House Republican Pass Bill to "Loosen" Overtime Laws

cancerman1120

cancerman1120

CAGiversary!
Trying to re-brand themselves as the more family friendly party, House Republicans passed the "Working Families Flexibility Act" which allows for people to earn "comp" time instead of overtime which normally pays more money. Just another attempt by Republicans to further erode Labor efforts over the years to create a sub-class of working adults. I love how they wrap this up as "family friendly" when in reality it is business friendly. Instead of overtime you would now earn comp time which means no more 1.5x time pay.

Anyway, this won't go anywhere but I love watching Republicans trying to "re-brand" themselves while not changing anything but the verbiage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/working-families-flexibility-act-passes_n_3231385.html
 
Allowing employees to choose is a good idea. Allowing employers to choose is downright stupid. How could they think that this would be a good idea?
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Allowing employees to choose is a good idea. Allowing employers to choose is downright stupid. How could they think that this would be a good idea?[/QUOTE]

In theory this seems like a great idea but is full of bad outcomes. How about seasonal employees? It would just be an end around the overtime pay for them. Sure making the cash out 1.5x pay is a solution but that was not what was passed. Plus most full time employees are kinda of needed full time so how this helps in flexible scheduling is beyond me. Sure we will give you comp time but when it comes time to use it will the employer even be flexible in allowing the time off...my guess is no for many people.
 
Most of the jobs I have had completely banned overtime. If you worked longer than what was allowed, you would be penalized. After enough times, you would be terminated. So from my point of view, time and a half doesn't even exist.

And I don't think this would apply to my girlfriend, who already works more than 40 hours a week for a salary.

So I guess my family doesn't really care. And my question is, who would this affect anyway? It seems that this would do well in a manufacturing environment where the hourly wages are significant, but manufacturing is still going away. A lot of the jobs being added are the part-time variety that are going to be capped to 30 hours per week at most. They do this in the public sector where wages are inflated but they already have comp time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Salaried isn't the same thing exempt, many big companies pretend not to know this and a lot of employees dont know or go along with it.
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']See you can't accuse the republicans / conservatives as racist anymore, they are a equal opportunity SLAVE masters / SLAVERY[/QUOTE]

Choosing to work for a job is a whole lit different than slavery. Are you trivializing the horrors of slavery?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Choosing to work for a job is a whole lit different than slavery. Are you trivializing the horrors of slavery?[/QUOTE]

Tell that to all the people that will do anything just to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Some people put up with shitty jobs with shitty management and bosses, not real slavery but not much of a freedom to choose either.

You can still be treated like a slave even tho its not like being a slave

Modern day slavery: don't involve the whip or rape, just verbal abuse and sexual harrassment ...
 
I probably should be paid overtime according to what I've read. A lot of IT folks are exempt, but many support roles aren't, which is what I do. Programmers, network admins, they're usually the exempt ones.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Choosing to work for a job is a whole lit different than slavery. Are you trivializing the horrors of slavery?[/QUOTE]

"because I have good choice of jobs, everyone must have that" - everyday conservative
 
I totally get it now. Beatings, rape, hangings, lashings, boat rides where half or more simply die is totally equivalent to having to work for a boss that says mean things to make your cell phone payment.
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']Tell that to all the people that will do anything just to put food on the table and a roof over their heads.

Some people put up with shitty jobs with shitty management and bosses, not real slavery but not much of a freedom to choose either.

You can still be treated like a slave even tho its not like being a slave

Modern day slavery: don't involve the whip or rape, just verbal abuse and sexual harrassment ...[/QUOTE]

What are you smoking dude? Please do not compare this to slavery, it is just idiotic.
 
[quote name='usickenme']"because I have good choice of jobs, everyone must have that" - everyday conservative[/QUOTE]
"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one, just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had."
 
[quote name='usickenme']"because I have good choice of jobs, everyone must have that" - everyday conservative[/QUOTE]

Does UncleBob have a good choice of jobs?
 
This would definitely work where I used to work. Half of the year they would need unlimited OT and the other half they would be telling people that they can leave if they want (unpaid) voluntarily.

