TV folks expect pay for OT, sue

[BDC99]

Unless you are a copy editor, that really is just how the industry is, and it is the nature of the job.

This is why a lot of copy editors hate reporters. Editors work long hours, too.

As for the rest of your post, and other rationalizations about why we work overtime without pay, I say, "That's not my problem. Pay me or I don't work overtime." Period.

And, no, I don't care that not all the work will get done. If you want all the work done every day, you can forking pay for it. That's not an unreasonable request, despite management's best efforts to convince us otherwise.

Being a copy editor, I would normally back you on the first part, but in my situation the big beat writers work WAY more overtime than I have in my entire career. Any copy editor who works more than 40 hours does so by their own choice (and some do). My boss is on salary and he gets here at least 30 minutes before me every day. When I fill in for him, I do the same. I might come in a bit later one other day or I might not. Depends on how I feel, but it's my choice. But anyone who works more than 20 or 30 minutes over 8 hours in a day without getting paid is just dumb. And if I am asked to work an extra shift, I get paid or get a different day off. We pretty much work a straight 8 hours, so sometimes we get dinner, sometimes we don't. And sometimes we get out early, and sometimes we don't. Usually pretty much evens out for the copy editors in my shop.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

From a reporter's perspective…

You can do most jobs in 40 hours. You can't do them well in 40 hours. Every place I have worked would rather you do the job at whatever quality 40 hours accommodates than pay you the overtime required to do the job well. Problem is, you work your way up the ladder by doing the job well. So in most cases, it really is your choice. Is it fair? I don't know. Who says 40 hours is a fair week's work? As the kids say, it is what it is. In most non-unionized situations, bossman can pretty much say, "If you can't do the job in 40 hours, then we will find somebody who can." This is true in most lines of work. If you don't think they can find somebody who can do it in 40 hours, then call their bluff. If they can't, you'll remain employed. If not, you won't. In which case, you can go find a job that pays a market rate that is up to your liking.

I always looked at the hours I "donated" over 40 as an investment in my future. Back in the day, it was sensible to think this way, because going from a $25,000 a year job at a 20,000 circulation paper to a $50,000 a year job at a 100,000 circ paper to a $75,000 a year job at a 250,000 circ paper was realistic. I'm not sure it is sensible today. In fact, I'm pretty sure it is the opposite of sensible, since the $75,000 a year jobs are now $50,000 a year jobs, and there are fewer of them. So it's a lot less likely that the time you invest in yourself will end up paying off.

In my second job, I worked occasional unpaid OT if I was covering something that I'd thought would make for a good clipping. I sure as heck wasn't going to do it to cover a JV swimming event. Point out that you're filling that time, and seek suggestions and feedback (ooh, big corporate buzzword!) on what they want you to cut out.

Usually the bosses will back down when you offer to show them exactly what you're doing.

Plus, if the boss gives you the "We'll find someone who can do it in 40" line, offer to sit down with him and go over what you're actually doing for those 40 hours (unless you're goofing off, of course).

 

[ColdCat]

It's a tragedy of the commons. If one person works 60 hours and bills 40 because he wants to give himself good clips or because he loves the work, it's no big deal. If 30% of the industry does it, then they are screwing over everyone.

I once replaced a guy who routinely worked 60 hours and put himself down for 40. When I got in there, if I worked 45, I was putting 45 on the time card. Guess what the response was from the higher-ups. "The guy before you did a lot more and worked less, why is that?"
You think you're helping yourself, but really you're forking over everyone else. And what does it get you? My first job in TV I worked off the clock all the time. I reasoned that I was still in college and was learning a lot more from actually doing the job than from the professors so I was getting something out of it and besides, it would put me in a great place for a long, successful TV career. Well oops, my TV career stalled out so in the end it was probably not worth it.
Even now I put in quality work, not as much quantity as the department had a few years back when there were more people, but I'll wager any dollar amount you like that my CEO doesn't so much as know my name, let alone how many awards I have on my desk, so what's the point of putting in extra? It won't get me anywhere.

