• 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!

Judge blocks Obama rule extending overtime pay to 4.2 million U.S. workers

countryboy said:
Yes!!!! Evil conservative business owners unite!!!!! Lol.

What do you do again? Mason? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I sell online. Things made in Mexico I sell to the US and things I import I sell here in Mexico.

I found working from the house is much safer than having a physical location.

Too many bad people here where I am.

I also have 6 dogs. Mexicans are scared of dogs so nobody bothers me.
 
ocean515 said:
I understand.

My decision to call it a career as a business owner was a long time coming.

My only regret at this point is that my latest venture will not remain in California. I tried to negotiate the sale to keep it here, but in the end, business is business.

Like my previous business, the new owners will be moving the operation to a different state. I had some good people involved in this latest venture, and some may follow to the new location in Nevada. But, there are probably going to be 40-50 people who will be out of a job. I wish them well when that time comes. I put this reality squarely on the shoulders of the pathetic anti-business, anti-growth morons running the state and the city of Los Angeles.
Click to expand...

Wow, you are late to the boat. We moved our business to Las Vegas back in 1989.

You survived California taxes much longer than I would have.

I mean the savings on the work trucks for the registration is a huge amount in and of itself.
 
Mason66 said:
I sell online. Things made in Mexico I sell to the US and things I import I sell here in Mexico.

I found working from the house is much safer than having a physical location.

Too many bad people here where I am.

I also have 6 dogs. Mexicans are scared of dogs so nobody bothers me.
Click to expand...

We're not afraid of dogs. :mrgreen: They taste like chicken. I had a perro asada burrito the night before last in Louisville, KY. :D

All kidding aside, that's way cool. I wish you all the success in the world. :)
 
Mason66 said:
Wow, you are late to the boat. We moved our business to Las Vegas back in 1989.

You survived California taxes much longer than I would have.

I mean the savings on the work trucks for the registration is a huge amount in and of itself.
Click to expand...

My brother has a plumbing business in SoCal. He used to have a half a dozen vans. The costs were too prohibitive, and it just wasn't worth it. Now he is a one man show too. Why do libs think killing business is a good thing? I'll never understand.
 
countryboy said:
My brother has a plumbing business in SoCal. He used to have a half a dozen vans. The costs were too prohibitive, and it just wasn't worth it. Now he is a one man show too. Why do libs think killing business is a good thing? I'll never understand.
Click to expand...

As an example.

If you buy a new Pick Up in California. They charge you like 2.5% for the registration fee then they charge an additional weight fee so they get you twice.

If you take that same truck to Nevada, you could probably get away with paying about 60% less on all those fees.

I don't understand why anybody stays in California.
 
countryboy said:
We're not afraid of dogs. :mrgreen: They taste like chicken. I had a perro asada burrito the night before last in Louisville, KY. :D

All kidding aside, that's way cool. I wish you all the success in the world. :)
Click to expand...

Thank you I appreciate that.

Kids here are taught to be scared of dogs. It is a crazy thing and the opposite of what you want to teach a kid for their safety, but we are back to the intelligence thing.
 
Mason66 said:
Wow, you are late to the boat. We moved our business to Las Vegas back in 1989.

You survived California taxes much longer than I would have.

I mean the savings on the work trucks for the registration is a huge amount in and of itself.
Click to expand...

LOL

Agreed. I was very blessed with my first venture. In fact, that would put it mildly. I had no idea it would grow as large as it did at the time I decided to sell it. That made certain ROI issues less critical when I decided to step back into the fray in a different field of business.

I've got family here, grandchildren, etc.. I didn't want to move. My family has been here in SoCal for over 140 years. But that tie has become less important. I've got the means to leave, and help my immediate family do likewise.

I no longer recognize California as the melting pot of opportunity and interesting people. It's a complete mess.

Oh well, a new chapter awaits in the coming years.
 
