This guy should now his rights as a worker. I think that if you don't take action against the management within a reasonable amount of time, you should lose the ability to do so...at least he lives in a state where they can't fire you for no reason... try being a union supporter in a "right-to work-state" like Texas!
However he was classified is mostly irrelevant. If he was paid an annual salary (as opposed to an hourly wage) and he accepted that as terms of his employment then that's the agreement both sides need to abide by. He was apparently accepting of those terms for 12 years.
There are pros and cons of being a salaried (exempt) vs hourly (non-exempt) employee. You have a guaranteed salary (not subject to the number of hours you may or may not work) in exchange for being expected to be flexible in your hours (including working over 40 hours/week).
Just to be clear, there is a common misconception that the difference between being exempt and non-exempt for overtime turns on whether you are salaried or hourly. The distinction is much more complicated than that, and turns more on the type of work that you do rather than how you are paid. In short, employers cannot simply escape overtime laws by paying workers a salary rather than hourly compensation. I don't know anything about the details of this person's employment, but wanted to point out that the legal distinction may not be quite so clear.
The way I read the article, he is saying that Apple had non-exempt positions. Apple decided that the OT the techs were getting was too much so they reclassified their positions or promoted them into "senior" positions. Those positions were essentially the same positions just without OT, which, if true and found guilty, would be a violation of Fair Pay Law. The complaint would hinge on the word Systematic, it would be different if he hired into a position that was exempt. If the title of the position was changed only to make the position exempt that would be a possible law suit.
There must be different laws in CA because I've seen it happen in both Texas and Ohio - people who are hourly are given an option - we'll lay you off or you can become a "direct" (exempt/salary, whatever you want to call it) and nothing ever happened, legally speaking, in those cases. Again, as I said, we would all like to think that Apple would adhere to the "nature" of the law, however, they are also responsible to their share holders and as such they will use the law that same way every other big company does - to kill OT for every person they possibly can. That doesn't mean it's right but what I suggested was that you go after the people who MADE the law - not those who use it. It's the US Gov't that allowed for this so called direct vs non-direct classification and they are the ones limiting "fair pay."
However, I will tell you that if all salaried/direct/exempt employees began getting 1.5x OT you'd see an even larger spread between the wealthy and the poor. More upper-middle class would become wealthy and more lower-middle class would become poor. Also, something to think about, if the company can't make money to keep their shareholders happy what are they going to do? 1) Move overseas or 2) Raise prices. Neither one of those situations is good for anyone in America. It's almost a necessary evil I'm afraid to say...
Just to be clear, there is a common misconception that the difference between being exempt and non-exempt for overtime turns on whether you are salaried or hourly. The distinction is much more complicated than that, and turns more on the type of work that you do rather than how you are paid. In short, employers cannot simply escape overtime laws by paying workers a salary rather than hourly compensation. I don't know anything about the details of this person's employment, but wanted to point out that the legal distinction may not be quite so clear.
Idk, I work with hourly guys who get 1.5x OT and they are doing the exact same job I am (Engineering). I'm sure there's more to it but I've never known any person on "salary" that got 1.5x OT and conversely I've never known an hourly person that didn't get 1.5x OT (if they were allowed to work it).
I wish my office had better snacks in the snack machine but I wouldn't sue them over it. You want OT? Work an hourly job! As a network engineer you make well into middle 6 figures, this isn't an $8 an hour guy begging for his OT.
Douche.
I see no mention of this person making middle 6 figures anywhere. I don't know about the U.S. but a Network Engineer (even Senior) wouldn't be making that in Ireland as a salaried employee. Maybe if this person was a contractor.
How come everyone is making this guy the villain out of hand? Even if labor practices in the US generally are abusive and suck, why does that make it in any way acceptable? Apple is a big employer, a big corporation and just because we love most things Apple the company should not be above criticism. Anyone who takes a stand against unfair labour practices gets my vote. Individuals fighting for a decent living wage against a corporation flush with cash should get support, given that their claims are legitimate, which as I think most people know, they usually are. If Apple is screwing its employees they should be taken to task. This is not a dumbass patent claim.
I heartily agree. And while I love Apple's products, that doesn't mean I love the company. If Apple is ('are' for some of you Brits) breaking labor laws, as a court may decide, I want to see them forced to take their medicine and clean up their act.
