If you could, what labour laws would you change?

C

Clak

CAGiversary!
Personally I would change it so that salaried employees also get over time pay. I know too many salaried people who make relatively little and yet are working much more than 40 hours a week. Some working for the state are compensated with paid leave time later, but that's the state, certainly doesn't include all those in the private sector.

edit- Actually from reading up a little, some salaried employees are allowed overtime pay, but the rules are confusing.

http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Glossary.asp?Button1=E#exempt

edit2- It gets even more complicated than that, certain professions have their own specifications.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fact_exemption.htm

Why not determine it by say, level of pay, rather than the duties performed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That would be one for sure.

Others would be things like better maternity leave, and paternity leave. US sucks on those fronts compared to a lot of European countries. Too much focus on work here, and too little on life.

Change minimum wage laws to a living wage law. Rather than being a federal standard, mandate it so that wages have to be a set % above the local poverty line or something.
 
I think that as a general rule, employers have a bit too much power in the whole equation. I'm known as just right of facist by CAG standards, but registered Independent, and liberal or conservative depending on the specific issue by real world standards, but Dennis Kucinich is actually a politician I like a lot (well, except for that whole lawsuit on the chipped tooth thing). He's a strong proponent of employee rights.

I don't think unions should have the power they do today, it's not the 1920's. There are bare minimum labor laws in place to prevent much of the abuse that workers were subject to years ago. So rather than the need for employees to feel like they need to unionize to have a voice, I think the individual should be protected more on things like salary compensation/overtime, minimum number of paid days off annually, right to be given cause when terminated (rather than merely at will). Stuff like that.

I agree that it's horsecrap to have to work well in excess of 40 hrs, and it would be great if salaried people got OT above some amount like 50 or so.
 
Salaries would just go down if overtime became paid.

I do think that more paid time off should be mandatory (even if there is a salary adjustment that comes along with it). I get 0 vacation days a year! 0! That's the official policy. It's insane.
 
I think the problem is there are just lots of salaried jobs that should just be hourly positions.

Salaried positions make sense from something like my job as College Professor where I'm not being forced to work any set hours by a boss or anything, and just have to often work more than 40 to keep up with teaching, administrative stuff and my research work (publish or perish!).

It doesn't make a lot of sense for things like manager of a retail store, lot's of business jobs etc. where people are being forced to work and could easily clock in and out etc.
 
And I don't understand why it varies by profession. By that second link I posted, most IT folks can forget about OT if they're salaried.
 
[quote name='Clak']And I don't understand why it varies by profession. By that second link I posted, most IT folks can forget about OT if they're salaried.[/QUOTE]

What I mean is I don't have a boss forcing me to work. I'm not forced directly to work more than 40 hours. Hell, a genius who's really efficient could probably get by working less than 40 hours a week, especially after tenure.

So a salaried position makes sense there. I'm just paid a wage to teach, do some administrative stuff, and pursue my own research agenda. There's no boss calling me in and forcing me to work more than 40 hours. I'm not clocking in or our. There is no official record of the hours I work that's being in any way monitored. The only pressure it to get enough done to get tenure, earn raises etc.

That's far different than an IT guy, or retail manager, etc. who's salaried and working on call and has to work however many hours their boss puts on them or get fired. That's forced OT that's not being paid. In my profession it's OT I and others choose to do to get ahead, or because we love what we're working on etc.


Put more simply, salaried positions make sense for things where the employee is working largely unsupervised and just working to advance their own career. I don't like them when it's pretty much a regular job with a boss and they're thus basically being forced to work unpaid overtime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Javery']Salaries would just go down if overtime became paid.

I do think that more paid time off should be mandatory (even if there is a salary adjustment that comes along with it). I get 0 vacation days a year! 0! That's the official policy. It's insane.[/QUOTE]

WTF??? Why are you still working at this place? You're a lawyer, not a McDonald's fry jockey.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']WTF??? Why are you still working at this place? You're a lawyer, not a McDonald's fry jockey.[/QUOTE]

Employers have a ton of power in the legal industry. There's a huge (and increasing) number of people with law degrees, so it's hard for a lot of people to even find work after law school right now.

Only going to get worse given how many of my CJ students express interest in going on to law school.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, how timely-my boss is retroactively trying to put in a 1 year non-compete claus into my employment contract, along with some other undesirable conditions.

And since he's structuring it in such a way that he can legally ask me to sign a new contract, there isn't a damn thing I can do about it, other than choose to walk.

