Good post. Of course, the left also continues to work against those things that would allow us to be more competitive in manufacturing. For example, we have a competitive advantage at this time with any manufacturing that uses natural gas. What does the left do? Everything it can to make natural gas more expensive, thus destroying our advantage and jobs.
New Overtime Exec Order Coming
- Thread starter 22*43*51
- Start date
Good post. Of course, the left also continues to work against those things that would allow us to be more competitive in manufacturing. For example, we have a competitive advantage at this time with any manufacturing that uses natural gas. What does the left do? Everything it can to make natural gas more expensive, thus destroying our advantage and jobs.
Or maybe he is trying to give the appearance that he likes the American middle class which American business seems to hate and is trying to eliminate.
LOL. Yeah, American business just can't wait to destroy and eliminate its customers.
Yes they are very shortsighted it seems. Looking for short term profits and overlooking the long term.
LOL again, and even harder. Too bad Apple, Yum Brands, Wal-Mart and other major long term companies aren't as smart as you. You realize that your statement is completely and demonstrably absurd, right?
They will have to pay by the hour. It will not save them because they were killing it when they could just pay salary and force crazy hours.
Two part time jobs by the hour might be better than one fast food store manager jobs.
Most in fast food can't afford the mock benefits offered so no loss there
Coff already dressed your point down to the nothing that it is... so let's play "Supreme Court" and I'll tell you what you intended to say now:
This should help buy some votes.
I think part of this idea is the necessity of hiring two different people. Instead of paying low wages to a "manager" in name only, two people would be hired. Would this avoid the overtime pay? Yes, but it recognizes the fact that two people should have been doing the job in the first place.
Unless you don't believe in limiting hours/salaries/contracts in the first place, but if you don't, then all of this is moot for you anyways.
But your premise is simply wrong. Look, I know a number of people who have worked as "managers" in the restaurant industry, and for retail stores, etc. Many of these folks do not even have college degrees, and yet, they can make a salary of over $50k, and often are eligible for bonuses. It is not a bad gig at all for many people. While they may have to work more than 40 hours, it isn't like they are driving railroad spikes for 8 hours a day. It is not physically taxing work.
Bottom line, they have the freedom to find another job or career if they decide they are not getting adequately compensated. Likewise, the companies will have to pay what the market will bear to get decent people to do these jobs. It is a market.
As soon as government starts effin' around with it, you get unintended consequences, and history shows us that those are almost always bad for the worker, because the company will simply find a way around the new "rules".
I'm confused. You've never earned overtime yet you're still not ok with this? Do you not work very hard (or at least not long hours)? Some people work hard enough to deserve this, maybe if you put in more time it would help you too.
Yes, you are very confused, and unfortunately, also clueless.
For over 20 years now, I have been self-employed as a partner in a law firm. I do not have a salary. My compensation is based on my % ownership of the firm and its profits. And again, I'm sure you have no clue about this, but most self-employed folks work very long hours, many more than those who are on salary or hourly wages. I can guarantee you that I have worked much harder than you ever have or will. 40 hour weeks are just a starter for most self-employed professionals. We do this because we have confidence in our skills and talents, and our ability to earn higher compensation. We do not need the government dictating our pay.
Before I became a partner, I worked as an employee of a law firm. During that time, I was paid a salary. Again, I routinely worked 60-80 hour weeks with no overtime. And yes, I was OK with that because I understood what was expected, and I decided that the salary was fair for that work. Also, by working long hours, I got raises (and some bonuses), and eventually became a partner, increasing my ability to earn more.
See, I like to compete and get paid based on my ability, talent, and effort, not by some artificial government mandate. Also, I will earn more than whiners like you who sit around with their hands out begging for Uncle Sam to give them a boost in the game of life.
I would argue that in today's world (in the US anyway) the value proposition of labor unions and collective bargaining is mostly a farce. I've never been a union member, but literally everyone I know who has (or has worked in a union shop) for the last 30 years says the same thing. It creates an environment where people aren't incented to perform to be compensated, because they are protected by the union and will "get theirs" regardless. I'm evaluated and compensated every year on my performance and the performance of my team (who are individually evaluated the same way), someone not carrying their share is not going to last. If I don't feel I'm fairly compensated, then it's time to go find another employer who will pay me a fair wage for my work.
Excellent points. In today's world the only unions that have proven to be a positive are the trade unions. They have realized that they can add value by training people so that they have marketable skills to offer, and by working with the industries to create better products and better value.
Public sector unions are nothing but money laundering schemes for the democrat party.
I'm very proud of you. First, you don't know me or how hard I work so maybe you should put a cork in that.
Why don't you want others rewarded when are willing to work 40 hrs +? Is it so spoiled baby boomers can hoard power and $ and keep hard workers down? This isn't a handout, so tell me how ANY of your soap box style boasting is relevant? I should have know you'd be a lawyer.
You poor little victim. I am really so sorry that you are such a pathetic loser that you can't avoid being "kept down" unless your uncle Sammy forces someone to pay you more than you are worth. You are the epitome of the liberal, hand-out voter.