LowDown said:
Businesses are a source of endless amounts of money, and the only reason that employees are not paid more is the greed of owners. All that is required to improve prosperity is to force the owners to pay the employees more. Every good hearted Democrat knows this.
Click to expand...

The Sacred Job Creators must never be questioned, as they never do any wrong. All of their acts are benevolent and good for society, and they would never exploit workers or endanger customers. It is morally wrong to force a business to do silly things like product safety testing or pay someone enough to feed themselves. Every good libertarian knows this
 
WorldWatcher said:
Oh - we'll we've all done that before. :))


The new rule didn't require the pay to be doubled.

There was no requirement under the change for annual rate for an employee. If the EE was being paid $455 per week ($23,660 per year) before the rule, they could still be paid $55 per week ($23,660 per year) for 40 hours after the rule.



>>>>
Click to expand...

If they were to remain a salaried exempt employee, they had to be increased to the $913 per week which would cover all hours worked regardless of excess above 40.

If they were not increased to the to the $913, certain overtime rules would apply, and I continue to stand by the statement that if the salary was original stated as 'all hours worked' in the written employment agreement (yes, I changed from contract to agreement, as one would find in RTW states) then the .5 would apply to hours above 40. The representative of the FDoL was very specific on that.
 
countryboy said:
That's exactly why I don't have employees. So I can keep all the money for myself. Mwooohahahahaha!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you have to do all the work yourself too.

You know.. "I'd rather earn 1% of 100 men's labor than 100% of my own"
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, but you have to do all the work yourself too.

You know.. "I'd rather earn 1% of 100 men's labor than 100% of my own"
Click to expand...

I don't work hard. Haven't you heard, business owners make scads of cash by sitting around doing nothing.

In fact, these 30" tiles I recently installed magically hung themselves when I waved my crystal scepter.
 

Attachments

  • VZM.IMG_20161116_102954_496x800.jpg
    VZM.IMG_20161116_102954_496x800.jpg
    72.3 KB · Views: 31
countryboy said:
I don't work hard. Haven't you heard, business owners make scads of cash by sitting around doing nothing.

In fact, these 30" tiles I recently installed magically hung themselves when I waved my crystal scepter.
Click to expand...

Truly a Thanksgiving miracle! ;)
 
jmotivator said:
Truly a Thanksgiving miracle! ;)
Click to expand...

Lol. All kidding aside, when these monsters were delivered, the builder had about ten of his guys help to carry everything upstairs. That was truly something to be thankful for. :)
 
>

I've switched the order of statement just for my clarity.

GottaGo said:
If they were not increased to the to the $913, certain overtime rules would apply, and I continue to stand by the statement that if the salary was original stated as 'all hours worked' in the written employment agreement (yes, I changed from contract to agreement, as one would find in RTW states) then the .5 would apply to hours above 40. The representative of the FDoL was very specific on that.
Click to expand...

At this point we are kind of at a "wash" scenerio, you want to talk in terms of "hours" and as someone who works in HR and deals with reporting compensation, I'm telling you that major HRMS/Payroll Systems (like Oracle HRMS) which is what we were using working with KRONOS our Time and Labor system. They time import from KRONS was Hours worked broken into various "buckets" if you will. Straight Hours (regular work hours), Overtime Hours (Hours over 40, actual clock hours so the time transfer is 1:1), and then various Special Hour categories (Vacation, Sick Leave, etc.)

A person making $10.00 works a regular 40 hour week. If they earn 1 hour of overtime, for a total of 41 hours the system transfer of time would have two entries. 40 Regular Hours and 1 Over time hour. Their pay would be $400.000 + $15.00 totalling $415.00 for the week. Typically payroll systems use pay rates to pay overtime, not 1/2 of overtime hours worked in their calculations. But if we did it that way you would have 41 hours at regular rate (equaling $410.00) + $5.00 ([Clock End of Overtime - Clock Start of Overtime] divided by 2). You still end up with $415 for the week. We arrive at the same $$$ figure.

That's why I say it's a wash. We are approaching the problem from two different direction and arriving at the same answer.


