| Blogs > jiminycricket1 > My Blog |
|
Overtime Rule 2 This is my second blog about the "overtime rule" is design to prevent companies from the right to work salaried employees who make less than 47,746.00 a year, m ore than 40 hours a week without paying them. My first blog attempt was to discover the reasoning that was preventing the "overtime rule" from taking place. No one responded with the answer.. so I researched it and came up with the following, because maisie wouldn't tell me. Paul Ryan...".This regulation hurts the very people it alleges to help,” he said. “Who is hurt most? Students, nonprofit employees, and people starting a new career. By mandating overtime pay at a much higher salary threshold, many small businesses and nonprofits will be unable to afford skilled workers and be forced to eliminate salaried positions, complete with benefits, altogether.” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called the rule “misguided meddling in the economy.""The rule will force employers to waste time and resources logging hours,” he said in a statement. “It will also require workers to fit their lives into a mold that bureaucrats impose, not what works best for them." "The challenge this poses for employers, both in terms of time and expense, is daunting,” Jade West, senior vice president of government relations for the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, said in a statement. “But the real victims of this new rule will be those well-compensated workers who will now be required to punch a time clock and lose the workplace flexibility they have enjoyed and which is so important to women and men who struggle to balance their responsibilities at work with the requirements of family life.” Read this maisie. if you can't see the lies and holes in these statement you're a bigger fool than i thought. I could break it down for you, if you want. Sentence by sentence, all of it is not relevant to the rule, every single sentence. These are important people making these statement, My God, they think you folks will buy anything,......These comments are absurd. Read it, break it down to the proposed rule, see if what they say has any relevance to the rule. Remember the rule is for a salary of LESS Than $47, 746 dollar a year, and are demanded to work more than 40 hours per week without any additional compensation. If we raise the minimum wage to $15.00 and hours and millions of jobs would be lost. Change to this rule and not a single job would be lost.. not a single one. In fact it would increase jobs. Think about it. The jobs the rule effects would not be lost.. If the company didn't want to pay time and half then they would hire more people, or not have the work get done. Salary of less that 47,747.00 dollar. .Is a company scheme to overwork employees. maise knows it, I'm sure it effected her at some time.. there's virtually nothing worse the retail management for it.. It happens to me. and many people I know. I told my , you work in retail for a temporary job hourly, If they ask you to be salaried as a manager trainee .......Do not accept and Run Run Run. You will be guaranteed to make less money per hour.. |
|||
|
Companies don't want to pay time and half for something they now get for free. But this rule is not about what the company wants and it's not about paying salaried employees time an half for overtime. It's about changing the companies mindset. They have to make a choice Pay time and half for overtime. Don't do the additional overtime work, Or hire more people, or have current employees working less than 32 hr week do the work. This rule forces companies to make that choice. Currently, they just get it free. So my son who is salaried for a catering company, figured he may get more money for his 70 hr a week job, I laughed. It's not going to happen in the long run but you will work less. I can guarantee that Almost all the people who now have those kinds of job. Think they are going to make more money.. Some will, but most will just work less. This rule is about maintaining the 40 hour work week, not about overtime pay. Crazy as it sounds, it's actually about creating jobs.
| ||
|
Everyone they quoted is correct. Salary managers who used to have the freedom to come and go as work permitted, now have to punch a clock. It's demeaning to some. For every dollar of overtime they now have to pay salary managers, its less dollars they have to pay part timers. You can hire 3 part timers for what you would have to pay one person in O/T, or for the 25k difference . Since you regurgitated what was said let me deal with your response per each paragraph written s First these are low income workers not high income. What you call freedom is not freedom, it still is the same, but only the first forty hour of their work. the fact is most employers will not pay the time and half. they will do something else The only thing right about it. Is that new salaried employees be be hired at a lesser salary, but still we are talking about less than 47,747 dollar... How much less can they be paid? Again in the long run, overtime hours will not be worked and not be paid time and half. This rule is about work not about pay.
| ||
|
I have spent 35 years , off and on, in one form of retail or another, including fast food. I have also spent countless hours trying to stretch the payroll dollars and still service the customers. There is never enough money or time to do everything. I used to do my P&L analysis , schedules, budgets and sales planning at home, while I watched TV. I enjoy that sort of work. I love to crunch numbers. When I was in advertising, I have pitched a restaurant I was eating in, when I hadn't planned to work that night. There are millions of young up and comings who want to work that way. This rule will stop them. I should be surprised you lack integrity and are willing to say this. There's a difference about upper management and lower management. It's pretty much indicated with the salary. You are reciting your upper management position and forgetting where you came from. The idea that new hires would prefer it that way is absurd. they don't have a choice. The rule doesn't stop them the company does.
