Also, most white collar jobs are paid more than double of 32k per year. While I understand due to corporate culture/etc. (Amazon) you may be asked "more than occasionally" to work more than 40 hours, I see this coach position as something that definitely takes more than 40 hours on a consistent basis (the players wouldn't lie to us about 12 hours of scrim a day, would they? ) so it legitimately brings in the minimum wage consideration for me.
On September 15 2015 04:20 mordek wrote: [quote] Housing, meals and benefits. Also the intangible EFAME And if it's your passion work isn't really work etc etc
Housing/food is not proper compensation. It's still illegal. It's the same as the volunteer analyst.
What do you mean by illegal? I haven't heard anything along those lines before.
My biggest concern here is that the amount of compensation (or in the case of the analyst, no compensation at all) is a violation of California minimum wage law.
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how it works, but surely housing/food would factor into benefits/compensation above the perceived "$9/hr"?
edit - cuz if I didn't have to pay for rent or food in Cali + getting to watch/coach video games all day... idk, that would probably be pretty fun for a while.
First of all it seems that California min wage will be 10 dollars in 2016.
Now I don't think housing/etc count toward your wage since those are benefit - at least based on my understanding. So technically the coach cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours a week based on that salary.
Anyway, I think my biggest question is why advertise the salary when it's really not a lot of money?
"Cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours" - based on what? Legitimate question, cuz as far as I know, if you're on salary and you've signed a contract, depending on what's in the contract, they could ask you to work however long they want. And if it's on salary, I would assume the housing factors into compensation on the contract.
I have never seen anything that says "here's your salary and now you need to work for any hours we demand you to". That's borderline slavery.
That's how most salaried central london office jobs work :p
They sneak in the waiver into your contract so you automatically waive your right to a legal maximum hours by taking the job.
I have never seen this before.
Usually the employer can ask the salaried employee to work additional hours without additional pay occasionally (the contract will say this), but I doubt it's possible to do this every single week.
I usually work ~45 hours, sometimes more, but rarely/almost never more than 50. My salary is a bit lower than industry standard, benefits are pretty decent.
But Seuss gets it mostly right. American work culture is pretty absurd. You're expected to meet 110%+ of expectations because that's what's always been done. If you don't like it, too bad, they'll find someone else who won't complain.
On September 15 2015 04:43 Sufficiency wrote: [quote]
Housing/food is not proper compensation. It's still illegal. It's the same as the volunteer analyst.
What do you mean by illegal? I haven't heard anything along those lines before.
My biggest concern here is that the amount of compensation (or in the case of the analyst, no compensation at all) is a violation of California minimum wage law.
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how it works, but surely housing/food would factor into benefits/compensation above the perceived "$9/hr"?
edit - cuz if I didn't have to pay for rent or food in Cali + getting to watch/coach video games all day... idk, that would probably be pretty fun for a while.
First of all it seems that California min wage will be 10 dollars in 2016.
Now I don't think housing/etc count toward your wage since those are benefit - at least based on my understanding. So technically the coach cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours a week based on that salary.
Anyway, I think my biggest question is why advertise the salary when it's really not a lot of money?
"Cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours" - based on what? Legitimate question, cuz as far as I know, if you're on salary and you've signed a contract, depending on what's in the contract, they could ask you to work however long they want. And if it's on salary, I would assume the housing factors into compensation on the contract.
I have never seen anything that says "here's your salary and now you need to work for any hours we demand you to". That's borderline slavery.
That's how most salaried central london office jobs work :p
They sneak in the waiver into your contract so you automatically waive your right to a legal maximum hours by taking the job.
I have never seen this before.
Usually the employer can ask the salaried employee to work additional hours without additional pay occasionally (the contract will say this), but I doubt it's possible to do this every single week.
I usually work ~45 hours, sometimes more, but rarely/almost never more than 50. My salary is a bit lower than industry standard, benefits are pretty decent.
But Seuss gets it mostly right. American work culture is pretty absurd. You're expected to meet 110%+ of expectations because that's what's always been done. If you don't like it, too bad, they'll find someone else who won't complain.
I am not disagreeing with you, but you are only +5hr per week. I am saying if teams do scrim 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, that's already 60 hours a week and exactly the minimum wage of California by 2016.
On September 15 2015 04:56 mordek wrote: [quote] What do you mean by illegal? I haven't heard anything along those lines before.
My biggest concern here is that the amount of compensation (or in the case of the analyst, no compensation at all) is a violation of California minimum wage law.
