[theamk]

How is this going to be enforced? Does that mean everyone has to fill timesheets all the time? I've worked in placed with timesheets and without them, and I liked latter ones much better.

Not to mention that even if timesheets were used, they provide no guarantees. We always had to get management permission to put overtime in, but no one really knew how much time we worked - especially with a possibility of remote work.

This can only be fixed by pervasive monitoring, and IMHO this leads to a very unpleasant workspace.

[const_cast]

I work a salary job as a software engineer, I fill timesheets.

Companies love timesheets because, even though you're salary, they want to know what you're doing at all times.

They want all the control of an hourly paid employee, with all the money stealing of a salary position.

Also you're already being tracked, they already know exactly how long you're online. I don't know what to tell you.

[kelseyfrog]

I get it. Time sheets are tedious and frankly, they suck.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating for time sheets. I'm advocating against overtime exemption.

Even so, all other things being equal, if the tedium of timesheets is on one side of the equation and all of the exploitation of unpaid labor is on the other, I'd still rather not be exploited. Working for free, which is what unpaid overtime is, is unsupportable.

There are many examples of non-exempt professionals who deal with this without resorting to spyware or coercion. IT support specialists, paralegals, and lab technicians all have systems that work: simple start/stop time logs or weekly attestations, plus manager pre-approval for overtime. No one is tracking keystrokes and no one is forced into surveillance. It's about accountability. You attest to your hours, managers approve exceptions, and overtime gets paid. That's the balance.

[theamk]

you are making it sound there is an upside in timesheets, but there really is not.

In a current world, manager says: "We have great work-life balance, feel free to work as much or as little as you want! Also, here is an assignment, if this is not done by Friday I'll PIP you, then fire you and you'll get deported. Wink wink, you might want to work more."

In a timesheet world, a manager tells the employee: "Sorry, I cannot approve overtime for you, because I care about you! Also, here is an assignment, if this is not done by Friday I'll PIP you, then fire you and you'll get deported. So make sure you don't record more than 40 hours, but remember we don't really know how much you spend working (wink wink)"

This law might eliminate those insane AI startups which openly advertise 996 schedules, but most requirements of overtime are not that overt.

[kelseyfrog]

Look, we can spin out any nightmare scenario, but the reality today is worse: unpaid overtime is the norm, and people in tech are burning out and even dying from overwork. That's not a hypothetical. It's our current world.

Timesheets arent fun, but they're not the end of the world either. Other skilled professions (IT support, paralegals, lab techs) use simple weekly logs or start/stop tracking without surveillance. They get paid for their overtime. We don't.

If the choice is between tedious record keeping or doing more work for the same pay, the latter is far more exploitative and soul crushing. We can fix the mechanics without ignoring the principle: work more, get paid more.

Honest question: is filling out a timesheet really worse, to you, than working extra hours for free?

[tstrimple]

I'm a salary employee who filled out three fucking separate time sheets last week. Doesn't matter how many hours I work. I have to send these stupid fucking timesheets in. Doesn't matter how many hours I work. I don't qualify for overtime.

[theamk]

Let me try to restate my argument:

If your boss is bad, you are still going to be working extra hours. Timesheets DO NOT PREVENT extra hours for computer programmers (unless there is also pervasive surveillance, like in the worst consulting shops).

Look, I've worked in a few places with timesheets before. In one place, there was a "no overtime" policy. All this means you always put 38 hours on your timesheets, no matter how much time you actually work. Worked 57 hours? Well, you put down 1 hour in your timesheet for every 1.5 hours actually working.

So I am sorry, but your idea is super naive. It's not going to work. It will make life worse, but will not provide benefits.

[kelseyfrog]

If your boss is bad, they'll abuse power no matter the system. I don't disagree. But that's true in every field. So why do IT support, paralegals, and lab techs manage to make non-exempt status work without "pervasive surveillance"?

