Sunday, November 20, 2011

Getting paid

So I've been meaning to share this with my readers ( all 6 of you) for a while. I recently came across a bill that is working its way though the great legislative machine.  My first response was to be angry, then indignant, then simply confused. What has gotten me all worked up you ask? well its Bill S. 1747: Computer Professionals Update Act. which is an update to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. For most people who work at an hourly rate if you work more than 40 hours in a week the law says you get paid over time, the law being the Fair Labor Standards Act. what this amendment is proposing is to exempt people who work with computers for a living from this. So if this some how makes it through to law IT professionals, Computer engineers, programmers, Developers, Administrators and so on all will not get that over time pay.

I would like to know what the logic is there, how they can justify taking away something based simply on the area an individual works. As an IT professional I can tell you that the work is no less difficult than other positions, and there is a significant investment of time and training before getting a job like this. It seems to me these senaters ( named on the bill here ) place less value on the skills of the people who keep this nations information infrastructure running than they do on some one who works equally hard in another field. I know that for a lot of people working in IT, the only reason to go in at ohmygodwhy in the morning on a weekend to implement an upgrade after working a full week is that over time pay. 

For those of you who do care about this and want to make sure that this does not happen I would say write your representative and senators, let them know how you feel, its their job to represent your interests after all.


  1. I think you might have misunderstood what that bill is doing. Currently 13(a)(17) already exempts "computer systems analyst[s], computer programmer[s], software engineer[s], or other similarly skilled worker[s]". This bill does change the language, and it seems to expand it to include more related positions (Tom Smykowski wouldn't be happy), but the main thing it does is tack on at the end "An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1)."

    In addition to being exempt from overtime, positions defined in 13(a) are also exempt from sexual discrimination restrictions ( However, 13(a)(1) is specifically selected to not be exempt from that exemption (Confusing yet?). What this bill is doing, then, is making it so that people who do fall under 13(a)(17) also get treated as if they were in 13(a)(1), and so are not exempt from sexual discrimination restrictions.

  2. @Reed Martz

    I did something here that I hate to see in other peoples posts. I was forwarded some information on this bill along with the link and too the information I was presented at face value. This lead to a knee jerk reaction and going off when maybe I didn't need too. So thank you for introducing a bit rationality into my otherwise irrational rant.

    looking over the text of the bill again ( which I'l admit, not being a legal mind is a bit confusing) it looks as though they are expanding some definitions to remove some ambiguity about a few rolls.

    That being said I think people should be aware of changes that could affect them positively or negatively. Either way thank you again for applying a level head.

    happy to be corrected