White House Increases Overtime Eligibility by Millions
May 18, 2016 7:41 AM Subscribe
The Obama administration, in a far-reaching effort to improve the lot of workers that has ignited criticism from business groups, announced on Tuesday that it was making millions more employees eligible for overtime pay. - NY Times
Link to the not yet published final rule. - Dept of Labor
NPR has a nice graph showing how inflation has eroded the overtime threshold over time.
Link to the not yet published final rule. - Dept of Labor
NPR has a nice graph showing how inflation has eroded the overtime threshold over time.
I like this New Obama. Can't we pull a Roosevelt and keep him around another term?
posted by AFABulous at 7:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by AFABulous at 7:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [24 favorites]
Wow!
Now, if they can only stop employers pressuring people to not report their overtime.
I had an absolutely unbelievable conversation at my job at a public institution where someone with a moderate amount of authority was saying that no one should ever request overtime, that working unpaid overtime should just be something that we all accept as a condition of having a job. This person was talking about hourly state employees, for pete's sake, and was seriously proposing that hourly state employees be told to work unpaid overtime on a regular basis. It was not something I expected, since frankly "large state institution pressures employees to break law" is not that great a headline.
I did go to my actual supervisor and clarify to that person that while I wasn't watching the clock for every extra fifteen minutes that I might stay late, if I needed to work regular, meaningful overtime I would be paid, and that I would absolutely grieve the thing to the union if needed.
I mean, we are very clearly overtime-eligible employees with a union contract! I can't even.
posted by Frowner at 7:51 AM on May 18, 2016 [87 favorites]
Now, if they can only stop employers pressuring people to not report their overtime.
I had an absolutely unbelievable conversation at my job at a public institution where someone with a moderate amount of authority was saying that no one should ever request overtime, that working unpaid overtime should just be something that we all accept as a condition of having a job. This person was talking about hourly state employees, for pete's sake, and was seriously proposing that hourly state employees be told to work unpaid overtime on a regular basis. It was not something I expected, since frankly "large state institution pressures employees to break law" is not that great a headline.
I did go to my actual supervisor and clarify to that person that while I wasn't watching the clock for every extra fifteen minutes that I might stay late, if I needed to work regular, meaningful overtime I would be paid, and that I would absolutely grieve the thing to the union if needed.
I mean, we are very clearly overtime-eligible employees with a union contract! I can't even.
posted by Frowner at 7:51 AM on May 18, 2016 [87 favorites]
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Is there some reason NYT is using this whole long thing for Joe Biden? Is that their new style guide? I don't see them using President Barack Hussein Obama. (Although I do also see that they added the J for the Drumpf)
posted by numaner at 7:51 AM on May 18, 2016
Is there some reason NYT is using this whole long thing for Joe Biden? Is that their new style guide? I don't see them using President Barack Hussein Obama. (Although I do also see that they added the J for the Drumpf)
posted by numaner at 7:51 AM on May 18, 2016
That's roughly double the current threshold of $23,660.
Zero fucks Obama. Good times.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 AM on May 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
Zero fucks Obama. Good times.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:55 AM on May 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
This will have a huge impact on nonprofits, and will in fact be a point of discussion at a board meeting I have to attend this month.
It's hard, because my political feelings are, you should not work 20 hours/week unpaid because you will. But the way the ecosystem is set up for nonprofits, it depends on people who love the cause being willing to work harder than they are paid.
BUT - I also think about how so many of the women that I know work in the nonprofit space and are underpaid, mostly I think based on the cultural assumption that "charity work is women's work" and that these women should have a man in the background with a "real job" that supports them.
Lots of feels. But pushing for fair compensation for hours worked is a good thing.
posted by Medieval Maven at 7:55 AM on May 18, 2016 [26 favorites]
It's hard, because my political feelings are, you should not work 20 hours/week unpaid because you will. But the way the ecosystem is set up for nonprofits, it depends on people who love the cause being willing to work harder than they are paid.
BUT - I also think about how so many of the women that I know work in the nonprofit space and are underpaid, mostly I think based on the cultural assumption that "charity work is women's work" and that these women should have a man in the background with a "real job" that supports them.
Lots of feels. But pushing for fair compensation for hours worked is a good thing.
posted by Medieval Maven at 7:55 AM on May 18, 2016 [26 favorites]
This is why the Democratic Party is the better of the two parties, and why I support it, and why I think it's better to have a Democrat in the White House, and why I will try to make that happen in November.
THANKS OBAMA
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:00 AM on May 18, 2016 [63 favorites]
THANKS OBAMA
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:00 AM on May 18, 2016 [63 favorites]
Opponents argued that the measure could cost billions of dollars and would undermine the morale of salaried employees by requiring them to account for every hour of their workdays.Heh. Oh no, someone who makes $24K/yr will now get overtime! What a demotion! What an insult! The shame of being a mere worker, oh the burning shame!
“This is an extreme revision in the white-collar threshold,” said David French of the National Retail Federation. “By executive fiat, the Department of Labor is effectively demoting millions of workers.”
posted by clawsoon at 8:01 AM on May 18, 2016 [60 favorites]
I don't understand how a job - no matter how professional it may seem could be counted as "white collar" and earn less than 23,000 a year for a 40 hour work week... that's $11.05/hr... I'm not disparaging the workers - I'm disparaging the shitty unlivable wage that was being lorded over them with no recourse.
Of course, it totally changes the salaried position I was in to work at a restaurant with a top chef in Boston. I made $36,000 as a salary. When we calculated our hours out, I made $4.74/hr... which was less than half of what the dishwasher was paid.
posted by Nanukthedog at 8:03 AM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
Of course, it totally changes the salaried position I was in to work at a restaurant with a top chef in Boston. I made $36,000 as a salary. When we calculated our hours out, I made $4.74/hr... which was less than half of what the dishwasher was paid.
posted by Nanukthedog at 8:03 AM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
... undermine the morale of salaried employees by requiring them to account for every hour of their workdays
... because workers now realize how much work they're doing for free. Before, you could shrug it off and say, "yeah, I work a bit extra, but that's because I'm salaried." Now, they'll say "what the hell was I doing, working an extra half job for free? Fuck this place, I'm out of here." Morale undermined, indeed.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:05 AM on May 18, 2016 [60 favorites]
... because workers now realize how much work they're doing for free. Before, you could shrug it off and say, "yeah, I work a bit extra, but that's because I'm salaried." Now, they'll say "what the hell was I doing, working an extra half job for free? Fuck this place, I'm out of here." Morale undermined, indeed.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:05 AM on May 18, 2016 [60 favorites]
But wait, guys, the new rules are totally bad for women!
posted by clawsoon at 8:15 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
As is so often the case, these workplace regulations are likely to backfire the most on women who value flexibility. Some businesses are sure to respond to these new rules by eliminating at-home and nontraditional work arrangement since it’s tough to keep precise track of someone’s work hours when they are telecommuting or using a flexible schedule.I wonder how it feels to be thrashing around for arguments to support your side even as the sinking feeling in your stomach tells you that your position is a moral and political non-starter.
posted by clawsoon at 8:15 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
It is sort of amazing that post-doc researchers will be included in this rule change. I was lucky enough to be able to skip the post-doc step, but I have many many friends who completed 6-10 years of grad school (working 60+ hour weeks for very low stipends but grad students are technically "trainees" so that's okay) to then move on to post-doc positions, in which they make only slightly more money that they did as grad students and still have no basic employment protections.
posted by hydropsyche at 8:15 AM on May 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by hydropsyche at 8:15 AM on May 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
I liked the argument against this change that I heard on the radio. "Now employers will simply not allow these employees to work overtime." Oh, they won't allow them to work for free? What a tragedy.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:20 AM on May 18, 2016 [80 favorites]
posted by Rock Steady at 8:20 AM on May 18, 2016 [80 favorites]
My husband has a salaried position where we live in Canada, but the amount of time he spends of his own free time for his job when not at it, it astounds me. Having never been salaried, I'm always like, "Seriously? You don't get paid for all these extra hours? And you're okay with that??" He replies that that's just how it is and he gets the same salary no matter how many additional hours he puts in. That is banana-pants.
Here's to you, overtime eligibility workers! Get that sweet cash if you can!
posted by Kitteh at 8:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Here's to you, overtime eligibility workers! Get that sweet cash if you can!
posted by Kitteh at 8:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
These are the same people who complained that employees working less than 8 hours and a 5-day work week and not employing children and hiring women would bankrupt them. Same complaint, different day.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 8:25 AM on May 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 8:25 AM on May 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
I've been through a situation where a company which was making its employees illegally work ridiculous overtime without pay was caught and forced to start tracking hours and paying overtime. (Hint: Anonymously encouraging your co-workers to call the employment standards board can be very personally rewarding! And throwaway Gmail accounts are great!)
The result was a livid management, a brief failed witchhunt, and people getting paid properly for their hard work.
There were also a few people who found better jobs and recorded some glorious "fuck you, I called employment standards, and I quit" meetings.
The company is fine. A couple of years later, they moved to a swanky new building. They're still getting prestigious work, and the boss is still an asshole. The only thing that changed was that people started getting paid properly, and some Hollywood executives up the food chain were able to buy slightly less spectacular houses.
posted by clawsoon at 8:32 AM on May 18, 2016 [35 favorites]
The result was a livid management, a brief failed witchhunt, and people getting paid properly for their hard work.
There were also a few people who found better jobs and recorded some glorious "fuck you, I called employment standards, and I quit" meetings.