Non-compete conditions may be an interesting topic to discuss here. Apparently California makes it unenforceable, and there have been some cases where employees who start with a new company IN California, are no longer bound by their previous non-compete. MS and Google had a big case awhile back which upheld that (I think-based on a quick overview).

Very interesting stuff.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Employers have a ton of power in the legal industry. There's a huge (and increasing) number of people with law degrees, so it's hard for a lot of people to even find work after law school right now.

Only going to get worse given how many of my CJ students express interest in going on to law school.[/QUOTE]

Well, Javery is an experienced lawyer who was at the top of his class. I figured if anyone had some leveraging power, it would be him.
 
I would reform labor laws for medical residents. At the current time, residents are pretty much at the mercy of their programs. If one complains, then the following may happen: 1.) backlash from your program, who can make your life very miserable or 2.) success in in having your program lose accreditation, meaning that you graduate from a non-accredited program and then everyone else in the program hates you. Thus, no one really complains and rather simply lies on logging their hours and does not report abuse/lack of teaching, etc. These logged hours are then used to show that a program is in compliance with duty hour regulations. The biggest offenders are general surgery, some of the other non-cush surgery specialties, and internal medicine. When I was training, I still put in some 100 hour weeks, and knew many others who did the same (despite the 80 hour/week limit). 30+ hour shifts every 3-4 days is not fun...

This year, they did employ some changes, which mainly pertain to interns (1st year residents); it seems like at most places they are doing 12 hour shifts for 6 days per week. Residents still are allowed to do long shifts and overnight call.

Also, would it kill them to pay residents a bit better (especially since they get money from Medicare ~$100K/resident, though this varies from hospital to hospital and from year to year based on complex formulas)? It is not so easy to live on ~$50K/yr in California while trying to pay down college/med school debt... not to mention all of the various exam fees, licensing fees, professional association fees, fellowship application fees, costs associated with traveling for fellowship interviews, etc., etc.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'd abolish the minimum wage.[/QUOTE]

I'd abolish your employment just so you could know what it's like to live on the other side for a bit.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Well, Javery is an experienced lawyer who was at the top of his class. I figured if anyone had some leveraging power, it would be him.[/QUOTE]

The market for attorneys right now is so bad that the big law firms can demand a kidney and most of us would gladly give it up. Most of the top firms in NYC demand that their associate attorneys bill at least 2400 hours a year. That means you'll have to work around 2700 a year to hit those numbers maybe more. A big securities firm required 2800 billable hours to qualify for the annual bonus. ( I'm sure you already know most of this already since your husband is a lawyer)

So I'll agree with Javery and say that paid vacation days should be mendatory.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The market for attorneys right now is so bad that the big law firms can demand a kidney and most of us would gladly give it up. Most of the top firms in NYC demand that their associate attorneys bill at least 2400 hours a year. That means you'll have to work around 2700 a year to hit those numbers maybe more. A big securities firm required 2800 billable hours to qualify for the annual bonus. ( I'm sure you already know most of this already since your husband is a lawyer)

So I'll agree with Javery and say that paid vacation days should be mandatory.[/QUOTE]
Why do you hate capitalism? If you aren't working, then you shouldn't be paid!;)
 
Have you guys read this? It was on Yahoo Finance last week. With the advent of industrialization, it was predicted that the productivity increase would lead to shorter work days. A sort of dividend to the American worker to actually enjoy the merits of such advances. But, no. Work longer for relatively the same (accounting for real wages). The ones who made out were those on top. And why would we need to produce more? As business groups stated (paraphrasing a quote from The Hidden Persuaders), "it's not a question of being able to produce to meet the needs of consumers. We have far more capacity than that. We need to manufacture the desire for more." In essence, produce more waste with unnecessary goods (lifestyle products) and planned obsolescence. It's what is destroying our planet and creating massive inefficiencies.

The Case for a 21-Hour Work Week
 
[quote name='dohdough']Why do you hate capitalism? If you aren't working, then you shouldn't be paid!;)[/QUOTE]

Heck I would settle for two weeks off without pay, but they aren't even offering that.
 
probably codify stripping corporations of their personhood or at least revisit the moral responsibilities of an individual in an llc

I don't believe overtime pay as much an issue, I see work expand to fill the time available for it everywhere- and Facebook even timestamps posts!
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']Have you guys read this? It was on Yahoo Finance last week. With the advent of industrialization, it was predicted that the productivity increase would lead to shorter work days. A sort of dividend to the American worker to actually enjoy the merits of such advances. But, no. Work longer for relatively the same (accounting for real wages). The ones who made out were those on top. And why would we need to produce more? As business groups stated (paraphrasing a quote from The Hidden Persuaders), "it's not a question of being able to produce to meet the needs of consumers. We have far more capacity than that. We need to manufacture the desire for more." In essence, produce more waste with unnecessary goods (lifestyle products) and planned obsolescence. It's what is destroying our planet and creating massive inefficiencies.

