New overtime laws

[slipONflange]

One of many links.

I am sure that most have head of the new OT changes that have gone into effect today but what I want to know is who it benefits. The only benefit I see is that they raised the OT pay guarantee for employees who make under $23,660 from $8,060 per year.

Bush says it?s a victory for the working class.
Kerry says it?s a victory for big business.

What do you think?

 

[nageov3t]

doesn't affect me at all.

but if I were still at my previous job, where I got paid hourly and often worked 45-50 hours/week, I'd be losing my overtime pay.

 

[XZeroII]

Based on what I've read, it's 100% speculation at this point. It's way to early to make any sort of intelligent oppinion on it.

 

[jjzelinski]

Bush doesn't come accross as very friendly to the working class. Unless, of course, this is considered friendly. Then I guess he really is fighting for the little guy! Thanks George Bush! Four more years!

 

[slipONflange]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Based on what I've read, it's 100% speculation at this point. It's way to early to make any sort of intelligent oppinion on it.

Was their a problem with the OT laws before the change?

 

[Dissipate]

Overtime laws are a crock. All they do is make businesses hire more employees and have them all work less than 40 hours each. They should ALL be repealed. The government's place is not to determine how much people should be paid in private transactions.

To answer the question, no one benefits from overtime laws. All they really do is make people have to work multiple jobs in order to get enough hours.

 

[slipONflange]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

To answer the question, no one benefits from overtime laws. All they really do is make people have to work multiple jobs in order to get enough hours.

I disagree, I feel I benefit. I don?t like to work more than 40 a week and if I have to I feel I should be compensated for it. I don?t live to work.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: slipONflange

Originally posted by: Dissipate

To answer the question, no one benefits from overtime laws. All they really do is make people have to work multiple jobs in order to get enough hours.

I disagree, I feel I benefit. I don?t like to work more than 40 a week and if I have to I feel I should be compensated for it. I don?t live to work.

OT laws are inherently inefficient. And in a free-market with about a half-dozen people in it, you could probably coordinate the many and varied wishes for 'normal' hours and level of compensation for exceeding these hours.

In a huge economy with millions of workers, this is hardly practical, as you would have to coordinate millions of substantially different labour supply curves, one by one.

A system with OT laws isn't perfect, but it's a good beaurocratic solution to the 'not-free' nature of the effort needed to coordinate so many workers. Employers can still choose how much OT to purchase at the marginal rate, and are free to choose a value of zero. Employees are generally free to accept OT or try to pass it off to another employee who can do the job ands wants the hours. In some cases, impositions may be made on the employee, and the additional pay is usually enough to pretty much compensate for the imposition, even if the employee would kinda-sorta rather stay home.

So it's not efficient, but it's a reasonable approximation of an efficient system.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: slipONflange

Originally posted by: Dissipate

To answer the question, no one benefits from overtime laws. All they really do is make people have to work multiple jobs in order to get enough hours.

I disagree, I feel I benefit. I don?t like to work more than 40 a week and if I have to I feel I should be compensated for it. I don?t live to work.

Oh yeah you "feel" benefit but that is illusory. Ever heard the phrase "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? The idea that capitalists can be forced to pay up to wage earners with no negative benefit to the wage earner is a myth. That money doesn't just come out of nowhere, and it certainly just doesn't come out of the pocket of your employer. Everyone suffers as a result of these laws.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: slipONflange

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Based on what I've read, it's 100% speculation at this point. It's way to early to make any sort of intelligent oppinion on it.

Was their a problem with the OT laws before the change?

Yes, Companies were supposed to pay time and half after 40 hours but they started to not pay anymore and instead pocket the money for personal Yachts. This in turn got employees pissed and started sueing said Employers. Bush and Big Business don't like being sued for screwing employees so they passed a Law making it legal to screw employees. Pretty simple.

Oh yeah, and name it a phoney deceptive name as usual.

 

[slipONflange]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: slipONflange

Originally posted by: Dissipate

To answer the question, no one benefits from overtime laws. All they really do is make people have to work multiple jobs in order to get enough hours.

I disagree, I feel I benefit. I don?t like to work more than 40 a week and if I have to I feel I should be compensated for it. I don?t live to work.

Oh yeah you "feel" benefit but that is illusory. Ever heard the phrase "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? The idea that capitalists can be forced to pay up to wage earners with no negative benefit to the wage earner is a myth. That money doesn't just come out of nowhere, and it certainly just doesn't come out of the pocket of your employer. Everyone suffers as a result of these laws.

I agree with you that money has to come from somewhere, if the demand is high for what the worker is producing the and the employer wants to produce more faster they raise price, hence Price and Demand. Your right there is no such thing as a free lunch you want more than 40 hours of my time a week it will cost you extra.

 

[maluckey]

Who benefits?

Cops, Federal Law enforcement and Firefighters just to name a few. The upper middle class white collar workers get nothing to speak of, but the middle of the road Joe Professional gets a boost.

 

[Todd33]

The government says 1+ million gain overtime.

AFL-CIO says 6 million lose it.

Who to believe... I'm going with the non-Bush guys.

Edit: Sorry, I spoke ased on my fuzzy memory.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Todd33
The government says 1+ million gain overtime.

A unbiased think tank says 6 million lose it.

Who to believe... I'm going to go with not the folks who are using it for political gain.

Buahahahaha!!! "unbiased think tank" :roll: Are you really that naive?

CkG

 

[jjzelinski]

Only as naive as ideology requires. Something almost every member of this forum can relate to.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Only as naive as ideology requires. Something almost every member of this forum can relate to.

But a study by three former Labor Department officials funded by the AFL-CIO found that up to 6 million workers will lose overtime pay under the new rules.