The company is fine. A couple of years later, they moved to a swanky new building. They're still getting prestigious work, and the boss is still an asshole. The only thing that changed was that people started getting paid properly, and some Hollywood executives up the food chain were able to buy slightly less spectacular houses.
posted by clawsoon at 8:32 AM on May 18, 2016 [35 favorites]
re: Kitteh's point - I really, really hate this mind set. I negotiated my salary based on the idea that you get 40 hours of my life per week. If you want more on a regular basis, I will need to be paid more. The. End.
I do not work overtime regularly. I come and go at regular hours. When not in the office I am reasonably responsive. But regularly working +10, 20, 30 hours a week? Hell no. I am worthless to you under those circumstances.
posted by Medieval Maven at 8:34 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I do not work overtime regularly. I come and go at regular hours. When not in the office I am reasonably responsive. But regularly working +10, 20, 30 hours a week? Hell no. I am worthless to you under those circumstances.
posted by Medieval Maven at 8:34 AM on May 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
“This is an extreme revision in the white-collar threshold,” said David French of the National Retail Federation. “By executive fiat, the Department of Labor is effectively demoting millions of workers.”
Holy shit this spin. "Forget getting paid for their work, what our workers really care about is their capitalist self-image!"
posted by selfnoise at 8:34 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Holy shit this spin. "Forget getting paid for their work, what our workers really care about is their capitalist self-image!"
posted by selfnoise at 8:34 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
The other argument was that "There is no golden pot of money to pay these people from."
ORLY
posted by Rock Steady at 8:36 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
ORLY
posted by Rock Steady at 8:36 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Is this for real? I'm having trouble believing it's real, that there isn't some loophole built in. It's a drastic change, one I'm for and believe in, but it sounds so weird that it's happening. Did we get invaded by aliens or something?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:42 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:42 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I love this story, but the Harvard-trained neuroscientist making $46k at the end of the article almost made me cry.
posted by miyabo at 8:46 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 8:46 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
...would undermine the morale of salaried employees by requiring them to account for every hour of their workdays.
As a salaried employee, I already track my time, and I already think the system to do so is a piece of junk. But I hate the tool, not the notion that measuring my work is unimportant. (Quite the contrary.)
And if anyone believes every line item of all the timesheets that salaried workers turn in now, well...I just don't know what to tell them.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:55 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
As a salaried employee, I already track my time, and I already think the system to do so is a piece of junk. But I hate the tool, not the notion that measuring my work is unimportant. (Quite the contrary.)
And if anyone believes every line item of all the timesheets that salaried workers turn in now, well...I just don't know what to tell them.
posted by wenestvedt at 8:55 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit: These are the same people who complained that employees working less than 8 hours and a 5-day work week and not employing children and hiring women would bankrupt them. Same complaint, different day.
Well, the US really has lost its place in the world. Once, you could count on your textiles and whatnot to be made in the US of A, by productive young people and women, and now look at us - importing everything. {/hamburger}
posted by filthy light thief at 9:03 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well, the US really has lost its place in the world. Once, you could count on your textiles and whatnot to be made in the US of A, by productive young people and women, and now look at us - importing everything. {/hamburger}
posted by filthy light thief at 9:03 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I work at a small regional nonprofit liberal arts college. This is absolutely devastating for us, in that it impacts almost everyone except our top management and the faculty. We will have to reduce service hours, cut base pay for many people, and lay off some workers. No one is going to be making more money because of this at my institution.
posted by all about eevee at 9:10 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by all about eevee at 9:10 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is completely amazing on a national level, but on a personal level, it would be immensely satisfying if it went into effect immediately. At the beginning of the month, with no advance notice whatsoever, our VP mandated 50-hour-minimum work weeks for all salaried employees until further notice. We went from 9/80 to 10.5-hour days (because we're legally required to take an unpaid half-hour for lunch) Monday through Friday, less than a month after HR held brainstorming sessions with small groups of salaried employees to talk about ways to improve our legendarily miserable excuse for a work/life balance. Most of the people in my group were already mourning the lack of time they were able to spend with their spouses and children, but now... I can't even imagine.
Being forced to work for free can be understandably demoralizing in so many ways, but to be told that we'd better start looking for a new job if we want to work less than 50 hours a week while being paid for 40? And to know that it's all in service to the pursuit of bonuses for the executive staff, for no reason other than that they promised more than we could possibly deliver for the nth year running? I've long since grown lazy and complacent in service to regular paychecks, but goddamn, tamping down the shrieks of my inner class warrior is so much harder under this new regime.
posted by amnesia and magnets at 9:10 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Being forced to work for free can be understandably demoralizing in so many ways, but to be told that we'd better start looking for a new job if we want to work less than 50 hours a week while being paid for 40? And to know that it's all in service to the pursuit of bonuses for the executive staff, for no reason other than that they promised more than we could possibly deliver for the nth year running? I've long since grown lazy and complacent in service to regular paychecks, but goddamn, tamping down the shrieks of my inner class warrior is so much harder under this new regime.
posted by amnesia and magnets at 9:10 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
witchen: why are you so bad at business that you rely on almost-free labor?
There was something that I realized while reading a bunch of investment advice books by famous investors a couple of years ago: Some of the people who have gotten fabulously wealthy over the past 40 years by investing in the stock market have done it by identifying industries where a) workers were the main cost of business and b) workers were in a weak position, vulnerable to precarious employment and shift work and being replaced by someone less skilled. Ratcheting wages of those workers down - "successfully controlling labour costs", or whatever euphemism they decided to use - was a clear, easy path to profits. It required none of the uncertainty of coming up with ideas that would actually improve the economy. It relied completely on the weak political position of workers; in other words, it was pure rent-seeking.
Warren Buffet may be the Sage of Omaha and Peter Lynch may be a legend, but they're wealthy because they're good at investing in natural monopolies, companies that don't invest much in productive capital, and industries without unions or other worker protections.
If your successful business plan relies on the permanent existence of a reserve army of labour, you may be bad at business, but you're good at the equally profitable business of non-democratic politics.
posted by clawsoon at 9:12 AM on May 18, 2016 [22 favorites]
There was something that I realized while reading a bunch of investment advice books by famous investors a couple of years ago: Some of the people who have gotten fabulously wealthy over the past 40 years by investing in the stock market have done it by identifying industries where a) workers were the main cost of business and b) workers were in a weak position, vulnerable to precarious employment and shift work and being replaced by someone less skilled. Ratcheting wages of those workers down - "successfully controlling labour costs", or whatever euphemism they decided to use - was a clear, easy path to profits. It required none of the uncertainty of coming up with ideas that would actually improve the economy. It relied completely on the weak political position of workers; in other words, it was pure rent-seeking.
Warren Buffet may be the Sage of Omaha and Peter Lynch may be a legend, but they're wealthy because they're good at investing in natural monopolies, companies that don't invest much in productive capital, and industries without unions or other worker protections.
If your successful business plan relies on the permanent existence of a reserve army of labour, you may be bad at business, but you're good at the equally profitable business of non-democratic politics.
posted by clawsoon at 9:12 AM on May 18, 2016 [22 favorites]
wanna get fired? all you have to do is tell your retail management, "just a reminder, comp-time-in-lieu-of-pay must be time-and-a-half just like overtime in Colorado."
posted by j_curiouser at 9:15 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 9:15 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
My main point being that while this is a good thing for many, many industries, it is absolutely going to make things miserable for those of us at nonprofits and in the higher education sector where pay is very low. It is not that my employer would not like to pay me more, it is that they absolutely cannot afford to and still fulfill their basic mission.
posted by all about eevee at 9:15 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by all about eevee at 9:15 AM on May 18, 2016
all about eevee: in that it impacts almost everyone except our top management and the faculty.
This may be a stupid question, but is there enough that could be cut from top management and faculty salaries to continue to keep people on staff? Or is that a useless idea in this case?
posted by clawsoon at 9:17 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
This may be a stupid question, but is there enough that could be cut from top management and faculty salaries to continue to keep people on staff? Or is that a useless idea in this case?
posted by clawsoon at 9:17 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm going to be completely fascinated to see how my workplace deals with this. I have no idea how they're going to: unpaid overtime has been completely built into our model, and there isn't any extra money. Very interesting.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:20 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:20 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
[I]s there enough that could be cut from top management and faculty salaries to continue to keep people on staff? Or is that a useless idea in this case?
Yes and yes.
posted by gottabefunky at 9:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes and yes.
posted by gottabefunky at 9:23 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
This may be a stupid question, but is there enough that could be cut from top management and faculty salaries to continue to keep people on staff? Or is that a useless idea in this case?
Probably not. One thing to note is that we are in a low-cost-of-living area where $50,000+ is a lot. Across the board, salaries are not where our President and VPs would like them to be. In response to the issue of low salaries, our top management actually makes extremely reasonable, not incredibly high but certainly above-the-threshold wages. We know this because our VPs and our President's salaries are reported in our Form 990 due to our nonprofit status. For reference, some of the Assistant Professors at my employer make below this threshold. This WILL negatively impact our students as we cut service hours. I am concerned for my colleagues in student development/services (residence life employees, especially), admissions, and the recruiting side of athletics (D3). There is no way they can do their work at the level they are performing at now in 40 hours or less, and there is no money to pay what would now require overtime. As a residential college, we cannot simply ship the students home on buses every night at 5PM.
l am really, really happy for those industries this WILL help, but I am sad for my alma mater and employer. This is going to be very rough for us and it will take time before we know what we are going to do.
posted by all about eevee at 9:28 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Probably not. One thing to note is that we are in a low-cost-of-living area where $50,000+ is a lot. Across the board, salaries are not where our President and VPs would like them to be. In response to the issue of low salaries, our top management actually makes extremely reasonable, not incredibly high but certainly above-the-threshold wages. We know this because our VPs and our President's salaries are reported in our Form 990 due to our nonprofit status. For reference, some of the Assistant Professors at my employer make below this threshold. This WILL negatively impact our students as we cut service hours. I am concerned for my colleagues in student development/services (residence life employees, especially), admissions, and the recruiting side of athletics (D3). There is no way they can do their work at the level they are performing at now in 40 hours or less, and there is no money to pay what would now require overtime. As a residential college, we cannot simply ship the students home on buses every night at 5PM.
l am really, really happy for those industries this WILL help, but I am sad for my alma mater and employer. This is going to be very rough for us and it will take time before we know what we are going to do.
posted by all about eevee at 9:28 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
re: Kitteh's point - I really, really hate this mind set. I negotiated my salary based on the idea that you get 40 hours of my life per week. If you want more on a regular basis, I will need to be paid more. The. End.
