HRTechNews.com » Computer pros: The next OT minefield?

Computer pros: The next OT minefield?

November 18, 2008 by Sam Narisi
Posted in: IT staffing, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Security and law

Of all the confusion over the FLSA’s overtime rules, there’s one part of the law that’s especially problematic for a lot of companies:

The computer professional exemption.

It’s a common misconception that all jobs involving computers are exempt. But in fact, the FLSA’s computer employee exemption is very narrow, covering only employees who earn more than $27.63 per hour or $455 per week and:

  • apply “systems analysis techniques and procedures,” such as consulting with users to determine hardware or software needs
  • design, develop, create, test or modify computer programs based on user design specifications
  • design, develop, create, test or modify programs related to operating systems, or
  • perform a combination of those duties that requires the same level of skill.

Some examples of employees who don’t qualify for the exemption: employees who repair hardware and help desk professionals whose only job is to fix users’ problems.

Note: IT employees who don’t meet the requirements for the computer professional exemption may still be exempt, based on the FLSA’s administrative, executive or professional exemptions.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply


advertisement


advertisement

See what readers are saying...

  • Bob: Some HR professionals will argue that they can't provide a "termination list" to the help desk, due to confidentiality r...
  • Ed: The department manager should have informed the complainantg that tey would have to go to HR. They should have reminded...
  • Mike R: In the first instance, the company took measures to check on its employees (web use) and lost a court case for not repor...
  • john king: Good Job US COC. These fn policies and laws are driving our economy into the ground. Go be racist somewhere else not on ...
  • Jim Rittgers: I see the court decisions as being the opposite of what Mike R. seems to state. The message sent by the Doe v. XYC Corp...
  • Amy K.: Mike R, I disagree. Companies have no obligation to be police officers for their employees. Certainly knowing about so...