TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Shirley Kondek wondered: <<We're currently looking to add a couple
full-time/permanent tech writers, and I assumed that they would be
classified exempt.>>
From context, I assume that you mean they are not entitled to overtime
no matter how many hours they work?
<<An inexperienced new boss came back from HR with new job descriptions
for Tech Writer I, II, III - and they are non-exempt.>>
Let's hear it for inexperience. My not particularly humble opinion is
that nobody should be forced to work more than occasional and minimal
overtime without being compensated for this. Among other things,
there's no way to demonstrate our true costs and true value if our
hours are devalued in this manner.
If your HR department accepted this classification, my seditious advice
is to accept this, and once the situation has endured long enough to
become status quo, ask that all other techwhirlers in your group
receive the same status. Of course, you have to be pretty confident in
your company's stability and your own importance to your boss to try
this, since there's a risk that the additional costs this is likely to
generate might lead to layoffs.
It's up to you whether you're willing to stand on principle or the
desire for compensation for your work to make a point despite this
risk. (Not being sarcastic here. For some people, the principle really
is important. At my last job, I made "reasonable overtime" a condition
for my employment, but (a) I had the chops to insist on this and (b)
they needed me or someone else desperately and couldn't really
negotiate on this point. More importantly, (c) they actually had a clue
and treated employees like humans.)
<<I understand some people might like the chance to be paid for their
overtime, but I see this as a loss in the fight for professional
standing since they are now classified as office - clerical. There are
also other repercussions to the classification.>>
If this is a true demotion in any practical sense, then it's a
significant enough point that my recommendations above may not apply.
But if it's nothing more than a name on a chart, with no practical
significance, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. We earn our respect
based on our performance on the job, not based on our titles. If the
managers who hire and fire us only recognize us from our name on an org
chart, it really doesn't matter how we're classified: we're still
expendable.
It's the "other repercussions" that you haven't spelled out that need
to be revealed. Are any of these truly important, or are they small
annoyances like titles? Details?
<<Has anyone else run into this reclassification issue?>>
Only in the sense that I've always been an exempt employee (20 years),
and resented it.
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo: http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
