Contract Techwriters At Microsoft and Boeing?

[Jon Steiner <jons -at- AVI -dot- COM>]

> Hi Folks,
>
> This bit of news worries me, because it seems nowadays if Microsoft
> does something, the rest of the software industry seems to follow in
> its footsteps. If anyone has any experience about what has been
> happening on this front, I'd like to hear about it. If you're curious
> about what you can do (or learn more) visit the website from which
> this was taken (listed below.)
>
> I neither work for Microsoft, for the National Writers Union, and I am
> not familiar with either organization - I am merely interested in
> gathering information about the Seattle technical writing industry,
> and how that might effect me.
>
> --Jon
> __________________________________________________________________
> Jon Steiner
> Applied Visions, Inc.
> 6 Bayview Avenue
> Northport, NY 11768
> jons -at- avi -dot- com
> http://www.avi.com
>
> http://www.nwu.org/nwu/bite/waot2.htm
>
> National Writers Union Statement
> Opposing Removal of Overtime Protection for
> Computer Industry Writers
> Greg Mowat, Program Manager
> Employment Standards
> Department of Labor and Industries
> PO Box 4-4510
> Olympia, WA 98504-4510
> Mr. Mowat:
> We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed Computer
> Overtime Exemption to the Washington Minimum Wage Act, which would
> eliminate time-and-a-half overtime pay for software industry employees
> working under hourly contracts. This proposed change is a transparent
> ploy on the part of the Washington State software industry to get a
> special break from the state government at the expense of temporary
> and contract workers. It serves no compelling public interest and is
> overwhelmingly opposed by thousands of workers who would be directly
> affected by this change in state law.
> Over the last decade, American workers have been subjected to a
> pernicious trend in which corporations have replaced hundreds of
> thousands of salaried positions carrying full benefits with hourly
> "permatemp" jobs. Although many of these hourly employees work
> full-time throughout the year, often doing the same work once done by
> salaried employees, they are granted a fraction of the benefits and
> compensation accorded salaried employees. Removing the overtime
> requirement in Washington would only accelerate this process, allowing
> corporations to continue saving money by skimping on benefits for
> hourly employees and increasingly utilizing so-called temps to fill
> year-round positions.
> Despite the fact that many hourly software industry employees work
> full-time at the same job for years, they generally labor without sick
> leave or holiday pay and have moderate health coverage, if they have
> any at all. They lack any semblance of job security, are not entitled
> to the industry's fabled stock options, and do not get severance pay
> if their job is eliminated without notice. Overtime pay at least
> guarantees that these workers are appropriately compensated when they
> are required to work more than 40 hours per week.
> The software industry is already notorious for its rigorous work
> schedules; software companies such as Microsoft are able to regularly
> demand 50- to 70-hour weeks from their salaried employees because
> compensation packages include salary, bonuses, and stock options.
> Total compensation for Microsoft employees over the past year,
> excluding the company's top five executives, was found to average
> about $220,000, according to a recent study by this state's chief
> economist.
> Total compensation for even the highest paid contract employees in
> Washington's software industry is a fraction of this figure. Yet these
> workers are often called upon to work significant amounts of overtime
> during critical periods in the software production cycle. Eliminating
> overtime pay for these hourly employees would deprive them of a large
> portion of their income and allow an already highly profitable company
> such as Microsoft to save millions of dollars while demanding ever
> increasing hours out of its contract workers.
> In addition, the fact that many high-tech temps are well paid on an
> hourly basis should not eliminate their ability to earn
> time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours per week. These workers
> are well compensated because they have acquired the requisite training
> and experience. In the case of Microsoft or Boeing, they create
> enormous value for very successful companies. They should not be
> singled out and punished by government because their skills are in
> demand. As with any other employee, working more than 40 hours a week
> detracts from their ability to spend time with family and friends. If
> a company wants these workers to put in the extra hours, they deserve
> to be paid at a premium.
> We also view this proposal as just the latest in a series of
> legislative assaults on pro-worker regulations, at both the state and
> federal levels. The changes made to the Fair Labor Standards Act
> (FLSA) at the federal level in 1995, exempting software professionals
> from overtime pay, were simply part of a nationwide effort on the part
> of corporate America to roll back pro-worker regulations that have
> existed for more than 50 years. The right of hourly employees to earn
> overtime pay is among the fundamental workplace rights that were won
> in the past century by the U.S. labor movement -- as are the 40-hour
> week and the right to organize a union. Arguing that this proposed
> change will bring state regulations into alignment with existing
> federal regulations is no justification for changing overtime laws to
> the detriment of thousands of working people in Washington State.
> This proposed change is also bad law. It is loosely worded and could
> be broadly interpreted. Although it aims to exempt software engineers,
> developers and programmers explicitly from overtime pay, the "...or
> other similarly skilled worker..." clause ensures that it could be
> applied to many other employees. Language saying that it would apply
> to workers whose primary duties include "designing, documenting,
> testing, creating or modifying computer systems, applications or
> programs..." could allow the exemption to cover thousands of software
> testers and technical editors and writers. In short, this overtime
> exemption could be interpreted to apply to the majority of the hourly
> employees working in this state's software industry.
> Finally, the two corporations that would likely benefit the most from
> this change, Microsoft and Boeing, are two of the most successful
> companies in the world. They both consistently argue against and
> resist government regulation of their respective industries -- except
> when it benefits them. In this case, they are both supporting an
> effort to get the Washington State government to restrict the earning
> power of hourly software industry workers, for their own benefit.
> Microsoft and Boeing don't need a special break from the state of
> Washington at the expense of temporary and contract employees.
> Sincerely,
> Barbara Clair, NWU, Seattle Local co-chair
> Rebecca Hughes, NWU, Seattle Local co-chair
> Randolph Bentson, Business, Instructional, Technical and Electronic
> (BITE) Writers & Editors Division, NWU, Seattle Local coordinator
> Bruce Hartford, NWU Secretary-Treasurer
> CC: Washington State Governor Gary Locke
>
> Last Modified: December 15, 1997.
>