| ||
|
he more rules the government sets up, the more it stifles creativity. Jobs will not necessarily be lost over this, but there will be less hiring of low end workers, and the high end will be working longer and harder. Like I keep saying - if you think you work hard now for $10 an hour, wait and see how much work will be expected at $15. This is not about minimum wage. So that's not pertinent. The job doesn't change, just the hours. If high end management has to work harder to make up for it, so be it. That why they are salaried. High end, management can correct the problems, of inequities, low end management can't. Companies take low end people tell them they are high end, and need to do what expected from high end people.... It's just a lie This rules means there will be more hiring of low end people, or not. Jobs will not be loss, unless the companies viability depends on unfair practices. You are way too concerned about the effect of things on the bottom line of companies..... wages, hours worked, and taxes. All do effect the bottomline in a capitalist system expenses should not effect viability, but profit.. But the FACT is, the bottomline should not be increased, or make a company viable, on the backs of it's it's employees, or taxes. These are expenses. Viability of a company has far more to do, with the overall operation than the expenses, Things like production, business plans, supply and demand, and the general economy. We question companies moving jobs oversees. You're against that, I assume. But for some their viability depends on it. For others, it's just to bring more to the bottom line. Where do we draw the line on that, viability versus maximizing profit.? how do we know which? You can't question a companies operation to move oversees, and then say they cannot maintain viability with this rule. You are allowing companies to blackmail, with the threat of moving oversee or shutting down. You say you believe in capitalism, but you don't follow it. Capitalism has to deals with government, not control it. If a companies viability is hampered by this rule, the company shouldn't be in business in the first place. So this rule is not about company viability, it's about company profit. It's about true capitalism, I say if companies can't handle it they should go under. You say if companies can't handle it we need to accommodate them. It's just another government bailout of capitalism to you. YOU SEE THE GOVERNMENT'S DETRIMENT TO CAPITALISM I SEE THE GOVERNMENT, BENDING OVER BACKWARD TO SUPPORT CAPITALISM, I SEE A COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T OPERATE UNDER A CAPITALIST SYSTEM BUT IS A CAPITALIST GOVERNMENT, JUST LIKE A COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT. WHAT YOU DON'T SEE IS I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN A CAPITALIST ECONOMIC SYSTEM, MORE THAN YOU DO.
| ||
11/29/2016 8:21 am |
I rather think that the gov setting rules for employers may not be the way to go on this one. One problem is that they can be sidestepped. In Montreal in the 60's the waiters in popular bear parlours in the downtown got minimum wage. But the tips were so good that the owners would either demand a cut, or hit new hires with an upfront fee for the job. Mandating overtime is easily circumvented as well. I did the books for a friend of my father's in the construction business when I was in university. His deal with his workers was that he would pay them regular rates for overtime. If they wanted more, there would be no work. I recorded only the regular hours worked in reporting to the government. Also wrote two different cheques - one for the regular hours and one for the OT. The answer to low living standards due to low pay and the growing gap between rich and poor might be the Scandinavian model. High taxation with good benefits for everyone. There are other measures as well. Universal health care comes to mind.
| ||
|
maisie, This government, is a capitalist stooge. Everything this government does, is to take away the RISK of capitalism. This government doesn't believe in the true nature of capitalism and the RISK, capitalism demands Government should be there, in regard to capitalism, for only one reason. To prevent the unfair practices of Capitalists. Just like it prevents the unfair practices of all it's citizens. Laws should be designed to prevent unfair practices. Other than that this government needs to stay out of capitalism. It doesn't.. So called Capitalists now use government. to assume their risk. So called Capitalists now use government as a profit center. So called capitalists, don't want government to be separate as you would think. They want government to be part of their bottom line. Help them when things don't go, the way they want them to. Fix the economy, create jobs, spend money, give tax advantages, bailouts, and loans. Most companies wouldn't know how to exist without it anymore. We now have a Capitalist government, not a capitalist economic system.