How come everyone is making this guy the villain out of hand? Even if labor practices in the US generally are abusive and suck, why does that make it in any way acceptable? Apple is a big employer, a big corporation and just because we love most things Apple the company should not be above criticism. Anyone who takes a stand against unfair labour practices gets my vote. Individuals fighting for a decent living wage against a corporation flush with cash should get support, given that their claims are legitimate, which as I think most people know, they usually are. If Apple is screwing its employees they should be taken to task. This is not a dumbass patent claim.
A couple of points
1) "unfair" is, again, a completely nebulous term and means different thinks to virtually everyone and
2) let's not kid ourselves here - what most people consider a "decent living wage" is way less than what Apple pays a Senior Network Engineer.
I am quite certain that he/she is easily making enough to earn a decent living wage but again that gets back to our own personal definition of what is "fair pay"...
I see no mention of this person making middle 6 figures anywhere. I don't know about the U.S. but a Network Engineer (even Senior) wouldn't be making that in Ireland as a salaried employee. Maybe if this person was a contractor.
It's a bit hard to compare different countries as there are a number of factors at play - not the least of which is the value of the currency. And yeah, considering they are in CA and this guy has been w/ the company 12 years I don't think it's at all a strech to think he makes at least 100k. Again there's no documentation for that but considering I'm in Texas and the Cost of Living is much less and Senior Network Engineers w/ 12 years experience make that much here I'm very inclined to believe they make at least that much in CA.
I see nothing wrong with having "Senior" added to your position. It usually means you are making more money. It should, anyway.
On the other hand support people do get abused in the industry. I've seen it. Worst thing is, every once in a while management sends down an e-mail congratulating them on their effort and teamwork and how much the rest of the company appreciates them. They may even get a physical token, a plaque or in Apple's case I suppose an engraved iPod or something. This usually happens after a particularly trying period of overwork.
On the other hand, a lot of these folks collect grievances but seldom complain to their boss. They are also the ones who say they don't want to touch a line of code.
I think management is unfair and unwise to abuse these people, but that they themselves don't do enough about it in a timely and articulate manner, so you end up with a lawsuit like this one. Apple probably deserves it, but the guy should ask himself why he waited 12 years to do something. My patience would have run out at 12 months if it was as bad as he says.
Yeah, I have, really. Its just that when Apple is accused of something people often jump to the defense a little too quickly. If I feel that Apple may be wrong it really pisses me off as in my deluded world Apple should somehow be above large corporate practices where profit comes at the expense of its own employees, or the environment, or whatever. It's not as if Apple is about to go under and people will be laid off. I know, I'm an idealist.
It's a bit hard to compare different countries as there are a number of factors at play - not the least of which is the value of the currency. And yeah, considering they are in CA and this guy has been w/ the company 12 years I don't think it's at all a strech to think he makes at least 100k. Again there's no documentation for that but considering I'm in Texas and the Cost of Living is much less and Senior Network Engineers w/ 12 years experience make that much here I'm very inclined to believe they make at least that much in CA.
I agree at least $100K after 12years (?66K). The company I work for has relatively similar pay scales accross U.S.U.K./Ireland for its IT jobs. It was just when I read middle 6 figures I thought of 300-600K which made me post.
In any case fair play to him if what he says is true.....
I agree at least $100K after 12years (?66K). The company I work for has relatively similar pay scales accross U.S.U.K./Ireland for its IT jobs. It was just when I read middle 6 figures I thought of 300-600K which made me post.
In any case fair play to him if what he says is true.....
Oh yeah, no way he's making 300-500k. I think what the poster originally meant (and I'm just speculating here) was middle 100k - like 150k or there abouts. That's much more believable. In fact, I don't know anyone in my company (over 130k employees) that makes more than 200k that isn't in a managerial position (they publish the pay scales, internally, so that's a fairly easy evaluation to make).
Has anyone ever seen an employee at a bank without a VP on their card?
now that's its own bit of funnyness -- often at banks, a vp is defined as one of the many poor jacka**es who have to show up at 6 am once a month to enter their portion of the bank vault combinations in. Yet another example of silly titles being added to positions to force people to accept different pay scales or responsibilities.
like most things reported in the press, this is vague enough to reasonably argue either side. I have no doubt that Apple has played the role of "jerk" more often than not, but this seems to be a question of legal practices, and I think that Apple is a smart enough company to know exactly how to skirt the line between cheap and legal so that they are fully protected.
They're such a high profile company, its unlikely that they could get away with this kind of stuff for long if it was illegal.
That said, I'm betting one of two outcomes -- (1) this suit goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing, ultimately ruining this guy financially or (2) this suit dissapears with an "undisclosed settlement" -- likely as a mechanism for Apple to kill the bad press rather than as an admission of guilt.
but, I am a fanboy and not a lawyer, so what do I know?
