• 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

buck said:
If they truly do not qualify as exempt, then the company is breaking the law.



This seems like a silly comment... It sounds like your problem is with the enforcement of the law, not a problem with the law itself.
Click to expand...

That is true. I do think the law could be better enforced. That's a good way to put it

But I think we're straying too far from the original point (which is probably my fault) which was how exempt status and flexibility are not necessarily linked and instead, the result of the employers decisions concerning what he needs to do in order to attract and retain the talent he needs to run his business.

BTW, while googling, I read an article in which the reverse happened - A corporation inappropriately classified executives as non-exempt and then reduced their hourly rate by an amount that was calculated to bring their employees up to a similar income when including their overtime.

More American workers sue employers for overtime pay

Many companies have reclassified salaried executives as hourly employees — often to the consternation of the workers themselves, says Dan Yager, general counsel of the HR Policy Association, which represents human resource professionals. Such a strategy lets employers head off lawsuits by paying a lower basic wage that accounts for expected overtime.
Click to expand...

Not sure why they did this :shrug:
 
PirateMk1 said:
Did you take it? I am in business for myself I don't use employees anymore and will never use them again. I hire contractors. Its cheaper and I can get rid of them at will if I so choose. Further I have to obligatory FEELINGS. Its all business. Business people don't get overtime. They get whatever the customer pays for service. Is willing to pay. If you are not treated fairly at a job then I would suggest either getting another job or starting your own business. Making more laws and regs just screws things up more.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't take it. I've basically been an entrepreneur my whole life. If a business can legally hire contractors, that's certainly the way to go. If an employer is flying under the radar using contractors instead of employees, then one runs the real risk of being audited and profoundly spanked. ;)
 
sangha said:
I guess you missed the words "At least, not for very long"
Click to expand...

I guess you missed the part where you still need to actually prove your claimed causal relationship between inflation and economic growth. All I need to show is that economic growth is possible without inflation in order to show that your claim of a causal relationship is false. I have done that.

good_day_sir_gif-393.jpg


:2razz:
 
jmotivator said:
I guess you missed the part where you still need to actually prove your claimed causal relationship between inflation and economic growth. All I need to show is that economic growth is possible without inflation in order to show that your claim of a causal relationship is false. I have done that.

good_day_sir_gif-393.jpg


:2razz:
Click to expand...

YOu haven't posted anything that refutes my claim
 
GottaGo said:
Perhaps that is your personal experience, but it's not mine.

I've been with this company for 14 years, and it's been the same for at least 12 years of it: making sure the work is done is the goal. I've not had to use personal time, vacation time or offset time. Boss does not track my hours, I don't 'punch a clock'. He's called when he's needed something on weekends, nights, even when I have officially been on vacation. He doesn't question where my time is spent. I advise him when I'll be out from courtesy.

Perhaps it's the attitude of the worker that sets the parameters of what salary is. Those who are belligerent and display an attitude of 'it's ALL about MY paycheck' rather then truly caring how the company does, that sets the employers attitude towards the employees.
Click to expand...

So based on your experience working as a salaried employee at ONE company you have concluded that's how the majority of them operate?

I've been a salaried employee for a pest control company, several retailers, a small biz family owned restaurant, and two chain restaurants.
 
KevinKohler said:
So based on your experience working as a salaried employee at ONE company you have concluded that's how the majority of them operate?

I've been a salaried employee for a pest control company, several retailers, a small biz family owned restaurant, and two chain restaurants.
Click to expand...

No, I would say my experience is based on working with both State of Federal levels of DOL rules, regs, employees and knowing how other companies operate.
 
sangha said:
YOu haven't posted anything that refutes my claim
Click to expand...

Sure I have. Since economic growth is possible during deflationary periods, and since any third world kleptocracy is evidence that inflation can happen during economic collapse, there is no causal relationship between economic growth and inflation. The relationship is coincidental.
 
buck said:
Even fast food managers have more flexability then the hourly employees, at least in many cases. Anyway, if what you say is true and there really are an increase in the amount of lawsuite, it would seem that law is already sufficient and some companies are simply breaking the law.
Click to expand...

They are willfully breaking the law because it's cheaper to overwork a few and settle suits than it is to abide by the law.

And a .00006 second google search will show you how prevalent this issue is across the country. At this point, failure to look into the subject matter of the topic at hand only makes you look willfully ignorant.
 
GottaGo said:
Just as there are 'employees' who would break the law in any number of ways, there will be 'employers' who will do the same.

But it all boils down to the fact if they break one law on the subject, what makes the government think they will adhere to another?
Click to expand...
Because it removes the option to do so.
 
buck said:
If they truly do not qualify as exempt, then the company is breaking the law.



This seems like a silly comment... It sounds like your problem is with the enforcement of the law, not a problem with the law itself.
Click to expand...
The problem is, the only ones who can enforce these laws are the employees themselves, and ignorance, and trepidation about job security keeps them from adequately doing so. Kinda OSHA standards. There is never a "problem", no matter how poorly a company abides by them, until someone is hurt or killed.
 
sangha said:
That is true. I do think the law could be better enforced. That's a good way to put it

But I think we're straying too far from the original point (which is probably my fault) which was how exempt status and flexibility are not necessarily linked and instead, the result of the employers decisions concerning what he needs to do in order to attract and retain the talent he needs to run his business.

BTW, while googling, I read an article in which the reverse happened - A corporation inappropriately classified executives as non-exempt and then reduced their hourly rate by an amount that was calculated to bring their employees up to a similar income when including their overtime.

More American workers sue employers for overtime pay



Not sure why they did this :shrug:
Click to expand...

Why else? To save money.
 
GottaGo said:
No, I would say my experience is based on working with both State of Federal levels of DOL rules, regs, employees and knowing how other companies operate.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't you use that reference to begin with?
 
sangha said:
Possibly, but I don't see how it does that. After all, they are paying an hourly wage that, with overtime, is calculated to equal the salary they used to pay.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they aren't promised OT. When you don't need them, you send them home. Now your under payroll for the week, and continued performance will bring you another 1.5% of bonus money.
 
KevinKohler said:
Yes, but they aren't promised OT. When you don't need them, you send them home. Now your under payroll for the week, and continued performance will bring you another 1.5% of bonus money.
Click to expand...

I don't know. The article speaks of "expected overtime" which I assume means that they will continue working just as many hours as ever so in the end, their pay would be the same. And if they don't let them put in the OT, someone else will have to do the job and they will have to pay them.
 
sangha said:
I don't know. The article speaks of "expected overtime" which I assume means that they will continue working just as many hours as ever so in the end, their pay would be the same. And if they don't let them put in the OT, someone else will have to do the job and they will have to pay them.
Click to expand...

I think it was preemptive. According to the article, the came right after a 60+ mil settlement.
 
KevinKohler said:
I think it was preemptive. According to the article, the came right after a 60+ mil settlement.
Click to expand...

Have you been forced to sign an Agreement to Arbitrate yet?
 
MaggieD said:
No, I didn't take it. I've basically been an entrepreneur my whole life. If a business can legally hire contractors, that's certainly the way to go. If an employer is flying under the radar using contractors instead of employees, then one runs the real risk of being audited and profoundly spanked. ;)
Click to expand...

By definition a contractor should have other customers or at least full control of if when and how they conduct business. FedEx and the like are skirting the grey areas. I hire people that have their own licensing, insurance ect. Its a way to distance myself even though a lot of times I am their exclusive business partner. FedEx requires uniforms certain working hours conditions and methods, that I don't. Like I said we don't need more rules on the subject of overtime. Quite frankly the overtime rules needs to go the way of the dodo bird.
Employers already have enough disincentive to hire people. I can do anything in any business with a contractor that I can in a business that employs people. You and I don't get paid for all of the hours we put in to run our business's. If someone wants salary they need to know the pitfalls of it and whether they think the upside is worth those pitfalls.
 
PirateMk1 said:
By definition a contractor should have other customers or at least full control of if when and how they conduct business. FedEx and the like are skirting the grey areas. I hire people that have their own licensing, insurance ect. Its a way to distance myself even though a lot of times I am their exclusive business partner. FedEx requires uniforms certain working hours conditions and methods, that I don't. Like I said we don't need more rules on the subject of overtime. Quite frankly the overtime rules needs to go the way of the dodo bird.
Employers already have enough disincentive to hire people. I can do anything in any business with a contractor that I can in a business that employs people. You and I don't get paid for all of the hours we put in to run our business's. If someone wants salary they need to know the pitfalls of it and whether they think the upside is worth those pitfalls.
Click to expand...

Great explanation. I think UPS does the same thing, though I'm not sure. (I think they may even actually own their trucks.) Your last line: Very true.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, frankly, I think something should be done. Companies too often pay salaries and then expect sixty hours a week with no comp time. Just exactly how fair is that?

Folks, I think we're just going to have to get used to paying more for things. Workers need some help to assure their fair treatment. It's time we all realized that.

I was offered a managerial job ten-plus years ago. The offer letter came to me with a salary promise, description of benefits, and a caveat that I would be expected to work sixty hours a week. So, I'll ask again: Just exactly how fair is that?
Click to expand...

Those employees should hit the road; take their talents elsewhere.

The fix surely doesn't exist in the president excercising dictatorial power. This idiot's heavy handed tactics are why the economy is in the ****ter, not overtime regulations.
 
apdst said:
Those employees should hit the road; take their talents elsewhere.

The fix surely doesn't exist in the president excercising dictatorial power. This idiot's heavy handed tactics are why the economy is in the ****ter, not overtime regulations.
Click to expand...

While I think overtime regulations need tweaking to protect the American worker, I sure don't approve of Obama's tactics.
 
jonny5 said:
Why not make it hours over 20? And triple pay? If we're going to be arbitary, why not max it out? If the goal is a living wage, lets just get it over with and say every employee must be paid X dollars a week minimum. Then get rid of all the rest of the rules.
Click to expand...

because those things would be stupid to implement and there is no coherent reason to so modify such work rules ... unlike the circumstance in which Obama has signed an executive order expanding overtime to cover salaried employees
 
Ockham said:
Obama is buying votes that's certain - and he's doing it for the mid-term elections so DNC seats in the Senate can be protected. This won't be the first time but I'm not sure it's going to work. I do agree that for the average worker this is a good thing and a few extra sheckles in our pockets helps - every bit helps. Will those few bucks really amount to much? Again, the unintended consequences of this action will I believe, retract the businesses affected. Now when OT is needed, businesses will plan or extend timelines so OT is not needed... there are many ways around having to pay OT.

I also don't think the few tens of thousands of people this may help between now and November 2014 will see a significant uptick in their end of year pay, nor will this move erase the deception, scandals and out right lies this administration has inflicted on us, nor will it erase the stain of the ACA. I think Republicans should embrace this... not pick a fight, but make sure their constituents know that while this may help a few such a bribe for votes doesn't erase the errors of the past.
Click to expand...
so, your point is that previously, employees would be expected to work additional hours for no additional compensation, but when the employer has to now pay for those additional hours, management will stagger the work hours such that no overtime is required. and you believe that is a bad outcome ... that the salaried employees now are able to enjoy those former overtime hours as personal time, instead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom