December 6, 2011 at 5:10 am
Where I currently work we get time off in lieu if the extra time is an hour or so on either end of your normal working day. If it is out of hours work then it is overtime.
Works for me - including annual leave I had seven weeks to take off this year 😀
-------------------------------Posting Data Etiquette - Jeff Moden [/url]Smart way to ask a question
There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand (the world). There is no such thing as a dumb question. ― Carl Sagan
I would never join a club that would allow me as a member - Groucho Marx
December 6, 2011 at 8:00 am
sqlnyc (12/6/2011)
Steve - I'm not sure where you're located, but here in NYC, some financial institutions implement what is known as a "professional day". In case this is foreign to you, this most unprofessional of concepts means that as a consultant, you do not get paid for all the hours you work. For instance, overtime (not time-and-half, but straight hourly rate) won't kick in until your 10th hour on site. So you're there for 10 hours, have 1 hour for lunch, but only get paid for 8 hours, even though you have actually worked 9.This has been around at least 10 to 15 years, perhaps longer. I think it's specific to Wall Street.
I think that any one that agrees to work under these conditions makes it harder for all the rest of us who stick to our guns....
SQLNYC
Interesting. Never heard of that, nor do I think it's likely legal. However given the current status of Wall St v the government, it likely won't change. If you are paid hourly, I'm not sure that's remotely legal.
There are always people that will work that way. You can only control what you can control. I wouldn't blame or judge anyone for choosing to work that way if they feel they need to. I don't think anyone should have to work like that, but I'm not going to say it's wrong for anyone else.
December 6, 2011 at 10:27 am
I have heard of the Professional Day Pay Rate and it does seem to be tied to major financial areas like Wall Street. The rates are always high enough that you would actually consider working by the day. As a contractor, if you agree to a Day Rate then it would be legal by contract. Personally, I would rather stick to a straight hourly rate. I was fortunate at one client that they actually paid time and a half past 40 hours.
To me the best way to control overtime is by contracting. If you work the hour, then you bill the hour. I always inform my manager when I approach 40 hours for the week. They hold the budget numbers and can make an informed decision. Depending upon what they decide, I will either leave for the rest of the week or bill the overtime accordingly with their prior approval.
There is one other aspect of this topic that I yet to see discussed is the loss of vacation days. I have heard too many people in the past month lament over the loss of up to two weeks of vacation time. Since their company neither pays it out nor allows them to carry it over from year to year, they just lose it. This is further compounded by the fact that even though they were all happy to have a job during the year, they were still afraid to take the vacation time that they earned. Nowhere in that conversation does compensation for overtime even come into play.
December 6, 2011 at 12:59 pm
I have exactly ZERO sympathy for anyone who is an advocate of any kind of Federal Regulatory interference into how any company compensates it's employees. If you do advocate for such rules, you have no right whatsoever to complain.
December 6, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Tony Palmeri (12/6/2011)
I have exactly ZERO sympathy for anyone who is an advocate of any kind of Federal Regulatory interference into how any company compensates it's employees. If you do advocate for such rules, you have no right whatsoever to complain.
Like minimum wages? Or child labor laws? What about workers comp? Strictly speaking not compensation but it's insurance which is a kind of compensation.
All those are kind of crucial for a lot of people and are also Federal Regulatory "interference."
December 6, 2011 at 1:15 pm
I stand by my statement. If you advocate for such laws, you have no right to complain when those laws affect you in ways you don't like.
December 6, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Everyone has a right to complain, whenever and about whatever they want - that's the very essence of free speech. Your opinion is welcomed here, as are the opinions of all others.
December 6, 2011 at 2:07 pm
For around 10 years now, until starting at my most recent company, I have been paid on a 'day rate', but its also specified how long a 'day' is. Most employers have worked on the 'swings & roundabouts' theory, that is, what you lose on the swings (long days) you pick up on the roundabouts (leaving early to go to a medical appt, pick up the kids etc).
