• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

OVERTIME OVERHAUL Obama reportedly to issue order expanding eligibility

jmotivator said:
So we have to accept that we will need to pay more for things so that we can get paid more in order to afford the rising costs of things? What is this actually accomplishing?
Click to expand...

It's called economic growth and prosperity

maybe someday, the right will start promoting it
 
sangha said:
No, it's not a fact; it's an opinion




Yes, you found someone else who shares your opinion. BFD

Let me know when you find some facts
Click to expand...

OR you might counter with a source that agrees with YOUR position. That might be difficult to find considering you are wrong.

I've worked as management over the years in a variety of businesses. Like Gates said, "you can pick any 80 hours a week you want to work". Of course, with the insane amount of hours building a new software company comes with, that comes with the possibility of an insanely large reward. Every one of those workers Gates was talking about there became multi-millionaires. I doubt the hourly folks did.
 
buck said:
Since they make less than the minimum, they are non exempt.

So again, what happens to your supposed salaried individual when he works 41 hours?
Click to expand...

He isn't a "supposed salaried individual"; he's a salaried individual.

And non-exempt salaried employees get paid overtime if they work more than 40 hours.
 
clownboy said:
OR you might counter with a source that agrees with YOUR position. That might be difficult to find considering you are wrong.

I've worked as management over the years in a variety of businesses. Like Gates said, "you can pick any 80 hours a week you want to work". Of course, with the insane amount of hours building a new software company comes with, that comes with the possibility of an insanely large reward. Every one of those workers Gates was talking about there became multi-millionaires. I doubt the hourly folks did.
Click to expand...

And if you work for an employer that allows flexibility for its' workers, then you have flexibility. Employers are free to grant such flexibility to any employee, exempt or not.

Flexibility depends on the employer, not the employee's exempt status
 
sangha said:
He isn't a "supposed salaried individual"; he's a salaried individual.

And non-exempt salaried employees get paid overtime if they work more than 40 hours.
Click to expand...

That also a limiting factor, because that's all they're going to get. That's why we have cops who have to take a second job if they want to expand beyond their salaries. The exempt employee typically has a way to increase their salary at will.
 
sangha said:
He isn't a "supposed salaried individual"; he's a salaried individual.

And non-exempt salaried employees get paid overtime if they work more than 40 hours.
Click to expand...

No, a salaried employee would not get OT. Salaries means you are paid a certain amount each year, regardless of the hours you worked.

If they are eligible for OT, they are defined as hourly and hours would have to be tracked for that employee to ensure the company is not violating the law.

It's actualyl pathetic you keep arguing this completely losing position.
 
MrVicchio said:
This isnt evening anything. Its forcing businesses to increase costs for "social justice" not business needs. This makes all ready jittery businesses morre afraid. Business thrives when conditions are stable. This is another destabilizing diktate. You are drawn to the emotional arguememt of "fairness" and you dont give a damn if everyone has to pay more, you dont give a damn if opportunity is lost to others you see "fairness" and personal short term gain. That sort of short sighted, selfish emotionally driven thinking is why this country is 17 trillion in debt.
Click to expand...

You do an awful lot of whining yourself for someone whining about whiners
 
clownboy said:
That also a limiting factor, because that's all they're going to get. That's why we have cops who have to take a second job if they want to expand beyond their salaries. The exempt employee typically has a way to increase their salary at will.
Click to expand...

I think you need to edit that post. I think you misworded it. I don't think it says what you want it to say
 
jmotivator said:
So we have to accept that we will need to pay more for things so that we can get paid more in order to afford the rising costs of things? What is this actually accomplishing?
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. Maybe we should all just make minimum wage so things will be cheap.
 
sangha said:
It's called economic growth and prosperity

maybe someday, the right will start promoting it
Click to expand...

Inflation isn't economic growth.
 
sangha said:
And if you work for an employer that allows flexibility for its' workers, then you have flexibility. Employers are free to grant such flexibility to any employee, exempt or not.

Flexibility depends on the employer, not the employee's exempt status
Click to expand...

No, couldn't be further from the truth. Hourly workers don't have the flexibility in pay or in hours. The reality of the business dictates who gets overtime hours and when, management, the salaried employees ultimately decide that by what is best for the business. Salaried employees typically have some sort of bonus structure that is tied to the success of the business. If overtime costs less than the work brings in, fine. But the majority of the time the goal of management is to balance the business so no overtime is available.
 
buck said:
No, a salaried employee would not get OT. Salaries means you are paid a certain amount each year, regardless of the hours you worked.
Click to expand...

Obviously, it does not mean what you say it means because salaried employees who are non-exempt can be paid more if they work overtime.