GottaGo said:
If they were to remain a salaried exempt employee, they had to be increased to the $913 per week which would cover all hours worked regardless of excess above 40.
Click to expand...

Here you established a criteria NOT in the law (or rule if you will) under the USDOL. There is no requirement that employees that were salaried exempt EE under the old rule to remain salaried exempt EEs. Under the new rule they would be salaried non-exempt and be due overtime for hours over 40.

There is no requirement that ANY individuals pay be increased by 100% and rise to $47,000 per year which an yard stick you appear to be trying to establish. An EE that was paid a $34,000 salary before, can still be paid $34,000 under new rule for a standard 40 hour week. The only difference is that the employee must be paid 1.5 their regularly hourly rate for time over 40 hours per week. (Or the way you like to term it, paid their regularly hourly rate for each hour (or part thereof) over 40 plus and addition 0.5 rate of that amount for that time.)


>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
>

I've switched the order of statement just for my clarity.



At this point we are kind of at a "wash" scenerio, you want to talk in terms of "hours" and as someone who works in HR and deals with reporting compensation, I'm telling you that major HRMS/Payroll Systems (like Oracle HRMS) which is what we were using working with KRONOS our Time and Labor system. They time import from KRONS was Hours worked broken into various "buckets" if you will. Straight Hours (regular work hours), Overtime Hours (Hours over 40, actual clock hours so the time transfer is 1:1), and then various Special Hour categories (Vacation, Sick Leave, etc.)

A person making $10.00 works a regular 40 hour week. If they earn 1 hour of overtime, for a total of 41 hours the system transfer of time would have two entries. 40 Regular Hours and 1 Over time hour. Their pay would be $400.000 + $15.00 totalling $415.00 for the week. Typically payroll systems use pay rates to pay overtime, not 1/2 of overtime hours worked in their calculations. But if we did it that way you would have 41 hours at regular rate (equaling $410.00) + $5.00 ([Clock End of Overtime - Clock Start of Overtime] divided by 2). You still end up with $415 for the week. We arrive at the same $$$ figure.

That's why I say it's a wash. We are approaching the problem from two different direction and arriving at the same answer.




Here you established a criteria NOT in the law (or rule if you will) under the USDOL. There is no requirement that employees that were salaried exempt EE under the old rule to remain salaried exempt EEs. Under the new rule they would be salaried non-exempt and be due overtime for hours over 40.

There is no requirement that ANY individuals pay be increased by 100% and rise to $47,000 per year which an yard stick you appear to be trying to establish. An EE that was paid a $34,000 salary before, can still be paid $34,000 under new rule for a standard 40 hour week. The only difference is that the employee must be paid 1.5 their regularly hourly rate for time over 40 hours per week. (Or the way you like to term it, paid their regularly hourly rate for each hour (or part thereof) over 40 plus and addition 0.5 rate of that amount for that time.)


>>>>
Click to expand...

I've not brought hourly employees into the discussion, as it is not applicable. Yes, they do earn 1.5 on overtime, that hasn't changed.

"Managers', as defined by the FDoL, need to meet certain requirements to be on salary to being with. The base rate was $455 per week, until this new ruling, which basically states that 1. they need to meet the defined requires, and either make the $913, or a base salary and be paid additionally for hours over 40. If they earn a bonus paid periodically, then their hourly rate needs to be recalculated for the applicable weeks by adding the bonus into the salary, and divide by forty to determine the new hourly rate, and pay the difference when the bonus is actually paid.

The differences fall on the terminology that is used in the employment agreement/contract as a description of what the salary covers. If it specifies 45 hours, and the employee works more than the 45 hours, time and a half will be paid on any hours above 45. If they agreement/contract states 'all hours worked', then only half time is due on any hours above 40, subject to the recalculation noted above.

No it does not force you to move anybody up to the $913, I didn't state that. If you want someone to remain salary exempt, then you would have to increase it to the $913.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom