Congress should provide flexibility to employers and employees to calculate the overtime period over a longer number of weeks.
Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period.
LOL. Who do they think they are trying to fool? MAGAs? (Of course they are.)
So under this provision, an employer can work their people 80 hours in one week and none in the next week (in a 2-week scenario) and not pay any overtime. Or, they could work their people 80+ hours in one week and then 80- hours over the next 3 weeks (in a 4-week scenario) and not pay any overtime. Who would decide these scenarios anyway? It implies that it could be either the employer or the employees. Who really believes this option? (MAGAs, of course) It would definitely fall under the decisions of the employer, and to his economic advantage.
A company can be facing a critical production schedule where 40+ hours would have to be performed over a multiple week schedule to make a delivery schedule requirement and they could avoid overtime pay by getting the required production done in a 3 week period and then they could tell their workers to take week #4 off and not have to pay overtime. (I doubt the workers could file for unemployment for that 4th week since labor laws favor the employer.)
Or worse yet, first responders would have to work 40+ hours in a week to battle wildfires threatening populated communities which could result in multiple weeks of these work requirements. Once overtime hours are reached, in either a 2-week or a 4-week scenario, first responders could be told to stay home after working 80 hours or 160 hours respectively, and a 2nd inexperienced crew could be called in who would be unable to meet the "production" of the "first-team" members in fighting the destructive fires. What could go wrong with this strategy? (This is just a simple example as there are other examples of a "first team" outperforming a "second team" besides firefighting when it comes to "production" requirements.) If there is nothing wrong with this kind of thinking, let's try it with the military the next time we go to war and see what the results might be. Let's pull back the experienced troops from the front line and replace them with the raw recruits. What could go wrong?
Trump claims that he supports the working man, and nothing could be farther from the truth if they implement this plan. He wants to cut their income for the benefit of the employer.
Specifically, employers and employees should be able to set a two- or four- week period over which to calculate overtime. This would give workers greater flexibility to work more hours in one week and fewer hours in the next and would not require the employer to pay them more for that same total number of hours of work during the entire period.
LOL. Who do they think they are trying to fool? MAGAs? (Of course they are.)
So under this provision, an employer can work their people 80 hours in one week and none in the next week (in a 2-week scenario) and not pay any overtime. Or, they could work their people 80+ hours in one week and then 80- hours over the next 3 weeks (in a 4-week scenario) and not pay any overtime. Who would decide these scenarios anyway? It implies that it could be either the employer or the employees. Who really believes this option? (MAGAs, of course) It would definitely fall under the decisions of the employer, and to his economic advantage.
A company can be facing a critical production schedule where 40+ hours would have to be performed over a multiple week schedule to make a delivery schedule requirement and they could avoid overtime pay by getting the required production done in a 3 week period and then they could tell their workers to take week #4 off and not have to pay overtime. (I doubt the workers could file for unemployment for that 4th week since labor laws favor the employer.)
Or worse yet, first responders would have to work 40+ hours in a week to battle wildfires threatening populated communities which could result in multiple weeks of these work requirements. Once overtime hours are reached, in either a 2-week or a 4-week scenario, first responders could be told to stay home after working 80 hours or 160 hours respectively, and a 2nd inexperienced crew could be called in who would be unable to meet the "production" of the "first-team" members in fighting the destructive fires. What could go wrong with this strategy? (This is just a simple example as there are other examples of a "first team" outperforming a "second team" besides firefighting when it comes to "production" requirements.) If there is nothing wrong with this kind of thinking, let's try it with the military the next time we go to war and see what the results might be. Let's pull back the experienced troops from the front line and replace them with the raw recruits. What could go wrong?
Trump claims that he supports the working man, and nothing could be farther from the truth if they implement this plan. He wants to cut their income for the benefit of the employer.
