Slashdot Mirror

Anyway, "being on welfare" doesn't mean "no income to garnish." In fact, statistically most people on welfare are working anywhere between 30-50 hours a week, albeit at one or more part-time jobs.

There are restrictions on what can be garnished legally;

Those restrictions are based on arbitrary government calculations (the same calculations that say a person with a $40K/yr job can afford $800/mo student loan payments, because they fail to take any expenses into account), and can be overruled by a judge.

They may also avoid garnishment by switching jobs, and ensuring the party holding judgement does not know and cannot discover their employment, or being employed in a cash payment business. For example: waiters/waitresses commonly receive direct payments as tips, which the employer doesn't have access to, therefore is incapable of garnishing.

Instead of refuting point-by-point, I'm just going to leave this here.

Do you have a source for that "over 50% on welfare" claim? Because it sounds either dubious, or like a gross misinterpretation of facts.

Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits

rt.com:

More than half of the US population – 165 million of 308 million Americans – is now dependent on the state in some form. Of these, 107 million Americans rely on government welfare, 46 million seniors collect Medicare and there are 22 million government employees.

The number of Americans on welfare have increased from 97 million to 107 million since President Obama took office, according to research by Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions. The number of Americans on food stamps during the president’s term has risen by more than 14 million.

So, gross misinterpretation of facts, then. Or rather, conflating the terms "government assistance" and "welfare."

FWIW, tax credits are technically "government assistance."

Why does "trying to fix this" always lead to affirmative action?

Why can't "trying to fix this" fix the root cause?

I mean, if you need more women on your team, instead of trying to give preference to women, why not do two things: 1) Study why there are few women in the field 2) Remedy that, or encourage more women to join.

You do realize that your proposal is almost exactly what affirmative action is, as codified in Executive Order 11246, right?

Some companies skirt this rule simply by paying "hourly" employees a salary above $23,600 (per FLSA) then work them 80+ hours a week and call it good. More and more employees, regardless of actual job duties are being paid a salary so they are then "exempt" from any overtime pay, even those that would traditionally qualify under the FLSA & I see this more and more often in the IT sector. If you look at the Computer Employee Exemption - you can make pretty much any IT job fit the bill if you phrase it correctly.

Workers are left with little recourse because:

• They've been exempt at every job they've ever had, so they no know different
• Many - even some of the learned ones - do not know how the FLSA applies to them in this situation
• Everyone around them is expected to work overtime w/out compensation, so it's not unusual.
• Regardless of what job duties they will be doing up to and, frankly, especially those including "non-exempt" duties they are told by management that they are doing "exempt" duties
• They have little real recourse, even if they know they are "non-exempt", unless other co-workers join them in a complaint. Co-workers who are unlikely to do so as:
  • There is little perceived gain and significant risk
  • It is expensive to the point of being cost-prohibitive in order to make a successful claim
  • Any employee who were to be successful would likely find repercussions pertaining to employ-ability later down the road. While not legal to do so above the board, it happens nevertheless (just look at all the wage-fixing and collusion in the valley - you actually think they'll hire someone again, or promote them over a co-worker who didn't sue?)

At the end of the day, LinkedIn is far from an anomaly, it is standard business practice - unless there is a top to bottom review by some third party (I don't know if there is even an entity that would be suited for this sort of endeavor), this practice will continue unabated. We will work more and continue to be paid less than what we earn.

For Silicon Valley Companies, perma-temping and hiring H1B's is part of their business practice,

Indeed. A company that was at one time known for it's test and measurement equipment and pioneered the laserjet printer space routinely hires temporary (contracted through temp agencies) labor for permanent manufacturing positions which is illegal. Since the law in question prohibits temporary labor from occupying a position for more than a 12 month period this company lays off the entire manufacturing line the last week of the year only to recreate the positions the very next week.

That's a nice sentiment, except this has nothing to do with Tech/IT workers. Most white collar jobs are exempt from the FLSA's overtime protections. Generally, salaried professionals and managers are exempt; in that respect Tech/IT workers are no different from other salaried professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, scientists, musicians. Salaried non-commissioned salespeople are one of the few white collar jobs which are non-exempt, and that's where Linkedin got in trouble - they weren't keep track of their overtime hours for some of their salespeople.

Then by your definitions, the current federal hiring practices are discriminatory.

