• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush Administration says NO overtime pay for you!!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
good, bought time they start feeling the brunt of "exempt" instead of being lazy and demanding more money for more work.

geez.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Amused
Please learn how to count. I see only three small paragraphs with a rebuttal.
Also include the EPI's admission that the changes will benefit many people and that the EPI isn't even clear if their numbers are correct. Those are the last 2 paragraphs.

The disclaimer should be the first paragraph then. This is as shady as those scams which proclaims you've won a million but has the disclaimer in tiny font in the bottom. Newspaper editors know that most people just read the first couple of paragraphs then proceed to the next article, so putting the disclaimer that NONE of the numbers may be accurate at the bottom is bias.
 
You know it's a non-issue when the labor department brushes it off with a one liner.

There's nothing to see here.

<---- EXEMPT! 😛
 
Is it just me, or is 6 million salaried workers out of a 180 million or so workforce doesn't seem like that many. Plus, I've been salaried for nearly 10 years and never got overtime anyway. Out executives put in 40-60 hours a week and get overtime + perks, which not only is unfair, but it takes money away from the regular employees. I'm all for it :|
 
Originally posted by: Amused

Good FSCKING GAWD, why do people assume that of me???

You are using the MO of the ardent Bush lover, question an article's or source's bias, motive, sexual orientation, religious affiliation while not addressing the actual content or message.
 
Back
Top