The Case for a 21-Hour Work Week[/QUOTE]
I'd agree with that. Electronics manufacturers are probably the biggest culprits. The amount of e-waste that ends up in landfills is startling. But electronics marketers are some of the craftiest of the bunch. They figured out a long time ago that big numbers sell. So every few months you come out with whatever the hell, that has a higher clock speed, or more storage, or a bigger screen, whatever they increase, and suddenly Bob's purchase from just a few months ago doesn't seem so great anymore. Bob being the consumer that he's been trained to be, goes out and buys a new one, and trashes the old one.

But those are just the individual consumers, large businesses and governments are even worse. I can't tell you how much equipment I've seen trashed simply because it was being replaced. Perfectly good equipment, all trashed.
 
Yeah, we really need to step up awareness of the need to properly dispose of electronics (i.e. donate them if they still work, if they don't work take them somewhere like Best Buy that will send them to be recycled etc.).

People are going to want the latest and greatest, and in many cases it's needed with the designed obsolescence of many gadgets where you have to upgrade at least every couple years to run the newest apps etc. Given that, proper disposal of gadgets is crucial.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'd agree with that. Electronics manufacturers are probably the biggest culprits. The amount of e-waste that ends up in landfills is startling. But electronics marketers are some of the craftiest of the bunch. They figured out a long time ago that big numbers sell. So every few months you come out with whatever the hell, that has a higher clock speed, or more storage, or a bigger screen, whatever they increase, and suddenly Bob's purchase from just a few months ago doesn't seem so great anymore. Bob being the consumer that he's been trained to be, goes out and buys a new one, and trashes the old one.

But those are just the individual consumers, large businesses and governments are even worse. I can't tell you how much equipment I've seen trashed simply because it was being replaced. Perfectly good equipment, all trashed.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, planned obsolescence is a seriously grave issue that we don't contend with. I've read that hard drive manufacturers removed a single screw which cost fractions of a penny which would then shorten the life-span of hard drives. Very informative read:
Planned Obsolescence: How Companies Encourage Hyperconsumption

There is a great documentary, Pyramids of Waste: the Light Bulb Conspiracy:
http://dotsub.com/view/aed3b8b2-1889-4df5-ae63-ad85f5572f27

We need to slow down. Growth is killing us.
 
Man did anyone say the segment on the Daily Show ast night where he compiles all the information about FoxConn and the conditions that workers live/work in? fucking terrible. I'm typing this on my iPod touch by the way, which is an AWESOME product ;)
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The market for attorneys right now is so bad that the big law firms can demand a kidney and most of us would gladly give it up. Most of the top firms in NYC demand that their associate attorneys bill at least 2400 hours a year. That means you'll have to work around 2700 a year to hit those numbers maybe more. A big securities firm required 2800 billable hours to qualify for the annual bonus. ( I'm sure you already know most of this already since your husband is a lawyer)

So I'll agree with Javery and say that paid vacation days should be mendatory.[/QUOTE]

My husband isn't a lawyer (my ex-boyfriend was though, but that was a long time ago), but that's ok. I worked in public accounting firms so I know all about the "billable hours" bullshit. My happiest times were at a firm that charged most clients a fixed rate and did not give a flying fuck about billable hours as long as the work was done. Then we had to move for my husband's job. Oh well.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']My husband isn't a lawyer (my ex-boyfriend was though, but that was a long time ago), but that's ok. I worked in public accounting firms so I know all about the "billable hours" bullshit. My happiest times were at a firm that charged most clients a fixed rate and did not give a flying fuck about billable hours as long as the work was done. Then we had to move for my husband's job. Oh well.[/QUOTE]

My apologies.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']Yeah, planned obsolescence is a seriously grave issue that we don't contend with. I've read that hard drive manufacturers removed a single screw which cost fractions of a penny which would then shorten the life-span of hard drives. Very informative read:
Planned Obsolescence: How Companies Encourage Hyperconsumption

There is a great documentary, Pyramids of Waste: the Light Bulb Conspiracy:
http://dotsub.com/view/aed3b8b2-1889-4df5-ae63-ad85f5572f27

We need to slow down. Growth is killing us.[/QUOTE]
Got any info about the hard drives? Because I'd love to read that. I know many manufacturers are shrinking warranty periods on drives as well.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I'd abolish your employment just so you could know what it's like to live on the other side for a bit.[/QUOTE]

When a person expresses an anti-minimum wage opinion, why do you assume they've never lived on the "other side?" I've held all manner of jobs and have gone without work when I've desired it. I think I know whatever it is you think I don't know.
 