I would never leave but quite a few people did. The people that left would love this option and the people who stayed wouldn't be affected.

I am failing to see the issue besides employer coercion, but how does the employer benefit from a paid worker sitting at home?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Salaried isn't the same thing exempt, many big companies pretend not to know this and a lot of employees dont know or go along with it.[/QUOTE]

Which big companies? I have worked for a few of them and they normally don't let you forget it. That isn't to say someone out there isn't breaking the rules, but you make it sound like its commonplace.
 
[quote name='Knoell']This would definitely work where I used to work. Half of the year they would need unlimited OT and the other half they would be telling people that they can leave if they want (unpaid) voluntarily.

I would never leave but quite a few people did. The people that left would love this option and the people who stayed wouldn't be affected.

I am failing to see the issue besides employer coercion, but how does the employer benefit from a paid worker sitting at home?[/QUOTE]

The employer benefits from not paying 1.5x during that unlimited OT period. You would only get paid your 40 hours during your 80 hour weeks and then only get paid when you cash in your time during your down time. No overtime pay definitely benefits an employer.
 
They already banned overtime in many workplaces so allowing comp time is only expanding your options. In the public sector, there are programs that allow you to condense a 40 hour workweek into four days so you get Friday off. I don't think you get overtime for working over 8 hours on each of those four days. If this trade-off is reasonable and attractive, why isn't comp time in the private sector?

That being said, I wouldn't vote for this simply because I believe wages and benefits are a private contract between employer and employee. I'm against minimum wage, after all. Similarly, I don't think the federal government should be coming in and telling businesses they have to offer comp time. This hands off doesn't mean all businesses won't offer benefits. When I was laid off recently, I got a generous severance for the short amount of time I worked there. They didn't have to do that. No government told them to do that.

In general, companies like Costco will always pay their employees more and offer better benefits to retain good people. Inferior workers will work at Walmart where wages and benefits are inferior. Both approaches are fine with me. In-N-Out vs. McDonald's is also a good example. No one is forcing In-N-Out to pay above minimum wage. At the same time, many McDonald's workers would not qualify for a job at In-N-Out.
 
^Yeah I would say that it starting to get into a whole different discussion but I understand your position. I am not really against comp time as an option. I am more concerned about it as a tool for not paying overtime while not really being flexible. I have not worked a hourly job in about 15 years and between grad school, post-doc, and my first lab I never worked less than 50 hours a week so it does not really apply to me. I just know that most of my hourly jobs that were full time wanted me there 40 hours min so I am just not sure how comp time would even work. If I am not there to do the job then the job was not being done most likely. It just seems comp time is an idea that in theory would be great if you worked that extra 5 hours this week that next week you could take those 5 hours off but the reality is most people do not have jobs that work on that type of schedule.
 
[quote name='Spokker']They already banned overtime in many workplaces so allowing comp time is only expanding your options. In the public sector, there are programs that allow you to condense a 40 hour workweek into four days so you get Friday off. I don't think you get overtime for working over 8 hours on each of those four days. If this trade-off is reasonable and attractive, why isn't comp time in the private sector?
.[/QUOTE]

I think it is currently against overtime laws for employers to give that option.

They don't pay the time and a half out of the goodness of their hearts. They are most likely following the law, and this law would make them able to offer comp time in lieu of time and a half if an employee chooses.

You are right, in NY, OT is based on weekly hours worked rather than daily hours worked. I work that 40 hour week/4 ten hour days schedule where I am employed. I do not receive OT for the extra 2 hours each day. I love it. My two colleagues and I rotate out the 3 day weekends every 4 months. These people who are against this law would probably attempt to tell me my employer is trying to enslave me with this option as well.
 
Face it this do not affect most middle white class workers, nor even wage slaves... This is meant as a UNION busting law...

OT rules are the strictest in Union runned companies/sectors
 
Funny that it's a "Union Busting" law. As previously noted, this is pretty standard for Federal employees... which are generally unionized...
 