Oh my god yes. My chef, who is otherwise a pretty great dude, started getting on my case one day about not coming in two hours earlier (making for 12+ hour days, every day), because I was being paid well (for the industry, not in absolute terms). I was like "I negotiated that salary based on the hours I was already working. If you and Owner want more hours out of me, you can pay me more." The conversation never came up again.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:29 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Oh my god yes. My chef, who is otherwise a pretty great dude, started getting on my case one day about not coming in two hours earlier (making for 12+ hour days, every day), because I was being paid well (for the industry, not in absolute terms). I was like "I negotiated that salary based on the hours I was already working. If you and Owner want more hours out of me, you can pay me more." The conversation never came up again.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:29 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
wanna get fired? all you have to do is tell your retail management, "just a reminder, comp-time-in-lieu-of-pay must be time-and-a-half just like overtime in Colorado."
That management needs to be fired because they leave the business open to MASSIVE liability down the road.
Fry's Electronics, for however shitty their stores are or how they pay their employees, are pedantic these days about paying you to the minute. They were once taken down by an employee for unpaid hourly labor and illegal deductions from paychecks. Massive class action, cost them squillions.
Any idiot who wants to put their company in the same boat should be immediately removed from the management chain.
posted by Talez at 9:29 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
That management needs to be fired because they leave the business open to MASSIVE liability down the road.
Fry's Electronics, for however shitty their stores are or how they pay their employees, are pedantic these days about paying you to the minute. They were once taken down by an employee for unpaid hourly labor and illegal deductions from paychecks. Massive class action, cost them squillions.
Any idiot who wants to put their company in the same boat should be immediately removed from the management chain.
posted by Talez at 9:29 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'd guess that if you cut faculty salaries you're going to have a real retention problem. But any organization that has to rely on free/unpaid work from paid employees has a fundamental issue that's going to bite them sooner or later. Is there some level of work that can be offloaded from employees to volunteers? That might be one way to resolve the issue.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:30 AM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by Existential Dread at 9:30 AM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
You're also going to have a real resentment problem.
posted by all about eevee at 9:31 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by all about eevee at 9:31 AM on May 18, 2016
all about eevee: "I am sad for my alma mater and employer"
I totally understand that, but I am sad for the current employees who are giving up their lives for free.
posted by Rock Steady at 9:31 AM on May 18, 2016 [39 favorites]
I totally understand that, but I am sad for the current employees who are giving up their lives for free.
posted by Rock Steady at 9:31 AM on May 18, 2016 [39 favorites]
So... switching unpaid overtime (volunteer) work to other unpaid volunteers?
The answers, as usual, are wage compression and a guaranteed basic income for everyone.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:31 AM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
The answers, as usual, are wage compression and a guaranteed basic income for everyone.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:31 AM on May 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
That's part of working in higher education. You sometimes work long hours for low pay, but it is worth it for the quality of life that you get from amazing coworkers and the relationships you form with students. It certainly is going to be interesting to see how and if we can maintain the institution under these new rules.
posted by all about eevee at 9:38 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by all about eevee at 9:38 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is absolutely going to gut most nonprofits to the core.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 9:41 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 9:41 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I have heard rumors that there will be a special provision for nonprofits and higher ed, but I highly doubt it.
posted by all about eevee at 9:44 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by all about eevee at 9:44 AM on May 18, 2016
Is this the reverse of the break and privatize strat? Show that non-profits/education can't pay their emplotees to justify increased funding?
I'm being a bit hopeful, I know.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:59 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm being a bit hopeful, I know.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:59 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've been following these proposed rule changes by the DoL fairly closely since they were originally announced. I'm sympathetic to the argument that this will gut nonprofit institutions. However, I'm also so jaded by the corruption of public companies that I cannot support an exception for non-profits. Somehow, someway the private sector will find a way to exploit the loophole for their own gain to worker detriment.
It physically hurts sometimes to be this cynical. I feel like capitalism as practiced today is ruining ALL THE THINGS, and every time actual significant progress is made to change the system it only uncovers the many shallowly buried skeletons of prior and ongoing sins.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 10:01 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
It physically hurts sometimes to be this cynical. I feel like capitalism as practiced today is ruining ALL THE THINGS, and every time actual significant progress is made to change the system it only uncovers the many shallowly buried skeletons of prior and ongoing sins.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 10:01 AM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
The thing is, why should non-profits be exempt? It's going to be a rough transition, but I eventually what they will have to do is pay a lower base salary and then compensate people for the overtime that they actually work. And that will be annoying in some respects, but it's a fairer and more honest solution.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:06 AM on May 18, 2016 [35 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:06 AM on May 18, 2016 [35 favorites]
That's part of working in higher education. You sometimes work long hours for low pay, but it is worth it for the quality of life that you get from amazing coworkers and the relationships you form with students. It certainly is going to be interesting to see how and if we can maintain the institution under these new rules.
Speaking as someone currently working in higher education who genuinely enjoys teaching for its own sake.... it's attitudes like that on behalf of the entire industry that make me lean towards getting the fuck out of academia when I graduate with my degree. I also have made an existing decision to steer well clear of the teaching-focused positions I have the most direct experience with, which are adjunct faculty... who universally work long hours for low pay and utterly minimal respect from university staff whose jobs involve less teaching. This is not my idea of a high quality of working life.
posted by sciatrix at 10:07 AM on May 18, 2016 [52 favorites]
Speaking as someone currently working in higher education who genuinely enjoys teaching for its own sake.... it's attitudes like that on behalf of the entire industry that make me lean towards getting the fuck out of academia when I graduate with my degree. I also have made an existing decision to steer well clear of the teaching-focused positions I have the most direct experience with, which are adjunct faculty... who universally work long hours for low pay and utterly minimal respect from university staff whose jobs involve less teaching. This is not my idea of a high quality of working life.
posted by sciatrix at 10:07 AM on May 18, 2016 [52 favorites]
Unpaid work is the theft of labor, full stop. If companies complain that they can't survive without stealing labor, then they're admitting they are unfit for survival in a capitalist economy, and no one should feel sorry for them.
Democratic politicians and pundits, feel free to steal that line. Often.
posted by Gelatin at 10:09 AM on May 18, 2016 [64 favorites]
Democratic politicians and pundits, feel free to steal that line. Often.
posted by Gelatin at 10:09 AM on May 18, 2016 [64 favorites]
Well, I'm a low paid fundraiser, so make of that what you will.
posted by all about eevee at 10:09 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by all about eevee at 10:09 AM on May 18, 2016
Are nonprofit workers exempt from paying their bills?
posted by miyabo at 10:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [38 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 10:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [38 favorites]
Perhaps this may some day apply to medical residents, who are subject now to a categorical exemption and work their 41st to 80th hours thinking about how $12/h would seem less if they were ever allowed outside the hospital long enough to spend it. People died fighting for the 40 hour work week and my profession squandered it.
posted by The White Hat at 10:14 AM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by The White Hat at 10:14 AM on May 18, 2016 [17 favorites]
Basically, my perspective from within education is that not all of the warm and fuzzies in the world about the students I help are worth the loss of family life and scrabbling to make money to support myself and my family on top of that. That's true even for the disprivileged students who need my help most, who I do my best to support. I can't muster the sustainable energy to help them if I am unable to take the time to care for myself and be paid well enough to support my own finances. That's a recipe for burnout.
Besides, piggy-backing off Medieval Maven's excellent point about many of these professions (teaching-centered institutions of higher education included) being aimed at women who, it's assumed, can be supported financially by male partners or family... I'm a queer woman. I don't have a well-paid man in my life to subsidize my career. (I'm actually our primary breadwinner, god help me.) If entire lines of work aren't going to be open to women in my situation because they're predicated on the assumption that I can rely on someone else for either my money or my time, they need to be honest with themselves about that.
posted by sciatrix at 10:16 AM on May 18, 2016 [36 favorites]
Besides, piggy-backing off Medieval Maven's excellent point about many of these professions (teaching-centered institutions of higher education included) being aimed at women who, it's assumed, can be supported financially by male partners or family... I'm a queer woman. I don't have a well-paid man in my life to subsidize my career. (I'm actually our primary breadwinner, god help me.) If entire lines of work aren't going to be open to women in my situation because they're predicated on the assumption that I can rely on someone else for either my money or my time, they need to be honest with themselves about that.
posted by sciatrix at 10:16 AM on May 18, 2016 [36 favorites]
I'm not saying child labor was good for the textiles industry, but I will tell you that my ability to thread a needle is blunted by how large my hands are in comparison with the head of the needle. I mean, all I am saying is kids have a great advantage of being small with small hands free from carpal tunnel and arthritis. This is a resource we could be actively utilizing - letting our kids live up to their full potential and learning a fair amount of fine motor skills to regain our competitive advantage. We would be preparing them for the future!
