SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Fran Sussner Rodgers writes in the NYT that a little-noticed change in the American workplace is about to occur when later this month the Department of Labor is expected to announce an adjustment to the Fair Labor Standards Act raising the salary threshold for overtime from $23,660 per year to at least double that theshold. In 1975, the last year the threshold was significantly raised, 60 percent of salaried workers fell within the requirement for overtime pay while today only 8 percent do, so the new requirement should be a welcome change for millions of American workers.
But the change also speaks to an issue that affects everyone, whether eligible for overtime or not - the clash between the finite amount of time employees actually have versus the desire of employers to treat time as an inexhaustible resource. Employees in the United States currently work more hours than workers in any of the world's 10 largest economies except Russia. When everything over 40 hours is free to the employer, the temptation to demand more is almost irresistible. But for most employees, the ones exempt from overtime rules, their managers have little incentive to look for ways to use their time more efficiently. "We are a tired, stressed and overworked nation, which has many negative consequences for our personal health and the care of our children. As a nation, we work harder and longer than almost all of our competitors, and much of that work is uncompensated," writes Rodgers. "Time is our personal currency. We parcel it out, hour by hour, to meet the demands placed on us. We all pay a steep price, as individuals and as a nation, when we can't meet our most important obligations."
Original Submission
(Score: 1) by terrab0t on Thursday June 25 2015, @03:00PM
I'm glad you moved on to a better working situation; specifically, one where you were compensated based more on the value you provide, not the smallest amount your client / employer could get someone like you to work for.
As soon as I read that you moved on to working for your previous employer's client directly, I thought immediately that you were violating the non‐solicitation agreements that we all have to sign today. I don't know if this happened a long time ago or if you managed to do it in secret, but good for you, bad for your employer.
I don't know how the laws on this pan out in different areas, but I've read that non‐compete agreements (forcing you not to work in your employer's field for a set amount of time) are generally not enforceable, but non‐solicitation agreements (preventing you from stealing your employer's clients and employees) are. What you did was soliciting. I'm glad you moved to a better employment arrangement, but I can't congratulate you on exactly how you did it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @03:46PM
As soon as I read that you moved on to working for your previous employer's client directly, I thought immediately that you were violating the non‐solicitation agreements that we all have to sign today.
I didn't sign one of those, in fact I've never seen one and I think it would be as about as enforceable as a non-compete. The client had a non-solicitation agreement with HP, which is enforceable and is the standard way that contract agencies try to prevent their clients from directly hiring 'their' contractors. But they also had a $300M contract with HP, so HP wasn't willing to rock the boat. HP bore me no ill-will, my next gig was doing the exact same thing - on-site technical liason to HP - for another company with a big fat contract with HP. Got it through my HP contacts.