The issue of corporate access and influence is a separate one
Not necessarily. The lower someone is paid, the more likely they would be to take bribes.
These reps should all be required to spend the majority of each year's weeks in their constituent districts. They should vote by secure network instead of in DC.
And what about negotiations with other lawmakers? What about congressional hearings? A lot more than just voting goes on in DC.
Personally (and I know this is going to earn me a few "troll" points from our faithful moderators), I am against mandating things like time-and-a-half and double-time pay.
That's because you're in favor of not forcing companies to actually pay what things cost. You want businesses to be able to fuck over employees as they wish. And that makes you an asshole.
Although it sounds like a good deal for hourly workers, in fact it probably discourages employers from paying people more.
No, it discourages businesses from overworking their employees. Tell me, with this bill, where is the incentive to make sure that an employee isn't overworking themselves, and that they actually get time at home to spend with their families? Where is the incentive to not force 10-12 hour days?
Frankly I wish the government would just stay out of these matters and let the free market decide what's a fair wage, what's fair hours, etc., but maybe I'm naive:)
Yes, you are extremely fucking naive if you think the "free market" would decide anything that doesn't make the employers more money.
if you don't agree with not payed overtime, just don't do overtime. If it's not payed for, it can't be mandatory.
Maybe, but it's also not mandatory to keep you employed if you don't do the unpaid overtime. It's the business holding all the cards, setting them aside and deciding to just outright fuck you.
Yeah, you're a troll. The idea that you need to "find leverage" is cute, but it doesn't actually work when you have mouths at home to feed and need a job.
I fail to see how this isn't illegal. Have you talked to labor lawyers in your area? And why aren't you naming and shaming this company? The fact that they pull this deceitful crap should be well known, and should show up at the top of the list for any Google searches for that company.
No. Why the fuck should I have to be a contractor simply to be treated as a god damned human being? Why the fuck should that be a requirement to actually get paid?
Being exempt and earning salary isn't considered to be universally negative there is precedent established that many classes of workers will accept it.
That doesn't make any logical sense. Just because people are more or less forced to accept it, does not mean that something isn't negative.
Uhh, no. Not in the least. It does have to do with the idea that shitfuckers in business should NOT be able to exploit and take advantage of other people. And fuck you up the ass if you think that should be allowed because "freedom!"
While I know being unemployed for a period of time might taint your response to this, but would you really like to work for someone who doesn't want to you read the terms of employment?
If your argument held even a drop of water, then we would NEVER hear companies bitching and moaning that they can't find good workers, because they'd all realize that as soon as they can't find anyone good, they would raise their offered wage.
No, there's realistically no difference. Once you allow companies to not pay overtime, the vast majority of companies are simply not going to do it. And the very few that continue to will either go out of business because they're being undercut, or if they stay in business, they won't make that big of an impact simply because they can't hire everyone.
I dunno, that has some problems with it too. For instance, median income in South Dakota for 2010 was about $45k. Not bad, but not a lot for someone who has to travel all over the state (the state has only one House Representative, due to having a population of about 750k), and regularly travel back and forth to Washington. Meaning that such a person would probably be more willing to accept a ride from South Dakota to Washington on board a $INDUSTRY private jet. And while there, they might happen to discuss some upcoming legislation, that might make it harder for them to operate that jet.
How do you figure? Care to name any instance since the ratification of the 27th in which a Congress has voted to increase it's own pay, rather than the next one?
If they think they can use money to increase profitability, they'll do so. Nothing wrong with it.
Highly disagree. While in the general case, attempting to increase profitability isn't a bad thing, it all comes down to the details. Depending on WHAT they do to try and increase profitability, it can be extremely bad. Shit like this, for instance.
Simply saying that "There's nothing wrong with increasing profitability" as a blanket statement is hugely oversimplifying the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue of corporate access and influence is a separate one
Not necessarily. The lower someone is paid, the more likely they would be to take bribes.
These reps should all be required to spend the majority of each year's weeks in their constituent districts. They should vote by secure network instead of in DC.
And what about negotiations with other lawmakers? What about congressional hearings? A lot more than just voting goes on in DC.
Personally (and I know this is going to earn me a few "troll" points from our faithful moderators), I am against mandating things like time-and-a-half and double-time pay.
That's because you're in favor of not forcing companies to actually pay what things cost. You want businesses to be able to fuck over employees as they wish. And that makes you an asshole.
Although it sounds like a good deal for hourly workers, in fact it probably discourages employers from paying people more.