/hamburger
posted by Nanukthedog at 10:19 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
/hamburger
posted by Nanukthedog at 10:19 AM on May 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Perhaps this may some day apply to medical residents, who are subject now to a categorical exemption and work their 41st to 80th hours thinking about how $12/h would seem less if they were ever allowed outside the hospital long enough to spend it. People died fighting for the 40 hour work week and my profession squandered it.
In Canada all post-secondary schools have exemptions that allow them to abuse any student workers as they see fit because being treated like shit has tremendous educational value. (I quit working in the tech department of my college when they mandated that I take two weeks of unpaid full time training in order to possibly qualify for a promotion that came with no increase in pay - a regular employee is protected from unpaid on the job training). I have yet to experience an employer that didn't try to dance back and forth over the line of wage theft and abuse.
Go labour!
posted by srboisvert at 10:22 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
In Canada all post-secondary schools have exemptions that allow them to abuse any student workers as they see fit because being treated like shit has tremendous educational value. (I quit working in the tech department of my college when they mandated that I take two weeks of unpaid full time training in order to possibly qualify for a promotion that came with no increase in pay - a regular employee is protected from unpaid on the job training). I have yet to experience an employer that didn't try to dance back and forth over the line of wage theft and abuse.
Go labour!
posted by srboisvert at 10:22 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Info on how this impacts non-profits, for those who may care:
US Dept of Labor Blog
Pro-Bono Partnership Atlanta
posted by Medieval Maven at 10:36 AM on May 18, 2016
US Dept of Labor Blog
Pro-Bono Partnership Atlanta
posted by Medieval Maven at 10:36 AM on May 18, 2016
Are nonprofit workers exempt from paying their bills?
posted by miyabo at 10:13 AM on May 18 [3 favorites +] [!]
Of course not, but part of the comprise you make in working for a nonprofit is that you accept less pay and longer hours for the chance to work on a mission to which you are spiritually/emotionally/ideologically committed.
I suppose there is some kind of leftist critique of nonprofit organizations here ("If only the People's State were empowered to build telescopes directly, there would be no need for astronomy clubs, comrade!") but demanding that nonprofits operate on the same management-labor relationships as Microsoft and General Motors is just insane.
Not every labor environment is some kind of syndicalist shop-floor in desperate need of Worker's Revolution. Believe it or not, some people work for little pay and long hours because they believe in what they are doing, even at the expense of their own long-term income prospects.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 10:36 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 10:13 AM on May 18 [3 favorites +] [!]
Of course not, but part of the comprise you make in working for a nonprofit is that you accept less pay and longer hours for the chance to work on a mission to which you are spiritually/emotionally/ideologically committed.
I suppose there is some kind of leftist critique of nonprofit organizations here ("If only the People's State were empowered to build telescopes directly, there would be no need for astronomy clubs, comrade!") but demanding that nonprofits operate on the same management-labor relationships as Microsoft and General Motors is just insane.
Not every labor environment is some kind of syndicalist shop-floor in desperate need of Worker's Revolution. Believe it or not, some people work for little pay and long hours because they believe in what they are doing, even at the expense of their own long-term income prospects.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 10:36 AM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, why stop at non-profits, then? Why prevent people from following their hearts by taking corporate jobs that don't comply with employment regulations?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:44 AM on May 18, 2016 [30 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:44 AM on May 18, 2016 [30 favorites]
all about eevee: "I work at a small regional nonprofit liberal arts college. This is absolutely devastating for us, in that it impacts almost everyone except our top management and the faculty. We will have to reduce service hours, cut base pay for many people, and lay off some workers. No one is going to be making more money because of this at my institution."
Easily fixed by everyone taking a pay cut equivalent to the amount they will make at time and a half during overtime hours. Sure that will make retention and recruitment difficult because now the salary for the position will be honest.
posted by Mitheral at 10:44 AM on May 18, 2016 [28 favorites]
Easily fixed by everyone taking a pay cut equivalent to the amount they will make at time and a half during overtime hours. Sure that will make retention and recruitment difficult because now the salary for the position will be honest.
posted by Mitheral at 10:44 AM on May 18, 2016 [28 favorites]
I mean, why stop at non-profits, then? Why prevent people from following their hearts by taking corporate jobs that don't comply with employment regulations?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:44 AM on May 18 [+] [!]
Because corporations exist to deliver profit to shareholders, while nonprofits exist to deliver social value to humanity?
Again, General Motors and your local women's shelter are not the same type of organism, they do not seek to accomplish the same things, and should be governed by different labor dynamics.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 10:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:44 AM on May 18 [+] [!]
Because corporations exist to deliver profit to shareholders, while nonprofits exist to deliver social value to humanity?
Again, General Motors and your local women's shelter are not the same type of organism, they do not seek to accomplish the same things, and should be governed by different labor dynamics.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 10:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd guess that if you cut faculty salaries you're going to have a real retention problem.
My wife is faculty at DePaul and has had one raise since 2012. All staff earning less than 50K have had raises. So in effect almost the entire faculty at DePaul have had defacto paycuts due to cost of living increases while lower paid staff have had raises. There has been no attrition at all due to people leaving to go to other universities in her department. Mind you the faculty at DePaul are underpaid relative to other universities to begin with so perhaps the probable movers would never work at DePaul in the first place.
posted by srboisvert at 10:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
My wife is faculty at DePaul and has had one raise since 2012. All staff earning less than 50K have had raises. So in effect almost the entire faculty at DePaul have had defacto paycuts due to cost of living increases while lower paid staff have had raises. There has been no attrition at all due to people leaving to go to other universities in her department. Mind you the faculty at DePaul are underpaid relative to other universities to begin with so perhaps the probable movers would never work at DePaul in the first place.
posted by srboisvert at 10:47 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
part of the comprise you make in working for a nonprofit is that you accept less pay and longer hours for the chance to work on a mission to which you are spiritually/emotionally/ideologically committed
Unfortunately many people are working at nonprofits for the same reason that anyone works at any job, they have an opening in the right field at the right time. If you are seeking work as a nurse, an adjunct instructor, or a scientist, a very large fraction of the jobs available to you are going to be at nonprofits, and you may not have a choice in the matter -- and there's no reason that should mean you are forced to accept a lesser degree of worker protection.
You could say that workers always have the option of retraining in a for-profit field but retraining is extremely time consuming and expensive.
posted by miyabo at 11:01 AM on May 18, 2016 [28 favorites]
Unfortunately many people are working at nonprofits for the same reason that anyone works at any job, they have an opening in the right field at the right time. If you are seeking work as a nurse, an adjunct instructor, or a scientist, a very large fraction of the jobs available to you are going to be at nonprofits, and you may not have a choice in the matter -- and there's no reason that should mean you are forced to accept a lesser degree of worker protection.
You could say that workers always have the option of retraining in a for-profit field but retraining is extremely time consuming and expensive.
posted by miyabo at 11:01 AM on May 18, 2016 [28 favorites]
Also, there's the fact that per hour productivity start to fall off at some point, and can even be negative for long enough hours worked. (Economist article)
Right now you have the moral hazard of employers not having to pay more if they ask for more time, combined with the assumption that more hours = more productive that distort the labor market and waste a ton of people's time. So this is certainly going to make people more productive per hour and might even increase overall productivity in some cases.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
Right now you have the moral hazard of employers not having to pay more if they ask for more time, combined with the assumption that more hours = more productive that distort the labor market and waste a ton of people's time. So this is certainly going to make people more productive per hour and might even increase overall productivity in some cases.
posted by Zalzidrax at 11:13 AM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
Believe it or not, some people work for little pay and long hours because they believe in what they are doing, even at the expense of their own long-term income prospects.
Unless you would do your job for free, we have already established that your nonprofit employer is engaging in theft of labor, we are just determining the extent.
posted by Rock Steady at 11:20 AM on May 18, 2016 [34 favorites]
Unless you would do your job for free, we have already established that your nonprofit employer is engaging in theft of labor, we are just determining the extent.
posted by Rock Steady at 11:20 AM on May 18, 2016 [34 favorites]
some people work for little pay and long hours because they believe in what they are doing, even at the expense of their own long-term income prospects.
and they are totally free to donate a fraction of their earned wage back to the non-profit. what? you don't think they'll do that voluntarily?
that explains well enough why it's called 'wage theft'
posted by j_curiouser at 11:27 AM on May 18, 2016 [51 favorites]
and they are totally free to donate a fraction of their earned wage back to the non-profit. what? you don't think they'll do that voluntarily?
that explains well enough why it's called 'wage theft'
posted by j_curiouser at 11:27 AM on May 18, 2016 [51 favorites]
Again, General Motors and your local women's shelter are not the same type of organism, they do not seek to accomplish the same things, and should be governed by different labor dynamics.
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 12:47 PM on May 18
I'm pretty sure they are. This (linked above by Medieval Maven) says that a non-profit has to have annual volume of sales made or business done of $500,000 or more per year to be covered by this rule, if I'm reading it correctly. Maybe somebody who knows more about this sort of thing can clarify.
posted by joannemerriam at 11:30 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 12:47 PM on May 18
I'm pretty sure they are. This (linked above by Medieval Maven) says that a non-profit has to have annual volume of sales made or business done of $500,000 or more per year to be covered by this rule, if I'm reading it correctly. Maybe somebody who knows more about this sort of thing can clarify.
posted by joannemerriam at 11:30 AM on May 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
(Sadly I do not live in CA...and I do think that since we got the union, we have not had official shenanigans at the temp-firing level, fortunately. But the thing with the unpaid overtime made me really mad because, like, it's against the law. It's not even ethics, it's the actual law.)