First, those are not my definitions. Those are the definitions in law, as per executive orders 10925 and 11246 (the orders establishing affirmative action). It is a clever rhetorical trick to imply that the person to whom you are responding is using some wacky definition out of left-field, but it is kind of dishonest.

Second, I did not claim that federal hiring practices were non-discriminatory. What I claimed is that affirmative action is non-discriminatory, as it specifically claims to be about ending discrimination, in large part through the collection of data about hiring practices.

Finally, can you prove (or even provide solid evidence) of your claim that federal hiring practices are discriminatory? I don't claim to be an expert, and I would be willing to believe that such discrimination exists were you (or someone else) to provide evidence of such. That being said, your evidence would have to run counter both to my own experience and the stated policies of the federal government.

For my own experience, I did seasonal work for the BLM and Forest Service a decade ago, and the stated hiring policy was not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc. In fact, USAJobs doesn't necessarily collect demographic information aside from status as a veteran and some information about disabilities. I can't speak from personal experience regarding the practices of contractors, but they are supposed to be held to the same standard.

Beyond my own anecdotes, the Department of Labor states that their policy is not to discriminate except to give veterans preference and to "... take affirmative steps to employ qualified individuals with disabilities." ([1], emphasis mine). Other relevant laws and regulations can be found on the Department of Labor's website, including the following which relate to equal opportunity employment: [2] and [3] (relating to executive order 11246, the current law-of-the-land regarding affirmative action), and [4] (relating to the preference given to veterans).

Then by your definitions, the current federal hiring practices are discriminatory.

First, those are not my definitions. Those are the definitions in law, as per executive orders 10925 and 11246 (the orders establishing affirmative action). It is a clever rhetorical trick to imply that the person to whom you are responding is using some wacky definition out of left-field, but it is kind of dishonest.

Second, I did not claim that federal hiring practices were non-discriminatory. What I claimed is that affirmative action is non-discriminatory, as it specifically claims to be about ending discrimination, in large part through the collection of data about hiring practices.

Finally, can you prove (or even provide solid evidence) of your claim that federal hiring practices are discriminatory? I don't claim to be an expert, and I would be willing to believe that such discrimination exists were you (or someone else) to provide evidence of such. That being said, your evidence would have to run counter both to my own experience and the stated policies of the federal government.

For my own experience, I did seasonal work for the BLM and Forest Service a decade ago, and the stated hiring policy was not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc. In fact, USAJobs doesn't necessarily collect demographic information aside from status as a veteran and some information about disabilities. I can't speak from personal experience regarding the practices of contractors, but they are supposed to be held to the same standard.

Beyond my own anecdotes, the Department of Labor states that their policy is not to discriminate except to give veterans preference and to "... take affirmative steps to employ qualified individuals with disabilities." ([1], emphasis mine). Other relevant laws and regulations can be found on the Department of Labor's website, including the following which relate to equal opportunity employment: [2] and [3] (relating to executive order 11246, the current law-of-the-land regarding affirmative action), and [4] (relating to the preference given to veterans).

Then by your definitions, the current federal hiring practices are discriminatory.

First, those are not my definitions. Those are the definitions in law, as per executive orders 10925 and 11246 (the orders establishing affirmative action). It is a clever rhetorical trick to imply that the person to whom you are responding is using some wacky definition out of left-field, but it is kind of dishonest.

Second, I did not claim that federal hiring practices were non-discriminatory. What I claimed is that affirmative action is non-discriminatory, as it specifically claims to be about ending discrimination, in large part through the collection of data about hiring practices.

Finally, can you prove (or even provide solid evidence) of your claim that federal hiring practices are discriminatory? I don't claim to be an expert, and I would be willing to believe that such discrimination exists were you (or someone else) to provide evidence of such. That being said, your evidence would have to run counter both to my own experience and the stated policies of the federal government.

For my own experience, I did seasonal work for the BLM and Forest Service a decade ago, and the stated hiring policy was not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc. In fact, USAJobs doesn't necessarily collect demographic information aside from status as a veteran and some information about disabilities. I can't speak from personal experience regarding the practices of contractors, but they are supposed to be held to the same standard.

Beyond my own anecdotes, the Department of Labor states that their policy is not to discriminate except to give veterans preference and to "... take affirmative steps to employ qualified individuals with disabilities." ([1], emphasis mine). Other relevant laws and regulations can be found on the Department of Labor's website, including the following which relate to equal opportunity employment: [2] and [3] (relating to executive order 11246, the current law-of-the-land regarding affirmative action), and [4] (relating to the preference given to veterans).

