Something Useful! Obama Wants Overtime Pay for More Salaried Workers

[Brovane]

This will never work in reality. This will result in businesses paying their workers fairly for hours worked, aka turning less profit. To counter balance this, they will hire less people over all since it's cheaper to pay one guy for 80 hours than two guys for 40 hours. There will be less jobs available per a given sector because everybody is now required to be paid overtime and all the bad things that come with a high jobless #, etc etc etc.

It's obviously good for the people who already have a job, but probably not going to work out so well for the folks who are looking for one.

So instead of forcing someone to work 80-hours a week with no extra pay the company is now forced to pay OT for those extra hours above 40 but somehow you think that is a bad thing?

 

[sm625]

Just force all wages to $100 an hour and we can all ride to heaven together on the socialist dream cart.

For those sane people out there who are actually interested in understanding how the labor market works, and why we keep losing more and more jobs, type in "Peter Schiff Joe Rogan" on youtube for an interesting podcast.

 

[BUnit1701]

Possibly, just like they had to raise prices when it wasn't possible to hire children for 2 cents/day anymore, or when they had to pay women equal pay for equal work, or had to stop hiring people for 12 hour shifts 7 day/week, or established a minimum wage. As we know, the markets crumbled and we all died when those things happened. Just like they'll do if we raise the minimum wage again or require employers to pay their employees for their time and effort beyond the standard 40 hours they're contracted for. And I'll just cry myself to sleep about it.

Why, if we could just have employers pay their employees in company scrip again, redeemable exclusively at the company store, and give job creators the ~freedom~ to put clauses in employees contracts forbidding them from leaving voluntarily, we'll really see some efficiencies and a stronger nation! One we'll all want to live in!

Yea, look how much value our dollar has gained in the 100+ years we have been doing these things...

 

[DCal430]

I know a lot more salaried people who work less than 40 hours a week, more work only 30 to 35 hours a week, and are just fine. So it isn't all one way, for many getting a salaried position means increase pay and less work.

 

[boomerang]

Regardless of political party, one person should not be able to dictate law. The prez is doing what he does best, spending other peoples money to buy votes.

That is a very concise and accurate description. Welcome!

 

[DCal430]

So instead of forcing someone to work 80-hours a week with no extra pay the company is now forced to pay OT for those extra hours above 40 but somehow you think that is a bad thing?

If a person refuses to work more than 30 hours the company isn't allowed to force them to work 40, yet alone 80. Nearly every salary employee I have met works less than 40, and those who spend some weeks working more than 40, spend a whole lot more weeks working less.

 

[CitizenKain]

If a person refuses to work more than 30 hours the company isn't allowed to force them to work 40, yet alone 80. Nearly every salary employee I have met works less than 40, and those who spend some weeks working more than 40, spend a whole lot more weeks working less.

What are things like in make believe land?

What do you think is going to happen to the person who refuses to work the hours their employer is forcing on them? Hint: they get fired.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Well, if you can find one. (Checks current employment stats... wtf jobs are you talking about, anyway?)

He's talking about jobs like the three job offers I received last August alone, and the other one I received in November too. Or the 5 other friends who have found jobs over the last year, some with multiple job offers as well. There are TONS of jobs out there in specific fields IF you have the skills. I get recruiters hounding me several times per week. So, if you're going to say there are no jobs out there, be specific -- there are a lack of unskilled jobs.

Good, people working crazy hours on salary are just buddy fuckers ruining the market for other workers. Pay people for what they work, enough of the salaried-slaves.

This really should apply to everyone.

I agree 100%. If you want me to work OT on a regular basis, you either pay me for each hour or you give me comp time on a 1:1 basis. It really is that simple.

 

[Jay5]

and the americans eat it up,here's a tip.you guys should turn off your media and look around you for once maybe you'll see whats really going on in your country

 

[berzerker60]

Just force all wages to $100 an hour and we can all ride to heaven together on the socialist dream cart.

That's a remarkably stupid argument.

Yea, look how much value our dollar has gained in the 100+ years we have been doing these things...

Do you seriously think the dollar "gaining value" is any kind of worthwhile economic objective?

If a person refuses to work more than 30 hours the company isn't allowed to force them to work 40, yet alone 80. Nearly every salary employee I have met works less than 40, and those who spend some weeks working more than 40, spend a whole lot more weeks working less.

Oh well if it's true of anecdotal people that Internet user DCal430 knows then it's obviously true of everyone in America.

 

[Brainonska511]

That is a very concise and accurate description. Welcome!

If Congress only created a framework for the Exectutive to fill in with the regulations process, I see no legal reason to prohibit the Executive from working within that existing framework to update the regulations.

 

[Brovane]

If a person refuses to work more than 30 hours the company isn't allowed to force them to work 40, yet alone 80. Nearly every salary employee I have met works less than 40, and those who spend some weeks working more than 40, spend a whole lot more weeks working less.

Really when I was salaried I couldn't just pull up and decide at 30 hours into the week I could just leave. Every salaried employee I have seen if the work load is less than 40-hours a week more work gets piled on until it is at least 40-hours of work or usually more.

 

[drebo]

Its almost like anecdotes are worthless.

Yeah, just like your anecdotes that there are no jobs.

I mean, just because you can't get one must mean NO ONE can!

But, seriously, Obama must be lying when he says the economy is up and unemployment is down. Or is he?

Or maybe all those postings I see on Indeed, Dice, Monster, CareerBuilder, Craigslist...they're all a right wing plot, right?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

He's talking about jobs like the three job offers I received last August alone, and the other one I received in November too. Or the 5 other friends who have found jobs over the last year, some with multiple job offers as well. There are TONS of jobs out there in specific fields IF you have the skills. I get recruiters hounding me several times per week. So, if you're going to say there are no jobs out there, be specific -- there are a lack of unskilled jobs.

Are these entry-level positions or do they required experience?

There's a huge difference in the job markets for entry-level jobs (education required, but no prior experience required) and for jobs that require experience.

When you're dealing with entry level jobs, the candidate pool consists of everyone who obtained a college degree in the field. When you're contemplating experience-required-jobs, the amount of competition is limited by a huge barrier to qualify for those jobs. A person may have the intellectual ability to perform such a job, but if he had been unlucky enough to have been unable to obtain an entry-level position in the field, he cannot compete for the experience-requiring job. It's thus possible that the number of people who trained to enter a "good field" could thus be much higher than the number of jobs that allow entry into the field. In other words, those who were able to get the experience might simply be lucky or have great interviewing ability for having been able to obtain it.

The legal profession is a great example. Associate attorneys at large firms with two or three years of experience might be hot commodities, but that does not necessarily mean that the field is a meritocracy or that anyone who works real hard in law school and who has ability will actually be able to find a job in the profession. Because 3 or 4 times as many new lawyers are produced as their are jobs for them, most are never able to enter the field. But for those who are able to at large firms, the job market two or three years out can be great.

Contrary to the "I've got mine, F-you" dogma, a lack of skilled jobs for college graduates in a great many fields, including those vaunted STEM fields, still exists.

 

[drebo]

Are these entry-level positions or do they required experience?

There's a huge difference in the job markets for entry-level jobs (education required, but no prior experience required) and for jobs that require experience.

When you're dealing with entry level jobs, the candidate pool consists of everyone who obtained a college degree in the field. When you're contemplating experience-required-jobs, the amount of competition is limited by a huge barrier to qualify for those jobs. A person may have the intellectual ability to perform such a job, but if he had been unlucky enough to have been unable to obtain an entry-level position in the field, he cannot compete for the experience-requiring job. It's thus possible that the number of people who trained to enter a "good field" could thus be much higher than the number of jobs that allow entry into the field. In other words, those who were able to get the experience might simply be lucky or have great interviewing ability for having been able to obtain it.

The legal profession is a great example. Associate attorneys at large firms with two or three years of experience might be hot commodities, but that does not necessarily mean that the field is a meritocracy or that anyone who works real hard in law school and who has ability will actually be able to find a job in the profession. Because 3 or 4 times as many new lawyers are produced as their are jobs for them, most are never able to enter the field. But for those who are able to at large firms, the job market two or three years out can be great.

Contrary to the "I've got mine, F-you" dogma, a lack of skilled jobs for college graduates in a great many fields, including those vaunted STEM fields, still exists.

This new "policy" doesn't apply to entry level, so whether his jobs were entry level or not is completely irrelevant.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

This new "policy" doesn't apply to entry level, so whether his jobs were entry level or not is completely irrelevant.

My comment really had nothing to do with the bill at issue. It was intended to challenge his claim that if you gain education in the right field there will be a huge demand for your services, therefore anyone who doesn't want to be unemployed or mistreated their employer should simply obtain the education needed to enter a hot field.

 

[Jhhnn]

My comment really had nothing to do with the bill at issue. It was intended to challenge his claim that if you gain education in the right field there will be a huge demand for your services, therefore anyone who doesn't want to be unemployed or mistreated their employer should simply obtain the education needed to enter a hot field.