December 6, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Revenant (12/5/2011)
Michael Valentine Jones (12/5/2011)
Michael Valentine Jones (12/3/2011)
The worst abuse is when they set short project deadlines without any attempt to match the workload to the available staff, and then expect people to work extremely long hours to meet the deadline.A occasional long workday to get a critical task done is one thing, but when people are put in a position where they are expected to work long hours for weeks or months, then that is just abuse.
I see this coming on a project that kicks off next week. The plan was put together by non-IT people who made no allowance for the considerable programming time required, no allowance for time to purchase and setup new systems, and no allowance for the fact that a number of key people have significant vacation time scheduled.
I was right about the project. When the project manager tried to explain to the senior executive that the target date was way too aggressive, the replay was "I don't care, that's your problem". Guess he doesn't realize he can't snap his finger and make a month's worth of work disappear, and it will be his problem when he has to tell his customer the bad news.
Got to love it when the project is behind the 8-ball from day one. The project manager sounded like he wanted to cry during the kick off meeting.
Fortunately from me, the DBAs will not be the ones on the hot spot for this project.
Do you wonder why 60+ percent of all IT project are failures?
Imagine that you had the same rate in say civil engineering, and most bridges would collapse even before they were completed.
The only thing that shocks me is that only 60+ percent of all IT projects are considered failures.
December 6, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Michael Valentine Jones (12/6/2011)
Revenant (12/5/2011)
Michael Valentine Jones (12/5/2011)
Michael Valentine Jones (12/3/2011)
The worst abuse is when they set short project deadlines without any attempt to match the workload to the available staff, and then expect people to work extremely long hours to meet the deadline.A occasional long workday to get a critical task done is one thing, but when people are put in a position where they are expected to work long hours for weeks or months, then that is just abuse.
I see this coming on a project that kicks off next week. The plan was put together by non-IT people who made no allowance for the considerable programming time required, no allowance for time to purchase and setup new systems, and no allowance for the fact that a number of key people have significant vacation time scheduled.
I was right about the project. When the project manager tried to explain to the senior executive that the target date was way too aggressive, the replay was "I don't care, that's your problem". Guess he doesn't realize he can't snap his finger and make a month's worth of work disappear, and it will be his problem when he has to tell his customer the bad news.
Got to love it when the project is behind the 8-ball from day one. The project manager sounded like he wanted to cry during the kick off meeting.
Fortunately from me, the DBAs will not be the ones on the hot spot for this project.
Do you wonder why 60+ percent of all IT project are failures?
Imagine that you had the same rate in say civil engineering, and most bridges would collapse even before they were completed.
The only thing that shocks me is that only 60+ percent of all IT projects are considered failures.
The only reason I get a better rate than that is that the deadline is not a factor in the succes "result". I do mostly very complex ERP reporting. The kind of reports for groups of 10-15 peoples in different departments that need to fill the gaps in missing ERP features which includes 50 business rules. I don't think I have a single SP under 1000 lines this YEAR, and it's not like I waste lines of codes on cursors and useless comments.
I always shoot for a first demo delivery date and even that is more miss than hit. But when I'm done the users are 100% happy with it (within reason).
When end user happness drives the success of the project rather than a date in space you have much better chance of getting positive results.
December 6, 2011 at 4:42 pm
sqlnyc (12/6/2011)
Everyone has a right to complain, whenever and about whatever they want - that's the very essence of free speech. Your opinion is welcomed here, as are the opinions of all others.
I should have been more clear. I wasn't disputing anyone's political right to free speech. I was challenging the rightfulness (the logical consistency, and the moral consistency) of anyone who advocates for Federal regulatory interference into how companies compensate their employees, and who then proceeds to complain when those laws are not to his liking. I am not taking a stand against the Law, as such. I am taking a stand against a particular class of arbitrary and morally unjustified laws, and pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are willing to impose unchosen moral obligations on others (by force of law), while crying foul when some other arbitrary and morally unjustified law affects them personally.