Then by your definitions, the current federal hiring practices are discriminatory.

First, those are not my definitions. Those are the definitions in law, as per executive orders 10925 and 11246 (the orders establishing affirmative action). It is a clever rhetorical trick to imply that the person to whom you are responding is using some wacky definition out of left-field, but it is kind of dishonest.

Second, I did not claim that federal hiring practices were non-discriminatory. What I claimed is that affirmative action is non-discriminatory, as it specifically claims to be about ending discrimination, in large part through the collection of data about hiring practices.

Finally, can you prove (or even provide solid evidence) of your claim that federal hiring practices are discriminatory? I don't claim to be an expert, and I would be willing to believe that such discrimination exists were you (or someone else) to provide evidence of such. That being said, your evidence would have to run counter both to my own experience and the stated policies of the federal government.

For my own experience, I did seasonal work for the BLM and Forest Service a decade ago, and the stated hiring policy was not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc. In fact, USAJobs doesn't necessarily collect demographic information aside from status as a veteran and some information about disabilities. I can't speak from personal experience regarding the practices of contractors, but they are supposed to be held to the same standard.

Beyond my own anecdotes, the Department of Labor states that their policy is not to discriminate except to give veterans preference and to "... take affirmative steps to employ qualified individuals with disabilities." ([1], emphasis mine). Other relevant laws and regulations can be found on the Department of Labor's website, including the following which relate to equal opportunity employment: [2] and [3] (relating to executive order 11246, the current law-of-the-land regarding affirmative action), and [4] (relating to the preference given to veterans).

Well, actually there is already something like that. To hire an H1-B, I believe you have to pay her more than the national average in that category of worker. So I guess there are ways to cheat that a little, but I am not sure how big an impact this has. I recently got a job and have many friend that are looking for jobs or just found one (some H1B's some not). It seems the companies don't care much about the fine details of the salaries once they find the skills they wants.

Here is the exact text from department of labor.
"Employers must attest to the Department of Labor that they will pay wages to the H-1B nonimmigrant workers that are at least equal to the actual wage paid by the employer to other workers with similar experience and qualifications for the job in question, or the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of intended employment â" whichever is greater. "

Programmers are exempt from overtime, there's specific language in the overtime law to not include them and managers. here's the details on it. http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtim...

According to that link, even if you are salaried, you must work over 62 hours to drop below minimum wage.

You didn't specify what position, but I doubt that working in a theater would count as an "executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. "

Again, check local laws. Many (most?) have restrictions beyond what the feds require.

Here's the link. Working in a movie theatre would fall under "Employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments".

That lowered me to about $5/hour beneath minimum wage.

My previous job had me working similar hours, and I was only $2.60 beneath minimum wage. I did start taking my breaks, until they gave me a written warning and a threat of dismissal.

You should look into your local laws. It's called minimum wage for a reason, and I'm not aware of anywhere (in the US) where violations are not a big deal.

Minimum wage does not typically apply to salaried workers who are generally "professionals" which are exempt from minimum wage. There are also a host of positions (such as working at a movie theater) that are also exempt. (See http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/co... for details.)

Now, if you are hourly and in a position that qualitifes, then you are generally good. Restaurant workers that receive tips are guaranteed by law at least minimum wage - that is, they get the greater of minimum wage or their base of $1.20/hr plus tips for the pay period. Beware - not every position qualifies.

That lowered me to about $5/hour beneath minimum wage.

My previous job had me working similar hours, and I was only $2.60 beneath minimum wage. I did start taking my breaks, until they gave me a written warning and a threat of dismissal.

You should look into your local laws. It's called minimum wage for a reason, and I'm not aware of anywhere (in the US) where violations are not a big deal.

Minimum wage does not typically apply to salaried workers who are generally "professionals" which are exempt from minimum wage. There are also a host of positions (such as working at a movie theater) that are also exempt. (See http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/co... for details.)

Now, if you are hourly and in a position that qualitifes, then you are generally good. Restaurant workers that receive tips are guaranteed by law at least minimum wage - that is, they get the greater of minimum wage or their base of $1.20/hr plus tips for the pay period. Beware - not every position qualifies.

