New Overtime Exec Order Coming

[What Would Jesus Do?]

5 mil people is the max number affected. That is if they aren't limited to 40 hour a week roles as it is. In the private sector you are not going to find too many roles that are salaried and below 50k.(At least that has been my personal experience.)

How does this work for the public sector? Does this mean all teachers are going to get time and a half after 40?

Or, would their CBA keep them from this type of benefit?

Honest question.

Would the executive order apply beyond government workers and contractors?

That aside, I would like to see it apply to everybody. Including teachers and cops and whatever.

As smart people have been pointing out for decades, we are approaching an economy which - largely due to tech advances - simply has no need for what used to be considered "full employment" with workers working 40 or more hours a week.

Unless or until we can shrug off our archaic puritanical views of work - that everyone should work and those who don't deserve to suffer - the only ways unemployment doesn't become a culture-destroying problem is if we spread out the available "real" work, or invent made up jobs to keep people employed and out of trouble. Well, killing people off in war and through environmental disaster are other ways, I suppose, but I hope most of us don't want those to "solve" the problem for us.

This is a small push toward the preferred solution of spreading out the available work.

 

[22*43*51]

That was your language. With a shrinking middle class its clear those who work for a living are being "oppressed" by those who invest for a living.

No, I said that is how you and yours would spin it. As you have. Thanks.

That is not how I see it. If those people do not like their circumstances then improve them.

Compete!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That was your language. With a shrinking middle class its clear those who work for a living are being "oppressed" by those who invest for a living.

We punish workers with high taxes on productive effort and reward gamblers with low taxes on no work whatsoever.

Ain't America great?

 

[bagdropper]

That depends on who can sue whom under TPP.

But even if that's true, is that a good argument for continuing the race toward the bottom?

Your labor fight isn't in the US. It's in China and everywhere else that builds the stuff we used to build by using cheaper labor. We need their labor movement to start big time to "catch up" with us, not make ours even more expensive.

 

[22*43*51]

Would the executive order apply beyond government workers and contractors?

That aside, I would like to see it apply to everybody. Including teachers and cops and whatever.

How much would tax revenue need to increase to pay for that?

Or, why haven't they negotiated for that by now?

 

[naturalmwa]

No, I said that is how you and yours would spin it. As you have. Thanks.

That is not how I see it. If those people do not like their circumstances then improve them.

Compete!

We just did, with a big collective bargaining agreement. If the people wont come to the Union, the Union will come to the people.

 

[Run&Blade]

I don't have a problem with it but the dollar jump seems too big. Be better to increment it IMO.

I think businesses take too big advantage of store managers and department managers at the retail level. Forcing them to work a crazy number of hours that breaks down to a poor hourly wage.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Your labor fight isn't in the US. It's in China and everywhere else that builds the stuff we used to build by using cheaper labor. We need their labor movement to start big time to "catch up" with us, not make ours even more expensive.

Sorry, we can't win that way. Even if we let their labor costs drive ours down below survival wages, they can still make a profit. And who wants (or needs) a country that can't do better than that for its people?

There's no point in having a nation if that gathering-together and submission-to-laws doesn't benefit most citizens. The longer and quicker we race to the bottom and accelerate the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of the few, the sooner the this nation fails to justify its very existence.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Your labor fight isn't in the US. It's in China and everywhere else that builds the stuff we used to build by using cheaper labor. We need their labor movement to start big time to "catch up" with us, not make ours even more expensive.

actually, Obama's labor fight is AGAINST the USA, everything he does is against the USA. He hates us apparently. He's trying like crazy to get iran to nuke us.

 

[Vroom_C14]

We punish workers with high taxes on productive effort and reward gamblers with low taxes on no work whatsoever.

Ain't America great?

Our government punishes workers by having them pay for those that don't want to work, cutting "the working man's hours" (along with his pay) won't help that.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't have a problem with it but the dollar jump seems too big. Be better to increment it IMO.

I think businesses take too big advantage of store managers and department managers at the retail level. Forcing them to work a crazy number of hours that breaks down to a poor hourly wage.

I agree on both points.

On your first point, though, I suspect the product that filters out through the nation (if it does) will be watered down and phased in. Like the $15 minimum wage. Jumping immediately to $15 strikes a lot of people as way too big a hike. But as far as I can tell, NONE of the proposals are for an immediate jump. They are phased in gently, and generally don't even start phasing in for a year. Full phase-in for those I've checked doesn't happen until 2020 or sometimes a few years later.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Our government punishes workers by having them pay for those that don't want to work, cutting "the working man's hours" (along with his pay) won't help that.

