August 03, 2005

• If you signed at contract... I'm afraid you're stuck.
• Here's hoping you didn't sign with your own blood... : )
• Your only recourse is to fuck around on the internet as much as possible. Or stare at the wall. A lot.
• Depending on the nature of the business and your agreement, the noncompete may or may not be something that would ever be enforced. I spent a number of years working as an artist for a big videogame developer and publisher (and working really gruesome hours)- as far as I know, we all had to sign contracts saying that we wouldn't work for any other employer in a remotely related industry for two years after leaving the place, but people left all the time to go work for the same-kinda-outfit-down-the-street.
• Yeah, you're stuck, but I think they did a pretty underhanded thing there. I mean, a half hour here & there is one thing, but 2 1/4 hours each day is excessive. They should have disclosed that information willingly - it's assumed, after all, that if you get a job in the USA, you'll be working an 8 hour day. Come to think of it, you might want to put this question to an HR professional there in IL. It could be that they were supposed to notify you of the extended hours before you were hired. Oh, also ask that professional about your state's definition of exempt personnel, which is what a salaried employee is considered. I learned (in CA, though) that about half the people who are "exempt" actually don't meet the criteria & so are entitled to overtime. YMMV, though, since it's a different state.
• Yes. Screwed I think. It does vary by state. Here in CA your classified as either 'exempt' or 'non exempt'. When you're exempt - it sounds nice, but actually it means 'exempt from the law that means you can collect overtime.'... Total arse.
• What minda25 said ... they might have to pay you overtime if you're non-management. However, that could be overridden by any agreement you signed :/
• If you are salaried, you are "exempt" and can be compelled to work as many hours as required for no extra compensation. Some places allow "comp time" in exchange for overtime beyond a certain amount (usually if you work more than 60 hours in a week), but don't count on it. Welcome to corporate life. Get used to it.
• I have to concur here. Occasionally, I have had to work 90 hour work weeks with no overtime or comp time. My boss bought me a Slurpee once, though. Also, I am on call 24/7 with no additional compensation.
• Laws vary by state, but its not as cut and dried as it may seem. In CA, for example, they just passed a law where my boss gets paid OT even though she is on salary. And on a tangent, the agency I am contracted through tried to screw me out of time and a half for OT by claiming "computer professional exemption." Said exemption in CA applies only to people who make over $43 an hr, which I'm not even close to. I guess they thought I was too dumb to use Google. Also in CA, I am told employment contracts are totally unenforcable. So dont be intimidated and find out your rights. "But your signature's on it" is an utterly meaningless argument. Illegal is illegal, no matter what you signed.
• Welcome to corporate life. Get used to it. Or better yet, don't get used to it. Learn your rights, stand up for yourself, choose to be a human being and not a mindless, beaten down, bitter drone.
• Okay, here's where I disagree with most here, in a qualified manner. Do you bring anything useful to the company other than putting in your hours? Would it be a big pain to replace you? Can you get your job (or a reasonable simulacrum therein) done in the 40 hours, give or take? If the answers are all, or mostly, yes, then you have another option. Don't work more than you have to. I know, it's a crazy thought, and not one without its own perils, but you do have the option of not doing what your boss tells you to. They can't put a gun to your head, and the fact that they want you there to do work indicates a certain value on your part. You have the ability to disagree with management dictates up until the point at which you are worth more to them gone than there. The trick is to be good at what you do and don't affect the company morale with your actions. Don't make a big stand, don't give speeches about the inequality of management vs. wage slaves, just do your job, do a good job of it, and leave. Also, if they do let you go, check your non-compete to see if you can work at a competitor under those circumstances. Naturally, you don't want to be fired, but reference checking is difficult these days, and if you're not seriously obnoxious (or maybe especially if you are), they aren't going to tell any reference checkers the situations under which you were let go, only that yes, you worked there between x dates and with what job title. Naturally, your mileage may vary, but there's no intrinsic power to being a boss, just a series of compromises in an attempt to get your employees to do what you want to. Everything is negotiable if you want it to be, especially if you don't try to explicitly negotiate.
• Welcome to the corporate world. By my calculations, you're putting in an average under 50 hours a week. In some industries (do you, perchance have anything to do with TV/Film and/or marketing or web development?) you would be considered lucky. I have, fortunately, switched industries, and have yet to see a repeat of what I did once: a 40 hour day at the end of a workweek which totaled over 120 hours. So the simple answer is, unless you've signed a contract that basically stipulates you'll be there when and for as long as you're told, go look for another job, or do a passive/agressive thing, and meet EXACTLY your contracted requirements and no more. That might frustrate them enough to let you out of both your contract AND your non-compete.
