end.


"hip" just got redefined...

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: randym431

modern "hip" company

memo: This "is" the new description of a modern "hip" company. Not to slack, but play by ALL the rules. Right to the end.


"hip" just got redefined...

hip = lasting too

 

[Babbles]

Per Fortune magazine Google was the number one place to work at this past year. I now wonder if that will hold true for the next year.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Babbles
Per Fortune magazine Google was the number one place to work at this past year. I now wonder if that will hold true for the next year.

Google's benefits are kickass. They may be a demanding workplace, but the type of people that are attracted to a company like that are usually up for it. And at least they try to compensate for that instead of just sucking the lifeblood of their employees and pretending they aren't doing it, like some other places.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Originally posted by: Babbles
Per Fortune magazine Google was the number one place to work at this past year. I now wonder if that will hold true for the next year.

Google's benefits are kickass. They may be a demanding workplace, but the type of people that are attracted to a company like that are usually up for it. And at least they try to compensate for that instead of just sucking the lifeblood of their employees and pretending they aren't doing it, like some other places.

Some rather obvious points in describing 'the best' employer to work for . . .