Exempt employees do not have to be paid overtime. If the job atmosphere pushes you into it, you will work it or be replaced by someone who will.

So these people, at least in one large country, and states can change the rules too. http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/f...

That lowered me to about $5/hour beneath minimum wage.

My previous job had me working similar hours, and I was only $2.60 beneath minimum wage. I did start taking my breaks, until they gave me a written warning and a threat of dismissal.

You should look into your local laws. It's called minimum wage for a reason, and I'm not aware of anywhere (in the US) where violations are not a big deal.

When I go to temp agencies, they look at my skill set (Computer Science degree, 10 years in IT support and networking, 6 years in media production) and tell me that there's just no work out there, and if I come back in a couple of weeks they might have something but I should probably look at getting my forklift licence and start at the bottom in retail or warehousing.

Either you are applying at the wrong agencies (there are many that deal exclusively in unskilled labor), or you are in the wrong market. Unpleasant as it may be, you might have to move to a different city/state to stay with that career.

" I have to fire 40% of the workforce."
Why? why is that you only option?

If you were correct, then there would be no jobs.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congr...

http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdo...
"In a recent review of the literature, Professor Richard Freeman of Harvard, a widely respected labor economist, wrote: "At the level of the minimum wage in the late 1980s, moderate legislated increases did not reduce employment and were, if anything, associated with higher employment in some locales."

and so on. YOU are the bitch of the corporate spin machine.

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/progr...

In a recent review of the literature, Professor Richard Freeman of Harvard, a widely respected labor economist, wrote: "At the level of the minimum wage in the late 1980s, moderate legislated increases did not reduce employment and were, if anything, associated with higher employment in some locales."

In discussing the minimum wage, Robert M. Solow, a Nobel laureate in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recently told the New York Times, "The main thing about (minimum wage) research is that the evidence of job loss is weak. And the fact that the evidence is weak suggests that the impact on jobs is small."

Here's another one:
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-...

The tips are generally shared amongst some of the staff.... that portion of the staff makes shit wage, minimum wage law doesn't apply to them.

No, minimum wage law does apply to them: "If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference."

It's actually most white-collar employees (e.g., software developers such as myself) who are exempt from the minimum wage laws (and overtime too)... see this page for the full list of exempt employees.

The tips are generally shared amongst some of the staff.... that portion of the staff makes shit wage, minimum wage law doesn't apply to them.

No, minimum wage law does apply to them: "If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference."

It's actually most white-collar employees (e.g., software developers such as myself) who are exempt from the minimum wage laws (and overtime too)... see this page for the full list of exempt employees.

In the U.S., that isn't strictly true (although it's often the case). By the Fair Labor Standards Act, if an employee doesn't make the federal minimum wage by a combination of the $2.13/hour direct wage and their tips, the employer is required to make up the difference.

It doesn't look like country of origin is a required disclosure and I don't think companies voluntarily discloses information that it doesn't need to.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/co...

I'm not a big Obama fan (I voted Green the past two elections), but claiming the Democrats have controlled spending for the past 6 years is absurd. The Republicans have controlled the house and the Democrats have done a poor job of negotiating with them (although I'll be willing to accept that the Democrat's goals might not actually differ from the Republicans' as much as they claim).

On the minimum wage, some graphs of the historical value adjusted for inflation show that $10.10 is in fact matching inflation. It just seems like a large jump because real wages have been decreasing for decades.

I agree that Obama and the Democratic party have shown poor leadership and handling of the economic crisis, just nitpicking some details.

The law says over 49 people at one site.

Is there any sort of moral imperative that women must consist of 50% of all occupations? Even the niche dumb ones?

Here is a US page showing high concentration *female* jobs. Where's the cries for more men in teaching and nursing?

Now, show me women who are trying to get into e-sports and can't, and then we can talk.

If the airline employees were on board with it, then there would be no problem.

Yeah, but why would they? It's not the mechanics' fault, or the fight attendants' fault. It's not the fault of the people throwing bags into the bellies of the plane. It's not the fault of the people processing the tickets, or the engineers maintaining the website. Why would they feel like they have to suffer because of someone else's mistakes? They have to eat, they have to pay their own debts, they have to coverall their own expenses too (like rent, electricity, phone, etc). They're not going to get back-pay, are they? And in reality, that would never happen. Except under certain exemptions that would be illegal under federal law of the United States. And it would be a PR nightmare. Employees would quit, quality of service would suffer, and the company would collapse.

