Maybe I'm just revealing a gap in my education. The term "stock salary" is new to me. So is "stock baseline."
New Overtime Exec Order Coming
- Thread starter 22*43*51
- Start date
If this mandate is pointless, toothless, etc., why are you so upset? You've spent a lot of time on here puffing out your chest, so you have probably missed that there are many people (some which post here) that are hard, intelligent workers that "earn" more than they are making now. They are handcuffed by asshole owners who do not do one thing but focus on keeping every good worker down to line their pockets a fraction more.
The government would not be involved if corporations would actually pay the workforce what they are worth, hence giving us a more sound in stable economy. I know an ignorant lawyer would not understand something like that, as you are not in the business of producing anything useful.
Oh and Coffhawk don't worry about me. I am not waiting on a check from the government nor a thankless employer.
First, I am not "upset", and there is nothing in this thread that would have caused a person of normal intelligence to think that. I simply disagree with this policy because it is counter-productive and hurts both companies and the workers.
Again, you just can't help but play the "victim" card. What you mean is that you can't compete with those workers who get ahead, and so you want the government to set a baseline pay for you. It is really that simple. Those who are productive get paid, and don't need the heavy hand of the government. Your reference to "asshole owners" says it all. You are clearly a lazy, unproductive worker who blames the boss for your failures. You should try to work harder instead of blaming those who succeed.
How do you define what "the workforce is worth" if it isn't fair market value? You or the government should decide that?
What he means is that he lacks the skills, talent, drive and intelligence to make as much as he would like, and therefore, wants the government to level the playing field for him, at the expense of those who work harder and are more productive.
Companies would have everyone work 7 days a week and pay them $hit for it if they were allowed. Talent and ability doesn't matter when the owner would rather keep all the marbles for himself, when in reality he/she isn't producing jack squat. We've experienced this in the past, which is why we're where we are. Show me a company that ponies up and tells all of their workers what they are really worth, and I'll shut up.
I find myself paying much more for talent, thanks to jackholes like Coffhawk. By that, I mean he dumps on anyone not at his "executive level", and the rest of the "scum" can fend for themselves. Those that are not in the top 5% don't give a rip anymore because they expect to be dumped on over and over. Quality workers become sparse when the ROI is not attractive to them.
First, you didn't answer my question. If not for what someone is willing to pay for your work (market value), how do you define worth?
Also, I'm not sure I understand the bolded part. You find yourself paying much more for talent and hate that, but you want the government to set an arbitrary bar based only on income and not talent that would make employers pay more. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if the government forces employers to pay more to everyone who falls into the under $50K category you are probably going to have to pay even more for that "talent".
Here's 100.
Of course, you may have to relocate to be near one and when you get there you will have to compete for a position. That's what I did and others who take initiative in life.
Or, you can just stay where you are at and accept your poor career and company decisions to date. They, after all were your choices.
http://fortune.com/best-companies/
You are getting dumber by the post. First, your initial premise is simply wrong. Employers are willing to pay more for talented and productive workers, and there is amply real-world evidence to prove that. Moreover, you forget that we do not have forced labor, and that no worker has to work under those conditions. You simply move to another job, where the employer will pay better and have better working conditions.
My law firm competes all the time with other firms for good lawyers and support staff. We compete with pay, working conditions, benefits, etc. You simply do not know what you are talking about. You also seem to have this "zero-sum" mentality, and do not realize that both the owners and the employees thrive when a company has good, productive employees. The only way to get and keep them is with pay and good working conditions.
You sound like a parody of a Karl Marx character.
As I said, I'm doing just fine. Most successful people don't feel the need to brag to anyone that will listen.
So you start your post with a brag, and then say that successful people don't need to brag. So, by your own logic, we can conclude that you are not successful, right? You wouldn't be bragging if you were, right? Of course, we pretty much had that figured out by your posts in this thread, and your constant begging for the government to help you earn more.
I started my post defending myself from a psychopath. You are painting me with the failure brush, while in reality is false. I simply corrected you.
That is the dumbest post in this thread. And if you actually found somebody who pays you to work, one of the scariest things in this thread.
If that's really happening, why was there a law in the first place? This is really just the exact same intent, just adjusting for current times.
Do you honestly believe this shit?
They would replace the crappy manager who takes too long. Free market, amirite?!?!
Also, nice pot shot. I'm pretty comfortable that the hiring committee at my firm values my work.
As I've said like 12 times in this thread, I would have raised it from the ~$25k to ~$40k, then to $45k, then to whatever the number they are proposing now. (50ish)
Standard. Equal. Same. Whatever term you want.
If you're honestly telling me you couldn't understand my post, you're dumber than I previously thought.
He's compensating. His arguments are weak, so he goes ad hominem and makes up shit about people. Hence how I've been "sucking off the government" and "not good enough to move up on my own" (quotes not actual, but paraphrasing, I'm not going back to search out his exact quotes and I don't want his Vickie's getting in a bunch over me not using his exact quotes).