That's a totally different part of the social compact. And this won't hurt that, either. Basically a non sequitur.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

actually, Obama's labor fight is AGAINST the USA, everything he does is against the USA. He hates us apparently. He's trying like crazy to get iran to nuke us.

Glad to see the psychiatric lock-down ward allows you occasional internet access.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Did you miss the main point in your response - you just eliminated a FTE to hire 2 PTE - how will that impact the family? The economy? Now that FTE must find another PT job to try and make ends meet! Or are you just wanting them to go on the government dime, I gotcha - I understand now...

Sorry, I didn't realize you couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. We take one positive step by hiring more people. That's the walking part. We can also take steps to make sure all hired people have adequate compensation. That's the chewing part.

Still not rocket science.

 

[coffhawk]

Doesn't your profession bill by the hour?

Again, you demonstrate that you know way less than you think you do, and understand even less.

First, many in private practice bill clients by the hour, although that is but one of many fee arrangements that are common. But still, what is your point? Are you suggesting that if I perform more than 40 hours of legal work for a client in a particular week, I should raise my billing rate by 50%? Good luck with that.

Second, your failed attempt to be clever misses the mark. See, the variables for attorney compensation are many. In fact, it is very rare that you have a solo attorney whose income is derived solely from hourly billing. Instead, many attorneys start their careers on salary, whether with companies, firms, or government agencies. When I started my first job with a law firm, I got an annual salary. There was no overtime, despite the fact that I routinely worked 70-80 hours per week, if not more. Rather than playing the liberal victim card and claiming exploitation, I saw it as an opportunity to demonstrate my value to the firm and its clients. Consequently, I got good annual raises, and when the time came, I became a partner in the firm, and share in the firm profit.

This thread really does illustrate the difference in attitude from the liberal, government dependent takers and the self-reliant makers who succeed.

 

[Vroom_C14]

That's a totally different part of the social compact. And this won't hurt that, either. Basically a non sequitur.

How can you say it won't be impacted when you are talking about reducing one person's pay to pay another?

I'll just agree to disagree with you on this.

 

[naturalmwa]

Again, you demonstrate that you know way less than you think you do, and understand even less.

First, many in private practice bill clients by the hour, although that is but one of many fee arrangements that are common. But still, what is your point? Are you suggesting that if I perform more than 40 hours of legal work for a client in a particular week, I should raise my billing rate by 50%? Good luck with that.

Second, your failed attempt to be clever misses the mark. See, the variables for attorney compensation are many. In fact, it is very rare that you have a solo attorney whose income is derived solely from hourly billing. Instead, many attorneys start their careers on salary, whether with companies, firms, or government agencies. When I started my first job with a law firm, I got an annual salary. There was no overtime, despite the fact that I routinely worked 70-80 hours per week, if not more. Rather than playing the liberal victim card and claiming exploitation, I saw it as an opportunity to demonstrate my value to the firm and its clients. Consequently, I got good annual raises, and when the time came, I became a partner in the firm, and share in the firm profit.

This thread really does illustrate the difference in attitude from the liberal, government dependent takers and the self-reliant makers who succeed.

My point is these employees were being forced to give away hours for free. Now they have the ability to charge for them. We just gave them the ability to take their skills to the market and sell them, just like you advocate.

 

[coffhawk]

My point is these employees were being forced to give away hours for free. Now they have the ability to charge for them. We just gave them the ability to take their skills to the market and sell them, just like you advocate.

No, you are 100% wrong, and it is truly remarkable (if not breathtaking) that you can't understand this.

Slavery is over. No one is, or can be forced to give away hours for free. You simply get another job where they pay you what you are worth (assuming that you are correct in your assessment that you are not being compensated for your hours). They always had the ability to charge for them, they simply had to market their time to the proper employer.

You obviously don't understand markets. Markets do not have forced, artificial prices. They are based on the concept of a willing buyer and seller of labor. This is the opposite.

 

[naturalmwa]

No, you are 100% wrong, and it is truly remarkable (if not breathtaking) that you can't understand this.

Slavery is over. No one is, or can be forced to give away hours for free. You simply get another job where they pay you what you are worth (assuming that you are correct in your assessment that you are not being compensated for your hours). They always had the ability to charge for them, they simply had to market their time to the proper employer.

You obviously don't understand markets. Markets do not have forced, artificial prices. They are based on the concept of a willing buyer and seller of labor. This is the opposite.

No one is forcing the employer to make them work 50 hours a week. But now if they choose to do so, the employee gets to charge. Its a pretty simple concept you yourself benefit from. Get paid for your time. Unlike you, I'm not a wage slave so I don't get paid this way. My interests are purely magnanimus.

 

[86Hawkeye]

I think you missed the point. If (for example) 2 FT employees are scaled back to PT and 1 new PTE is hired, that's 3 people working instead of 2.