Throughout the years, though, airlines have suffered numerous disasters, and despite the fact that they're constantly operating on the edge of bankruptcy, they've never been put in such a position. Want to guess why? Because they have insurance. They pay insurers to cover them when such things arise, so that they aren't put in the position of compromising the stability of the business (or violating the law) when things go sideways.

"You were here for 50 hours this week but you only really 'worked' for 39 of them...no overtime for you!"

Sorry, nope, under the FLSA. In the US, for ordinary non-exempt employees: you have to count any rest period as time worked that's 20 minutes or shorter of continuous rest.

Rest and Meal Periods: Rest periods of short duration, usually 20 minutes or less, are common in industry (and promote the efficiency of the employee) and are customarily paid for as working time. These short periods must be counted as hours worked.

The out of control healthcare costs are why this administration is trying to reduce overall costs by:
* creating a 2.3% medical device excise tax for manufacturers and importers.
* increasing percentage (10%) of your income you must spend in unreimbursed medical costs before they can be used in itemized deductions on your tax return.
* forcing parents cover the cost of insurance of "children" until the "children" are 27 granted this makes it cheaper for the "children" but not for the parents
* creating an annual fee (i.e. tax) for certain health insurance providers (granted this does not directly increase the cost of healthcare)
Please note that these are just the first few I found (on government sites) after a few seconds of searching, so this list certainly is not exhaustive.

For references see:
* http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-dependentcoverage.html
* http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions

The ratio of CEO compensation to average worker compensation is now approximately 10 times its value in 1950. This is approximately commensurate with the average increase in the Dow average adjusted for inflation.

Right; and one should hardly be surprised by this since our government continually passes more and more regulations that generally only benefits big businesses. The barrier to entry for a small or medium-sized firm to get on a public stock exchange is enormous. When competition is limited, one should not be surprised when the market can no longer efficiently remove wasteful players. Paying prices vastly more than necessary to secure a proper executive is, of course, very wasteful. But this is not a fundamental issue with CEO pay, this is an issue with regulation that keeps smaller firms out.

But why should CEOs receive the entire benefit of a growing economy when all actors have contributed to that growth? CEO compensation has no correlation with company performance.

As I see it, the problem has nothing to do with a free vs. a coerced market. The problem is that the market of executive compensation is entirely divorced from the market at large. "Stockholders... vote... for whatever the management recommends no matter how poor the management’s record of accomplishment may be". This is what I mean by oligarchy: a few privileged elites have control over this smaller market without the essential feedback cycles that stabilize prices in the larger economy.

Yes, and this smaller market is much easier to manipulate when it remains artificially small due to artificial barriers to entry. That said, your definition of oligarchy is quite arbitrary; even if you could absolutely measure the power the "privileged elites" have over a smaller market, at what ratio of power to size does it constitute an oligarchy? I do agree with your sentiment, and I think my paragraph above speaks to it.

The issue is that the market value of labor has plummeted in relation to productivity and in relation to the value of top earners. In the 50s one could work part time at a minimum wage job and pay rent and college tuition and walk away with a degree free and clear. Today, just to pay rent, one needs roommates or more than one part-time minimum-wage job, let alone any ability to pay for education in order to get a better job.

1950: $0.75/hour * 20 hours * 50 weeks = $750 wages $42 * 12 months = $504 rent $35 * 4 quarters = $140 tuition

2013: $7.25/hour * 20 hours * 50 weeks = $7250 wages $602 * 12 months = $7224 rent $3917 * 2 semesters = $7834 tuition

How do you measure productivity? GDP is a pretty useless measurement. Also, there is this silly notion that public sector consumption should actually be counted as production. Since there is no objective way to measure public sector "productivity" (since it is not part of a market), it should not be included in aggregates; also it is quite common for the public sector to be horribly inefficient with its "funds". Government makes up

The ratio of CEO compensation to average worker compensation is now approximately 10 times its value in 1950. This is approximately commensurate with the average increase in the Dow average adjusted for inflation.

But why should CEOs receive the entire benefit of a growing economy when all actors have contributed to that growth? CEO compensation has no correlation with company performance.

As I see it, the problem has nothing to do with a free vs. a coerced market. The problem is that the market of executive compensation is entirely divorced from the market at large. "Stockholders... vote... for whatever the management recommends no matter how poor the management’s record of accomplishment may be". This is what I mean by oligarchy: a few privileged elites have control over this smaller market without the essential feedback cycles that stabilize prices in the larger economy.

The issue is that the market value of labor has plummeted in relation to productivity and in relation to the value of top earners. In the 50s one could work part time at a minimum wage job and pay rent and college tuition and walk away with a degree free and clear. Today, just to pay rent, one needs roommates or more than one part-time minimum-wage job, let alone any ability to pay for education in order to get a better job.

1950:
$0.75/hour * 20 hours * 50 weeks = $750 wages
$42 * 12 months = $504 rent
$35 * 4 quarters = $140 tuition

2013:
$7.25/hour * 20 hours * 50 weeks = $7250 wages
$602 * 12 months = $7224 rent
$3917 * 2 semesters = $7834 tuition

I believe that raising the average wage will have a better impact on the economy as a whole than raising executive compensation. I believe that income inequality is a social ill that should be addressed through policy -- not by Marxian state capture of the means of production and not through Randian private hoarding of the means of production, but through a hybrid realistic approach like "all employees should receive stock options or profit sharing if executives do".

I'll see your immihelp.com and raise you a United States Department of Labor:

H-1B dependent employers ... must attest to the following three elements addressing non-displacement and recruitment of U.S. workers ... The employer, before applying for H-1B status for any alien worker pursuant to an H-1B LCA, took good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the job for which the alien worker is sought ... Also, the employer will offer the job to any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified than the H-1B worker.

• Table 1 on page 34542, listing several ways in which "grandfathered" plans still must conform to the ACA (e.g., no lifetime limits on benefits; no canceling the plan when someone submits bills for a pre-existing condition that they "forgot" to fill in on their application; perhaps most importantly, must refund "excess" premiums in years where payouts were less than [generally 80]% of premiums) -- in short, the ACA materially alters the actuarial assumptions under which the "grandfathered" policies were issued
• Subsection F on pages 34543-45 (and corresponding summary in subsection 3 on page 34547), explaining in detail the extremely limited ways in which an insurer can respond to the above intrusion on the actuarial assumptions of the plan (e.g., can't materially increase copays; group plans can't materially increase cost-shares of premiums)
• Page 34549, explaining that the above hypersensitive triggers for a plan to lose grandfathered status are necessary to prevent adverse selection in grandfathered plans--i.e., lower-premium, healthier-population plans staying grandfathered, and higher-premium, sicker-population plans converting, and that they realize in setting the above constraints, most plans will not succeed in staying grandfathered for long
• Table 3 on page 34553 (summarizing several prior pages), showing that, in 2010, HHS's mid-range estimate was that the above changes and restrictions would cause a cumulative total of 51% of all grandfathered group health plans to lose grandfathered status by 2013
• Subsection F immediately below Table 3, discussing HHS's estimate that the above changes and restrictions would cause 40-67% of grandfathered individual plans per year to lose grandfathered status

In short, it seems clear from HHS's own pen that the concept of "grandfathered" plans under the ACA is (1) highly Orwellian; and (2) was deliberately set up for failure. It's disappointing that the latest distracting meme is blaming the insurance companies for doing what, as shown above in black and white, HHS fully intended to force them to do from the beginning.

where do you people come up with this stupid shit about minority preferences? The federal law bans such practices, and has ever since Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.

Citation offered: http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm

Non-construction (service and supply) contractors with 50 or more employees and government contracts of $50,000 or more are required, under Executive Order 11246, to develop and implement a written affirmative action program (AAP) for each establishment.

You're the one that needs a "citation needed" -- where do you people come up with this stupid shit about minority preferences? The federal law bans such practices, and has ever since Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.

Supreme Court heard a case on it and didn't rule that it was illegal. Not sure why you are claiming something like affirmative action doesn't exist.

Department of Labor has rules to enforce affirmative action.

I'm guessing you are intentionally lying to make a point and were hoping that no one questioned you on it.

See the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (which conveniently exempts Federal gov).

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/layoffs.htm

Basic Provisions/Requirements

WARN protects workers, their families, and communities by requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. Advance notice gives workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain other jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to compete successfully in the job market. WARN also provides for notice to state dislocated worker units so that they can promptly offer dislocated worker assistance.

