OVERTIME OVERHAUL Obama reportedly to issue order expanding eligibility

buck · Mar 12, 2014

MaggieD said:
Why would you prefer being exempt?

Flexability is one of the big reasons. A few of the people with the company the longest took a pay cut, as we were put under a lower (non-exempt) band. So, our max salaries have decreased which affects things like salary relativety - which can effect raises and the like.

Renae · Mar 12, 2014

MaggieD said:
No, you're right. I don't care if it costs me a surcharge of 20-cents on my fast-food order so that employees can have health insurance. Or an extra 10%. I don't care of my loaf of bread costs 50-cents more. I don't care if it costs me another $3 to mow my lawn so the Mexicans who don't speak English and whose job prospects are limited and sweat their asses off to cut it can make $10 an hour instead of $7.25.

I guess that makes me a bad person.

Yes it does. Because you are forcing others to pay more too. Forcing your emotionally driven idealism on society.

Erod · Mar 12, 2014

Deuce said:
You...you know what overtime is, right?

Yep, I worked it every week for more than 20 years.

I always referred to it as "getting the job done."

GottaGo · Mar 12, 2014

rocket88 said:
If you work 40 hours, you're not working overtime. But if you've earned that money through your hard work, it's not someone else's money as stated in the OP.

Personal anecdote, but maybe it will make the premise of Salary a little more clear to you.

I am salaried. My sister has stage 4 cancer, so every 4-6 weeks for the last 6 months, I take a 4 day weekend to go see her. Guess what? My pay doesn't change!

buck · Mar 12, 2014

GottaGo said:
Personal anecdote, but maybe it will make the premise of Salary a little more clear to you.

I am salaried. My sister has stage 4 cancer, so every 4-6 weeks for the last 6 months, I take a 4 day weekend to go see her. Guess what? My pay doesn't change!

Sorry to hear of your sister, but yes... That is certainly one of the great things about being exempt. Having the flexability. Basically, as long as your work gets done there is no issue.

MaggieD · Mar 12, 2014

buck said:
Flexability is one of the big reasons. A few of the people with the company the longest took a pay cut, as we were put under a lower (non-exempt) band. So, our max salaries have decreased which affects things like salary relativety - which can effect raises and the like.

As long as an employer lets one have flexibility, I see your point. Some employers, however, don't let you do that. They're certainly under no obligation to do so. If one gets comp time? I completely agree. Salary's better.

jonny5 · Mar 12, 2014

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.

Moon · Mar 12, 2014

rocket88 said:
If you work 40 hours, you're not working overtime. But if you've earned that money through your hard work, it's not someone else's money as stated in the OP.

Thanks, I'm aware of the definition of overtime.

Ockham · Mar 12, 2014

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.

Mason66 · Mar 12, 2014

I didn't see in the OP if this order would be for hourly wage earners or salaried wage earners.

If it is for salaried wage earners, this would essentially turn them into hourly wage earners.

How can the federal government void employment contracts between employees and employers?

Mycroft · Mar 12, 2014

Mason66 said:
I didn't see in the OP if this order would be for hourly wage earners or salaried wage earners.

If it is for salaried wage earners, this would essentially turn them into hourly wage earners.

How can the federal government void employment contracts between employees and employers?

If your name is Obama, you can do anything you want to do. All you have to do is issue an Executive Order.

Ockham · Mar 12, 2014

Mycroft said:
If your name is Obama, you can do anything you want to do. All you have to do is issue an Executive Order.

Sooner or later that has to be challenged and revoked. If it doesn't, it will be to all of our detriment.

Mithros · Mar 12, 2014

rhinefire said:
I just saw the episode of "Between The Ferns" interview with Obama and I ask does he possess any sense of dignity for the office? As the first and probably last black president he has all but trashed the position through violations of the constitution and behavior more suited to a 15 year old pot head.

Right..... because you've already tried a black president. Why would another black president be any different.

And you wonder why the right is considered to be racist.

Ockham · Mar 12, 2014

Mithros said:
Right..... because you've already tried a black president. Why would another black president be any different.

And you wonder why the right is considered to be racist.

Does he wonder? The right is considered to be racist because that is the narrative those opposed to Republicans want and need to pursue for political gain. There are racist people of all colors, political views, economic backgrounds, etc...

Mithros · Mar 12, 2014

Moon said:
Straight to hyperbole in post #2!

I like being salaried because it gives me more flexibility in scheduling my time. I normally work 40-45 hours a week and am certainly not "owned". I've worked a number of salaried jobs in the last 20 years and was never required to work an exorbitant number of hours.

Consider yourself to be one of the fortunate ones.

If you're in one of the high-tech science, software, and engineering fields then 45 hours is is a vacation week. I'd say that you're looking more at 40-80hrs. Do you know how many PhD students commit suicide because of the hours and the pressure? And much like medical doctors, the ones who survive end up as complete workaholics.

I like what I do, so I'm happy to put in whatever hours I need to get the job done, but there is a problem which needs to be addressed. Much like the effect concussions in the NFL, you can say it's our choice; but that doesn't make it right to not take action.

sangha · Mar 12, 2014

buck said:
Flexability is one of the big reasons. A few of the people with the company the longest took a pay cut, as we were put under a lower (non-exempt) band. So, our max salaries have decreased which affects things like salary relativety - which can effect raises and the like.

For one thing, exempt status has no effect on flexibility. You still have to do the work and put in the hours that your employer requires. If not, you get fired.

And as far as pay goes, there's nothing stopping either exempt or non-exempt employees from asking for more pay, and if they don't get it, they can find another job.

sangha · Mar 12, 2014

MaggieD said:
As long as an employer lets one have flexibility, I see your point. Some employers, however, don't let you do that. They're certainly under no obligation to do so. If one gets comp time? I completely agree. Salary's better.

Actually, being salaried and being exempt are two different issues. One can be salaried exempt, non-salaried exempt, salaried non-exempt and non-salaried non-exempt

IOW, the issue of being eligible for overtime has nothing to do with whether you're salaried or not.

longview · Mar 12, 2014

The other thing that Obama may not be counting on, is that there is no requirement
for companies to keep the pay level of the employees the same.
If they have to start paying them for the 50 hour week, they just reduce their pay by 25%
so they end up with the same take home pay, but now only if they actually work the 50 hours.

Ockham · Mar 12, 2014

longview said:
The other thing that Obama may not be counting on, is that there is no requirement
for companies to keep the pay level of the employees the same.
If they have to start paying them for the 50 hour week, they just reduce their pay by 25%
so they end up with the same take home pay, but now only if they actually work the 50 hours.

Yep, many ways to compensate for any predictable OT.

buck · Mar 12, 2014

sangha said:
For one thing, exempt status has no effect on flexibility. You still have to do the work and put in the hours that your employer requires. If not, you get fired.

You are entirely incorrect. Hourly employees have far less flexability than exempt employees. Of course you still have to get your work done, though.

And as far as pay goes, there's nothing stopping either exempt or non-exempt employees from asking for more pay, and if they don't get it, they can find another job.

By the same token, there is nothign from stopping an exempt employee from saying they want hourly/OT, then if they don't get it, they can find another job.

Lord of Planar · Mar 12, 2014

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?

Maybe, hard to say. It doesn't apply to all salaried workers, and i would hate to see a one-size-fits-all, like always happens when the feds get involved.

States rights anyone...

I've seen places where some salaried workers work 30 hrs a week, and other 60, for the same job. They are being paid by the job... Just that simple... Simply work more efficient...

If the job isn't for you, change jobs.

iguanaman · Mar 12, 2014

Moon said:
Straight to hyperbole in post #2!

I like being salaried because it gives me more flexibility in scheduling my time. I normally work 40-45 hours a week and am certainly not "owned". I've worked a number of salaried jobs in the last 20 years and was never required to work an exorbitant number of hours.

What does that have to do with this? You are not everybody.

sangha · Mar 12, 2014

buck said:
You are entirely incorrect. Hourly employees have far less flexability than exempt employees. Of course you still have to get your work done, though.

Nonsense. If the boss wants their non-exempt employees to be present during specified hours then they have to be there. Exempt status has nothing to do with flexible hours. The reason why some people have more flexible hours than others is because their boss allows it. Bosses can give non-exempt employees just as much flexibility as they give exempt ones, if they so choose.

By the same token, there is nothign from stopping an exempt employee from saying they want hourly/OT, then if they don't get it, they can find another job.

Correct, which goes to my point that there is no added flexibility associated with being exempt or non-exempt. Flexibility is the result of the contract between employers and employees.

buck · Mar 12, 2014

sangha said:
Actually, being salaried and being exempt are two different issues. One can be salaried exempt, non-salaried exempt, salaried non-exempt and non-salaried non-exempt

IOW, the issue of being eligible for overtime has nothing to do with whether you're salaried or not.

If you are salaried, you are defiend as exempt. To qualify as an exempt employee, you have to be salaried. It's the first bullet point below:

Definition: Certain types of employees, who are classified as exempt employees, are not entitled to overtime pay as guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). If an employee is classified as exempt (vs. non-exempt) their employer is not required to pay them overtime pay.
Administrative, executive, and professional employees, outside salespeople and certain computer employees may be classified as exempt if they meet the following criteria:

•Employees are paid on a salary rather than an an hourly basis.
•Employees earn at least $455 per week.
•Employees are paid full salary for any week they work, regardless of how much time they work.

iguanaman · Mar 12, 2014

Lord of Planar said:
Maybe, hard to say. It doesn't apply to all salaried workers, and i would hate to see a one-size-fits-all, like always happens when the feds get involved.

States rights anyone...

I've seen places where some salaried workers work 30 hrs a week, and other 60, for the same job. They are being paid by the job... Just that simple... Simply work more efficient...

If the job isn't for you, change jobs.

Are you offering to find a new job for those that are being abused? Otherwise STFU

OVERTIME OVERHAUL Obama reportedly to issue order expanding eligibility

buck

Renae

Erod

GottaGo

Rock and a hard place

buck

MaggieD

jonny5

Moon

Why so serious?

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Mason66

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Mithros

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Mithros

sangha

sangha

longview

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

buck

Lord of Planar

iguanaman

sangha

buck

iguanaman