 

[WriteThinking]

Unless you are a copy editor, that really is just how the industry is, and it is the nature of the job.

This is why a lot of copy editors hate reporters. Editors work long hours, too.

As for the rest of your post, and other rationalizations about why we work overtime without pay, I say, "That's not my problem. Pay me or I don't work overtime." Period.

And, no, I don't care that not all the work will get done. If you want all the work done every day, you can forking pay for it. That's not an unreasonable request, despite management's best efforts to convince us otherwise.

Just for the record, there was no insult intended, and I'd hope copy editors wouldn't hate reporters for saying or thinking such a thing. It's just a fact.

If you want anything resembling normal hours, either time- or schedule-wise, or if you want a more-regulated workload in journalism, you go into copy-editing. Indeed, it is often the main motivation for having or taking the position.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Any copy editor who works more than 40 hours does so by their own choice (and some do).

Anyone who works more than 40 hours, period, does so by their own choice.

Either way, it doesn't make unpaid overtime any less illegal.

 

[BDC99]

Any copy editor who works more than 40 hours does so by their own choice (and some do).

Anyone who works more than 40 hours, period, does so by their own choice.

Either way, it doesn't make unpaid overtime any less illegal.

Never said it did. No question about the second part. But if you are on a major beat, you are expected to work more than 40 hours a lot of weeks, and most places use the comp time thing to get around it. It's not right, but it is how it has been for decades (or longer). I'd guess a slew of lawsuits would change things.

 

[I'll never tell]

Any copy editor who works more than 40 hours does so by their own choice (and some do).

Anyone who works more than 40 hours, period, does so by their own choice.

Either way, it doesn't make unpaid overtime any less illegal.

Never said it did. No question about the second part. But if you are on a major beat, you are expected to work more than 40 hours a lot of weeks, and most places use the comp time thing to get around it. It's not right, but it is how it has been for decades (or longer). I'd guess a slew of lawsuits would change things.

Not sure if it's the same way everywhere, but at a former stop, the law said comp time is in fact legal but must be "comped out" in 48 hours after which, if not redeemed, it must become overtime.

While none of us are doing manual labor, how many more professions would really put up with widespread non-payment of overtime in non-salary based jobs? People would probably form unions or such for the mistreatment.

 

[Batman]

Never said it did. No question about the second part. But if you are on a major beat, you are expected to work more than 40 hours a lot of weeks, and most places use the comp time thing to get around it. It's not right, but it is how it has been for decades (or longer). I'd guess a slew of lawsuits would change things.

Maybe a bit naive or just ignorant here, but wouldn't most major beats (meaning any pro or major college beat) be salaried positions? If for nothing more than simplicity?
It seems like trying to keep up with what hours were and weren't worked in what's essentially a 24/7 job would be extremely difficult for employee and employer alike.
I always figured those jobs paid better not just because they were more difficult and top of the food chain jobs, but because the pay rate was adjusted to take into account the extra hours, travel, etc., required.

 

[I'll never tell]

Our beat guys are. The secondary writers on the beats are not.

 

[Versatile]

As I understand it, state law varies as to what types of positions can be salaried. Management sometimes is a requirement.

 

[I'll never tell]

As I understand it, state law varies as to what types of positions can be salaried. Management sometimes is a requirement.

That is very true. At former location, I was salaried. Then I wasn't.

The bean counters found out that they'd misapplied the law for years. Correctly, it said: To be salaried management, your primary duties were managerial and you had to met the requirement of a certain number of employees. Also, you could specifically be performing the duties of those under you.

As I was writing and designing as much if not more than managing, that voided me. As it did the photo editor. The metro editor stayed. Features didn't meet the minimum employees.

They were none too happy.

 

[Johnny Chase]

I know of plenty of people in my company that work unpaid OT. Sure, the sports guys will get comp time, but that's not necessarily the case for news folks.

The reasons are the same ones people have already mentioned in this thread. And it won't change unless someone files a complaint with the department of labor or sues the company.