A covered plant closing occurs when a facility or operating unit is shut down for more than six months, or when 50 or more employees lose their jobs during any 30â'day period at a single site of employment. A covered mass layoff occurs when 50 to 499 employees are affected during any 30-day period at a single employment site (or for certain multiple related layoffs, during a 90-day period), if these employees represent at least 33 percent of the employerâ(TM)s workforce where the layoff will occur, and the layoff results in an employment loss for more than six months. If the layoff affects 500 or more workers, the 33 percent rule does not apply.

WARN does not apply to closure of temporary facilities, or the completion of an activity when the workers were hired only for the duration of that activity. WARN also provides for less than 60 days notice when the layoffs resulted from closure of a faltering company, unforeseeable business circumstances, or natural disaster.

I've never heard of a company giving a two-week notice to an employee that's being laid off or fired

It depends on the size of the layoff; see: the WARN Act. I was once given a paid 60 days absence before the actual layoff because they were shuttering the division. Gave me enough time to get another job, and get home from my first day of work to find a FedEx envelope with my final severance check.

That's how you downsize with class. Or, by being legal.

http://www.dol.gov/

There is all the proof you need. The prices you cite as 'not going up', the shortage of workers in these fields, the statistical analysis on a yearly basis of how an influx of STEM graduates has affected the fields in question. Hell, do a 5 second Google search and you could have 15 billion articles digest the information that is readily available to you from the department of labor.

It really isn't that hard to see, but hey if you want to be stubborn and try to back your point by saying 'hand waving' or 'show me the stats' that isn't my fault. I actually AM one of those not too far removed STEM graduates that now works as a software engineer and have seen a lot of this first hand and heard from plenty of people that have been in these fields for 10 to 15+ years (not just in software either, I work with electrical, mechanical, and even some chemical and energy engineers). You can dismiss this as 'anecdotal' if you want, but the fact remains, look at the stats and the numbers don't lie.

your employer isn't required to pay you overtime

I'm sure you're aware of this distinction, but for those who aren't: The FLSA has exceptions, of course, but people who are not in a management role are nearly always considered non-exempt, and the minimum-wage and overtime provisions apply to the vast majority of businesses.

Speaking of workers rights... Can anyone explain to me why "Computer Professionals" are specifically exempted from overtime pay? Why is my overtime less valuable than someone else's overtime?

Let me guess: Is it because some large IT firm slipped substantial campaign contributions to the right legislative whores?

I have to say, you Americans have a completely retarded system when it comes to maternity leave etc., and I don't just mean what the government decides.

"We Americans" don't have a system for maternity leave. If you look carefully in our Constitution, you won't find one of the powers of government to be "give every woman who wants to have a baby paid time off". It isn't a disease that needs mandatory time off or sick leave. In other words, the government has no business deciding.

It's been 3 awesome months.

I'm sure it has been. Does your government pay you for taking time off for everything that is "awesome"? Can you get them to pay for a trip to Disneyland, for example?

What I don't get is: even when you don't have paid maternity/paternity leave (which is your society's fault),

Hardly.

why can't you as the man take (20-40%) of the time staying at home (before kindergarden), and then your wife takes the rest?

Well, the woman is pregnant all nine months. Does your government manage to get that job swapped off to the husband so he needs time off? Wouldn't that be awesome, a system like you ask about, where I can get my wife pregnant, take five months off with pay, and then she gets the next four to deal with being pregnant. Wham, bam, thank you Ma'am I'm going to Orlando for five months!

But seriously, some companies do give paid paternity leave, so your question is moot.

I mean, she has after all carried the baby and given birth to it, so surely she deserves more than 50%?

How magnanimous of you. I'm sure your wife thinks you are the salt of the earth. She deserves more than 50% of the maternity leave time for herself. You'll be happy with 49%.

Is your employer really going to deny you a total of (1-3)x3 months of unpaid leave,

You're talking about paid leave to start with, and now it's unpaid. The FMLA means our employers cannot deny us 3 months of unpaid leave for maternity or paternity. So, this question is also moot.

when seen against your entire working life of 50+ years

And you think Norway has a good system? You have to work 50+ years over there? Our standard retirement age is around 62 to 65 or so. We don't really enter the workforce, for the most part, until long after 12. We'd call them sweatshops, I think.

and all the benefits that come from a closer connection to your children?

Exactly what are the benefits to your employer during your 40th through 50th years of employment from your closer connection to your children? 30-40? 20-30?