In re nonprofits: I really, really do not buy this whole "oh, folks can be happy to work for very little because they believe in the mission". That's the line that the nonprofit bosses have always taken around here when there's a union drive or some kind of push to get a living wage. As a broad generality, career nonprofit people of my acquaintance have talked mostly about burnout, getting screwed over by unprofessional nonprofits (the stories I hear would curl your hair), etc. Also about unacknowledged racial bias in hiring and promotion, etc. I have known several people - good at their jobs! - who were basically driven out of nonprofit work because of the expectation that the nonprofit would hire a part time person with no benefits who would then do full-time work.
There is a big piece of non-profit problems that is caused by bad actors in nonprofits themselves, IME.
This makes me sad, by the way - long ago I too dreamed of a career in a nonprofit, and then I saw how my friends were treated.
posted by Frowner at 11:34 AM on May 18, 2016 [41 favorites]
In re nonprofits: I really, really do not buy this whole "oh, folks can be happy to work for very little because they believe in the mission". That's the line that the nonprofit bosses have always taken around here when there's a union drive or some kind of push to get a living wage. As a broad generality, career nonprofit people of my acquaintance have talked mostly about burnout, getting screwed over by unprofessional nonprofits (the stories I hear would curl your hair), etc. Also about unacknowledged racial bias in hiring and promotion, etc. I have known several people - good at their jobs! - who were basically driven out of nonprofit work because of the expectation that the nonprofit would hire a part time person with no benefits who would then do full-time work.
There is a big piece of non-profit problems that is caused by bad actors in nonprofits themselves, IME.
This makes me sad, by the way - long ago I too dreamed of a career in a nonprofit, and then I saw how my friends were treated.
posted by Frowner at 11:34 AM on May 18, 2016 [41 favorites]
Mod note: One comment removed; as a general rule, please don't speculate on other users' identifying details, however benign the intent.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:40 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:40 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Here are the exceptions to the rule for Higher Education (the non-profit exceptions were linked above). Teachers have an exception. I was told this morning that non-teaching faculty (I am a librarian) will not have an exception, and it is possible that those who are making under that threshold will be bumped up, salary-wise. But I will wait and see how this ends up playing out.
posted by aabbbiee at 11:45 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by aabbbiee at 11:45 AM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Actually the higher ed exception is really interesting in light of the NYT article in the OP. The NYT article's one example was a postdoc in neuroscience, and the exception specifically says that postdocs in sciences are not affected by the new rule.
posted by miyabo at 11:50 AM on May 18, 2016
posted by miyabo at 11:50 AM on May 18, 2016
No, miyabo, the rule says that postdoc researchers in the sciences are not covered by the teaching exemption, which means they are affected by the new overtime rules.
posted by Rock Steady at 11:56 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Rock Steady at 11:56 AM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Yes, they are. Read it again- a postdoc in the sciences is NOT covered by the teaching exemption and is therefore subject to the salary threshold for exemption from overtime.
posted by aabbbiee at 11:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by aabbbiee at 11:57 AM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oops, that was directed at miyabo, not Rock Steady. Anyway, it's interesting that this comes down to the teaching thing, and it will be interesting to see how that plays out with my university, who would dearly love to categorize us all as teachers and keep us exempt from overtime while continuing to pay us shit.
HOWEVER MOSTLY THIS IS ALL GREAT NEWS and I am so happy for everyone affected, whether you get a salary increase or whether you get to cut back to 40 hours/week. Yay.
posted by aabbbiee at 12:00 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
HOWEVER MOSTLY THIS IS ALL GREAT NEWS and I am so happy for everyone affected, whether you get a salary increase or whether you get to cut back to 40 hours/week. Yay.
posted by aabbbiee at 12:00 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I do see that the new rule specifically exempts adjunct professors. Because of fucking course it does.
posted by sciatrix at 12:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by sciatrix at 12:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [32 favorites]
It is sort of amazing that post-doc researchers will be included in this rule change.
Absolutely. I'm a postdoc and 50-60 hours per week is pretty standard.
If postdocs are paid according to the NIH salary scale (not all are; I think this varies by institution), only those in the first two (maybe three) years would be affected by this rule. It will be interesting to see how this is handled. I expect it will be cheaper to raise salaries above the cutoff than to actually pay overtime. In either case, if it means a salary increase for postdocs, then it's a good thing.
posted by Shal at 12:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Absolutely. I'm a postdoc and 50-60 hours per week is pretty standard.
If postdocs are paid according to the NIH salary scale (not all are; I think this varies by institution), only those in the first two (maybe three) years would be affected by this rule. It will be interesting to see how this is handled. I expect it will be cheaper to raise salaries above the cutoff than to actually pay overtime. In either case, if it means a salary increase for postdocs, then it's a good thing.
posted by Shal at 12:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, who needs work protections and wage protections? certainly not adjunct professors my fucking god
I mean those guys just get paid too much as it is amirite, it's not like they do important work or are constantly being exploited or anything
posted by sciatrix at 12:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [22 favorites]
I mean those guys just get paid too much as it is amirite, it's not like they do important work or are constantly being exploited or anything
posted by sciatrix at 12:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [22 favorites]
I mean, I agree with you that the adjunct situation is deplorable, but they aren't salaried employees currently exempt from overtime so it's not surprising that they're not affected by this rule change. Full-time hourly employees are not affected by this rule change, either.
This change is specifically about salaried workers who are currently exempt from overtime because they make more than $23K.
posted by aabbbiee at 12:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
This change is specifically about salaried workers who are currently exempt from overtime because they make more than $23K.
posted by aabbbiee at 12:17 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Fair enough, but in that case, why are there so many exemptions being made for teachers or anyone who does teaching primarily as their job? It's not like K12 teachers, who are salaried full-time workers, don't have similar problems with overwork and exploitation. They're also specifically mentioned under the same exemption.
To me, it feels like part and parcel of the overall devaluing of teaching as work that I was complaining about upthread. Why is teaching work so special that teachers do not deserve to be paid overtime?
posted by sciatrix at 12:25 PM on May 18, 2016 [26 favorites]
To me, it feels like part and parcel of the overall devaluing of teaching as work that I was complaining about upthread. Why is teaching work so special that teachers do not deserve to be paid overtime?
posted by sciatrix at 12:25 PM on May 18, 2016 [26 favorites]
"Also, there's the fact that per hour productivity start to fall off at some point, and can even be negative for long enough hours worked. ... So this is certainly going to make people more productive per hour and might even increase overall productivity in some cases."
I honestly have yet to see the knowledge worker (i.e., white collar) whose work is improved by working more than 40 hours a week -- and definitely not by doing so routinely! My husband went from 80-hour-a-week litigating for Big Law to 37.5-hour-a-week government lawyer work, and it is ASTONISHING how much more the government lawyers accomplish in literally half the time. Because they are not constantly exhausted, miserable, hating their lives and jobs, stressed, and unable to concentrate. They come in and work for about the amount of time a human is capable of doing thinking work in a row, and then go home and enjoy other activities. And the thing is, it's not like you STOP turning over the case in the back of your mind when you're having dinner and playing catch and walking the dog -- you're a knowledge worker, it doesn't turn off! You just don't have to be chained to a desk coming up with things to put on your billing. You get to sleep 8 hours and wake up with new ideas and rested for work! You eat nutritious food and sometimes get to exercise!
I started asking professional services firms that my board hired how many hours a week management and associates typically worked; I don't want an accountant who works 80-hour weeks. They make mistakes, and those work hours make it pretty clear your firm is overbilling hours, wildly inefficiently managed, and not even a little bit data-driven. Companies that routinely want more than 40 hours out of their management and white-collar workers are inefficient and more concerned with appearances of productivity than with actual work product.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:27 PM on May 18, 2016 [52 favorites]
I honestly have yet to see the knowledge worker (i.e., white collar) whose work is improved by working more than 40 hours a week -- and definitely not by doing so routinely! My husband went from 80-hour-a-week litigating for Big Law to 37.5-hour-a-week government lawyer work, and it is ASTONISHING how much more the government lawyers accomplish in literally half the time. Because they are not constantly exhausted, miserable, hating their lives and jobs, stressed, and unable to concentrate. They come in and work for about the amount of time a human is capable of doing thinking work in a row, and then go home and enjoy other activities. And the thing is, it's not like you STOP turning over the case in the back of your mind when you're having dinner and playing catch and walking the dog -- you're a knowledge worker, it doesn't turn off! You just don't have to be chained to a desk coming up with things to put on your billing. You get to sleep 8 hours and wake up with new ideas and rested for work! You eat nutritious food and sometimes get to exercise!
I started asking professional services firms that my board hired how many hours a week management and associates typically worked; I don't want an accountant who works 80-hour weeks. They make mistakes, and those work hours make it pretty clear your firm is overbilling hours, wildly inefficiently managed, and not even a little bit data-driven. Companies that routinely want more than 40 hours out of their management and white-collar workers are inefficient and more concerned with appearances of productivity than with actual work product.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:27 PM on May 18, 2016 [52 favorites]
I work in private higher ed and am above the threshold but this should be a major boon for many of my coworkers (they are not excepted by the higher ed rules). And good for them, they get paid like shit, work life balance has never been a consideration, and the push is always to do more. Hopefully now management will have to at least think twice about how they use their staff's time, or they will get dramatic raises.
posted by ghharr at 12:34 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by ghharr at 12:34 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why is teaching work so special that teachers do not deserve to be paid overtime?