After all these post, you are still incapable of understanding a simple concept of free market compensation. I will explain again, for others, since you have demonstrated conclusively that you are not smart enough to understand. I want everyone to be rewarded and fairly compensated. Unlike you, however, I believe in freedom and free markets. In other words (you may want to have someone explain this to you) I want to be able to sell my skills and talents to the highest bidder on the open market. NO ONE IS FORCING THESE MANAGERS TO TAKE THESE JOBS. They take them voluntarily because they are willing to work for that salary. If they work long hours and do good work, they will get raises and/or promotions, and more money. Or they can sell their services to another employer. In a market, all those things are already baked into the compensation.
I can just hear you complaining about how all the successful people who you can't compete with are "keeping you down". Maybe you ought to try to improve your market value instead of playing the whiny victim card.
Who's a whiny victim? Sounds like you. I believe in a strong middle class and treating workers to a workable income for their value and lifestyle. Too many "hard workers" are greedy pigs, have no interest in the quality of our society and only worry about themselves. Congratulations on wanting to bring America to her knees - you've almost succeeded.
No, you believe in having a middle income lifestyle handed to you, instead of earning it. It is always life's losers who call those more successful "greedy". There is a word for that: it called envy. The only one on their knees is you...begging for your Uncle Sam to take from those that have earned, and give to those like you who have not.
So middle income people are worthless and have things handed to them? You should have been Romney's running mate. I'm sure you're used to failing to win people over, so it would have been easy for you to accept the loss. Do you hate everybody?
What a weak effort to dishonestly put words in my mouth. No, as anyone who can read and understand simple English can see, I never suggested, even for a minute that middle income people are worthless, or that they all have things handed to them. My comments were directed to you individually. Did you not see the very prominent "you" in that comment? Or is your reading comprehension that poor?
You have demonstrated unequivocally, and beyond any doubt, that your upward mobility is severely limited, and that you will have to depend on government instead of your own talents.
By the way, you should read your second to last sentence again. If it actually makes sense to you, you should sue your English teacher.
Last edited:
You know I'm right Coffhawk. You are just mad because you "worked" hard enough, but not smart enough.
It is scary how the liberals are moving closer to a communist mindset. Just google communism and read the definition then look at what liberals are trying to accomplish.
Taking a full time job and turning it into 2 part time jobs is not a positive thing. If you think I am wrong, please make sure to write to the Clinton campaign and beg her to campaign across the country about eliminating full time jobs in order to create more part time jobs. Please god I hope she does that. Im sure that the person who works full time would just love to have their salary cut and their benefits removed.
Also, what do you do with different performance levels of the managers? The managers are giving job requirements they must perform to. The amount of time required to perform depends on the skill level of the manager. People work differently. So you have a manager that works efficiently and is very talented therefore he is able to work 40 hours a week to perform. You have a 2nd manager in the same company that screws around during the day and is not as smart as the other manager therefore he has to work 60 hours a week to get the job done. So we are going to reward the less talented person? Sounds logical.
Taking a full time job and turning it into 2 part time jobs is not a positive thing. If you think I am wrong, please make sure to write to the Clinton campaign and beg her to campaign across the country about eliminating full time jobs in order to create more part time jobs. Please god I hope she does that. Im sure that the person who works full time would just love to have their salary cut and their benefits removed.
Also, what do you do with different performance levels of the managers? The managers are giving job requirements they must perform to. The amount of time required to perform depends on the skill level of the manager. People work differently. So you have a manager that works efficiently and is very talented therefore he is able to work 40 hours a week to perform. You have a 2nd manager in the same company that screws around during the day and is not as smart as the other manager therefore he has to work 60 hours a week to get the job done. So we are going to reward the less talented person? Sounds logical.
Ho-hum.
Businesses will simply adjust base salaries lower in order to maintain the employment costs at an acceptable level. So the people Obama claims to be helping won't be helped, and meanwhile, a whole bunch of other people will be penalized. But it makes the lefties feel better about themselves, so they hail it as some kind of advance.
Businesses will simply adjust base salaries lower in order to maintain the employment costs at an acceptable level. So the people Obama claims to be helping won't be helped, and meanwhile, a whole bunch of other people will be penalized. But it makes the lefties feel better about themselves, so they hail it as some kind of advance.
Apparently, you don't understand the difference between proper English and a typo.
Look, you need to stay in the shallow end of the pool with the other low information children. You have shown your cards. You are part of that group of life's losers who need the government to take care of them. You can't compete on your own merit.
This entire thread is irrelevant to you anyway, since you would never even have a chance to be an assistant manager at a fast food joint.
One way to strengthen labor is to quit flooding the market with cheap, unskilled labor. Illegal immigration has had a greater negative impact on the working class than anything employers have done or could ever do.
Yes, there are jobs out there that "Americans will not do." The other half of that is, they won't do them for the same pay as some Mexican who just sneaked across the border. Without Mexico and the rest of Central America exporting their poverty to us, wages would be naturally higher and there would be no need to double the minimum wage.
Very true and reason to praise the team that takes on immigration reform.