If, through other measures - such as the $15/hr MW - we make sure those PT workers can earn an adequate wage, that's not just lower unemployment, it's also lower welfare payouts. And it almost certainly boosts demand, too, with positive ripple effects on the economy and hiring.

And those 2 (formerly) FT employees are going to be pissed.......and their employer will tell them that Obama did it to them.

 

[coffhawk]

No one is forcing the employer to make them work 50 hours a week. But now if they choose to do so, the employee gets to charge. Its a pretty simple concept you yourself benefit from. Get paid for your time. Unlike you, I'm not a wage slave so I don't get paid this way. My interests are purely magnanimus.

You are now just being dumb. You don't understand markets, and are making yourself look really silly. And no, as a business owner, I do not benefit from this, and it would take a card carrying idiot to think that I would. Really.

If you were not a liberal, this would be stunning. Being a liberal, your ignorance of markets, and how a partner in a law firm is compensated is somewhat understandable.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

How can you say it won't be impacted when you are talking about reducing one person's pay to pay another?

I'll just agree to disagree with you on this.

You aren't reducing their rate of pay. You are reducing how many hours they have to work. Some people will like that, some won't. That will probably balance out, and you can always find ways to aid those who are hurt. So at the end of the day, the big benefit of fewer people out of work outweighs the negative.

 

[Vroom_C14]

You aren't reducing their rate of pay. You are reducing how many hours they have to work. Some people will like that, some won't. That will probably balance out, and you can always find ways to aid those who are hurt. So at the end of the day, the big benefit of fewer people out of work outweighs the negative.

You say "have to work" I hear several of those that work OT like the extra money and some are on a list (seniority first) to get OT so they can make more.

You just want to take away from those wanting it. Sounds like the current administration, fitting.

lastly, I didn't say rate - you did. I said you are reducing their pay (how much they take home to pay bills, etc)

 

[Run&Blade]

The ones getting screwed over were managers at gas stations fast food and retail stores.

Those 60 hour weeks and more will now be paid The company was taking advantage of the managers. I think some places will have to pay more than they do now even if they hire a part timer to pick up the slack.

If the skill set the manager was truly needed they will have to pay them to be there.

I know some people working that put in some jacked up hours all under the umbrella of salary.

Cuts both ways. Most places have a been counter figuring out if you work your salary people to death the books look better. That will not be the case as easily going forward.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You say "have to work" I hear several of those that work OT like the extra money and some are on a list (seniority first) to get OT so they can make more.

You just want to take away from those wanting it. Sounds like the current administration, fitting.

lastly, I didn't say rate - you did. I said you are reducing their pay (how much they take home to pay bills, etc)

If you are only going to pay attention to part of the argument, I guess there's no point in repeating the part you are ignoring.

 

[coffhawk]

The ones getting screwed over were managers at gas stations fast food and retail stores.

Those 60 hour weeks and more will now be paid The company was taking advantage of the managers. I think some places will have to pay more than they do now even if they hire a part timer to pick up the slack.

If the skill set the manager was truly needed they will have to pay them to be there.

I know some people working that put in some jacked up hours all under the umbrella of salary.

Cuts both ways. Most places have a been counter figuring out if you work your salary people to death the books look better. That will not be the case as easily going forward.

Wrong. They will simply hire two assistant managers with fewer hours, benefits and lower pay. There is always a way to keep down costs.

Moreover, these managers were not necessarily getting screwed. If they were working those hours, and getting results, many would be getting performance based bonuses that in many cases would exceed mandated overtime. Alternatively, they would be eligible for raises and/or promotions that would have increased their compensation more than the overtime. If they could not get satisfaction from their current employer, they could go to another gas station or store with their experience and expertise and get more money.

Now, the owners can work around this with part timers, and can adjust base compensation. Moreover, as liberals never understand, these "floors" also constitute "ceilings" and will in many cases serve to limit the top compensation of those managers who excel.

 

[Chewback]

Doesn't your profession bill by the hour?

I'm not real sure coff knows what his profession does.

 

[dandh]

I may surprise some of you, but I think it's a good idea to address the "manager" loophole in the FLSA. Retail and restaurant chains do take advantage of these people, and it does make sense that the salary level be raised for the manager test. I hope they slow it down some, though, instead of making drastic changes. It does not make sense to make a change so drastic that it causes employers to do something counterproductive for the employee being "helped".

In the ideal world, everyone would have sufficient skill and talent to deal with their employer on an equal footing. However, many people who live in the world of commerce as it currently exists just aren't at that point yet. Unless we change the system drastically and train people about those changes as we go, it makes sense to adjust the overtime rules so that " managers" aren't just workers who work 60 hours per week and get paid for 40.