Idk, I work with hourly guys who get 1.5x OT and they are doing the exact same job I am (Engineering). I'm sure there's more to it but I've never known any person on "salary" that got 1.5x OT and conversely I've never known an hourly person that didn't get 1.5x OT (if they were allowed to work it).
I should have been more clear - what I meant to say was that the tests for being classified as "exempt" are more complicated than just whether or not a person receives a salary. Generally speaking, an hourly employee will be non-exempt, i.e., they will be entitled to overtime. Salaried employees may be exempt if they also meet other requirements related to the type of work they perform. Generally, the higher the level training and/or managerial nature of the job, the more likely it is to be exempt. In your case, engineers are generally considered part of a "learned profession" and therefore are exempt (unless they are paid hourly). On the other hand, you probably cannot take a cashier at the local convenience store and pay them on a salaried basis to avoid overtime. My point was meant to be more general - that the legal basis for this person's claim will likely turn on more than his title and how he was paid.
FWIW, this is not an area of expertise for me - I used to run a small tech company, and I remember that compliance with these regs (which have changed since then) was always an issue.
Wah... cry me a river. Go work as a network engineer for another company and see what happens. When you take or keep a job which leaves you on call, you are on call, and that is just something you have to deal with. If you don't like it, then go get another job. If you don't want to work on salary, go get another job (but good luck in your field). Just another pitch for free money...
Idk, I work with hourly guys who get 1.5x OT and they are doing the exact same job I am (Engineering). I'm sure there's more to it but I've never known any person on "salary" that got 1.5x OT and conversely I've never known an hourly person that didn't get 1.5x OT (if they were allowed to work it).
You should meet my wife, who along with many other salaried management people got paid OT by Motorola before she retired. She was the training manager, and she got a lot of OT. At the next level, division heads, did not get paid OT.
This particular case has a bad smell to it. It took him 12 years to complain? There is a built in remedy to these situations, if one doesn't like the setup, they can leave. If the employer is so odious, then they wouldn't be able to fill the positions, if people simply refused to work under conditions that they find unacceptable. OTOH, most employers are not there to cater to people's sensibilities, and many employees think that the only reason the company exists is to please them.
Apple has a responsibility to it's shareholders to operate as lean as possible. That doesn't mean that they have the right to ignore labor laws, but then, it hasn't yet been established that they are guilty of that.
Comments
Thank you, comrade!
Yes, because only a communist would expect corporations to adhere to labor laws.
Pull your head out of your ass.
However he was classified is mostly irrelevant. If he was paid an annual salary (as opposed to an hourly wage) and he accepted that as terms of his employment then that's the agreement both sides need to abide by. He was apparently accepting of those terms for 12 years.
There are pros and cons of being a salaried (exempt) vs hourly (non-exempt) employee. You have a guaranteed salary (not subject to the number of hours you may or may not work) in exchange for being expected to be flexible in your hours (including working over 40 hours/week).
Just to be clear, there is a common misconception that the difference between being exempt and non-exempt for overtime turns on whether you are salaried or hourly. The distinction is much more complicated than that, and turns more on the type of work that you do rather than how you are paid. In short, employers cannot simply escape overtime laws by paying workers a salary rather than hourly compensation. I don't know anything about the details of this person's employment, but wanted to point out that the legal distinction may not be quite so clear.
The way I read the article, he is saying that Apple had non-exempt positions. Apple decided that the OT the techs were getting was too much so they reclassified their positions or promoted them into "senior" positions. Those positions were essentially the same positions just without OT, which, if true and found guilty, would be a violation of Fair Pay Law. The complaint would hinge on the word Systematic, it would be different if he hired into a position that was exempt. If the title of the position was changed only to make the position exempt that would be a possible law suit.
There must be different laws in CA because I've seen it happen in both Texas and Ohio - people who are hourly are given an option - we'll lay you off or you can become a "direct" (exempt/salary, whatever you want to call it) and nothing ever happened, legally speaking, in those cases. Again, as I said, we would all like to think that Apple would adhere to the "nature" of the law, however, they are also responsible to their share holders and as such they will use the law that same way every other big company does - to kill OT for every person they possibly can. That doesn't mean it's right but what I suggested was that you go after the people who MADE the law - not those who use it. It's the US Gov't that allowed for this so called direct vs non-direct classification and they are the ones limiting "fair pay."