I am a salaried employee (non-exempt is the term I think) who gets overtime (get OT for anything over 8 hrs in a single day or on Saturday, and double time for Sunday). It was one of the perks that helped sway me towards the job to be honest.

I have a billable efficiency that I am evaluated against each year, but it's nothing crazy like 2700 hours. I think it's like 1500-1600 hours (I just know I've never hit it). I did have to sign a 6 month non-compete agreement a few years ago (not when I was initially hired), but I can't imagine any scenario where I'd leave my current job for a competitors. If anything I would want to change job types all together.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Figured this thread was the best place for this.

A good, long article on why the US lost Apple manufacturing jobs. Talks about how it's not just cheap labor, but also that US doesn't have factories that can work as quickly and efficiently as those in China. Though a lot of it is still wages as Americans aren't willing to work hard for 12 hour shifts and low pay etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/b...queezed-middle-class.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all[/QUOTE]

I think the article was nothing but corporate apologism and an apple lovefest. Skirting US labor laws and exploiting an oppressed population are the only reasons why they're over there. Its a libertarians wetdream and the actual manifestation of the 100% employment rate joke I make. And when the well runs dry in China, you still have places like Vietnam, India, and the entire continent of Africa to exploit again. It wouldn't surprise me that within my lifetime, Made in Africa will be the new Made in China meme.
 
Oh I agree, hence my comment about wage exploitation being the main reason.

Though I do wonder if there are enough Americans willing to work that hard even if the job came with a living wage and good benefits. Seems like many just want the wage and benefits, but don't want to work hard for it as everyone dreams of some low stress, 9-5 desk job.

I guess the counterpoint though is how Toyota and Honda factories in the US are so much more efficient than their American car counterparts. So part of it is probably just management efficiency rather than lazy workers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good article

Oh there are plenty of low paying, long hours, back breaking, no benefit jobs in America. It is just no one wants to do agricultural work. So yea the American work force isn't cut it for those types of work
 
[quote name='62t']Good article

Oh there are plenty of low paying, long hours, back breaking, no benefit jobs in America. It is just no one wants to do agricultural work. So yea the American work force isn't cut it for those types of work[/QUOTE]

Yep. The more interesting question, as I posed above, is whether they'd be willing to do the work if it paid a living wage (and OT) and had good benefits.

I'm hesitant as I have some extended family that manage construction crews and they pay a decent wage, OT, benefits etc. for full time employees and they're always bitching how they have a hard time finding American's willing to do the work, and how the Hispanic immigrants they hire bust ass and never complain etc.
 
1. CPI or Inflation adjusted minimum wage (should be $10 by now).

2. 32-hour work week.

3. End to abusive retail practices (stay late or lose your job, no sitting, etc.)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. The more interesting question, as I posed above, is whether they'd be willing to do the work if it paid a living wage (and OT) and had good benefits.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure they would, but what company is going to spring for that expense when it doesn't have to? And besides, many of those assembly line jobs are going to be done by robots within five years anyway.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']
3. End to abusive retail practices (stay late or lose your job, no sitting, etc.)[/QUOTE]

The no sitting part made me laugh in real life for a solid 30 seconds.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']I'm sure they would, but what company is going to spring for that expense when it doesn't have to? And besides, many of those assembly line jobs are going to be done by robots within five years anyway.[/QUOTE]

Of course it's a moot point, so it's just a hypothetical.

I'm sure there are lots of people who would take such jobs. But I'm skeptical we could fully staff tons of huge factories even if we could somehow move all those jobs back to the US. And if we did, I bet a huge portion of the work force would be legal immigrants rather than white or black Americans.

There's just been a trend toward stigmatizing blue collar, manual labor jobs over the past few decades. So people don't want those kind of jobs--even the ones that pay well like good construction jobs (before the building crash anyway), and skilled things like plumbers and electricians aren't viewed in much esteem these days. Most everyone dreams of some 9-5 deskjob.
 