No, it discourages businesses from overworking their employees. Tell me, with this bill, where is the incentive to make sure that an employee isn't overworking themselves, and that they actually get time at home to spend with their families? Where is the incentive to not force 10-12 hour days?
Frankly I wish the government would just stay out of these matters and let the free market decide what's a fair wage, what's fair hours, etc., but maybe I'm naive :)
Yes, you are extremely fucking naive if you think the "free market" would decide anything that doesn't make the employers more money.
I was sort of wondering what the rationale was
The rationale is that there are a lot of shitbag employers who don't want to have to actually pay overtime costs for working their employees overtime.
No, it just fucks over a lot of IT workers. There is absolutely NO REASON why they should be classified as exempt.
If a company wants their people to work overtime, they should have to pay for that extra time. Plain and simple.
Meaning, that, if you are foolish enough to work 80 hours in a week, than k you very much, your paycheck will not be changing
In many shops, if you're not that foolish, you don't keep your job.
And if you'll notice, a lot of companies are cutting back on those benefits.
Have you tried hiring truly qualified 24/7 ops type IT people lately? They are, and will continue to be, hard to find.
Maybe don't look for 24/7 ops types? Because so very few actually want to be working constantly?
..who will work overtime, if it's not paid?
Those who need their job, and are told if they don't do the work, then they're fired.
Good on you for deciding to walk. Not everyone has that degree of flexibility, though. Many people need to have a job.
And there's absolutely no justification whatsoever that they can make for why this is needed.
if you don't agree with not payed overtime, just don't do overtime. If it's not payed for, it can't be mandatory.
Maybe, but it's also not mandatory to keep you employed if you don't do the unpaid overtime. It's the business holding all the cards, setting them aside and deciding to just outright fuck you.
Does this mean that jokes about yall being lazy are fair game as well?
First you have to explain how not wanting to work yourself to the bone every hour of every day is "lazy".
Ask them if they'll pay that into your investment fund, rather than a locked-away pension plan...
Why? Do you have some insane desire to put the entirety of risk on yourself?
Yeah, you're a troll. The idea that you need to "find leverage" is cute, but it doesn't actually work when you have mouths at home to feed and need a job.
I fail to see how this isn't illegal. Have you talked to labor lawyers in your area? And why aren't you naming and shaming this company? The fact that they pull this deceitful crap should be well known, and should show up at the top of the list for any Google searches for that company.
No. Why the fuck should I have to be a contractor simply to be treated as a god damned human being? Why the fuck should that be a requirement to actually get paid?
Being exempt and earning salary isn't considered to be universally negative there is precedent established that many classes of workers will accept it.
That doesn't make any logical sense. Just because people are more or less forced to accept it, does not mean that something isn't negative.
Uhh, no. Not in the least. It does have to do with the idea that shitfuckers in business should NOT be able to exploit and take advantage of other people. And fuck you up the ass if you think that should be allowed because "freedom!"
While I know being unemployed for a period of time might taint your response to this, but would you really like to work for someone who doesn't want to you read the terms of employment?
If your argument held even a drop of water, then we would NEVER hear companies bitching and moaning that they can't find good workers, because they'd all realize that as soon as they can't find anyone good, they would raise their offered wage.
No, there's realistically no difference. Once you allow companies to not pay overtime, the vast majority of companies are simply not going to do it. And the very few that continue to will either go out of business because they're being undercut, or if they stay in business, they won't make that big of an impact simply because they can't hire everyone.
I dunno, that has some problems with it too. For instance, median income in South Dakota for 2010 was about $45k. Not bad, but not a lot for someone who has to travel all over the state (the state has only one House Representative, due to having a population of about 750k), and regularly travel back and forth to Washington. Meaning that such a person would probably be more willing to accept a ride from South Dakota to Washington on board a $INDUSTRY private jet. And while there, they might happen to discuss some upcoming legislation, that might make it harder for them to operate that jet.
Or you could just work on voting out your representative.
Sadly that amendment is not really enforceable.
How do you figure? Care to name any instance since the ratification of the 27th in which a Congress has voted to increase it's own pay, rather than the next one?
If they think they can use money to increase profitability, they'll do so. Nothing wrong with it.
Highly disagree. While in the general case, attempting to increase profitability isn't a bad thing, it all comes down to the details. Depending on WHAT they do to try and increase profitability, it can be extremely bad. Shit like this, for instance.
Simply saying that "There's nothing wrong with increasing profitability" as a blanket statement is hugely oversimplifying the situation.