It's going to die in the Senate, and Ted Cruz and Rand Paul will go on a talk show tour, wailing and gnashing their teeth the whole way there.

But it is further evidence that nothing short of a full-throated return to the Truck System will satisfy modern vampire capitalists that falsely call themselves "Republicans."
 
[quote name='Spokker']They already banned overtime in many workplaces so allowing comp time is only expanding your options. In the public sector, there are programs that allow you to condense a 40 hour workweek into four days so you get Friday off. I don't think you get overtime for working over 8 hours on each of those four days. If this trade-off is reasonable and attractive, why isn't comp time in the private sector?

That being said, I wouldn't vote for this simply because I believe wages and benefits are a private contract between employer and employee. I'm against minimum wage, after all. Similarly, I don't think the federal government should be coming in and telling businesses they have to offer comp time. This hands off doesn't mean all businesses won't offer benefits. When I was laid off recently, I got a generous severance for the short amount of time I worked there. They didn't have to do that. No government told them to do that.

In general, companies like Costco will always pay their employees more and offer better benefits to retain good people. Inferior workers will work at Walmart where wages and benefits are inferior. Both approaches are fine with me. In-N-Out vs. McDonald's is also a good example. No one is forcing In-N-Out to pay above minimum wage. At the same time, many McDonald's workers would not qualify for a job at In-N-Out.[/QUOTE]
So you don't know how labor laws work? Color me surprised.

Considering your racist screed about the inferiority black "culture" in another thread, I'm even less surprised that you think that those unable to work for better employers are "naturally" incapable of being more productive and are where they belong.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I totally get it now. Beatings, rape, hangings, lashings, boat rides where half or more simply die is totally equivalent to having to work for a boss that says mean things to make your cell phone payment.[/QUOTE]

In your above 2 posts, you CLEARLY point out the problem with your thought process. You simply think "slavery=African slave trade in the Americas." You do realize that slavery is a word separate from that historical event? That there were other slaves in other periods? Other forms of slavery? That slavery is not just one particular mode such as which the US dispensed? Are you implying that slavery is unique to the US? There is not just one "slavery." That explains why you cannot comprehend the other forms of slavery such as "wage slavery."

Here is the definition of the word:
slav·ery noun \ˈslā-v(ə-)rē\
1: drudgery, toil
2: submission to a dominating influence
3a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another
b : the practice of slaveholding

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery
 
[quote name='dohdough']So you don't know how labor laws work? Color me surprised.

Considering your racist screed about the inferiority black "culture" in another thread, I'm even less surprised that you think that those unable to work for better employers are "naturally" incapable of being more productive and are where they belong.[/QUOTE]

Did you see this shit? I'm sure Spokker is a fan of this racist study from the Heritage Foundation...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5t4BoubKlw
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']Did you see this shit? I'm sure Spokker is a fan of this racist study from the Heritage Foundation...[/QUOTE]
The IQ of Latinos in America, as measured, is observed to be lower than that of other groups except for black. I think it's funny the controversy is over this undeniable fact, which obscures the legitimate debate over why the measured IQ is different. Of course, anyone who has a different opinion from the mainstream will be fired.

I don't think Mexico is a stupid country (far from it), but it's plausible that the immigrants who come to America have a slightly lower IQ than the Mexican average. It may be the same. I don't see how it could be higher, though. I would love to see more studies if people are willing to put their jobs on the line.
 
Social conservatism has been linked to lower average IQ. I see this statement as no more offensive than saying measured differences in average IQ between races has been observed.
 
One implies biological causation, leads to ethnic stereotyping, presumptions of capabilities and thus legitimizes discrimination...

...so of course it's exactly the same in your eyes.
 
I think it's partially cultural and partially socioeconomic.

Ethnic stereotyping exists with or without studying race and IQ. A large portion of the comedy world would not exist if not for ethnic stereotyping. Big money is made on ethnic stereotyping and most people enjoy it even if they believe in equality, diversity and hold only socially liberal views.
 
oh, now we're justifying stereotyping?

i suppose that's one way to prove your point in post #32. By, you know, completely destroying your point in post #32.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top