Help me connect the dots: how do you get from "I had a bad boss who broke the rules" to "therefore we should remove the legal framework that makes rule-breaking punishable"? Because without that framework, exploitation isn't just a possibility, it's legal.

That’s like saying "people will speed, so speed limits don’t work." Sure, some people speed, but the world without those limits and the legal weight behind them is objectively worse.

[close04]

Employee timesheets (salaries, not payed per hour) are never for the employee. They exist only to create a paper trail for the employer to use “as needed”. It will always say what the company or manager needs it to say.

I can’t imagine a scenario where the company creates an abusive OT environment but timesheets foil that.

Some employees will see these situations as an opportunity to show they go the extra mile. Some managers will be more than happy to allow it to reap the benefits. Everyone wins until one of them doesn’t, and that’s usually the overworked person.

P.S. In the speeding analogy the relationship between parties and the conflict of interest are very different. You’re not expected to speed to impress the police, and the police wants to catch you and make money from your mistake.

[theamk]

Where did you get this from: "I had a bad boss who broke the rules"?

Bosses don't just say "you need to work 12 hours today". They say: "You need to get this done by Friday or I'll put you on PIP. Also, you are not authorized for the overtime on this project."

Did this boss break any rules? If yes, which ones? Because I don't see anything how your proposed law will make it this better.

And that should also explain what's special about software engineering:

IT support people get scheduled by an hour, and it's easy to see how much they worked. Boss cannot say "work for 10am to 10pm", _that_ would be clear and obvious rule breaking any judge will understand. And vehicle speed is very simple and unambiguous, so the rules are very simple (even if they are not enforced much).

Software engineers get tasks assigned, and no one can tell how long the task will take - Is "Fix bug 12345 by Friday" a reasonable request or not? Was this engineer put on PIP because they refused to do overtime, or was this because they were genuinely not a good fit for the position? No one can tell.

[whatevaa]

Fuck timesheets. Any creative work doesn't just click on/off at moments notice, nor can you actually sustain 8h focus long term. It's not like physical work where you know exactly when you started and finished.

Don't try to apply rules from one area into another without considering that areas nuances.

[ItsHarper]

I think it can be solved with timesheets and trusting that your employees are filing them out reasonably accurately.

[theamk]

You are an employee and you are overloaded (like the OP). You are worried about getting fired if you don't do enough. Your manager had talked to you about not overworking and said you should not work more than 40 hours. At the same time, the manager said that the company needs only high performers, so you should be working faster. You can't do this, you are already working as fast as you can.

Option 1: you do as told and leave home at 5pm. You spend 40 hours per week exactly, but work is not getting done, so people are complaining about your performance. Your manager is putting more pressure on you, you are worried about getting fired.

Option 2: you record 40 hours per week, but actually work for 80. Sure your home life suffers but at least the manager is off your back. You are getting compliments about performance and vague promises about raise sometimes in the future maybe.

Which option do you think people will choose?

[kelseyfrog]

Therefore, we should not have a legal basis for overtime? That's insupportable.

Give people who want it a legal foundation for getting paid for the work they do and people who find themselves in the situation you describe can chart their own path out.

If you want to fudge numbers and be complicit in your own exploitation, you do you. But please, don't undermine everyone else's legal infrastructure to get paid for the work they do.

[theamk]

Can you answer my question please? Even with your proposed law, there are only two options - work exactly 40 hours and risk PIP; or lie on timesheet.

Which would you choose? Based on "be complicit in your own exploitation", I am guessing you'd choose option 1, work exactly 40 hours, don't get things done on time, and make your boss unhappy? Well, good news: you can do this today, even if you are exempt, no need to ask for a law.

(I suspect you are hoping for option 3, "get my boss to approve overtime so I can work extra hours, get all the stuff done, and get extra $$$". This won't happen. If the boss is evil, they really see no upside in this so they won't approve the overtime. If the boss is nice, they won't give you too many tasks to begin with.)