The workload is structured differently for teachers than other salaried employees, even those at a university. The teaching load has low and high points through the year. Teachers who were working overtime during finals week last week on my campus have completely fled town now that commencement is over, and some won't be back for 10 weeks. The rest of us don't get those breaks; we're here day in and day out through the whole year. I'm not saying one group works harder, but teachers get special breaks for their special workloads.
posted by aabbbiee at 12:40 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The workload is structured differently for teachers than other salaried employees, even those at a university. The teaching load has low and high points through the year. Teachers who were working overtime during finals week last week on my campus have completely fled town now that commencement is over, and some won't be back for 10 weeks. The rest of us don't get those breaks; we're here day in and day out through the whole year. I'm not saying one group works harder, but teachers get special breaks for their special workloads.
posted by aabbbiee at 12:40 PM on May 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The argument that teaching loads vary over the year miiiiight hold some water if teachers actually got paid for their summers (as in, actually paid for their summers, not just administratively spreading a 10-month salary out over 12 months; and yes, that happens at the university level as well as at the k-12 level).
Many other salaried employees have high and low points in their workloads as well: actuaries and accounting professionals in particular come to mind.
The myth that teachers have paid summers off needs to die a fiery death.
posted by eviemath at 1:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
Many other salaried employees have high and low points in their workloads as well: actuaries and accounting professionals in particular come to mind.
The myth that teachers have paid summers off needs to die a fiery death.
posted by eviemath at 1:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [25 favorites]
Eyebrows McGee: "Companies that routinely want more than 40 hours out of their management and white-collar workers are inefficient and more concerned with appearances of productivity than with actual work product."
Works that way in Trades too. Lots of jobs I'm on we work 10 or 12 hours a day. Guess what a company gets for its extra 2 hours a day (and three hours pay; we get overtime): about 45 minutes of work if it was done in the first two hours of the shift. Part of that is that right off the top we get a 15 minute paid break (which consumes 20-25 minutes because we get paid to walk to and from break rooms and to wash up before break). But the rest is lack of concentration and general tiredness.
posted by Mitheral at 2:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Works that way in Trades too. Lots of jobs I'm on we work 10 or 12 hours a day. Guess what a company gets for its extra 2 hours a day (and three hours pay; we get overtime): about 45 minutes of work if it was done in the first two hours of the shift. Part of that is that right off the top we get a 15 minute paid break (which consumes 20-25 minutes because we get paid to walk to and from break rooms and to wash up before break). But the rest is lack of concentration and general tiredness.
posted by Mitheral at 2:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Given the example of the postdoc in the higher ed document, it seems like the teaching thing could really be a case-by-case basis independent of job title. There's no bright line there; some people teach and some do not, and that will be a mess to sort out for HR.
posted by aabbbiee at 2:22 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by aabbbiee at 2:22 PM on May 18, 2016
I am on pins and needles hoping that I see Keyne's Jetson capitalism play out in my lifetime. Maybe a 4 hour workweek is a bit much. But a 20-30 hour work week wouldn't be insane as a new normal.
America has fallen into this ridiculous hole thinking that hard work == good work. And the white collar exemption absolutely perpetuates that myth.
But I see this as a good first step. I think it's going to surprise a lot of companies (non-profits included) how little it hurts their productivity to have well-rested employees who are actually encouraged (instead of punished) to leave work at work. Hopefully it will trickle up to the top. It won't be the hallmark of a good employee. C-suite execs won't be so wrapped up in their c-suite world they don't understand normals, and conflate sleep deprived ideas with visionary insight.
posted by politikitty at 2:26 PM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
America has fallen into this ridiculous hole thinking that hard work == good work. And the white collar exemption absolutely perpetuates that myth.
But I see this as a good first step. I think it's going to surprise a lot of companies (non-profits included) how little it hurts their productivity to have well-rested employees who are actually encouraged (instead of punished) to leave work at work. Hopefully it will trickle up to the top. It won't be the hallmark of a good employee. C-suite execs won't be so wrapped up in their c-suite world they don't understand normals, and conflate sleep deprived ideas with visionary insight.
posted by politikitty at 2:26 PM on May 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
You sometimes work long hours for low pay, but it is worth it for the quality of life
While I feel for the difficulty that non-profits are in, due to lack of adequate funding--no.
This is fine as a statement about your own personal choice to take an underpaid position. You made a compromise. Okay.
But it's a terrible argument for why people in these positions do not deserve to be paid fairly. It's a terrible argument on which to base policy. It's an argument that is, almost always, made in order to excuse financial exploitation of workers.
Even better than working long hours for low pay and really enjoying the work is working long hours for fair pay and really enjoying the work.
I'm an academic, and hope to get a job within academia once I finish my PhD. As much as I enjoy what I do, I deserve to be paid fairly for it. If I take a position that doesn't pay me fairly, it's not because I'm okay with being financially exploited, it's because the system is broken, is stacked against workers, and I have no better alternatives if I want to remain in the field.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:55 PM on May 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
While I feel for the difficulty that non-profits are in, due to lack of adequate funding--no.
This is fine as a statement about your own personal choice to take an underpaid position. You made a compromise. Okay.
But it's a terrible argument for why people in these positions do not deserve to be paid fairly. It's a terrible argument on which to base policy. It's an argument that is, almost always, made in order to excuse financial exploitation of workers.
Even better than working long hours for low pay and really enjoying the work is working long hours for fair pay and really enjoying the work.
I'm an academic, and hope to get a job within academia once I finish my PhD. As much as I enjoy what I do, I deserve to be paid fairly for it. If I take a position that doesn't pay me fairly, it's not because I'm okay with being financially exploited, it's because the system is broken, is stacked against workers, and I have no better alternatives if I want to remain in the field.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:55 PM on May 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
Seriously, if you feel bad about your non-profit and want to work for free, just donate your overtime pay back to the institution. It's tax deductible if your non-profit is a legitimate 501(c)(3). And let other employees make the same choice, but you don't get to make that choice for them.
posted by JackFlash at 4:25 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 4:25 PM on May 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
Companies that routinely want more than 40 hours out of their management and white-collar workers are inefficient and more concerned with appearances of productivity than with actual work product.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:27 PM
Ok I'm going to be the devil's advocate and argue that I don't think 70+ hour weeks are inherently harmful for work efficiency, even for professionals and knowledge workers. Doctors for example, routinely work that many hours, I've known doctors who would do a full day's work (12 hours) then have dinner, then head back out to cover an entire night, then work the next day's work again, doing work for 36 hours straight before coming home and finally getting some sleep.
New laws mandating a reduction in work hours doesn't seem to have improved patient outcomes and in fact have been shown in some cases to worsen quality of care.
One study, led by Sanjay Desai at Johns Hopkins, randomly assigned first-year residents to either a 2003- or 2011-compliant schedule. While those in the 2011 group slept more, they experienced a marked increase in handoffs, and were less satisfied with their education. Equally worrisome, both trainees and nurses perceived a decrease in the quality of care—to such an extent that one of the 2011-compliant schedules was terminated early because of concerns that patient safety was compromised.
It's primarily due to two factors
1) More frequent handovers and segmentation of knowledge if you hire more staff to work less hours individually. If you've ever seen a job share situation where two part timers combine to work a full time job you'll know this: a person working Monday Tuesday, then a different person working Wednesday Thursday Friday - the job will generally be done less well than a single full time person doing the entire role. By the same logic a person covering in 70 hours what two persons do in 37 hours each will be more efficient as well.
2) We learn by doing and observing. A person working a year of 70 hour weeks with double the responsibility will learn a lot more than a person working 40 hour weeks with half the responsibility. Done early, this extra experience and knowledge will serve them well in the rest of their career.
The transition from being a student to working full time (37 hours) is painful. The transition from working full time 37 hour to 60 hours is just as painful but it can be done. It's painful the way training for a marathon is painful, but a person who can only run 2km will eventually be able to run a marathon.
I'm not advocating we all do 70 hour weeks because frankly it sucks and I hate making my staff do it, but as long as it's more efficient, some companies will come up with the money to pay some staff who are willing to do it.
posted by xdvesper at 4:38 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 12:27 PM
Ok I'm going to be the devil's advocate and argue that I don't think 70+ hour weeks are inherently harmful for work efficiency, even for professionals and knowledge workers. Doctors for example, routinely work that many hours, I've known doctors who would do a full day's work (12 hours) then have dinner, then head back out to cover an entire night, then work the next day's work again, doing work for 36 hours straight before coming home and finally getting some sleep.
New laws mandating a reduction in work hours doesn't seem to have improved patient outcomes and in fact have been shown in some cases to worsen quality of care.
One study, led by Sanjay Desai at Johns Hopkins, randomly assigned first-year residents to either a 2003- or 2011-compliant schedule. While those in the 2011 group slept more, they experienced a marked increase in handoffs, and were less satisfied with their education. Equally worrisome, both trainees and nurses perceived a decrease in the quality of care—to such an extent that one of the 2011-compliant schedules was terminated early because of concerns that patient safety was compromised.
It's primarily due to two factors
1) More frequent handovers and segmentation of knowledge if you hire more staff to work less hours individually. If you've ever seen a job share situation where two part timers combine to work a full time job you'll know this: a person working Monday Tuesday, then a different person working Wednesday Thursday Friday - the job will generally be done less well than a single full time person doing the entire role. By the same logic a person covering in 70 hours what two persons do in 37 hours each will be more efficient as well.
2) We learn by doing and observing. A person working a year of 70 hour weeks with double the responsibility will learn a lot more than a person working 40 hour weeks with half the responsibility. Done early, this extra experience and knowledge will serve them well in the rest of their career.