We have a shortage of skilled blue collar workers. Someone who can identify a sector in need of workers can go to a trade school in order to learn the skills required for the job (there are often programs designed to get you a job in a specific industry) and live a respectable life.
 
But what well-meaning parent these days would steer their kid into a manufacturing trade profession? It's been clear, at least since the infancy of NAFTA in the early 90's that manufacturing was going away. It's borderline 'child abuse' (hyperbole) to push your kid towards a blue collar manufacturing job. So yes, I'd say that most people are looking for a 9 to 5 because they grew up thinking that those were the types of jobs that would be available for them.

That being said, if my sons said they wanted to be a plumber, electrician, HVAC repairman, I'd support that as there will be a market for those trades as much as doctors and morticians. But being a master on a drill press is just not a skill that is in high demand here today, and the future prospects look even worse.

When I was in college, co-oping for a manufacturing company, it was disheartening looking at all the machines that were being packed away for transport to Mexico. Whole production lines, representing three shifts of good union jobs and their requisite support/QA. My wife experienced a similar trend several states away (I in Indiana, she in New York). It's the reason both of us took true 'desk jobs' after school when both of us would have preferred working in the manufacturing environment. But the writing on the wall was clear.

To be more on topic: Since we're stuck with 'defined contribution' retirement plans such as 401(k)s and the like, how about allowing the employee the choice of which vehicle the funds (employee or employer contribution) are sent to, instead of the limited choices most have now. Maybe I dont like the Barclay's management style and would rather have my money managed by Vanguard. As it is now, you either open an IRA (which can have tax ramifications) or you use your employers options.

It's all about personal choice/freedom! (right?...)
 
Willard is correct!!!!!

He nailed it. 32 hour work weeks we need. Period.

That balance of work and rest will benefit everyone. 2 days is too little rest, 4 days is too much and 3 days is just right.
Depending on your job that first day of the two day weekend is just a recooperation day since you've worked so long beforehand.
Now if it were 3 days that recooperation day would be done and you'd have two days left to enjoy yourself.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Figured this thread was the best place for this.

A good, long article on why the US lost Apple manufacturing jobs. Talks about how it's not just cheap labor, but also that US doesn't have factories that can work as quickly and efficiently as those in China. Though a lot of it is still wages as Americans aren't willing to work hard for 12 hour shifts and low pay etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/b...queezed-middle-class.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all[/QUOTE]
Well I guess that, faced with the alternatives in China, anyone would work pretty hard and efficiently. Now that doesn't mean I want the usual suspects to start on about how our social safety nets make people lazy rabble rabble.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The no sitting part made me laugh in real life for a solid 30 seconds.[/QUOTE]

People required to stand in place and not move for 8+ hours a day end up with a ton of physical problems down the road.

I am not talking about people who walk, crouch, climb, etc. (laborers), but full-time cashiers and desk personnel who stand in a single position for their entire shift.
 
I think I'd go nuts with a 32 hour work week. I'm just not that interested in hobbies and social outings to only work 32 hours a week. Liking what I do helps though, and it's obviously different from the average Joe who hates their job and does it soley for the paycheck.
 
@dmaull: I find something pretty sad about that statement. I dont hate my job by any stretch, but it *is* what I do to allow me to do the things I *want* to do. At the end of every week, there is always something that just got passed over because there was simply not time enough to do it. Even with an extra 8 hours a week, I might not get everything in.

Now, I'm sure me having children is a big influence in that, but I dont know if you do or dont (not really my business). But I do find it odd that you dont think you could find ample ways to fill just that little extra time away from work (reading, gardening, volunteering, CAG-backlog reduction, sleeping, etc.).

I've just never considered work to be my primary activity (even if it is the one I do most).
 
[quote name='hostyl1']@dmaull: I find something pretty sad about that statement. I dont hate my job by any stretch, but it *is* what I do to allow me to do the things I *want* to do. At the end of every week, there is always something that just got passed over because there was simply not time enough to do it. Even with an extra 8 hours a week, I might not get everything in.

Now, I'm sure me having children is a big influence in that, but I dont know if you do or dont (not really my business). But I do find it odd that you dont think you could find ample ways to fill just that little extra time away from work (reading, gardening, volunteering, CAG-backlog reduction, sleeping, etc.).

I've just never considered work to be my primary activity (even if it is the one I do most).[/QUOTE]

Its different for academics like dmaul that are trying to get tenure. Its publish or perish and people like him actually really enjoy and are passionate about their work, but I'm sure he has his fair share of fun. You can tell how much he slacks by all his posts in vs.:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top