| ||
|
I rather think that the gov setting rules for employers may not be the way to go on this one. One problem is that they can be sidestepped. In Montreal in the 60's the waiters in popular bear parlours in the downtown got minimum wage. But the tips were so good that the owners would either demand a cut, or hit new hires with an upfront fee for the job. Mandating overtime is easily circumvented as well. I did the books for a friend of my father's in the construction business when I was in university. His deal with his workers was that he would pay them regular rates for overtime. If they wanted more, there would be no work. I recorded only the regular hours worked in reporting to the government. Also wrote two different cheques - one for the regular hours and one for the OT. The answer to low living standards due to low pay and the growing gap between rich and poor might be the Scandinavian model. High taxation with good benefits for everyone. There are other measures as well. Universal health care comes to mind. but is it pertinent? We now have a society that circumvents everything. I have no doubt this too will be circumvented. but i think that's a separate problem WE as country do what we thinks needs doing, regardless, Look at healthcare, because we want universal healthcare, doesn't mean that whatever we come up with won't be circumvented. There are no absolutes, until everybody gets on the same page. personally, let me say....We do not agree on what are government benefits. I have a sneaky suspicion, you believe them to be entitlements.. I disagree. In our society we should do it, because we want to do it, not because we have to do it. In my mind it just works better that way.
| ||
|
Maisie, Understand what you wrote. "If you don't control expenses, you don't have production, a business plan, any supply - you are out of business" exactly.... The company has the power to control expense... That's their job. that part of their business To control expenses..... Yes..... they have the CONTROL. You don't buy more raw material than you can make something with You don't have cost of goods, more than what you sell And You don't pay employees more than they will produce... You don't pay taxes unless you make a profit, or are good at hiding it. You have the choice. Controlling expense is part of capitalism, if you can't control expenses you are not viable. Controlling mean you have control.. Expense aren't automatic, they are choices. make the wrong choice and you go under.. That's what suppose to happen It's not about that... It's about what you don't have choices on.. Competition, the economy, new technology, demand, these are thing that make you go under. These are things you expect the government to bail you out on. If not directly, then at least help you out with the things you should have control over.
| ||
|
Maisie, as you make budget decisions, what is the mindset? there is only one.. to maximize profits. that's what you have control over. You can't control if the business is going under. For the most part, going under is not about expenses. However it could be...... It could be when the person who did the budget before you..screwed up.
| ||
|
I may not agree with all you say. but that's not your point is it? It just amazes me, how the responses to you. prove your real point. They don't bother to understand, they don't bother to agree or disagree they bring stuff, that isn't about what your saying. They simply prove they don't understand Don't feel bad about it... That's what they do to me. But we need to give ourselves a slap on the back, because no matter what. We keep truckin on. We believe in journey and no so much the destination.
| ||
|
I find it informative.. That you can't tell the difference.
| ||
|
I not demeaning budget people. It's one of the most important jobs It's an upper management job, to make those decisions. most likely salaried. and if it takes you 60 hours week to do it right, then so be it., that's your job. but if you have a salaried assistant making less than 47,746 a year, and you expect them to work the same sixty hours... you should budget for more money. And if there is no money for that, then the company needs to find someone else to do the budget, or you need to work eighty hours a week to keep your job..
| ||
|
maisie, I made this comment to rentier, "personally, let me say....We do not agree on what are government benefits. I have a sneaky suspicion, you believe them to be entitlements.. I disagree. In our society we should do it, because we want to do it, not because we have to do it. In my mind it just works better that way." I wanted to ask you what you think of it, and what it says about me?
| ||
11/30/2016 8:14 am |
maisie, I made this comment to rentier, "personally, let me say....We do not agree on what are government benefits. I have a sneaky suspicion, you believe them to be entitlements.. I disagree. In our society we should do it, because we want to do it, not because we have to do it. In my mind it just works better that way." I wanted to ask you what you think of it, and what it says about me? Tell me what you think it means, and I will tell you if I believe in them. In the general meaning of 'entitled' I think people are entitled to clean water, personal security, decent health care, food, and housing.
| ||
|
To you, government benefits connote, the responsibility of government to provide them. Like health care, and welfare Some other things you mention like clean water and personal security, are not benefits but duties of government Government benefits, in my mind, are different than duties. Decent health care, food, and housing, are not duties but benefits. Don't confuse, the idea of those things in general, with the actual application. it is the hope of almost everybody that government provides those thing indirectly. Government is not directly required to provide adequate health care, food and housing. First of all, adequate is not a good enough defining term. Second of all it not about providing, it's about financing. i believe it's the people of the country's option as to whether or not the government finances those thing. It's the people who will define what is adequate, not the recipient. There are government duties and government benefits, My statement to you was to say, you confused the two. The difference between government benefits and entitlement..... Entitlement means what people are entitled to, our definition of what people are entitled to, isn't the same. I am not faulting your view on entitlements. That's your view, what I fault is the idea, there is no other view. There is difference between what a government should do, and what a government has to do.
|
×
×