The transition from being a student to working full time (37 hours) is painful. The transition from working full time 37 hour to 60 hours is just as painful but it can be done. It's painful the way training for a marathon is painful, but a person who can only run 2km will eventually be able to run a marathon.
I'm not advocating we all do 70 hour weeks because frankly it sucks and I hate making my staff do it, but as long as it's more efficient, some companies will come up with the money to pay some staff who are willing to do it.
posted by xdvesper at 4:38 PM on May 18, 2016
"Well, it's expected that we all donate back our overtime."
It always amazes me that people who probably consider themselves supporters of capitalism, meritocracy, libertarian viewpoints or whatever don't listen to themselves. If there is anything in the world that deserves to be crushed underfoot in those models, it's a business which cannot survive without being subsidized by its employees by stealing their labor.*
* Government is there to do the things necessary for society to function without turning a profit (20-and 30-something white dudes in tech: there are things which do need doing which will never cost less for private companies to do rather than government departments)
I miss You Can't Tip a Buick
posted by maxwelton at 4:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
It always amazes me that people who probably consider themselves supporters of capitalism, meritocracy, libertarian viewpoints or whatever don't listen to themselves. If there is anything in the world that deserves to be crushed underfoot in those models, it's a business which cannot survive without being subsidized by its employees by stealing their labor.*
* Government is there to do the things necessary for society to function without turning a profit (20-and 30-something white dudes in tech: there are things which do need doing which will never cost less for private companies to do rather than government departments)
I miss You Can't Tip a Buick
posted by maxwelton at 4:43 PM on May 18, 2016 [18 favorites]
Damn I didn't realize YCTAB was gone.
posted by atoxyl at 5:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 5:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
One study, led by Sanjay Desai at Johns Hopkins ...
Yes, that is one cherry-picked study. There have been literally hundreds of such studies and they have mixed results. There is simply no strong data one way or the other supporting the idea that longer hours improve patient outcomes.
The long hours for residents are just a way for hospitals to get lots of free work out of doctors.
posted by JackFlash at 5:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Yes, that is one cherry-picked study. There have been literally hundreds of such studies and they have mixed results. There is simply no strong data one way or the other supporting the idea that longer hours improve patient outcomes.
The long hours for residents are just a way for hospitals to get lots of free work out of doctors.
posted by JackFlash at 5:01 PM on May 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Ok I'm going to be the devil's advocate and argue that I don't think 70+ hour weeks are inherently harmful for work efficiency, even for professionals and knowledge workers. Doctors for example, routinely work that many hours, I've known doctors who would do a full day's work (12 hours) then have dinner, then head back out to cover an entire night, then work the next day's work again, doing work for 36 hours straight before coming home and finally getting some sleep.
I have never been in medicine. I have, however, worked this kind of schedule in the past. Whatever efficiency you think you're getting, it isn't there. Being willing to do it is not the same as whether they should do it, and I submit it is not a good idea, at all, anywhere, to have that kind of schedule. No matter the justification. Yes, you get used to it. Is that a good thing? Absolutely not, in my view. Getting used to it is not the same as getting sleep.
I mean, I am being as measured about this as I can manage, but I really very strongly disagree with the idea that routinely working hours like that has any net benefit to anyone, in any situation, anywhere, ever.
posted by E. Whitehall at 5:47 PM on May 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
I have never been in medicine. I have, however, worked this kind of schedule in the past. Whatever efficiency you think you're getting, it isn't there. Being willing to do it is not the same as whether they should do it, and I submit it is not a good idea, at all, anywhere, to have that kind of schedule. No matter the justification. Yes, you get used to it. Is that a good thing? Absolutely not, in my view. Getting used to it is not the same as getting sleep.
I mean, I am being as measured about this as I can manage, but I really very strongly disagree with the idea that routinely working hours like that has any net benefit to anyone, in any situation, anywhere, ever.
posted by E. Whitehall at 5:47 PM on May 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
"Ok I'm going to be the devil's advocate and argue that I don't think 70+ hour weeks are inherently harmful for work efficiency, even for professionals and knowledge workers."
One expects the doctor in hour 70 is demonstrably less-efficient than the doctor in hour 20; however, the unique nature of patient handovers in medicine and the 24/7 work schedule at hospitals may mean the loss of efficiency and safety due to overtired, overworked doctors is LESS than the loss of efficiency and safety due to excessive handovers. Medicine's not really your average white-collar desk job, though ... seeing as how it lacks desks and includes human bodies that can't be stored in a file cabinet at 5 p.m. Studies of most white-collar desk jobs show that right around 8 hours, errors start overtaking progress and you're paying people to sit around screwing up and fixing it and not make much, if any, forward progress. (At a certain point the errors become so great they eat into the next workday, thus sending progress BACKWARDS, and as your employees get more tired from many long days in a row, they get fewer good productive hours each day.) Since many employers seem incapable of responding to copious data about this, increasing the number of employees who qualify for overtime is a sort of backdoor way of forcing them to recognize the costs of confusing physical presence with productivity.
"The transition from being a student to working full time (37 hours) is painful."
Also, man, studenting took me WAY more than 37 hours a week! (PLUS working.) Full-time work was a much shorter week!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
One expects the doctor in hour 70 is demonstrably less-efficient than the doctor in hour 20; however, the unique nature of patient handovers in medicine and the 24/7 work schedule at hospitals may mean the loss of efficiency and safety due to overtired, overworked doctors is LESS than the loss of efficiency and safety due to excessive handovers. Medicine's not really your average white-collar desk job, though ... seeing as how it lacks desks and includes human bodies that can't be stored in a file cabinet at 5 p.m. Studies of most white-collar desk jobs show that right around 8 hours, errors start overtaking progress and you're paying people to sit around screwing up and fixing it and not make much, if any, forward progress. (At a certain point the errors become so great they eat into the next workday, thus sending progress BACKWARDS, and as your employees get more tired from many long days in a row, they get fewer good productive hours each day.) Since many employers seem incapable of responding to copious data about this, increasing the number of employees who qualify for overtime is a sort of backdoor way of forcing them to recognize the costs of confusing physical presence with productivity.
"The transition from being a student to working full time (37 hours) is painful."
Also, man, studenting took me WAY more than 37 hours a week! (PLUS working.) Full-time work was a much shorter week!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:03 PM on May 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
I thought one of the reasons that doctors worked such long hours is one of the original teachers at Johns Hopkins took a lot of cocaine. A 16-hour shift probably seemed easy under that regime.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 7:10 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 7:10 PM on May 18, 2016
Opponents argued that the measure could cost billions of dollars and would undermine the morale of salaried employees
mmmmyeah no. I'm a GS-13, so doing ok. I get paid overtime hour for hour. At straight-time rate, not 1.5x, but still, more money for working extra. That... does not undermine my morale.
posted by ctmf at 8:12 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
mmmmyeah no. I'm a GS-13, so doing ok. I get paid overtime hour for hour. At straight-time rate, not 1.5x, but still, more money for working extra. That... does not undermine my morale.
posted by ctmf at 8:12 PM on May 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I work in progressive politics and I am absolutely delighted by this rule (though a bit concerned with how it's going to impact my own department's budget). I am also finding it it somewhat delicious irony that it took a tremendous amount of unpaid overtime labor to run the campaign that elected the president that enacted this rule.
posted by fancypants at 8:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by fancypants at 8:16 PM on May 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Since many employers seem incapable of responding to copious data about this, increasing the number of employees who qualify for overtime is a sort of backdoor way of forcing them to recognize the costs of confusing physical presence with productivity.
Eyebrows Mcgee
Yes.
posted by yesster at 8:52 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Eyebrows Mcgee
Yes.
posted by yesster at 8:52 PM on May 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Management could just offshore 'em. See 29 USC 213(f), for which we keep having to get an even more specific exemption (to the exemption) passed [5 USC 5542 (a)(6)(A) and (B)]
posted by ctmf at 9:21 PM on May 18, 2016
posted by ctmf at 9:21 PM on May 18, 2016
Medicine's not really your average white-collar desk job, though
Right, it's not uncommon for nurses to work 12 or 16 hour shifts, but they only work 5 or 6 of them a pay period. Fire departments work similarly. If double/triple shifts are the best practice for an industry, fine, but people shouldn't be expected to work ten of them a pay period and certainly not for free.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 10:14 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Right, it's not uncommon for nurses to work 12 or 16 hour shifts, but they only work 5 or 6 of them a pay period. Fire departments work similarly. If double/triple shifts are the best practice for an industry, fine, but people shouldn't be expected to work ten of them a pay period and certainly not for free.
posted by the christopher hundreds at 10:14 PM on May 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
ctmf: " At straight-time rate, not 1.5x, but still, more money for working extra. That... does not undermine my morale."
I think they are referring to the people over the limit and therefor not making overtime.
posted by Mitheral at 12:00 AM on May 19, 2016
I think they are referring to the people over the limit and therefor not making overtime.
posted by Mitheral at 12:00 AM on May 19, 2016
yo, Eyebrows. i like the cut of your jib.
posted by j_curiouser at 12:02 AM on May 19, 2016
posted by j_curiouser at 12:02 AM on May 19, 2016
I have never been in medicine. I have, however, worked this kind of schedule in the past. Whatever efficiency you think you're getting, it isn't there. Being willing to do it is not the same as whether they should do it, and I submit it is not a good idea, at all, anywhere, to have that kind of schedule. No matter the justification. Yes, you get used to it. Is that a good thing? Absolutely not, in my view. Getting used to it is not the same as getting sleep.