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how it works, but surely housing/food would factor into benefits/compensation above the perceived "$9/hr"?
edit - cuz if I didn't have to pay for rent or food in Cali + getting to watch/coach video games all day... idk, that would probably be pretty fun for a while.
First of all it seems that California min wage will be 10 dollars in 2016.
Now I don't think housing/etc count toward your wage since those are benefit - at least based on my understanding. So technically the coach cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours a week based on that salary.
Anyway, I think my biggest question is why advertise the salary when it's really not a lot of money?
"Cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours" - based on what? Legitimate question, cuz as far as I know, if you're on salary and you've signed a contract, depending on what's in the contract, they could ask you to work however long they want. And if it's on salary, I would assume the housing factors into compensation on the contract.
I have never seen anything that says "here's your salary and now you need to work for any hours we demand you to". That's borderline slavery.
That's how most salaried central london office jobs work :p
They sneak in the waiver into your contract so you automatically waive your right to a legal maximum hours by taking the job.
I have never seen this before.
Usually the employer can ask the salaried employee to work additional hours without additional pay occasionally (the contract will say this), but I doubt it's possible to do this every single week.
I usually work ~45 hours, sometimes more, but rarely/almost never more than 50. My salary is a bit lower than industry standard, benefits are pretty decent.
But Seuss gets it mostly right. American work culture is pretty absurd. You're expected to meet 110%+ of expectations because that's what's always been done. If you don't like it, too bad, they'll find someone else who won't complain.
I am not disagreeing with you, but you are only +5hr per week. I am saying if teams do scrim 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, that's already 60 hours a week and exactly the minimum wage of California by 2016.
Oh, no, I know. We've gotten a bit off track from the original discussion. I guess the question is still up in the air whether or not housing/food counts towards compensation lol
On September 15 2015 06:02 Eppa! wrote: Realistically if your having a job with a shit ton of OT then your either making bank or your going to make bank in the future. E-sports coach isn't dead end but it definitely not a high prospect job.
On September 15 2015 04:20 mordek wrote: [quote] Housing, meals and benefits. Also the intangible EFAME And if it's your passion work isn't really work etc etc
Housing/food is not proper compensation. It's still illegal. It's the same as the volunteer analyst.
What do you mean by illegal? I haven't heard anything along those lines before.
My biggest concern here is that the amount of compensation (or in the case of the analyst, no compensation at all) is a violation of California minimum wage law.
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how it works, but surely housing/food would factor into benefits/compensation above the perceived "$9/hr"?
edit - cuz if I didn't have to pay for rent or food in Cali + getting to watch/coach video games all day... idk, that would probably be pretty fun for a while.
First of all it seems that California min wage will be 10 dollars in 2016.
Now I don't think housing/etc count toward your wage since those are benefit - at least based on my understanding. So technically the coach cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours a week based on that salary.
Anyway, I think my biggest question is why advertise the salary when it's really not a lot of money?
"Cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours" - based on what? Legitimate question, cuz as far as I know, if you're on salary and you've signed a contract, depending on what's in the contract, they could ask you to work however long they want. And if it's on salary, I would assume the housing factors into compensation on the contract.
I have never seen anything that says "here's your salary and now you need to work for any hours we demand you to". That's borderline slavery.
That's how most salaried central london office jobs work :p
They sneak in the waiver into your contract so you automatically waive your right to a legal maximum hours by taking the job.
You have to be pretty dumb to not read your contract properly.
Not saying people don't read contracts at all but just saying the there's no point having the legal limit when it's all null now anyway.
On September 15 2015 04:20 mordek wrote: [quote] Housing, meals and benefits. Also the intangible EFAME And if it's your passion work isn't really work etc etc
Housing/food is not proper compensation. It's still illegal. It's the same as the volunteer analyst.
What do you mean by illegal? I haven't heard anything along those lines before.
My biggest concern here is that the amount of compensation (or in the case of the analyst, no compensation at all) is a violation of California minimum wage law.
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how it works, but surely housing/food would factor into benefits/compensation above the perceived "$9/hr"?
edit - cuz if I didn't have to pay for rent or food in Cali + getting to watch/coach video games all day... idk, that would probably be pretty fun for a while.
First of all it seems that California min wage will be 10 dollars in 2016.
Now I don't think housing/etc count toward your wage since those are benefit - at least based on my understanding. So technically the coach cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours a week based on that salary.
Anyway, I think my biggest question is why advertise the salary when it's really not a lot of money?
"Cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours" - based on what? Legitimate question, cuz as far as I know, if you're on salary and you've signed a contract, depending on what's in the contract, they could ask you to work however long they want. And if it's on salary, I would assume the housing factors into compensation on the contract.