The funny thing is, reasonable people can disagree about this. And I'd listen to them, and take their beliefs under consideration and weigh the pros and cons and, hopefully, have my opinions evolve.
But the moment he enters the thread, it's "you're a loser who needs the government to succeed."
He's someone who gets paid to advocate and persuade on others' behalf. That is what makes me laugh.
Slieb, my point is my understanding is this "limit" is only for salaried employees under the limit. Are you saying the limit should be for non-exempt employees as well and they would stop receiving OT pay at wherever the number is set?
I very respectfully and humbly said I didn't understand the word you used. I assumed it was a common term used by people who are knowledgeable in the field, and asked what it meant. Dumb people try to pretend they know something instead of seeking to be educated.
Apparently it is, indeed, something you just made up. So I don't feel so bad.
And in the context of your post, I don't think you meant "standard" or "equal" or "same." I think you meant "baseline."
Doesn't matter how good you are in most retail settings as a manager. You have to be there a crazy pint of hours because the store is open.
We are not talking about some office manager at Principal or Wells Fargo mortgage.
When people are scheduled to work long hours they should be compensated.
We are not talking about some office manager at Principal or Wells Fargo mortgage.
When people are scheduled to work long hours they should be compensated.
Or understand the job before you accept the position and negotiate an appropriate salary for the work.
That's how most exempt negotiations go.
No. I guess I misunderstood you. No, a non-exempt employee should not be "capped" on how much they can earn, via OT. I would guess it is the same now. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yeah, baseline is probably a better word. I still think you understood the gist of what I was saying, but there's no sense in arguing about it as you now clearly do.
Stock is a word used for standard. "It's 143 yards here, Zach, that's a stock 9-iron for you." Perhaps it's only a golf thing which I considered to be more a part of every day language than it is.
I have never heard "stock" used in the golf sense you cited, either. Have never heard the word used on a golf course, and I play a lot. Nor have I heard it in any other context to mean "standard." But as you say, there's no point arguing about it. I understand now what you meant.
What is striking is that you think these two quotes are somehow inconsistent. You have zero understanding of business.
Good post. Those who make this argument are employing a false premise, namely, that the folks who take these mid-level management jobs do not know what is involved. Anyone who has the qualifications to get one of these jobs understands that there are long hours, and they take that into consideration when evaluating the salary.
Another point that has not been discussed. The overtime rules were implemented during a time when manual labor jobs like manufacturing, etc. were much more prevalent. In those instances, you had workers who were doing strenuous manual labor, which was a justification for overtime. With respect to these managers, there is little similarity to those jobs. They put in the hours, but the level of manual labor and physical exertion is far less.
In other words, I am lying here, I admit that I am lying, but I don't want to be held accountable for lying. Excellent.
As I explained in another post, these OT law were enacted primarily for manual laborers. They did two things. One they created a disincentive for employers to over-work manual laborers. Two, they provided additional compensation for those who had to work additional hours at manual labor. They were never intended, when enacted, to apply to the manager of a retail shop.
The funny thing to me is that all my life, I thought "salaried employee" meant you didn't get overtime like an "hourly employee." You just worked as much as was required to get the job done. Sometimes this meant more than 40 hours a week; occasionally it meant fewer than 8 hours a day. the concept of a person in management getting overtime is really bizarre IMHO.
Fully agree.
That is the idea around a salaried employee. They have a variable schedule, because they do variable work.
Sometimes I pull a 55 hour work week because the job calls for it. Sometimes it can be 36 or less if I have kids activities, or such I want to attend. The business I work for cycles with the construction season, so I know that I am going to put in longer hours part of the year, but then I'll hedge them back the other part.
My personal execution, efficiency and time management skills play a huge part in my schedule too.(they also help me compete)
I understood the job coming in and negotiated a salary that I was comfortable with.
I don't understand why you would accept a job where you neither understood the hours expectation, nor the compensation. That's just dense.
There is no "Until the job is done" if you have to be there a set number of hours.
Doesn't really matter in the long run. People will just vote themselves other people's money. The republicans have zero ideas to stop the wealth gap. "Tough shit" is a slogan that will not get a lot of votes. The middle class is shrinking. Seems that some don't even want to help those willing to work 50+ hours a week doing fast food.
I am all for less government spending and lowering taxes but it boggles the mind that the right can't even help those who have shown the willingness to help themselves.
Doesn't really matter in the long run. People will just vote themselves other people's money. The republicans have zero ideas to stop the wealth gap. "Tough shit" is a slogan that will not get a lot of votes. The middle class is shrinking. Seems that some don't even want to help those willing to work 50+ hours a week doing fast food.
I am all for less government spending and lowering taxes but it boggles the mind that the right can't even help those who have shown the willingness to help themselves.
Why do we need to stop "wealth gap"?
Isn't enough to stop poverty? How do you intend to hamper people who have the talent to manage a career, the initiative to compete and build wealth?
Take it from them? Penalize their initiative and willingness to compete?