I mean, I am being as measured about this as I can manage, but I really very strongly disagree with the idea that routinely working hours like that has any net benefit to anyone, in any situation, anywhere, ever.
I work in a rural hospital in flyover country and although your point is valid, frequently I find myself working 80-100 hour weeks for the simple reason that there is literally no one else available. When you're the only licensed physician in 100+ miles you are now the standard of care. This is a problem that isn't solvable in my lifetime, regardless of how many nurse practitioners we pump out via online schools in the next few years, and hell, they'll all inevitably end up doing BS clinic work or moving to the city anyway.
The alternative to working these hours, in all too many smaller county hospitals; although I fully agree I'm not doing my best work after hour 20; is letting people die in the street.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 4:06 AM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, I am being as measured about this as I can manage, but I really very strongly disagree with the idea that routinely working hours like that has any net benefit to anyone, in any situation, anywhere, ever.
I work in a rural hospital in flyover country and although your point is valid, frequently I find myself working 80-100 hour weeks for the simple reason that there is literally no one else available. When you're the only licensed physician in 100+ miles you are now the standard of care. This is a problem that isn't solvable in my lifetime, regardless of how many nurse practitioners we pump out via online schools in the next few years, and hell, they'll all inevitably end up doing BS clinic work or moving to the city anyway.
The alternative to working these hours, in all too many smaller county hospitals; although I fully agree I'm not doing my best work after hour 20; is letting people die in the street.
posted by hobo gitano de queretaro at 4:06 AM on May 19, 2016 [5 favorites]
That's an incredible amount of pressure you're under, hobo gitano de queretaro, and I admire that you're doing the best you can, and I'm so sorry you're in that situation.
posted by E. Whitehall at 5:07 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by E. Whitehall at 5:07 AM on May 19, 2016 [4 favorites]
The simple answer is to make more doctors and allow more immigrants to be doctors. The AMA maintains its cartel to limit the number of doctors so that it can keep salaries high. It's part of the problem of why they can overwork and pay residents so little is because they can promise that later they will make very high salaries.
posted by JackFlash at 7:55 AM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 7:55 AM on May 19, 2016 [7 favorites]
Doctors are human beings. We have hundreds of studies that show that human beings, after a certain number of hours of work (less than 80, for sure) become more error-prone. Being a doctor does not grant a person the magical superhuman ability to overcome this. All the hand-waving in the world won't make it so.
Medical errors are the third-leading cause of death in the US. If you're a doctor this should bother you, a lot.
I'm glad the administration took this step, and I want to see more like it. We work too hard and too long for too little money, and a lot of us die sooner than we have to because of it. And enjoy the time we do have less.
posted by emjaybee at 8:17 AM on May 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
Medical errors are the third-leading cause of death in the US. If you're a doctor this should bother you, a lot.
I'm glad the administration took this step, and I want to see more like it. We work too hard and too long for too little money, and a lot of us die sooner than we have to because of it. And enjoy the time we do have less.
posted by emjaybee at 8:17 AM on May 19, 2016 [11 favorites]
As someone who does knowledge work and went from 60-70 hours weeks to 40-45 hour weeks, my opinion is that you can get a ton done in the shorter time and that if you can't then process efficiency , empowering people, and crushing meetings with a giant rock are where to look . Not asking people to stay late. At the same time it's fair then to ask people to not roll in at 9:20 am or take a 90 minute lunch to check out a cool new place on the far side of town. Come in , get shit done, go home then make pottery or play with the kids or something ...
posted by freecellwizard at 9:44 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by freecellwizard at 9:44 AM on May 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
At the same time it's fair then to ask people to not roll in at 9:20 am or take a 90 minute lunch to check out a cool new place on the far side of town.
This is part of why I think 40 hours is still a bit high from an optimization standpoint. I agree 5-6 end time is ideal to give you a decent evening of life/rest. But for under 55, your circadian rhythm is better suited towards a 10 am start time. And a genuine lunch break is needed to refresh and replenish creativity AND executive function.
I'm hyperaware of this since I struggle to balance anxiety and ADD. It's hard to do much more for my ADD without exacerbating my anxiety, and vice versa. So I'm aware of my executive function spoons. Long work weeks are possible, but they require a bit more micromanagement, and I've had to feel comfortable checking in that I haven't gotten off track or started to make stupid mistakes.
I know it holds me back professionally. Promotions are for 110% folks. And while I've created a pretty solid track record that I'm MORE productive at 35 hours, it's just hard to process that as excellent employee. It's assumed I just have a smaller role. And while that annoys me on a meta level, it's a better life for me to stay at this career role until I get healthier. Which I may not.
I'm sympathetic that we can't overthrow the system all at once without disastrous results. Particularly in the case of healthcare. But that's simply evidence of a sick system. Not a sustainable model. Killing people through medical mistakes or medical neglect is not a dilemma we should pick between. Continuity of care is important in crisis scenarios. But the body shouldn't do it on an ongoing basis. There are dozens of initiatives we could pursue if we had the political will, and the insight to realize America thinks it is exempt from exhausting their executive function BECAUSE its executive function is exhausted.
posted by politikitty at 11:44 AM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is part of why I think 40 hours is still a bit high from an optimization standpoint. I agree 5-6 end time is ideal to give you a decent evening of life/rest. But for under 55, your circadian rhythm is better suited towards a 10 am start time. And a genuine lunch break is needed to refresh and replenish creativity AND executive function.
I'm hyperaware of this since I struggle to balance anxiety and ADD. It's hard to do much more for my ADD without exacerbating my anxiety, and vice versa. So I'm aware of my executive function spoons. Long work weeks are possible, but they require a bit more micromanagement, and I've had to feel comfortable checking in that I haven't gotten off track or started to make stupid mistakes.
I know it holds me back professionally. Promotions are for 110% folks. And while I've created a pretty solid track record that I'm MORE productive at 35 hours, it's just hard to process that as excellent employee. It's assumed I just have a smaller role. And while that annoys me on a meta level, it's a better life for me to stay at this career role until I get healthier. Which I may not.
I'm sympathetic that we can't overthrow the system all at once without disastrous results. Particularly in the case of healthcare. But that's simply evidence of a sick system. Not a sustainable model. Killing people through medical mistakes or medical neglect is not a dilemma we should pick between. Continuity of care is important in crisis scenarios. But the body shouldn't do it on an ongoing basis. There are dozens of initiatives we could pursue if we had the political will, and the insight to realize America thinks it is exempt from exhausting their executive function BECAUSE its executive function is exhausted.
posted by politikitty at 11:44 AM on May 19, 2016 [6 favorites]
I'm MORE productive at 35 hours, it's just hard to process that as excellent employee.
I think it's willful on the part of management. not really very difficult. a simple redefinition of productivity as 'producing correct output' as opposed to 'producing *any* output'. that and the conflation of being-physically-in-the-office with doing-work (which is better for tech people, but not so much for anyone else).
posted by j_curiouser at 12:12 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it's willful on the part of management. not really very difficult. a simple redefinition of productivity as 'producing correct output' as opposed to 'producing *any* output'. that and the conflation of being-physically-in-the-office with doing-work (which is better for tech people, but not so much for anyone else).
posted by j_curiouser at 12:12 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can understand that pessimistic viewpoint. But I think while it's a simple redefinition, it's not an easy redefinition. I'm in a niche role, and the only such person in my department. It's necessary, but my director and vp have zero experience in it. They don't know the difficulty of any given project. They just expect it to never negatively affect the bottom line. So their benchmarks of my effectiveness is indirect. It's perfectly human to discount the effort required to do the things we don't fully understand.
Without that understanding, time spent is the most readily available heuristic. It's due to human distortion and cultural bias, but I'm completely sympathetic to how difficult it is to recognize how unreliable our judgement is in any given situation. If you can't trust your judgement, it's hard to create a useful decision tree.
posted by politikitty at 1:46 PM on May 19, 2016
Without that understanding, time spent is the most readily available heuristic. It's due to human distortion and cultural bias, but I'm completely sympathetic to how difficult it is to recognize how unreliable our judgement is in any given situation. If you can't trust your judgement, it's hard to create a useful decision tree.
posted by politikitty at 1:46 PM on May 19, 2016
It's perfectly human to discount the effort required to do the things we don't fully understand.
Without that understanding, time spent is the most readily available heuristic. It's due to human distortion and cultural bias, but I'm completely sympathetic to how difficult it is to recognize how unreliable our judgement is in any given situation. If you can't trust your judgement, it's hard to create a useful decision tree.
I agree with this clarification. I also believe management and executives are capable of reading the above excerpt and acknowledging their dependency on a low-correlation proxy for productivity. They choose not to. The younger me thought they were all idiots. The current me thinks:
posted by j_curiouser at 3:57 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Without that understanding, time spent is the most readily available heuristic. It's due to human distortion and cultural bias, but I'm completely sympathetic to how difficult it is to recognize how unreliable our judgement is in any given situation. If you can't trust your judgement, it's hard to create a useful decision tree.
I agree with this clarification. I also believe management and executives are capable of reading the above excerpt and acknowledging their dependency on a low-correlation proxy for productivity. They choose not to. The younger me thought they were all idiots. The current me thinks:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”/cynicism
― Upton Sinclair
posted by j_curiouser at 3:57 PM on May 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Obama Overtime Plan Won’t Hurt Businesses, Executives Admit
posted by homunculus at 12:04 PM on May 26, 2016
posted by homunculus at 12:04 PM on May 26, 2016
« Older Letters make nice buildings | The Queen's Speech - BBC at-a-glance Summary Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by numaner at 7:45 AM on May 18, 2016 [32 favorites]