Here is the DOL's definition of salaried. Note how it does not say "salaried means you are paid a certain amount each year, regardless of the hours you worked"
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17g_salary.pdf
Being paid on a “salary basis” means an employee regularly receives a predetermined amount of compensation
each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent, basis. The predetermined amount cannot be reduced because of
variations in the quality or quantity of the employee’s work
Click to expand...

And note how it doesn't say that the amount "can't be increased"
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, come on. Maybe we should all just make minimum wage so things will be cheap.
Click to expand...

If we all made minimum wage (or median wage, in this case) we'd all be broke whether median wage was $7.00 or $1,000,000.00.
 
sangha said:
Economies that grow have inflation
Click to expand...

Economies that grow also have bankruptcies. That doesn't mean that successful economies require bankruptcies.
 
sangha said:
Obviously, it does not mean what you say it means because salaried employees who are non-exempt can be paid more if they work overtime.

Here is the DOL's definition of salaried. Note how it does not say "salaried means you are paid a certain amount each year, regardless of the hours you worked"
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17g_salary.pdf

And note how it doesn't say that the amount "can't be increased"
Click to expand...

No, but it sure does indicate:
an employee regularly receives a predetermined amount of compensation each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent, basis.
Click to expand...

if they are making more because of OT, that is not predetermined. If they are non-exempt, the company has to keep track of the employee's hours, unless they want to risk breaking the law, the employee would be eligible for OT and other protections and they would no longer be considered salaried.
 
buck said:
No, a salaried employee would not get OT. Salaries means you are paid a certain amount each year, regardless of the hours you worked.

If they are eligible for OT, they are defined as hourly and hours would have to be tracked for that employee to ensure the company is not violating the law.

It's actualyl pathetic you keep arguing this completely losing position.
Click to expand...

Buck, I just left a job as a salaried non-exempt employee. I insisted I be non-exempt because I wanted to be paid for the extra hours I put in. I was also given flexibility on my schedule because I was a good employee. They were not required to allow me this flexibility, they awarded it to me as a benefit of sorts to help retain me as an employee.
 
opendebate said:
You're confusing what the law says with what are common corporate practices.
Click to expand...

Not confusing that at all. The law doesn't require exempt employees to have more flexability and I have never claimed that it did.

But the fact is, that exempt employees typically have more flexability than non-exempt employees.
 
opendebate said:
Buck, I just left a job as a salaried non-exempt employee. I insisted I be non-exempt because I wanted to be paid for the extra hours I put in. I was also given flexibility on my schedule because I was a good employee. They were not required to allow me this flexibility, they awarded it to me as a benefit of sorts to help retain me as an employee.
Click to expand...

So, even in your story, you sure seem to indicate that exempy employees typically have more flexability than non-exempt. You had to ask for the flexability and you recieved it because you were a good employee.

Anyway, my mom has a similar story. She is a team lead for her department, they wanted to make her a manager, but she declined because she didn't want to give up the OT she was making at the time.
 
buck said:
Not confusing that at all. The law doesn't require exempt employees to have more flexability and I have never claimed that it did.

But the fact is, that exempt employees typically have more flexability than non-exempt employees.
Click to expand...

Again, I think in your earlier posts you were confusing law with common corporate practices.
 
buck said:
So, even in your story, you sure seem to indicate that exempy employees typically have more flexability than non-exempt. You had to ask for the flexability and you recieved it because you were a good employee.

Anyway, my mom has a similar story. She is a team lead for her department, they wanted to make her a manager, but she declined because she didn't want to give up the OT she was making at the time.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing about what might be the common practice. You made the statement that salaried = exempt. Which is inaccurate. It isn't even most common.

Like Sangha said earlier, a persons exempt vs non-exempt status hinges on a variety of factors not just whether or not they are salaried. The job your mother was offered may have caused her eligibility for non-exempt status to change. That is most likely the case.
 
opendebate said:
Again, I think in your earlier posts you were confusing law with common corporate practices.
Click to expand...

Not intentionally. There is no law that exempt employees have to be given more flexability. However, they typically are, right?
 
opendebate said:
No one is arguing about what might be the common practice. You made the statement that salaried = exempt. Which is inaccurate. It isn't even most common
Like Sangha said earlier, a persons exempt vs non-exempt status hinges on a variety of factors not just whether or not they are salaried. The job your mother was offered may have caused her eligibility for non-exempt status to change. That is most likely the case.
Click to expand...

This is a different argument. If someone is salaried, they are exempt. If someone does not meet they requirements of the law, then they are not salaried (and not exempt from the law), they are hourly and are eligible for OT.

For example, if a person makes $200.00 per week, they can not be exempt, true? If they can not be exempt, they then have to be paid hourly and would be eligible for OT. The employer will have to track their hours to ensure they are not working too much, skipping breaks/lunches, etc... That is clearly not a salaried employee, but is simply an hourly employee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom