The GOP's new incredibly stupid idea on overtime pay.

What a load of crap. Anyone working a dead-end job is not smart.

Used to be is the key here. The law says 40 hours per week. If you have to work over that, the company pays you 1.5x pay, or compensates you with comp time. I'm pretty sure that when you agree to take a a job position with a company, you know ahead of time whether you will be paid 1.5x for OT or given comp time, or in some cases, a choice as to which you want.

If they change the policy down the road and you don't like it, then you have a decision to make. If you do nothing and just sit around and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about it that isn't the company's fault.

 

What I find funny is its perfectly fine to think the 2nd Amendment, one of our RIGHTS can be viewed as outdated, but God forbid you question the 40 hour work week...

 

Be specific in how you think DuPont "screws over" its employees? Tell us how you think that small construction firm "screws its employees"?

A couple of anecdotal examples and the huge leap is that suddenly MOST companies do this...that's absurd.

 

Yes, but don't forget, to the leftists, capitalism is evil. Business owners are conspiratorial evil people out to screw you over. In their eyes (and by some statements here) they "ALL" do it....even without a shred of evidence to support their ridiculous claims.

- - - Updated - - -

Better yet, who cares what people choose? If you want the OT pay, then choose that. If you want the comp time, then choose that.

 

Exactly! A dish washer isn't skilled labor, nearly anyone can be taught to run a dish washing machine, but a company, even big chain restaurants aren't really interested in high turn over of employees, it costs them time and money. They would prefer a worker who can do the job, comes to work on time reliably and does his/her job.

These jobs don't warrant $10, $12 or $15 an hour because they are not skilled, but they do require a reliable worker and a company is interested in having such a person doing that job, even though it is the "bottom end crap job"...it is still needed work for the company to operate.

Oddly enough, someone who is "just a dish washer" gets raises if they show up to work on time reliably, perform their duties without issues.

Are they ever going to "make it big" if that's all they do? Hellz no, but someone that does that job well and does it reliably also tends to get moved to other positions, learns new things and becomes a bigger asset to the business.

I have a personal friend who started at Burger King running the fryer back when we were in high school. Today, he works at BK HQ as an upper level manager. Certainly not a career path I would have chosen, but it is a real world example of what someone can attain just by being a good employee, and the guy isn't exactly some genius that went to MIT either. He simply made sure he went to work on time, and did his work as expected. He didn't call off all the time or try to get his schedules switched around all the time. He didn't screw off at work a lot, he took his duties seriously enough (I know because I worked there with him).

 

I never said that. I said I have done what I can do to be a valuable asset to my employer. I do not run the company, only a portion of it and that portion is not involved with making decisions on how or where the company expands or invests its funds (it's a privately owned corporation, the owners do that along with the board. I'm not on the board (and don't want to be)).

Well, a couple of things here. Companies don't just "suddenly" go bankrupt. If things are looking bad they may not always tell employees, so it is possible for employees to find themselves unemployed in a relatively short notice, but that is the case for ANY job ANYWHERE. ANY company is subject to "going down the tubes", and so, every employee for every company everywhere is in that same boat, we all take that chance in our jobs, so what is your point here with that?

Yep, it would suck, and yep I have experienced that once. It seems a lot of your focus aims toward a company being responsible for you personally and your future and that is not the case. Certainly the best situation is start working, live within your means and save enough money that you can survive or cover some unexpected issue that comes along. Your house burns down (yes, you have insurance, but you gotta cover living expenses somewhere else until it is all settled, etc), your car loses its engine, your spouse gets laid off, etc, etc. Makes it a lot easier when you have enough saved money to cover the expenses until you can recover from the issue. Can you generally do this when you first start out working a minimum wage job? Probably not, but common sense tells you that it is typically young, teenage people who work minimum wage jobs the most (only 2.5% of the U.S. population works for minimum wage) and they are generally still living at home. The idea though is that you continue to increase your earnings via education, skills improvements and moving into a career and you build it all over time. Sure, sure, there are always those elite few who are born into wealthy families, but that's always the case.

Do employers abuse employees and do illegal things, absolutely, it happens, but if no one says anything, if the employees just (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and continue put up with it...well. You know, it's like the rich kids, there will always be some, and so there will always be companies that do illegal stuff too, but that doesn't mean it is the norm across the board. Does that mean you are not responsible for "you", not at all.