 

[hooper56]

There can really be no doubt now that this President hates American Business.

 

[coffhawk]

I'm not real sure coff knows what his profession does.

Well, in my specific case, I GET PAID, BITCHES.

 

[coffhawk]

By the way, attached is a good piece on why this proposed action is ill-conceived and will not have the desired results.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420528/obama-overtime-rule-effects-jobs-employment

The fact that many on the left ignore is that the hours requirements are already "baked into the cake" and are reflected in the salary. Most who take those manager jobs, etc., understand that they may have to work more than 40 hours. That is why the base salary is $40-50k instead of $25k.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Well, in my specific case, I GET PAID, BITCHES.

Best coffhawk response ever.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I may surprise some of you, but I think it's a good idea to address the "manager" loophole in the FLSA. Retail and restaurant chains do take advantage of these people, and it does make sense that the salary level be raised for the manager test. I hope they slow it down some, though, instead of making drastic changes. It does not make sense to make a change so drastic that it causes employers to do something counterproductive for the employee being "helped".

In the ideal world, everyone would have sufficient skill and talent to deal with their employer on an equal footing. However, many people who live in the world of commerce as it currently exists just aren't at that point yet. Unless we change the system drastically and train people about those changes as we go, it makes sense to adjust the overtime rules so that " managers" aren't just workers who work 60 hours per week and get paid for 40.

I am surprised, pleasantly surprised.

You nail the main "culprit", employers designating managers who are, well, not managers in any sense of the actual word.

 

[dandh]

I am surprised, pleasantly surprised.

You nail the main "culprit", employers designating managers who are, well, not managers in any sense of the actual word.

Don't miss the part where I say this needs to occur gradually. I fear the Obama adminsitration will approach it too hastily and set too high a rate, which in turn will hurt employees and cost jobs. They've certainly been prone to that thus far, and I doubt it will change now.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'm on board with gradual, hell I could be convinced a lot of different ways on this topic.

I was just impressed by your stance and felt like letting you know.

 

[83Hawk]

Oh, it's more insidious than that. With large numbers of part time workers earning barely enough to get by (or maybe not enough to get by), and being left out of employer-provided health coverage, the moribund labor movement will get a huge shot in the arm. Lots of unhappy part timers will suddenly realize the value of unions and collective bargaining.

Since when is part time employment meant to be sufficient for people to "get by"? Part time income is supposed to be more of a supplement and for kids/students). Not for people to be able to make a living working part time. Sheesh....the entitlement mentality of people is ridiculous.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Does anyone know if I can get reparations from Obama if this goes through? I mean, I have worked a lot of uncompensated OT in my day and that just isn't FAIR.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Since when is part time employment meant to be sufficient for people to "get by"? Part time income is supposed to be more of a supplement and for kids/students). Not for people to be able to make a living working part time. Sheesh....the entitlement mentality of people is ridiculous.

Exactly why the left likes this - it will move more people towards dependency on the government.

Anyone thought that if this forces more PT employees (say shifting a FTE to a PTE) then insurance coverage drops as well?

 

[thewop]

Attention any employers reading this and worried Obama will do this:

I am a former Marketing Director at a public company, and do B2B, B2C, and B2E Marketing/Biz Dev work on contract by project or by the hour. You are under no obligation to provide me benefits, no obligation to keep me past tomorrow, and no pesky overtime laws!

We both know your FTE's have more than they can handle, and you don't want to pay them overtime to work through the weekend, or add headcount at their level to share the load. Let me knock it out for you.

Thanks Barack! Now if you could just take care of those unemployment taxes...

P.S. Executive Orders of all kinds make me cringe.

 

[thewop]

Your labor fight isn't in the US. It's in China and everywhere else that builds the stuff we used to build by using cheaper labor.

Companies produce items overseas because consumer behavior condones it. We all want more jobs in America (where else will the illegal immigrants work?), but there are some things that will never make sense to make in America as long as we're a first world country.

Take clothing for example: As long as hands still have to touch garments to sew them together, they'll be less expensive to make somewhere else, and not just a little bit more expensive. Most clothing "Made in the USA" is made from imported cloth or may only be printed in the USA, or marked up in the USA (as long as 51% of the "Value" is added here).

Things that can be made by machine can be made more efficient and it can make sense to make it here, but that really doesn't increase jobs that much. When consumers are willing to and can afford to spend $90 for every pair of jeans instead of $15-45, then we can bring it back, but we, as consumers, are ALL TALK.

Maybe it's time we embrace the global economy, and understand that some countries make some things more efficiently than others. Let's focus on education and take Science and Technology back, and leave the labor intensive work to those who are equipped for it.