Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:I am planning to move to NC (Score 1) 1167

Instead of taking the story submitter's word for it, why don't you actually read the act in question and the title it modifies? The situation is misrepresented by this story.

This is the current version of the section of the Fair Labor Standards Act that the "CPU" Act seeks to modify.

IT workers have been exempt for as long as I've been salaried. This bill changes who is classified as an IT worker, and also adds a salary requirement to qualify for the exemption.

Comment Learn your laws...IT workers are already exempt (Score 2) 1167

Before you follow this article's lead and go off half-cocked thinking this bill eliminates overtime pay for IT workers, maybe you should go read the bill that was introduced _and the current text of the USC that it's modifying._

Here's the relevent text of the "CPU Act":
        Section 13(a)(17) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)(17)) is amended to read as follows:
                `(17) any employee working in a computer or information technology occupation (including, but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is--
                        `(A) the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;
                        `(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;
                        `(C) directing the work of individuals performing duties described in subparagraph (A) or (B), including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties; or
                        `(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), the performance of which requires the same level of skill;
                who is compensated at an hourly rate of not less than $27.63 an hour or who is paid on a salary basis at a salary level as set forth by the Department of Labor in part 541 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations. An employee described in this paragraph shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity pursuant to paragraph (1).'.

The current text of that section currently reads as follows (retrieved from
"(17) any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is—
(A) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications;
(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;
(C) the design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
(D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) the performance of which requires the same level of skills, and
who, in the case of an employee who is compensated on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an hour. "

I am not a lawyer, but the change isn't to exempt IT workers from overtime. It's to refine the verbiage of who is classified as an exempt IT worker. It seems the terms make the specification more broad, but there is the addition of a minimum salary requirement which might free some employees from the exemption.

Comment Article is filled with myths... (Score 1) 633

1) That the budget surplus meant the national debt wasn't going up. In fact, the actual debt still went up. Social Security footed the bill for what appeared to be a budget surplus, because it is required by law to buy debt instruments when it runs a surplus.

2) That the government was due all the credit for this supposed "Budget Surplus". Clinton and the Congressional Republicans deserve some credit for not going on a spending binge when the coffers were filling up with Internet Bubble tax revenues, but the massive economic expansion was done on the back of a massive paradigm shift in American culture.

3) That Bush could have continued the "Budget Surplus". Even before Bush was elected, the budget surplus was doomed. The Internet Bubble popped and started recession during that election year. Bush massively compounded the problem by continuing the stimulus tax cuts longer than they were needed and dumping loads of money into the Afghanistan/Iraq wars and creating massive government programs like TSA, Medicare drug benefit, and financial policies that devalued the dollar. However, he was never going to have a budget surplus.

4) That Republicans are responsible for the financial mess. Nope, that was bipartisan. Clinton signed a bipartisan bill that deregulated the financial markets and set the wheels in motion for banks to act like the monsters that created the Great Depression, while forcing them to give loans to people that were enormous credit risks.

There are others, but they're so absurd they don't merit comment.

Comment Past is prologue (Score 1) 62

The comments from the Mozilla haters seem pretty short-sighted and stupid.

Apple's first SDK for the iPhone was HTML/JavaScript based. It only failed because the renderer and JavaScript engine was pretty horrid and made it hard to produce good quality apps.

HTML5 is now pretty robust, and between PhoneGap and a UI toolkit (like Dojo Mobile) it is possible to produce good/great applications and be able to take a huge portion of code from iOS to Android to others.

In the end, the bias in software development should be to do as much code as you can in a cross-platform way, and then go native where it really suits the app's requirements. If you do anything else, you're wasting money.

1000 pains = 1 Megahertz