• At least in California, you can be 'exempt' but still be eligible for overtime if you meet certain standards (%age of administrative work, inabilitlty to set one's own schedule, lack of "professional" status and the like.) (All "exempt," in the case of those still eligible for OT pay means, is that you might get docked less for not making 40 hours per week, since they're paying you a salary based on the work you do, not the hours, and, in some cases, you might get more benefits. Kind of a mini-promotion.) When I became really exempt from overtime pay in the 1970s, it was made explicit that the raise I got, to a large extent, was to compensate for OT pay I'd have gotten if I hadn't moved up. Many companies (used to?) offer comp-time to exempt employees who worked lots of hours, so you could take off some time without depleting your vacation hours. But, yeah, in the latter part of my career, 10 hour days were the minimal expectation.
• the company owns me for quite some time due to a nondisclosure/noncompete agreement I foolishly signed What exactly does the noncompete say? You make it sound as if it specificies a length of time after which you are free to go work for a competitor. I've never seen an NCA like that before. All the ones that I've seen say "You cannot go work for a competitor for X years after leaving this company." In which case the company really owns you indefinitely, until you have left and the period of time stated in the agreement has elapsed. Which to my mind means that getting out now is no more or less complicated than getting out 10 years from now. Also, I'm not a lawyer but I've known many people who've violated their NCAs. Only one of the situations turned nasty enough where the employer threatened to sue, but even then they didn't follow through. I'm also curious if this is your first serious job or your first job in a new field. I think it's pretty normal to start out with a shitty employer in any field, learn skills, make connections, and then move on to other companies that have better pay, better management, and better schedules. So if you are just starting out, the time invested now may pay off in the future. That's how it worked for me anyway: I started out with 60 hour weeks; traded that job in for one with 50 hour weeks; and then finally swapped that one for another with 40-hour-on-the dot weeks. Even better, soon I'll prolly have the option of very relaxing 0 zero weeks, once the entire division goes to India. Oh how I love the 21st century. Finally, the posters who suggest just working 40 hours are also on to something. You could at least try that and see what happens. If it does cause problems, they'll probably at least discuss it with you before they fire you, which would give you a chance to adjust your behavior, if need be.
• Where do you want to be in five years? If you want to be on the same merry-go-round, fine, then put in your time. You might be making more money, you might have a lot more "stuff" but it's doubtful you'll have had much of a life. If you stay on the treadmill long enough, you might have an great early retirement with plenty of money to live the way you want. And then again, you might not. I have a real problem with what's happened to the American worker. We're becoming the first world country with the longest work hours, the poorest insurance, the least vacation time--what happened? My advice, work for forty hours a week. Give your company a full and honest forty hours, then go home. If they don't like it, screw 'em. If everyone did that, there would be less advantage taken of everyone. Remember, you were looking for a good job when you found the one you've got now. /bad attitude
• two things. One, talk to a lawyer who specializies in this. I know that courts lean my way in large corporate agreements that *they* drafted. Second. You want a serious way to break it? Again, talk to a lawyer first. What if you suddenly became more religious? IF they interfere with your ability to observe your religion and let you go...or even give you a bad review, you have certain recourse.
• Second the lawyer advice. Laws do vary by state. Texas, for instance, has very strict limitations on non-competes. (Because it makes the labor market more liquid and is thought to be "pro-bidness"). Even so, I signed non-enforcable non-competes more than once, usually in exchange for options that never made any money. In Texas the non-competes had to have a duration in them or they were automatically invalid (or so I was told by a friend in HR). What are the terms of the non-compete? What do you sacrifice if you leave the job?
• Your non-compete agreement is probably worthless. If you find another job - even with a competitor - and quit your present one, they don't have the right to prevent you from making a living. If you don't
• don't know how that happened...my computer locked up and when i rebooted my partial comment was posted...here's the rest: If you don't like your present situation start looking for another job right now.
• Salary is designed to screw you over. Keep in mind that getting a lawyer involved is not going to do much for the company's opinion of you when it comes time for a quarterly review...
• they don't have the right to prevent you from making a living. It's hard to wiggle out of a non-compete. S/he can find other work, just not in the same industry in the same town.
• I've done it several times...and I've even been told by management that it's a toothless clause...they only use it to scare employees. Of course, check with a lawyer first, but I'm pretty sure the onus is on the employer to prove that you're spilling company secrets...and if False K has only been there a short while, he/she probably doesn't know any yet.