December 6, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Tony Palmeri (12/6/2011)
sqlnyc (12/6/2011)
Everyone has a right to complain, whenever and about whatever they want - that's the very essence of free speech. Your opinion is welcomed here, as are the opinions of all others.I should have been more clear. I wasn't disputing anyone's political right to free speech. I was challenging the rightfulness (the logical consistency, and the moral consistency) of anyone who advocates for Federal regulatory interference into how companies compensate their employees, and who then proceeds to complain when those laws are not to his liking. I am not taking a stand against the Law, as such. I am taking a stand against a particular class of arbitrary and morally unjustified laws, and pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are willing to impose unchosen moral obligations on others (by force of law), while crying foul when some other arbitrary and morally unjustified law affects them personally.
I don't think you're consistent yourself with this complaint. Someone that sees a problem, and chooses to ask for a law doesn't necessarily make the law. For example, if someone complains about child labor and asks for a law and then a law is passed that says you can't force or pay children under 8 to work, can they not say that the law is flawed and the age should be 15?
All laws, and indeed, all decisions, are arbitrary. We arbitrarily draw lines in the sand for everything. The laws are the common laws by which we want to build a society. Those (gross generalization, but mostly true) in power have always abused those without power. That's the history of humans, and laws, rules, resolutions are an attempt to limit the abuses that occur. Power corrupts and will continue to do so forever.
If you think that we would be better off without any employment laws, that's a perfectly valid view, though I think you might not like that kind of world. If you think we have too many laws on employment and compensation, that's valid as well.
IMHO, we have both too few and too many. Too few in some areas, too many in others. I would prefer fewer laws, written in more general terms rather than specifics, and interpreted with judges or arbitrators using common sense, not strictly precedence, which is all too imperfect itself.
December 6, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/6/2011)
Tony Palmeri (12/6/2011)
sqlnyc (12/6/2011)
Everyone has a right to complain, whenever and about whatever they want - that's the very essence of free speech. Your opinion is welcomed here, as are the opinions of all others.I should have been more clear. I wasn't disputing anyone's political right to free speech. I was challenging the rightfulness (the logical consistency, and the moral consistency) of anyone who advocates for Federal regulatory interference into how companies compensate their employees, and who then proceeds to complain when those laws are not to his liking. I am not taking a stand against the Law, as such. I am taking a stand against a particular class of arbitrary and morally unjustified laws, and pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are willing to impose unchosen moral obligations on others (by force of law), while crying foul when some other arbitrary and morally unjustified law affects them personally.
I don't think you're consistent yourself with this complaint. Someone that sees a problem, and chooses to ask for a law doesn't necessarily make the law. For example, if someone complains about child labor and asks for a law and then a law is passed that says you can't force or pay children under 8 to work, can they not say that the law is flawed and the age should be 15?
All laws, and indeed, all decisions, are arbitrary. We arbitrarily draw lines in the sand for everything. The laws are the common laws by which we want to build a society. Those (gross generalization, but mostly true) in power have always abused those without power. That's the history of humans, and laws, rules, resolutions are an attempt to limit the abuses that occur. Power corrupts and will continue to do so forever.
If you think that we would be better off without any employment laws, that's a perfectly valid view, though I think you might not like that kind of world. If you think we have too many laws on employment and compensation, that's valid as well.
IMHO, we have both too few and too many. Too few in some areas, too many in others. I would prefer fewer laws, written in more general terms rather than specifics, and interpreted with judges or arbitrators using common sense, not strictly precedence, which is all too imperfect itself.
I dispute the notion that *all* laws (and all decisions) are arbitrary. Many perfectly good and just laws are made objectively by reference to a moral principle, and constrained by the limits of justifiable use of force (to enforce them). Laws against theft and murder are clear examples. You have inalienable rights to your property and your life, and it is justifiable to use force in defense of those (and to delegate that use of force to the governing legal authority). Neither those laws, nor the principles upon which they are based are arbitrary.
Federal laws that regulate employee compensation impose upon the right of free association and contract between individuals. If person 'A' voluntarily enters into an employment contract with person 'B' at compensation level 'X', how is it objectively justifiable for any other person, or persons, or the whole of society to say that they cannot - and further: to forcibly prohibit it?