 

I imagine there are some. Do I think it is epidemic? Not at all. The reason some may not be able to find work may not have anything to do with their skill level. Someone may not be willing to relocate to a different city or state. Some may not be willing to accept the pay being offered. There are a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with skill.

 

Let's put it this way, it's not uncommon.

 

I'm not "questioning" the 40 hour work week, I am stating it is the law. How many hours per week do you think is right? 60, 80, 100, more?

I happen the think 40 hours is plenty and anything over that, the employer should pay the 1.5x or offer comp time (for hourly earners). As a salaried employee I often exceed the 40 hours and get nothing in return, but I CHOOSE to accept it.

I do not view the 2nd Amendment as out dated at all, I am appalled at how we are being limited in it.

 

Only if they are allowed. The right ignores all the comments on why workers might not be allowed to chose the overtime. Why do we need a law to set up a choice? Who really would benefit? The right knows that it benefits Big Business but keep throwing out lies that it would benefit the workers.

Are there any people on the right who are still willing to speak the truth?

 

That's the point, I AM questioning the 40 hour work week and lo and behold someone tosses in a desire for child labor and god knows whatever other evil practices they can imagine. I think workers should decide for themselves what they are willing to put in at full productive value. Get what you pay for. I'm a proponent for performance pay where applicable. If you and I have the same job and you are twice as fast as me, with the same accuracy, why should you be forced to work the same hours as me? That's what a 40 hour limit starts to create. Granted I realize there are still many fields that require some be there to 'man the store' and such, but we can't remain competitive in the in the international community with our outdated mode of doing things. I think overtime pay is killing our competitive edge...

 

Who gives a fig what objections were raised? You aren't entitled to a job. You compete in the marketplace with your skills and experience. You and your employer work out your wages, compensation and benefits. If your employer and you don't see eye to eye, then maybe you need to work elsewhere.

This is a win-win. If you want overtime pay, you can get it. If you want the flexibility of time off, you can get it. And any mixture of the two.

 

So we start out with a statement which is basically you reveling in your own ignorance...

...And then follow it up to a complete non-sequitur.

 

No, they are worth more. You want a steady workforce but you will only pay them cheap labor wages. Are you the one who decides what they are worth? Look at the last 30 years. The middle class has been losing wealth. It all starts from bottom wages. The lower the bottom wage, the lower the middle income wage. That is what has happen over the last 30 years.

I have a personal friend who started at Burger King running the fryer back when we were in high school.

Wait, didn't someone just dismissed "anecdotal" scenarios. I guess you just decide when you like it than it is not anecdotal.

 

And a reply from someone who thinks people are entitled to a job. Have you actually ever had one?

 

And this alone should be a gigantic red flag to your entire concept. Especially when you go on to cite something like this:

I had a friend back in high school. His parents were divorced, and his dad belonged to the local group of guys who met every week at my dad's house for bocce. And I overheard some conversations there that were quite interesting. The dude had been offered some high-paying job out in California, but he couldn't take it. You know why? Because the mother had custody, and if he moved to California, he would pretty much never see his son again. And he wouldn't go through with that. So he stayed in a job that was both hazardous and not too far above minimum wage when he could have done considerably better. And that's ignoring the people who have financial reasons why they can't just up and travel across the country for a job.

And this applies equally to god knows how many other situations. Maybe you can't afford a car, but the only jobs within your reach are (*)(*)(*)(*)ty? Maybe you can't go and study the skills you need to get ahead because if you don't spend every waking hour between one of your three (*)(*)(*)(*)ty jobs, you won't make rent? I'm always bemused by how Republicans ignore how many factors are often out of a person's control (and just how (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hard it is, how lucky you have to be in addition to your hard work and smarts, to get ahead in life), talk big about "personal responsibility" as an excuse to make life harder for the poor with bills like this, and then are shocked, shocked when the nation portrays them as out-of-touch, elitist snobs. You know why it was so easy for Obama (who is pretty darn rich) to characterize Romney as a corporatist fat cat with no interest in anyone's well-being other than that of him and his richest friends? Because this out-of-touch-ness permeates virtually every republican position. You got ahead. Bully for you. But don't you dare assume that everyone else had the same circumstances.

