Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It will evolve into a means for employers to force employees to take PTO instead of having to pay OT
"We are considering layoffs in the next few months....those who have been taking PTO instead of OT will be given additional consideration"
Also, people haven't even been taking their vacations for fear that they will lose their jobs if they are seen as "not vital". I used to work for a company that wouldn't let me take off more than 2 days in a row and laid a heavy guilt trip if I even tried to take that two days off. Employers will just say "no, I need you during that time, you can't take that time off."
People who depend on OT to make ends meet and cannot live on base pay do not need OT, they need a part time job. OT by its very nature is not a permanent paycheck. If it was necessary to have continual OT for the business to operate they don't need workers to work OT. They need to add on another employee.
Right now, employers are required by law to pay time and a half for hours worked over 40 hours. There is no workaround for either the employee or employer...it must be paid
Now, what would prevent an employer from firing someone who elects to be paid OT?
I was a salaried employee. They used to make all the hourly paid production people go home and then they would work the rest of us sometimes until one in the morning mocking up presentation boards... I was the logistics manager, and that was not even close to my job. Awful company to work for... based their employment practices on our Chinese factory's slave labor.
Right to work generally means you are not FORCED to join a union as a condition of employment...
No one is forced to join a union.
Therefore - people who pay their bills with OT pay are, according to you - "stupid"If something is not written guaranteed into your employment contract, it is not going to be guaranteed... pretty simple concept.. that includes OT, bonus, etc... if it is based on company performance, workload, etc THAT CAN AND DOES CHANGE...
Bullshit. I know in teachers unions if you dont join you still have to pay DUES!! So you are FORCED to join!!!
No one is forced to join a union.
Therefore - people who pay their bills with OT pay are, according to you - "stupid"
Bullshit. I know in teachers unions if you dont join you still have to pay DUES!! So you are FORCED to join!!!
No you aren't. You're free to seek employment elsewhere.
When an employee fucks off during the workday thinking they can make money by working over time to complete what they should have been able to complete during the work day it is time to fire them for wanting to be paid overtime.
WTF.....
You were salaried? Then this does not apply to your situation. Salaried employees are 'exempt' from all OT compensation.
If an employee is a valued member of the business, then why would an employer arbitrarily discharge him or her?How is that greedy? Thanks for stopping buy and showing us what the real intent of the GOP is: to screw employees.
Not political party. Business.
Both parties benefit from comp PTO.....Each has a lower tax burden.
No they don't.
And the employer can dictate when it is used. Which means you can be fired before you get it.
You people are uninformed.No, its not time and a half, its an hour for an hour
It is an incentive for employers to pressure their employees to take PTO instead of OT
Just as the employee must pay payroll taxes, income taxes and other deductions, so must the employer.
The PTO is a MUCH better option because each party pays LESS to those greedy bastards in the respective state capitols and in Washington.
Who would not want to get a full day off with pay for each 8 hrs of OT. I sure as hell would. What's better, there is an option to bank a certain number of days. I am all over that.
Says the guy in the Union working on the public dime.
Bullshit. I know in teachers unions if you dont join you still have to pay DUES!! So you are FORCED to join!!!
No you aren't. You're free to seek employment elsewhere.
OH!!!! So now it's 'one can simply change jobs'....
I understand you and your ilk think no one should depend on their job to make a living, but millions do.OK. What's your point? Is it that people who depend on OT pay to make a living don't really depend on it? I'm failing to see what your getting at.
They SHOULD NOT depend on it.
So people who work 60 hour weeks to make ends meet are "financially inept" and should instead work only 40 hour weeks so they can't make ends meet. You're a genius.If a worker is counting on OT pay 'to make ends meet', they are either financially inept( spend it as fast as they can get their hands on it). Or they cannot handle their bills.
Do you idiots seriously wonder why the average working guy thinks the Republican party is out of touch? "Hey guy who works 60 hour weeks to take care of his family! Why are you doing that? Just work 40 hour weeks for more money, silly! You're financially inept!"
So people should starve their children so they can save 100% of their OT pay. That makes a lot of sense.One should only think about their base pay and live accordingly.
I understand you and your ilk think no one should depend on their job to make a living, but millions do.They SHOULD NOT depend on it.
So people who work 60 hour weeks to make ends meet are "financially inept" and should instead work only 40 hour weeks so they can't make ends meet. You're a genius.
Do you idiots seriously wonder why the average working guy thinks the Republican party is out of touch? "Hey guy who works 60 hour weeks to take care of his family! Why are you doing that? Just work 40 hour weeks for more money, silly! You're financially inept!"
So people should starve their children so they can save 100% of their OT pay. That makes a lot of sense.One should only think about their base pay and live accordingly.
Here is a novel idea, even if it is too hard for a person with a government job, try reading the bill. It actually puts all the control in the hands of the employee. the only option the employer has is to opt out of the comp time after giving notice.
How is that greedy? Thanks for stopping buy and showing us what the real intent of the GOP is: to screw employees.Now who is being greedy?
If your idea is mandated, guess what happens to overtime for most people? GONE!
Not political party. Business.
Both parties benefit from comp PTO.....Each has a lower tax burden.
Umm, you may want to check with your fellow libs on this one. Because it is THEY who insist this position( seek other employment) is impossible.No you aren't. You're free to seek employment elsewhere.
OH!!!! So now it's 'one can simply change jobs'....
No - its called personal responsibility.
Umm, you may want to check with your fellow libs on this one. Because it is THEY who insist this position( seek other employment) is impossible.OH!!!! So now it's 'one can simply change jobs'....
No - its called personal responsibility.
I agree. If one does not like the job they have, they are free to seek other employment.
As long as the employee can cash in his or her PTO at ANY time they wish, and that right is guaranteed in the law, then maybe it's not a bad idea. But if employers are able to deny PTO for days requested for staffing reasons for example, then it sounds like more of a win for the employer. They get to save money by paying no overtime, and get to basically dictate to the employee when they can use the PTO.
Are they proposing to give 1.5 hours time off for 1 hour OT worked? If not, the benefit goes to the employer.
GOP seeks alternative to overtime pay
WASHINGTON (AP) It seems like a simple proposition: give employees who work more than 40 hours a week the option of taking paid time off instead of overtime pay.
The choice already exists in the public sector. Federal and state workers can save earned time off and use it weeks or even months later to attend a parent-teacher conference, care for an elderly parent or deal with home repairs.
Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that would extend that option to the private sector. They say that would bring more flexibility to the workplace and help workers better balance family and career.
Sounds like a great option to me. There's times when I don't need the extra money and times when I really NEED some time off. Being a divorced dad, I miss out on a lot so I think this is a great idea.
You?
As long as they get a cash pay out of any unused leave at the end of the fiscal year, as with public sector employees. Private sector workers could get an unused balance pay out at the end of the FFY.