In Obama's defense dandh.....this idea would never make it through the current Congress. You and I both know this. This is why Obama uses "executive action" so much.....Plus it allows the Cons and GOPers here to piss and moan...something they do very, very well. I love how he governs by "Constitutional Crisis" and the GOP doesn't know why.
So, I used to think exactly like this. Then I realized it's never a fair competition (same with coffhawk and his heartwarming bootstrapping into his legal education).
If you and yours would appropriately fund and provide for a baseline living standard of healthcare, food, and education (and a real baseline, not where we currently set the bar of public school and poverty line), I would be all about the "compete" mantra.
The thing is, even if you grew up modestly in Iowa, you were born on at least 2nd base, compared to many others in this country (due to our great public schools). What we had growing up is not found in many other places in the country (although, Brandstad is doing his best to destroy that advantage, too).
The way our system is set up, a great number of people are simply unable to improve their circumstances. I'm OK with that. So are you. I just recognize that is the case and hope to improve those inequities. You just ignore those inequities and pretend like everyone had the same chance at life that we did.
Agreed with this. This is aiming squarely at retail management. I once worked 27 straight days of 10+ hours at a retail outlet. 2 years later I worked open-close every day for 17 straight days when I wasn't even a retail employee, they plucked me out of my normal job to manage a store where they had fired every employee, while they hired new ones. Holidays were the worst though.
I would think an increase to $40k for 5 years and then bump up to this level would have been more appropriate.
Pray tell, what was stopping them from doing this before?
Also, why would this act like a ceiling? Your logic is flawed. It either will force the company to pay them more salary (retail managers, in my experience, make roughly $35,000-45,000/year) in order to get them to the $50k level, where they can work them more hours. Or it will force them to work the managers less hours, which will provide a better standard of living for the employee. Once they're over that $50k mark, there's no artificial limit for managers to make, because, well, they can work unlimited overtime. That's a really stupid argument to make.
You're right that this could force retailers/restaurants/gas stations to pay less salary in order to compensate for the new found overtime, but then, isn't that more transparent? Doesn't that provide a better spot to negotiate from, for both sides? If the conversation is "hey, we can't force you to work 80 hours a week during December, 60 during November, and 50 the rest of the year, while paying you that $48,000 a year salary, now we have to pay you a $34,000 salary with $__/hr overtime", isn't that better for all parties?
You have been around this world long enough to realize the businesses will never truly get screwed on something like this. They'll adjust and the employment relations will evolve. Maybe there will be a small net win for a small subsect of employees. Maybe. I'm honestly surprised by the hysteria of something like this.
You were OK with that because you were making 5-7 times the previous minimum salary required to not pay overtime, you dipshit. Take some advil, I can't imagine how your arm and back are feeling right now.
Is this law going to somehow affect how you earn a living? Your free market going to be adjusted by this? How many people in your law firm a salary of less than $50k?
What you'd like to do is tell other people how they should earn their money. You want them to be you, even though you're surely intelligent enough (I hope) to realize there are a finite number of jobs available doing what you're doing. Not everyone can "sell their labors on a free market."
Last edited:
This is demonstrably false. How do you explain the fact that many, many folks have been able to rise up from abject poverty to be very successful? That proves that your assertion that "a great number of people are simply unable to improve their circumstances" is false. Some face greater obstacles, but that does not mean they are doomed to failure.
You had to jump on the ignorance bus, huh? There are many folks in my firm (and most large law firms) that make less than $50k in salary. Clericals, paralegals, etc. So, you are again wrong.
I have made absolutely no attempt to tell anyone else how to earn their money. Nor have I suggested anyone follow my career path. Instead, all I have done is point out my view that we are all better off when we earn based on the market value of our labor, not some artificial rate imposed by the government. And yes, everyone can sell their labor in the free market.
Because some do does not mean everyone can. It's pretty simple economics that there are winners and losers. You and I happen to be lucky enough to have the skills, support, and luck to have been winners. I just want to help those who are less equipped to live a slightly easier life. You would prefer to chastise them for not meeting your standards.
And LOL at you saying "many many people" like it's more than the people who haven't overcome their odds.
In 2015 dollars, you damn well were.
Simmons Perrine pays $95k to their starting attorneys. That's nearly 5 times the previous threshold for receiving overtime pay.
How many paralegals/legal secretaries work overtime? How many of them do it more than 1-2 times per year?
Look, you should be proud of what you've accomplished in your life. But you should also recognize that what you've accomplished is not achievable for every other person in this world. There are people that due to numerous and various reasons, cannot accomplish anything comparable to what you've accomplished.
To accomplish what you have and still maintain your attitude makes me sad, for you have wasted your gift.
But it depends on what that "reform" is. Amnesty doesn't help. In fact, it makes the problem much worse. Running ads in Mexico on how to apply for food stamps in the U.S. (which this administration has done), doesn't help.
Your food stamp point seems obviously correct, but I'm not sure the direction of the reform really matters. If we go very conservative and deport all illegals we get a smaller labor pool and help the workers. If we go ultra liberal and give all illegals citizenship immediately, we remove the underground economy and give all workers labor protections which also helps all workers compete. Nearly anything along the spectrum is better for American laborers when compared to what we have now.