I have never seen anything that says "here's your salary and now you need to work for any hours we demand you to". That's borderline slavery.
That's how most salaried central london office jobs work :p
They sneak in the waiver into your contract so you automatically waive your right to a legal maximum hours by taking the job.
I have never seen this before.
Usually the employer can ask the salaried employee to work additional hours without additional pay occasionally (the contract will say this), but I doubt it's possible to do this every single week.
The maximum legal limit here is 48 hours a week average and so if you are going to work more than that then you have to legally waive your right to this. As a lot of central London office jobs require more hours than that to get jobs/projects done then employees are either expected to automatically sign it or they put it in the contract to begin with and asking to change it will likely just result in them saying no or getting a new candidate.
On September 15 2015 05:06 Sufficiency wrote: [quote]
My biggest concern here is that the amount of compensation (or in the case of the analyst, no compensation at all) is a violation of California minimum wage law.
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how it works, but surely housing/food would factor into benefits/compensation above the perceived "$9/hr"?
edit - cuz if I didn't have to pay for rent or food in Cali + getting to watch/coach video games all day... idk, that would probably be pretty fun for a while.
First of all it seems that California min wage will be 10 dollars in 2016.
Now I don't think housing/etc count toward your wage since those are benefit - at least based on my understanding. So technically the coach cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours a week based on that salary.
Anyway, I think my biggest question is why advertise the salary when it's really not a lot of money?
"Cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours" - based on what? Legitimate question, cuz as far as I know, if you're on salary and you've signed a contract, depending on what's in the contract, they could ask you to work however long they want. And if it's on salary, I would assume the housing factors into compensation on the contract.
I have never seen anything that says "here's your salary and now you need to work for any hours we demand you to". That's borderline slavery.
That's how most salaried central london office jobs work :p
They sneak in the waiver into your contract so you automatically waive your right to a legal maximum hours by taking the job.
I have never seen this before.
Usually the employer can ask the salaried employee to work additional hours without additional pay occasionally (the contract will say this), but I doubt it's possible to do this every single week.
I usually work ~45 hours, sometimes more, but rarely/almost never more than 50. My salary is a bit lower than industry standard, benefits are pretty decent.
But Seuss gets it mostly right. American work culture is pretty absurd. You're expected to meet 110%+ of expectations because that's what's always been done. If you don't like it, too bad, they'll find someone else who won't complain.
I am not disagreeing with you, but you are only +5hr per week. I am saying if teams do scrim 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, that's already 60 hours a week and exactly the minimum wage of California by 2016.
Oh, no, I know. We've gotten a bit off track from the original discussion. I guess the question is still up in the air whether or not housing/food counts towards compensation lol
My feeling is that for the purpose of minimum wage, only money is considered. Otherwise it is too easy to service people with inflated price ("yes, this big mac is worth 9 dollars"). But I can't find any evidence for either direction so I am not 100% sure.
On September 15 2015 06:02 Eppa! wrote: Realistically if your having a job with a shit ton of OT then your either making bank or your going to make bank in the future. E-sports coach isn't dead end but it definitely not a high prospect job.
On September 15 2015 05:56 Holyflare wrote:
On September 15 2015 05:42 Sufficiency wrote:
On September 15 2015 05:35 jcarlsoniv wrote:
On September 15 2015 05:27 Sufficiency wrote:
On September 15 2015 05:09 jcarlsoniv wrote:
On September 15 2015 05:06 Sufficiency wrote:
On September 15 2015 04:56 mordek wrote:
On September 15 2015 04:43 Sufficiency wrote: [quote]
Housing/food is not proper compensation. It's still illegal. It's the same as the volunteer analyst.
What do you mean by illegal? I haven't heard anything along those lines before.
My biggest concern here is that the amount of compensation (or in the case of the analyst, no compensation at all) is a violation of California minimum wage law.
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how it works, but surely housing/food would factor into benefits/compensation above the perceived "$9/hr"?
edit - cuz if I didn't have to pay for rent or food in Cali + getting to watch/coach video games all day... idk, that would probably be pretty fun for a while.
First of all it seems that California min wage will be 10 dollars in 2016.
Now I don't think housing/etc count toward your wage since those are benefit - at least based on my understanding. So technically the coach cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours a week based on that salary.
Anyway, I think my biggest question is why advertise the salary when it's really not a lot of money?
"Cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours" - based on what? Legitimate question, cuz as far as I know, if you're on salary and you've signed a contract, depending on what's in the contract, they could ask you to work however long they want. And if it's on salary, I would assume the housing factors into compensation on the contract.