A "hot field", like IT circa 1998, I suppose.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, just like your anecdotes that there are no jobs.

I mean, just because you can't get one must mean NO ONE can!

But, seriously, Obama must be lying when he says the economy is up and unemployment is down. Or is he?

Or maybe all those postings I see on Indeed, Dice, Monster, CareerBuilder, Craigslist...they're all a right wing plot, right?

If all those postings were sufficient to cover the employment gap, employment statistics would obviously be different. Even the exodus of Boomers from the work force hasn't compensated for that lack.

Your position is one of Denial.

 

[Zstream]

This is something I support!

 

[Murloc]

This will never work in reality. This will result in businesses paying their workers fairly for hours worked, aka turning less profit. To counter balance this, they will hire less people over all since it's cheaper to pay one guy for 80 hours than two guys for 40 hours. There will be less jobs available per a given sector because everybody is now required to be paid overtime and all the bad things that come with a high jobless #, etc etc etc.

It's obviously good for the people who already have a job, but probably not going to work out so well for the folks who are looking for one.

let's also cut all wages in half, this way there will be more jobs for everybody.


If you earn $/hour calculated accounting for unpaid overtime too, the employer can adapt to the new legislation by cutting your nominal wage. In the end you work the same and earn the same money. But there's a difference: the position is less attractive if the employer has to do this to maintain the situation. It's a disincentive to unfair practices.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Are these entry-level positions or do they required experience?

The context of the post I responded to was "there are NO jobs available." Period. I'm tired of hearing "there are NO jobs available," which was what the unqualified claim was. Bullshit. I have no issues finding jobs and neither have the half dozen or so people I know who have looked recently. If you're going to say "there are NO jobs available," qualify it.

My comment really had nothing to do with the bill at issue. It was intended to challenge his claim that if you gain education in the right field there will be a huge demand for your services, therefore anyone who doesn't want to be unemployed or mistreated their employer should simply obtain the education needed to enter a hot field.

Someone needs to work on his reading comprehension. Nowhere did I mention that getting an education in a certain field will guarantee new grads a "huge demand for their services." What I said was that in specific fields, you will have no trouble finding work if you have the skills. If you deny that, well, you're delusional.

 

[piasabird]

This could affect people in key positions you may not know about like Police, Firefighters, Doctors, Nurses and even IT workers. However, I am thinking these kind of workers are making more in overtime pay. Then there are workers that may be scheduled for shifts longer than 8 hours that never see overtime because they don't work 40 hours in a week. However, most union laborers would be paid overtime if they were scheduled for a 9 hour shift like workers at Wal-mart. For instance I work an 8.5 Hour shift but they don't pay for our lunch break. They call it working 7.5 hours. I don't know how it works for everyone else. When I worked for a Union Factory we had 2 10 minute breaks and a 20 minutes or so for a lunch break.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The context of the post I responded to was "there are NO jobs available." Period. I'm tired of hearing "there are NO jobs available," which was what the unqualified claim was. Bullshit. I have no issues finding jobs and neither have the half dozen or so people I know who have looked recently. If you're going to say "there are NO jobs available," qualify it.

Someone needs to work on his reading comprehension. Nowhere did I mention that getting an education in a certain field will guarantee new grads a "huge demand for their services." What I said was that in specific fields, you will have no trouble finding work if you have the skills. If you deny that, well, you're delusional.

...and you were using your claim that in specific fields you will have no trouble finding work to bolster your argument that abusing salaried employees is OK because any salaried employee who is unhappy with being made to work long overtime hours should go find another job.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

...and you were using your claim that in specific fields you will have no trouble finding work to bolster your argument that abusing salaried employees is OK because any salaried employee who is unhappy with being made to work long overtime hours should go find another job.

Can you quote where I said that? I'll be waiting -- forever, in fact, since I never said it.

In FACT, regarding salaried employees, here is EXACTLY what I said:

Good, people working crazy hours on salary are just buddy fuckers ruining the market for other workers. Pay people for what they work, enough of the salaried-slaves.

I agree 100%. If you want me to work OT on a regular basis, you either pay me for each hour or you give me comp time on a 1:1 basis. It really is that simple.

In other words, I'm tired of salaried employees being abused and think they should all be paid OT. This directly contradicts your assertion of what I said.

Please, if you're going to argue with me, read carefully next time rather than jumping to conclusions at the first sign of a word or phrase you disagree with. You're much smarter than that.

 

[OverVolt]

Obama has been on a streak lately of his laws having an unintended consequence of doing the exact opposite thing it tried to do.

So get ready for 16 hours days buddy.