Given that the only part of it that says "X people don't count as employees" specifies that the business must be a non-profit,

That is not a given, in fact, that is incorrect. That sentence quoting SCOTUS says nothing about "non-profit."

It is the NEXT sentence that says that "In administering the FLSA, the Department of Labor follows this judicial guidance in the case of individuals serving as unpaid volunteers in various community services." Again, no mention of non-profit, only "community services", and then it says only where DL follows this guidance, not that it does not apply to for-profit.

it seems like the 'suffer or permit to work' clause would apply at a for-profit, and you would in fact be an employee, and thereby prohibited from being a 'volunteer'.

The statement from SCOTUS about this is directly opposite. Just being "suffer[ed] or permit[ted] to to work" does not make one an employee.

The kicker for this case, however, would appear to be items 3 and 4 at http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/trainees.asp

That cite begins by restating SCOTUS in that just doing work there doesn't make one an employee. Points 3 and 4 make the system a loss for the employer and "trainee" since the employer cannot get productive work out of the intern and the intern cannot do anything that an employee would do. Why bother doing this? But then, this would not be the first time the executive branch did something that SCOTUS said wasn't right.

But the situation described does not seem to fit the legal requirements for an unpaid position.

As a free person, I should be able to offer my labor to another for whatever compensation I find sufficient, and I should not then be able to retroactively sue that person for pay for doing something I agreed I would do for free. SCOTUS has said that the FLSA does not make me employee just because I "suffer to work" at a place, but the DL has decided to create guidelines that contradict that ruling. SCOTUS is right. DL is wrong. This judge is wrong because the judge should be following SCOTUS precedent.

Given that the only part of it that says "X people don't count as employees" specifies that the business must be a non-profit, it seems like the 'suffer or permit to work' clause would apply at a for-profit, and you would in fact be an employee, and thereby prohibited from being a 'volunteer'.

The kicker for this case, however, would appear to be items 3 and 4 at http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/trainees.asp - if (as TFS indicates) the employer was able to avoid paying an employee because of the intern's actions, they're getting an immediate advantage and the intern is displacing an employee.

IANAL, and certainly not a labor lawyer. I may well have missed something. But the situation described does not seem to fit the legal requirements for an unpaid position.

Sure, for a charity. Volunteering at a for profit is not legal. http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp

Nice try, but that cite doesn't support your claim. It says that:

Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.

As a volunteer, I am not an employee. If you read the second sentence of what you cite:

However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the FLSA was not intended "to stamp all persons as employees who without any express or implied compensation agreement might work for their own advantage on the premises of another."

In other words, the Supreme Court has ruled that volunteers are not employees under FLSA. As long as I'm not doing so with "express or implied compensation", I'm a volunteer. Clearly, it is not "implied compensation" for one to garner experience working in a field (such as the interns in this case), otherwise that would be their fairly agreed-to compensation for their internship and no back-pay would be granted.

Once I am an employee I may no longer "volunteer" my services to that employer. Of course not, I'm an employee, and I'm not able to volunteer anymore. There is always the implied threat in such a case of termination for not "volunteering", and thus FLSA does make that illegal. As I said, INvoluntary volunteerism is clearly illegal. That's not what you have to cite. Your statement deals with true volunteerism.

What you cite does not say that volunteers may not volunteer. Try again.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp

With your level of ignorance I would think you might try to hide it a little.

Much like a contract to murder you for your ignorance would be illegal, so would this contract you are speaking of.

Sure, for a charity. Volunteering at a for profit is not legal.

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/docs/volunteers.asp

If this is the sort of basic facts you do not know, you really should not be discussing this in public.

Also remember that a policy like this creates a perverse incentive to favor employing a man instead of a woman-- he's less of a financial liability.

But I thought women make, what is it now, 72 cents for every dollar a man makes? Why would anyone hire a man to do a job if he can get an equally capable/qualified worker for 72 cents on the dollar?

Oh yeah, because it isn't true... Never mind.

ed note: Media Matters insists it actually exists - but oddly they left out the Department of Labor report in their "analysis - shocking!

The FMLA allows you to take time off for almost anything (unpaid).

What about people without cats? Why can't they take up to 12 weeks off (unpaid) for any reason they like?

Sorry, I thought it was the other way around.
It is not 19 though, it is 21.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/meal.htm

Looks like a good percentage of US residents live in states that do require it. Since it seems the coasts are requiring it.