You were saying....:roll:

CkG

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Who benefits?

Cops, Federal Law enforcement and Firefighters just to name a few. The upper middle class white collar workers get nothing to speak of, but the middle of the road Joe Professional gets a boost.

do they?
nurses seem to be pretty angry about it. as do teachers...which i seem to have alot of both in my family.
what are the pros?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Only as naive as ideology requires. Something almost every member of this forum can relate to.

But a study by three former Labor Department officials funded by the AFL-CIO found that up to 6 million workers will lose overtime pay under the new rules.

You were saying....:roll:

CkG

Who's point are you trying to prove?

 

[slipONflange]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Only as naive as ideology requires. Something almost every member of this forum can relate to.

But a study by three former Labor Department officials funded by the AFL-CIO found that up to 6 million workers will lose overtime pay under the new rules.

You were saying....:roll:

CkG

Who's point are you trying to prove?

Thats what I was thinking.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Only as naive as ideology requires. Something almost every member of this forum can relate to.

But a study by three former Labor Department officials funded by the AFL-CIO found that up to 6 million workers will lose overtime pay under the new rules.

You were saying....:roll:

CkG

Who's point are you trying to prove?

It's obvious your slant on this and you retort to my questioning his naivety about this "unbiased think tank" seemed to try to "defend" him. I pity the fool who thinks it is an unbiased think tank spewing those numbers.

If you weren't defending him then you have my apologies but you've quite clearly shown your hand in this thread.

CkG

 

[Todd33]

Is the labor dept not biased towards the current administration? Has the White House been correct on any numbers in the last four years? I'm still waiting for those six million new jobs they projected in Jan.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Only as naive as ideology requires. Something almost every member of this forum can relate to.

But a study by three former Labor Department officials funded by the AFL-CIO found that up to 6 million workers will lose overtime pay under the new rules.

You were saying....:roll:

CkG

Who's point are you trying to prove?

It's obvious your slant on this and you retort to my questioning his naivety about this "unbiased think tank" seemed to try to "defend" him. I pity the fool who thinks it is an unbiased think tank spewing those numbers.

If you weren't defending him then you have my apologies but you've quite clearly shown your hand in this thread.

CkG

Well you're correct in your assertion that I am biased towards not appreciating the gesture towards the working class Bush has made, but you misconstrued my "naiveté" statement. It was intended to reflect upon all of us.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: slipONflange

Originally posted by: Dissipate

To answer the question, no one benefits from overtime laws. All they really do is make people have to work multiple jobs in order to get enough hours.

I disagree, I feel I benefit. I don?t like to work more than 40 a week and if I have to I feel I should be compensated for it. I don?t live to work.

Oh yeah you "feel" benefit but that is illusory. Ever heard the phrase "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? The idea that capitalists can be forced to pay up to wage earners with no negative benefit to the wage earner is a myth. That money doesn't just come out of nowhere, and it certainly just doesn't come out of the pocket of your employer. Everyone suffers as a result of these laws.

Any situation where the employee would experience more trasition costs (unemployment) than the employer (interview costs, ads, etc.) grants effective market power to the employer. I would bet that most low-skilled labour would fall into this situation. In this case, the employer could "encourage" the worker to work more hours for less pay than the employee would consent to do in a purely competitive situation. This would be inefficient, by definintion. Overtime laws are one way to resolve this inefficiency.

These laws could lead to hiring more workers than neccessary, in order to reduce the risk to the employer, which could conceivably lead to the underemployment scenario you described, but payroll taxes and administrative costs of hiring would likely limit this from becoming epidemic. That is a question of magnitude, however, for which I have no data.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: slipONflange

Originally posted by: Dissipate

To answer the question, no one benefits from overtime laws. All they really do is make people have to work multiple jobs in order to get enough hours.

I disagree, I feel I benefit. I don?t like to work more than 40 a week and if I have to I feel I should be compensated for it. I don?t live to work.

Oh yeah you "feel" benefit but that is illusory. Ever heard the phrase "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"? The idea that capitalists can be forced to pay up to wage earners with no negative benefit to the wage earner is a myth. That money doesn't just come out of nowhere, and it certainly just doesn't come out of the pocket of your employer. Everyone suffers as a result of these laws.

Any situation where the employee would experience more trasition costs (unemployment) than the employer (interview costs, ads, etc.) grants effective market power to the employer. I would bet that most low-skilled labour would fall into this situation. In this case, the employer could "encourage" the worker to work more hours for less pay than the employee would consent to do in a purely competitive situation. This would be inefficient, by definintion. Overtime laws are one way to resolve this inefficiency.

These laws could lead to hiring more workers than neccessary, in order to reduce the risk to the employer, which could conceivably lead to the underemployment scenario you described, but payroll taxes and administrative costs of hiring would likely limit this from becoming epidemic. That is a question of magnitude, however, for which I have no data.

Employers that know they will be paying significant overtime will just cut the base pay. Simple as that, inefficiency solved.

Overtime laws do not help anyone, anytime, anywhere, anyhow. These laws were enacted by politicians pandering to ignorant people who subscribe to Marxism, just like a lot of other labor laws.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Dissipate


Employers that know they will be paying significant overtime will just cut the base pay. Simple as that, inefficiency solved.

Overtime laws do not help anyone, anytime, anywhere, anyhow. These laws were enacted by politicians pandering to ignorant people who subscribe to Marxism, just like a lot of other labor laws.

If they cut the base pay, they will cut into their labour base, unless they also inform all applicants of the amount of overtime they can expect. In other words, the law forces the employer to be upfront about overtime, or else the applicants who are expecting better pay will go elsewhere.