 

They're not worth more than $7/hour. They are nothing more than low-skill service jobs. A springboard to something better. If you don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about yourself, I'm not going to pay you more just for showing up. Take on more responsibility, I will promote you and compensate you.

By the way, the minimum wage is rooted in union bigotry. It was put in place in New England and Michigan because the union employees were sick and tired of Southern black men migrating north and working them out of a job for lesser wages.

 

According to whom?

 

Here's the truth...some companies already give the option and have been for many years. Some companies only pay 1.5x OT, some only offer comp time.

As for who would benefit, the worker, of course.

To sit there and say every company will abuse it is just fear mongering without any support or proof that this will happen.

Personally, I'd like the option myself, but I don't get comp or OT, I CHOSE to accept a salaried position.

 

Where did I say that? Quote me! Of course, you can't, because I never said that, and I do not think that.

In addition to this being my first year in college, straight out of high school, I worked for two years at Acadia Stone and Garden in my free time, and did a stint on the night shift at Fiddler's Green on MDI. So yes, I've held down jobs, believe it or not. Right now I don't have time for a job, because I have classes pretty much 9-5 daily and prior engagements on the weekends, but it doesn't keep me from looking for the rare moments when I have vacation time.

 

I think you are looking at it backwards actually. The 40 hour week is not there to limit you in the hours you can work, but to keep an employer from setting your hours to 60, 80 or more.

Pay for performance is fine in the fields where it is applicable and has been used very successfully by many companies (understand that "pay for performance" is goal oriented, meaning you get paid to complete a task or goal and you are done when you are finished). That model doesn't work for every job though.

"Performance" isn't always measured by the amount of time it takes you to complete something. Let me use an example from my line of work (IT); one of my teams is the Help Desk. Help Desk techs get paid an hourly wage to take trouble calls and perform 1st level trouble shooting, break/fix actions or escalate the issue if they can't fix it. The goal is not to be "finished" with the job as a whole as it is an everyday, ongoing activity. It is not feasible to pay them based on how many calls they can take in a given time. We do not tell them "Your work week is over when you take X number of calls". Calls are random and only occur when a problem arises on a user's PC. This varies day by day. The tech is paid by the hour to sit at their desk and be ready to take the calls 40 hours per week. The 40 hour week gives me a framework, along with call metrics, ticket completion times, the type of issue, company size, etc on how many techs I need sitting at their desks in order to have a sufficient workforce that can handle the call volume, all based on the mentioned criteria. I also have to take into consideration vacation and sick times as well to ensure the desk is manned properly. There are times when call volume is low and during those times there are projects and other work, or training that takes place. There are also times when the desk is very busy, either with calls or supporting the other IT teams for upgrades, etc and they have the opportunity for OT at those times.

 

I think we are in agreement, I simply used an example I was more familiar with...

As to the hours, it should be up to the individual to decide how many hours they are willing to work without restriction. The preset limitation of 40 hours prior to overtime is not a competitive model in the international market in a down economy...

 

Seems like a good idea, but I for one would pass. In the past I have worked OT with the promise of getting comp time at a later date, guess what the mangers changed I ended up losing all the comp time and got no OT pay, never worked for comp time again. Promises Promises if you do not get them in writing those promises can turn out to be Lies.

 

Right, so in essence, they are doing what they CHOOSE to do. Thanks for agreeing.

Can't, or won't?

Oh please, get off YOUR high horse. Where did I ever say I was above anyone else? Is your self esteem so low that you simply can't stand it when someone gets up and goes after what they want and gets it? Are you jealous? This seems to be a common thread with the left. Waaa...the rich...waaaa....it's not fair...waaaa. Well buttercup, you're right, life ain't fair and it dang sure doesn't owe you anything.

What a load of crap.

Most companies have their policies in writing. Only very high end managers at big companies get any sort of personal contracts.

EVERY worker has the option, whether they choose to actually do it though is up to them.

There a lot of things in daily life I don't like, but guess what? I have to suck it up and do it anyway....well, actually, I don't, but the opposite side fo the coin is worse than doing it.

What dream work environment do you speak of? You think I WANT to get up and go to work 40-60 hours per week? I'd rather be independently wealthy and not have to work at all, but I wasn't born into a rich family.