• If you found yourself surprised by being required to work more than 40 hours per week, I am going to assume that you are not payed very well or are not eligible for a hefty bonus, and as such, this is fairly junior position. In this instance, any non-compete you may have been asked to sign is not enforceable, and as rocket88 said, really can only extend to non-disclosure of company or trade secrets. Hell, I know Managing Directors at major investment banks that hopped from one firm to the other in the same product and industrial sector, and had no repercussions from it. And ALL those guys signed official enough looking non-competes. If I were you, I would see if I could find out from your manager or recruiter/HR rep why the OT requirement was not specified during the hiring process, and how they intend to compensated you for the over and above commitment (the legally standard work week is still 40 hours, thank you organized labor). They will have to give you some compensation for it, whether in terms of bonus eligibility, OT pay or comp-time (which is uniformly bullshit IMO). If you're not happy with any of those remedies or explanations, I would move on. Personally, I wouldn't work for any employer that insisted upon that much OT without compensation for it, in any economy.
• I'm in Illinois and work in creative fields (web design, illustration, art director, etc.) so I've had to sign those agreements before. I also have a number of friends who are attorneys. They have assured me that the contracts are meaningless for me. That there is no reason why I can't work for whomever doing whatever whenever I please. By making the contracts overly broad they in essence nullify themselves. Like the educational publisher I worked for, there is no concievable reason why I couldn't work for some other educational publishing. It's not like I could give illicit aid to the competitor. "Y'know, the old company thought that Helvetica was their biggest professional edge over you..." What those contracts are good for is stuff like preventing someone from stealing client data, jumping to a competitor and giving them an advantage in the market. This is more what HR people are trying to prevent. But, the over zealously give the form to everyone to be "fair" about the proceedings. Should you ever get hassled down the road just try to get the Illinois Department of Labor involved. They'll ideally help resolve the issue and force the old, now current, company to prove that you doing design for someone else is in violation of some bizarre trade secret of theirs and push the onus on them. So, in terms of the NCA you're just fine. That overtime thing on the other hand just sucks, so deal with it. I've been there and done that and it's why I prefer freelancing. Ideally I charge by the hour, make a good hourly rate and I can pick my projects. Well, I can pick to do it or starve for a while, but still, the choice is mine. But think about it. You're there and you're paid a flat rate. Why not abuse you? If enough people are willing to do it and they keep the chairs full and work gets done then how is it in their interest to keep you at 40 hours a week? Your best bet is to fuck around on the internet, make personal phone calls, play cell phone games in the bathroom and generally take back as much time as you can while you look for another job. Or, just accept your current path.
• In Texas they have an annonymous information line for Wage and Hour through the Department of Labor. (I know people who have had to call them on issues identical to yours, and it's always easier to go to your boss or HR person knowing the exact laws that apply to your case. Often, asking you to work OT with no compensation is illegal, but enough workers do it without question that it *seems* legal, if that makes sense.) I bet that IL has a similar phone number. You can call them with no repercussions, because you can choose to be annonymous. (Just don't call from work, obviously.) I'd call them before I get a lawyer because it's free, and if you decide you need a lawyer at a later date you'll at least have a baseline of information.
• Ok, I looked online. Here is a chart (.pdf) of exactly who is and is not exempt in IL. Here is the website it's from. (heh. IL Dept. of Labor is called "IDOL." That amuses me.) Hopefully that'll help.
• Join a union. It would work in the non-slave-holding countries of Europe, anyway.
• Slip on floor, scream PAIN!, go home. call workmans comp attorney, take a vacation. It` the American Way!
• Here's a great study about the stupidity of companies requiring regular greater-than-40-hour weeks. I simply won't do it. Luckily, I am at a point in my career (as a senior programamer) where I am comfortable saying exactly that during interviews. I frame it the best way I can, something along the lines of "I try to manage my time and my expectations so that huge crunches do not happen. If they do happen occasionally, I am quite willing to do what it takes to get a project out the door, even if it means 12 hour days for a week or two. But I can't sign up for 50-60 hours every week, it is proven to be a net negative for the project, and even moreso on my family life. Hopefully this company understands that...?" I don't say that until the job is pretty much in-the-bag, and I've never had a company back off at that point. Non-competes are garbage. I've *never* seen or heard of one being successfully prosecuted. I have on the other hand seen people get slapped down by judges for trying to enforce them. One lawyer I worked with was told by the judge that he would report her to the ethics board if she ever brought such a foolish waste-of-time case before him again. Priceless. Simply ignore the non-compete, it is just there to scare ignorant people into compliance.