I have never seen anything that says "here's your salary and now you need to work for any hours we demand you to". That's borderline slavery.
That's how most salaried central london office jobs work :p
They sneak in the waiver into your contract so you automatically waive your right to a legal maximum hours by taking the job.
You have to be pretty dumb to not read your contract properly.
Not saying people don't read contracts at all but just saying the there's no point having the legal limit when it's all null now anyway.
On September 15 2015 04:43 Sufficiency wrote: [quote]
Housing/food is not proper compensation. It's still illegal. It's the same as the volunteer analyst.
What do you mean by illegal? I haven't heard anything along those lines before.
My biggest concern here is that the amount of compensation (or in the case of the analyst, no compensation at all) is a violation of California minimum wage law.
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how it works, but surely housing/food would factor into benefits/compensation above the perceived "$9/hr"?
edit - cuz if I didn't have to pay for rent or food in Cali + getting to watch/coach video games all day... idk, that would probably be pretty fun for a while.
First of all it seems that California min wage will be 10 dollars in 2016.
Now I don't think housing/etc count toward your wage since those are benefit - at least based on my understanding. So technically the coach cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours a week based on that salary.
Anyway, I think my biggest question is why advertise the salary when it's really not a lot of money?
"Cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours" - based on what? Legitimate question, cuz as far as I know, if you're on salary and you've signed a contract, depending on what's in the contract, they could ask you to work however long they want. And if it's on salary, I would assume the housing factors into compensation on the contract.
I have never seen anything that says "here's your salary and now you need to work for any hours we demand you to". That's borderline slavery.
That's how most salaried central london office jobs work :p
They sneak in the waiver into your contract so you automatically waive your right to a legal maximum hours by taking the job.
I have never seen this before.
Usually the employer can ask the salaried employee to work additional hours without additional pay occasionally (the contract will say this), but I doubt it's possible to do this every single week.
The maximum legal limit here is 48 hours a week average and so if you are going to work more than that then you have to legally waive your right to this. As a lot of central London office jobs require more hours than that to get jobs/projects done then employees are either expected to automatically sign it or they put it in the contract to begin with and asking to change it will likely just result in them saying no or getting a new candidate.
Probably a relic from when British unions weren't fucked. It makes sense to have a limit if your a blue colour worker.
i want to emphasize the less than completely legal ways for acquiring textbooks as a very valid method. especially in my programming oriented classes we shared pdfs during the first week quite frequently. bonus points for being able to ctrl+f your textbook if its ripped from an original version. if not its still easier to scroll/add your own chapter bookmarks than to flip through pages i find. Solid textbooks are nice to read from but not nice to carry and take up too much desk space.
Also if i was qualified I would totally half my salary to live in a teamhouse with free food for a year.
Still going through my Spotify-and-reviewers recommended backlog:
After listening to some of the albums, it's even more crazy that Spotify not only knows what band and album to recommend, but even which track, because I ended up liking only one track for a lot of these bands.
Not much to say about this track in particular. Neither an artist I know, nor a genre I like, just this one track.
On September 15 2015 04:20 mordek wrote: [quote] Housing, meals and benefits. Also the intangible EFAME And if it's your passion work isn't really work etc etc
Housing/food is not proper compensation. It's still illegal. It's the same as the volunteer analyst.
What do you mean by illegal? I haven't heard anything along those lines before.
My biggest concern here is that the amount of compensation (or in the case of the analyst, no compensation at all) is a violation of California minimum wage law.
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how it works, but surely housing/food would factor into benefits/compensation above the perceived "$9/hr"?
edit - cuz if I didn't have to pay for rent or food in Cali + getting to watch/coach video games all day... idk, that would probably be pretty fun for a while.
First of all it seems that California min wage will be 10 dollars in 2016.
Now I don't think housing/etc count toward your wage since those are benefit - at least based on my understanding. So technically the coach cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours a week based on that salary.
Anyway, I think my biggest question is why advertise the salary when it's really not a lot of money?
"Cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours" - based on what? Legitimate question, cuz as far as I know, if you're on salary and you've signed a contract, depending on what's in the contract, they could ask you to work however long they want. And if it's on salary, I would assume the housing factors into compensation on the contract.
I have never seen anything that says "here's your salary and now you need to work for any hours we demand you to". That's borderline slavery.
That's how most salaried central london office jobs work :p
They sneak in the waiver into your contract so you automatically waive your right to a legal maximum hours by taking the job.
I have never seen this before.
Usually the employer can ask the salaried employee to work additional hours without additional pay occasionally (the contract will say this), but I doubt it's possible to do this every single week.