However, I will tell you that if all salaried/direct/exempt employees began getting 1.5x OT you'd see an even larger spread between the wealthy and the poor. More upper-middle class would become wealthy and more lower-middle class would become poor. Also, something to think about, if the company can't make money to keep their shareholders happy what are they going to do? 1) Move overseas or 2) Raise prices. Neither one of those situations is good for anyone in America. It's almost a necessary evil I'm afraid to say...
Just to be clear, there is a common misconception that the difference between being exempt and non-exempt for overtime turns on whether you are salaried or hourly. The distinction is much more complicated than that, and turns more on the type of work that you do rather than how you are paid. In short, employers cannot simply escape overtime laws by paying workers a salary rather than hourly compensation. I don't know anything about the details of this person's employment, but wanted to point out that the legal distinction may not be quite so clear.
Idk, I work with hourly guys who get 1.5x OT and they are doing the exact same job I am (Engineering). I'm sure there's more to it but I've never known any person on "salary" that got 1.5x OT and conversely I've never known an hourly person that didn't get 1.5x OT (if they were allowed to work it).
Um, why didn't you quit?
I wish my office had better snacks in the snack machine but I wouldn't sue them over it. You want OT? Work an hourly job! As a network engineer you make well into middle 6 figures, this isn't an $8 an hour guy begging for his OT.
Douche.
I see no mention of this person making middle 6 figures anywhere. I don't know about the U.S. but a Network Engineer (even Senior) wouldn't be making that in Ireland as a salaried employee. Maybe if this person was a contractor.
How come everyone is making this guy the villain out of hand? Even if labor practices in the US generally are abusive and suck, why does that make it in any way acceptable? Apple is a big employer, a big corporation and just because we love most things Apple the company should not be above criticism. Anyone who takes a stand against unfair labour practices gets my vote. Individuals fighting for a decent living wage against a corporation flush with cash should get support, given that their claims are legitimate, which as I think most people know, they usually are. If Apple is screwing its employees they should be taken to task. This is not a dumbass patent claim.
I heartily agree. And while I love Apple's products, that doesn't mean I love the company. If Apple is ('are' for some of you Brits) breaking labor laws, as a court may decide, I want to see them forced to take their medicine and clean up their act.
How come everyone is making this guy the villain out of hand? Even if labor practices in the US generally are abusive and suck, why does that make it in any way acceptable? Apple is a big employer, a big corporation and just because we love most things Apple the company should not be above criticism. Anyone who takes a stand against unfair labour practices gets my vote. Individuals fighting for a decent living wage against a corporation flush with cash should get support, given that their claims are legitimate, which as I think most people know, they usually are. If Apple is screwing its employees they should be taken to task. This is not a dumbass patent claim.
A couple of points
1) "unfair" is, again, a completely nebulous term and means different thinks to virtually everyone and
2) let's not kid ourselves here - what most people consider a "decent living wage" is way less than what Apple pays a Senior Network Engineer.
I am quite certain that he/she is easily making enough to earn a decent living wage but again that gets back to our own personal definition of what is "fair pay"...
I see no mention of this person making middle 6 figures anywhere. I don't know about the U.S. but a Network Engineer (even Senior) wouldn't be making that in Ireland as a salaried employee. Maybe if this person was a contractor.
It's a bit hard to compare different countries as there are a number of factors at play - not the least of which is the value of the currency. And yeah, considering they are in CA and this guy has been w/ the company 12 years I don't think it's at all a strech to think he makes at least 100k. Again there's no documentation for that but considering I'm in Texas and the Cost of Living is much less and Senior Network Engineers w/ 12 years experience make that much here I'm very inclined to believe they make at least that much in CA.
On the other hand support people do get abused in the industry. I've seen it. Worst thing is, every once in a while management sends down an e-mail congratulating them on their effort and teamwork and how much the rest of the company appreciates them. They may even get a physical token, a plaque or in Apple's case I suppose an engraved iPod or something. This usually happens after a particularly trying period of overwork.
On the other hand, a lot of these folks collect grievances but seldom complain to their boss. They are also the ones who say they don't want to touch a line of code.
I think management is unfair and unwise to abuse these people, but that they themselves don't do enough about it in a timely and articulate manner, so you end up with a lawsuit like this one. Apple probably deserves it, but the guy should ask himself why he waited 12 years to do something. My patience would have run out at 12 months if it was as bad as he says.
Haven't you figured it out yet?
If someone sues Apple, Apple is in the right.
If Apple sues someone, Apple is in the right.