• all the comments here....wow... Let me take a different tact. Yes, salaries suck because they try to take advantage of the working man, but if you get your work done no one's going to ride your ass. How about taking the extra time to learn something, like get better at your skillset or learn something totally new. It seems like you have access to the internet, right? Make an investment in your most valuable asset: yourself. Then the next time you're in the job market a) you're wise to their tactics and b) you have leverage to get what you want.
• I don't see how any company could enforce those extra work hours without some kind of measurable performance or work product outcome. I am also overtime exempt, and I do occasionally need to take calls or stick around on evenings or weekends. But that is directly related to a critical function that I am solely responsible for. My employer would never expect me to hang around a couple extra hours just because. If your job responsibilities are structured so that you would have to routinely put in 9-10 hour days to complete your core duties, something is seriously wrong.
• Hey, where'd False Keraptis go, anyway?
• He's at work, I think. hee hee! Let me add my voice to the chorus of "non-competes are bullshit." We don't even bother with them anymore. Most of just templates with the names and dates changed, and any lawyer worth his salt will cut one to ittybitty pieces. On the other question, of working hours: what you describe is commonplace... until you get past it. There's a certain break point when you reach a level of experience, personal productivity and promotion when (suddenly) you start going home at 5 again. Basically, foolish as it sounds, you're earning your bones with the 50 hours weeks. Suck it up, do good, and eventually that will go away. EXCEPT for if it doesn't. Some shops speccialize in the 'burn them out and replace them often' system of personnel management. I don't know what you do, but I've seen this sort of thing in applications development shops - there are lots of hungry coders, so fresh meat for the grinder isn't easy to find. If this is your situation, it won't get better - get out as soon as is convenient.
• Also: woot Illinois! *waves to FK from the the southwestern corner of our great state, home of Abe Lincoln, the HAL 9000, Gary Coleman, Donald Rumsfeld and, from my adopted hometown, William Holden!*
• If your job responsibilities are structured so that you would have to routinely put in 9-10 hour days to complete your core duties, something is seriously wrong. Arrive a half an hour early, leave a half an hour late is not an uncommon standard in many workplaces and effectively extends your day to nine hours. Now let's talk about the "working lunch hour".
• HAL 9000 I'll have you know that the voice of HAL, one Douglas Rain, is a Winnipeg native.
• Yea, the "working lunch hour" Umhunh, lunch at your desk, what a recipe for stress induced ulcers. Remember that 15 minute break morning and afternoon that was written in to provide humane job conditions? You're sitting on your butt all day, how hard can you be working? A break? What's with that? Notice how everyone seems to give you the fish eye if you have to do something like get a drink or pee? Nevermind getting up to stretch or take a breather. What makes it worse are the slaves who knuckle under and buy into this garbage.
• I used to rationalize smoking as a enforced-by-my-body break. When I quit smoking, I found myself regularly working all day with no break, and getting kind of irritated about that. Now I just go outside as if I am going to smoke, but read instead. People can assume what they like, and I still get my nice breaks.
• Wow, there's some excellent advice here; thanks very much folks. I had no clue the noncompete might be toothless; it just goes to show that knowledge is power. As for just doing all my work and leaving early, it's great advice, but I really do have to work for over nine hours to do it. Meredithea, I'm definitely going to call the Dept. of Labor and see what they have to say. Thanks again to everybody.
• briank, what I meant by "something is seriously wrong" with a grueling work schedule is that perhaps the duties are incorrectly assigned. I see it as a management problem. Any company worth half a damn would not want to burn out its employees like that.
• invoke: I'm working in a no smoking environment now, but every other place I worked, management--smoking or not--was extremely tolerant of multi-cig breaks during the work-day. But hey, go sit down and have a cold drink, or read a magazine article, or do a few low-impact exercises, or take a brisk 5-minute walk, YOU are a slacker. When I was a dumb 17yo doing factory work, I didn't take my fifteen minute breaks, instead opted to take 5 three minute breaks during the course of the day to do the above activities. I wasn't abusing my time, as I placed a three-minute egg timer to time myself and show management I was time-conservative after the first "warning." I was then told that I would be fired after the second warning, or if I took any breaks outside the alotted time frame (which we didn't always get, due to "floor emergencies") I politely quit, and vowed I'd never work anywhere again that an adult had to ask permission to go to the bathroom.
• BlueHorse, I get you loud and clear. I have never tolerated an environment where I wasn't accountable or rewarded for my output within a certain period of time. Plus, I briefly saw "activities" as "anchovies" -- clearly a sign that I need a stronger eyeware prescription, or I need to default to an easier typeface here.
• BlueHorse, you are slamming smokers, the last bastion of labor stability that exists. Yes, we go out and have our frenzied cigarette breaks, but we make the rest of you look sane!