Haha, in an international context, this is pretty funny. This practice is remarkably standardized in Japan, for example, although of course it varies by type of job. I'm also a farmer, so while I occupy a liminal space between hourlypay/salary/entrepreneurship that makes me irrelevant to the discussion at hand, the idea of only having to work 40 hours a week during the school year sounds nice.
On September 15 2015 06:52 ComaDose wrote: i want to emphasize the less than completely legal ways for acquiring textbooks as a very valid method. especially in my programming oriented classes we shared pdfs during the first week quite frequently. bonus points for being able to ctrl+f your textbook if its ripped from an original version. if not its still easier to scroll/add your own chapter bookmarks than to flip through pages i find. Solid textbooks are nice to read from but not nice to carry and take up too much desk space.
Availability in online form varies a lot by field, though. For sciences / engineering / common first year arts courses they're basically trivial to find, but for a lot of other fields (anthropology qq) finding specific texts can be impossible and often you want to keep textbooks on hand for a reference shelf of expertise etc. Also, anthropologists are poor and make you buy their books.
On September 15 2015 04:56 mordek wrote: [quote] What do you mean by illegal? I haven't heard anything along those lines before.
My biggest concern here is that the amount of compensation (or in the case of the analyst, no compensation at all) is a violation of California minimum wage law.
I'll admit I'm not entirely sure how it works, but surely housing/food would factor into benefits/compensation above the perceived "$9/hr"?
edit - cuz if I didn't have to pay for rent or food in Cali + getting to watch/coach video games all day... idk, that would probably be pretty fun for a while.
First of all it seems that California min wage will be 10 dollars in 2016.
Now I don't think housing/etc count toward your wage since those are benefit - at least based on my understanding. So technically the coach cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours a week based on that salary.
Anyway, I think my biggest question is why advertise the salary when it's really not a lot of money?
"Cannot be reasonably allowed to work more than 60 hours" - based on what? Legitimate question, cuz as far as I know, if you're on salary and you've signed a contract, depending on what's in the contract, they could ask you to work however long they want. And if it's on salary, I would assume the housing factors into compensation on the contract.
I have never seen anything that says "here's your salary and now you need to work for any hours we demand you to". That's borderline slavery.
That's how most salaried central london office jobs work :p
They sneak in the waiver into your contract so you automatically waive your right to a legal maximum hours by taking the job.
I have never seen this before.
Usually the employer can ask the salaried employee to work additional hours without additional pay occasionally (the contract will say this), but I doubt it's possible to do this every single week.
I usually work ~45 hours, sometimes more, but rarely/almost never more than 50. My salary is a bit lower than industry standard, benefits are pretty decent.
But Seuss gets it mostly right. American work culture is pretty absurd. You're expected to meet 110%+ of expectations because that's what's always been done. If you don't like it, too bad, they'll find someone else who won't complain.
I am not disagreeing with you, but you are only +5hr per week. I am saying if teams do scrim 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, that's already 60 hours a week and exactly the minimum wage of California by 2016.
I don't think measuring it by scrims is meaningful, but I think the workload will still easily hit 60 hours unless there's an assistant coach. Whenever I imagine the amount of effort I'd consider necessary to coach a team successfully I can't imagine less than that.
On September 15 2015 07:35 Ketara wrote: Looking at the job requirements, 55k seems pretty shitty for the experience they're expecting and responsibilities they're requiring.
It's like entry level administrator pay for a job that wants 5 years experience as an administrator.
On September 15 2015 07:35 Ketara wrote: Looking at the job requirements, 55k seems pretty shitty for the experience they're expecting and responsibilities they're requiring.
It's like entry level administrator pay for a job that wants 5 years experience as an administrator.
On September 15 2015 07:57 Ketara wrote: Well I'm trying to be fair here .
I've lived in LA before. Housing and food does not cost 23k a year there.
Either way the pay seems pretty crap for what is a tremendous list of requirements and duties.
It's unrealistic requirement for a job with unrealistic compensations.
It makes you wonder why bother posting this kind of job ad. Either:
1. TL believes someone really dumb will take up for it. 2. TL believes that this is the reasonable compensation for the job. 3. TL doesn't know what they want so just randomly put something there and cross fingers.
On September 15 2015 08:09 Ketara wrote: Or 4. This is all TL can afford to pay them and they're hoping people who want esports dame and are qualified will apply.
That's probably a small list of people.
By doing so they also get a lot of negative press from it, since everyone with eyes can see that the requirement is unrealistic.
EPT
) so it legitimately brings in the minimum wage consideration for me. 
.
