this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
757 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
59390 readers
2543 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s a whole other topic.
Same topic, bud.
It has nothing to do with double dipping or the way the article describes it which isn't really what the word means. Having two jobs you work during different hours is usually fine. Working them during the same hours is the issue.
You can assert that it's a "problem" all you want, it doesn't make it true. Salaried exempt has a definition which is compatible, in abstract, with working two jobs in the same working day or week span. It has to do with being able to fill the key responsibilities of your job description on a given day or week. If you fulfill those, the rest of the time is yours to do whatever you want with. The expectation is that on the other hand you will work overtime if needed to complete those key aspects without additional pay. That's the definition in a nutshell. You adding stipulations about time and "double dipping", et cetera is fabrication. That's just what companies eventually pushed into being normalized as unwritten law in an ever-present desire to squeeze every single imaginary accounting cent they can out of their most expensive assets. It's high time people pushed back on this bullshit. Most people in office jobs can do their jobs effectively in well under 40 hours. One of the reasons there's so much bureacracy and time wasting in corporate environments is so people can fill up that arbitrary amount of time without 😱 looking like they're doing their jobs in less than 40 hours. Businesses heavily mismanage people (and their bottom line) by assuming every single minute spent on the job as recorded is linearly related to productivity. It's not. You will lose out much more from the inefficiency begat by a toxic culture promoted by those wrong assumptions than the comparatively minuscule gains in imaginary labor value you put down on the accounting journals. There's only so much you can squeeze from people, beyond that it's delusion and negative gains. A good manager understands that the true resource is employee morale, trust, and loyalty; and you can't get that without being realistic about what it means to treat employees like human beings. Jobs used to be 9 to 5, the 40-hour standard was based on half-baked quick math a clueless 10-year-old would've pulled out of their ass, and study after study after study shows nothing but positives both for employers and employees in more efficient and balanced work time structures than the current mass delusion standard.
According to ADP, the DoL, and the FLSA you're wrong.
Can you require exempt employees to work certain hours? 1
Does an exempt employee have to work 40 hours a week? 1
Further you keep making comments about "fill the key responsibilities of your job description" like most workers have extremely specific job duties. This is not the case for salaried-exempt workers: 2
This is a terrible hill to die on. By that logic, most office jobs can be outsourced to India for a third of the cost if all you do is check off a list. If Employers have to deal with people double-dipping, they'll pay a fraction of your salary for it.
It's a two way street. Employees hiding the fact that they are working a second job during the time they are suppose to be working for you is a breach of trust as well.
Wait a minute, now you're trying to double-dip arguments! You can't sit there are argue that the 40 hour work week is bad and inefficient and then claim that a person should be able to work two jobs simultaneously like it wouldn't be even more inefficient or worse for work / life balance. It's absurd that you'd even say that. Your comments more and more are incoherent ramblings of someone who hasn't thought anything through and just wants to complain about work.
-You mean according to the law, I'm right, since it isn't law that you're required to work 40 hours, by definition of salaried exempt
-Yes, filling in key responsibilities is not a perfect science of what that means, which is is why the FLSA and it's enforcing agency the DoL go out of their way to develop logical "tests" on what kind of work should qualify for salaried exempt, a small percentage of which you list (for some odd reason)
What's wrong with checking off a list? Anything is checking off a list. That's not a counter-argument. You're just stating what you wish happens, but just stating assertions doesn't make them true. Employers will get whatever the market will bear in terms of labor negotiations. If that means having to put up with "double-dipping", witches, and bears oh my, idc.
Employees that meet the definition of salaried work and thus have freedom over their time earned from efficiency shouldn't have a problem handling their duties. If they choose to work more for additional pay from someone else at the risk of burnout and expense of their leisure time, so be it. It's not a marriage to an ultra-jealous controlling douchebag, even if you want it to be and redefine anything but complete submission as a "breach of trust".
You are just being deliberately obtuse with hypotheticals. People should be allowed to work two jobs, if they are efficient and wish to sacrifice some of what should be their own time, provided they can actually handle it. Yes, the wins in efficiency by not forcing people to pretend to be productive for 40 hours are there. Anyone with a tenth of a brain that's actually worked in a corporate environment will attest to that intuitively. That doesn't mean in actuality, everyone will be able to work two jobs. Not everyone will have the same available energy left over, nor will choose to spend it that way. If someone wants to exert themselves further, let them. It'll be up to them to manage the possibility of burnout, decide how temporary the situation will be, et cetera. Making another 100% (ballpark) of your salary is not a bad incentive in the short term at least, though companies won't be handing out 100% salary bonuses for efficiency nor performance anytime soon. We all know how little a dollar goes these days, and how wages haven't kept up with inflation for generations. This is one of the results of that.
-"Incoherent ramblings" you sound like a bad small-time manager that blames younger generations for their ineptitude as one. Seethe and keep getting left behind, all that grandstanding is only gonna get you brownie points with your fellow boomers, but it won't actually help you navigate a changing labor market.