And how does one objectively determine the threshold compensation level 'Z' that must be imposed (by force) on everyone? *That* is, and can only be, an arbitrary calculation. Some Harvard intellectual might concoct a plausible justification for some threshold level 'Z' - but in reference to what? Some other Princeton intellectual might come up with some other level, based on some other arbitrarily asserted priorities. If you accept their *right* to make that determination and to impose it upon you (and everyone else) by force, you don't really have grounds to complain about it.
Please understand though, it's not so much the 'arbitrariness' of it that is the central problem. For example, specific speed limits on highways are similarly arbitrary, yet I don't have a problem with those. The difference is that traveling at grossly-excessive speeds on the highway presents a clear threat to the safety and the lives of fellow travelers. It is therefore justifiable to forcibly impose a speed limit, even if the *particular* limit is determined partly arbitrarily. But my voluntary employment contract with another person at compensation level 'X' presents *no* threat to any other person. There is no moral justification for anyone imposing *any* limit 'Z'.
Anyway: I am new to posting on this site, and I don't really know if it is conventionally acceptable to belabor political points such as these. I'll drop it if it is not acceptable here.
December 6, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Considering the topic of this thread, it should be open for discussion. What I like, sir, is that you are keeping it calm, and logical. You have presented your point of view very well without going *ballistic* as others have in other discussions.
This is what a political discussion should be like, not what we see in those 30 second sound bites and by most talking heads.
December 6, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/6/2011)
Tony Palmeri (12/6/2011)
sqlnyc (12/6/2011)
Everyone has a right to complain, whenever and about whatever they want - that's the very essence of free speech. Your opinion is welcomed here, as are the opinions of all others.I should have been more clear. I wasn't disputing anyone's political right to free speech. I was challenging the rightfulness (the logical consistency, and the moral consistency) of anyone who advocates for Federal regulatory interference into how companies compensate their employees, and who then proceeds to complain when those laws are not to his liking. I am not taking a stand against the Law, as such. I am taking a stand against a particular class of arbitrary and morally unjustified laws, and pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are willing to impose unchosen moral obligations on others (by force of law), while crying foul when some other arbitrary and morally unjustified law affects them personally.
I don't think you're consistent yourself with this complaint. Someone that sees a problem, and chooses to ask for a law doesn't necessarily make the law. For example, if someone complains about child labor and asks for a law and then a law is passed that says you can't force or pay children under 8 to work, can they not say that the law is flawed and the age should be 15?
All laws, and indeed, all decisions, are arbitrary. We arbitrarily draw lines in the sand for everything. The laws are the common laws by which we want to build a society. Those (gross generalization, but mostly true) in power have always abused those without power. That's the history of humans, and laws, rules, resolutions are an attempt to limit the abuses that occur. Power corrupts and will continue to do so forever.
If you think that we would be better off without any employment laws, that's a perfectly valid view, though I think you might not like that kind of world. If you think we have too many laws on employment and compensation, that's valid as well.
IMHO, we have both too few and too many. Too few in some areas, too many in others. I would prefer fewer laws, written in more general terms rather than specifics, and interpreted with judges or arbitrators using common sense, not strictly precedence, which is all too imperfect itself.
Well, this is SQLServerCentral, not US Labor Law Central.
That said, I wish to observe that in North America there are way too many labor [or "labour"] laws written by people who did not understand what they were talking about, never worked in the industry they were trying to "regulate," and could never cast themselves as the employer or the employee, because being civil servants or career politicians, they never were on either receiving end.
Example: it is ILLEGAL in the US to defer your salary even if you have VERY generous stock options and benefits and you have enouhg money in the bank to live on for years, unless you are a director of the company duly registered with the registrar of the companies, etc etc, whatever is your state law, because IRS (or Revenue Canada) wants taxes on your salaries, deferred or not, NOW, and their claim supercedes any state law. (State being the entity that incorporated the company and validated and endorsed, explicitly, its Articles of Incorporation.)
'nuff said, I hope.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 88 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply