Be Careful What You Sue For...
---
...you might get it:
Nevertheless, the underlying premise of the disgruntled workers -- that one compensation arrangement is intrinsically "more fair" than another -- is unsustainable. An employee does the work she does and gets paid what she gets paid. That and that alone is where questions of fairness must lie. Why should it matter whether compensation is called "base salary" or "overtime" or "zoop"? What does an employee provide IBM, and what does IBM provide the employee? That is where the question should begin and end.
(Questions of equal pay for equal work, compulsory union dues, glass ceilings, ENDA, etc., are separate topics altogether and best left for future blogposts.)
This sturm und drang is reminiscent of my previous post on paid holidays, which are a fiction. There is no such thing as paying (or being paid) for non-work; there is only paying for work itself. Changing one's paycheck terminology -- just like changing one's work schedule -- is, bottom line, merely rearranging deck chairs: just hope that your ship isn't sinking while you're doing it.
IBM's response to a lawsuit in which the company was accused of illegally withholding overtime pay from some technical employees[:] IBM settled the case for $65 million in 2006 and has now decided that it needs to reclassify 7,600 technical-support workers as eligible for overtime."If you don't like it, then quit..." is of course the beginning, but not necessarily the end, of the analysis. If IBM breached employment contracts or committed fraud upon its job applicants to induce them to work for the company in the first place, then shame on IBM.
But their underlying salary -- the base pay they earn for their first 40 hours of work each week -- will be cut 15 percent to compensate.
IBM spokesman Fred McNeese said the move would not save the company any money, because the affected employees generally should find that overtime pay makes up for the salary cut. However, internal documents obtained by The Associated Press indicate that many workers will lose money.
Nevertheless, the underlying premise of the disgruntled workers -- that one compensation arrangement is intrinsically "more fair" than another -- is unsustainable. An employee does the work she does and gets paid what she gets paid. That and that alone is where questions of fairness must lie. Why should it matter whether compensation is called "base salary" or "overtime" or "zoop"? What does an employee provide IBM, and what does IBM provide the employee? That is where the question should begin and end.
(Questions of equal pay for equal work, compulsory union dues, glass ceilings, ENDA, etc., are separate topics altogether and best left for future blogposts.)
This sturm und drang is reminiscent of my previous post on paid holidays, which are a fiction. There is no such thing as paying (or being paid) for non-work; there is only paying for work itself. Changing one's paycheck terminology -- just like changing one's work schedule -- is, bottom line, merely rearranging deck chairs: just hope that your ship isn't sinking while you're doing it.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
24 January 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.