It's a bit hard to compare different countries as there are a number of factors at play - not the least of which is the value of the currency. And yeah, considering they are in CA and this guy has been w/ the company 12 years I don't think it's at all a strech to think he makes at least 100k. Again there's no documentation for that but considering I'm in Texas and the Cost of Living is much less and Senior Network Engineers w/ 12 years experience make that much here I'm very inclined to believe they make at least that much in CA.
I agree at least $100K after 12years (?66K). The company I work for has relatively similar pay scales accross U.S.U.K./Ireland for its IT jobs. It was just when I read middle 6 figures I thought of 300-600K which made me post.
In any case fair play to him if what he says is true.....
I agree at least $100K after 12years (?66K). The company I work for has relatively similar pay scales accross U.S.U.K./Ireland for its IT jobs. It was just when I read middle 6 figures I thought of 300-600K which made me post.
In any case fair play to him if what he says is true.....
Oh yeah, no way he's making 300-500k. I think what the poster originally meant (and I'm just speculating here) was middle 100k - like 150k or there abouts. That's much more believable. In fact, I don't know anyone in my company (over 130k employees) that makes more than 200k that isn't in a managerial position (they publish the pay scales, internally, so that's a fairly easy evaluation to make).
Has anyone ever seen an employee at a bank without a VP on their card?
now that's its own bit of funnyness -- often at banks, a vp is defined as one of the many poor jacka**es who have to show up at 6 am once a month to enter their portion of the bank vault combinations in. Yet another example of silly titles being added to positions to force people to accept different pay scales or responsibilities.
like most things reported in the press, this is vague enough to reasonably argue either side. I have no doubt that Apple has played the role of "jerk" more often than not, but this seems to be a question of legal practices, and I think that Apple is a smart enough company to know exactly how to skirt the line between cheap and legal so that they are fully protected.
They're such a high profile company, its unlikely that they could get away with this kind of stuff for long if it was illegal.
That said, I'm betting one of two outcomes -- (1) this suit goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing, ultimately ruining this guy financially or (2) this suit dissapears with an "undisclosed settlement" -- likely as a mechanism for Apple to kill the bad press rather than as an admission of guilt.
but, I am a fanboy and not a lawyer, so what do I know?
Idk, I work with hourly guys who get 1.5x OT and they are doing the exact same job I am (Engineering). I'm sure there's more to it but I've never known any person on "salary" that got 1.5x OT and conversely I've never known an hourly person that didn't get 1.5x OT (if they were allowed to work it).
I should have been more clear - what I meant to say was that the tests for being classified as "exempt" are more complicated than just whether or not a person receives a salary. Generally speaking, an hourly employee will be non-exempt, i.e., they will be entitled to overtime. Salaried employees may be exempt if they also meet other requirements related to the type of work they perform. Generally, the higher the level training and/or managerial nature of the job, the more likely it is to be exempt. In your case, engineers are generally considered part of a "learned profession" and therefore are exempt (unless they are paid hourly). On the other hand, you probably cannot take a cashier at the local convenience store and pay them on a salaried basis to avoid overtime. My point was meant to be more general - that the legal basis for this person's claim will likely turn on more than his title and how he was paid.
To anyone who is interested, you can get a summary of the federal regulations at: http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
FWIW, this is not an area of expertise for me - I used to run a small tech company, and I remember that compliance with these regs (which have changed since then) was always an issue.
Idk, I work with hourly guys who get 1.5x OT and they are doing the exact same job I am (Engineering). I'm sure there's more to it but I've never known any person on "salary" that got 1.5x OT and conversely I've never known an hourly person that didn't get 1.5x OT (if they were allowed to work it).
You should meet my wife, who along with many other salaried management people got paid OT by Motorola before she retired. She was the training manager, and she got a lot of OT. At the next level, division heads, did not get paid OT.
This particular case has a bad smell to it. It took him 12 years to complain? There is a built in remedy to these situations, if one doesn't like the setup, they can leave. If the employer is so odious, then they wouldn't be able to fill the positions, if people simply refused to work under conditions that they find unacceptable. OTOH, most employers are not there to cater to people's sensibilities, and many employees think that the only reason the company exists is to please them.
Apple has a responsibility to it's shareholders to operate as lean as possible. That doesn't mean that they have the right to ignore labor laws, but then, it hasn't yet been established that they are guilty of that.
As I've said before, people who begin their posts with "um" invariably turn out to be idiots.
Douche.
Obama says "um" a lot, as well as "ah" and "uh"!
Obama says "um" a lot, as well as "ah" and "uh"!
Yeahbut,everyone knows that he's an idiot.