the OT issue (was: Contract Techwriters At Microsoft and Boeing?

["Wilcox, John (WWC, Contractor)" <wilcoxj -at- WDNI -dot- COM>]

 ----------
From: Jon Steiner

> 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.

When I first learned about this issue recently, I was concerned, too (as
a TW who lives in the Seattle area).  I even raised a stink with my
agency, which was supporting the proposed law (which recently passed the
legislature, btw).  What I found out was that I was not understanding
the proposed law.  (But then, I was relying on the actual text of the
law, which requires more than my brain to figure out.)  I still don't
agree with the law 100%, but it may actually prove beneficial to us.
Here's what I have now learned, in a nutshell:

1. The new state law was passed because a similar law had passed in 1995
at the federal level, and Microborg et al were wanting to invoke it.
But contractors and agencies were still operating under the old state
law (states rights, 10th amendment, that sort of thing).  Now there's no
longer any confusion (and so much for states rights).

2.  The new law does not prevent TWs such as myself from making
time-and-a-half for OT; it just says it's no longer required.  If a
contractor or an agency can negotiate for 1.5x, that's ok.

3.  As for my situation, I formerly could not work OT, because my agency
wanted to bill 1.5x but Weyerhaeuser wouldn't pay it because it wasn't
in my contract.  Some contractors here do work OT, but AFAIK none makes
1.5x.  So now I may actually be able to get some OT.  I personally don't
care about the 1.5x.  I've never been a union-type guy, and I don't
understand why people think they should get 1.5x.  (Then again, I'm no
Microsoft fan, either.)

4.  One reason the law was supported is that it puts "computer
professionals" in a class formerly reserved for doctors and lawyers.
This might or might not be a good thing.  Unfortunately, you only have
to make $27/hr as a computer professional to fall under the law, but
what doctor or lawyer makes that little?  Hardly equitable.

5.  The law may be unenforceable anyway, because of its vague wording.
It appears that TWs are included, but only those who possess a "high
degree of theoretical knowledge."

For the text of the law, see:
http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/w128-535.htm

For the Concise Explanatory Statement and some statements for and
against the law, see:
http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/otces3.htm

For the press release, see:
http://www.wa.gov/lni/pa/otrule.htm

As for the NWU's statement, it is greatly exaggerated and biased.

> 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.

I agree that it seems to be an attempt by the state's s/w industry
(primarily MS) to save money.  But if your average payroll per person
was $167,000, wouldn't you be trying to find some way to cut it, too?

> 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.

(So since when does a law have to serve a "compelling public interest"?)
:-(

> 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.

If this is so "pernicious," why is that so many TWs and programmers
*want* to become contractors?

>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.

Uh, I don't know any contractors who make less than a comparable
employee.

>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.

Yeah, you wouldn't want those entrepreneurs to make any more profit than
absolutley necessary, would you?

> 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,

It's only MS that has such great stock options.  They are the exception,
not the rule.

>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.

I don't know if any are actually "required" to work OT, but why should a
contractor get 1.5x when a regular employee gets nothing extra?

> 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.

The study I heard of said, I think, $167,000.  Yes, several thousand MS
employees have been able to retire early, but again, these are
exceptions in the s/w industry.  Most TWs and programmers who work OT do
not get anywhere near the bennies that MS gives.

> Total compensation for even the highest paid contract employees in
> Washington's software industry is a fraction of this figure.

It is a fraction, but it's a very nice fraction, and not one that I
could duplicate elsewhere as an employee (except at MS, of course, and
even then it's far from guaranteed).

>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.
<snip>

The usual union bologna.  All the hirelings deserve more and more, but
to hell with the people who were skilled/entrepreneurial/lucky enough to
achieve for themselves and make it possible for all those hirelings to
be hired in the first place.


Regards,

John Wilcox, Documentation Specialist
Timberlands Information Services, Application Delivery Group
Weyerhaeuser, WWC 2E2, Box 2999
Tacoma, WA 98477-2999 USA
253-924-7972  mailto:wilcoxj -at- wdni -dot- com
(I don't speak for Weyerhaeuser, and they return the favor.)