PTO instead of paid OT?

[thereisnospoon]

Wrong. Lots of jobs involve OT as a regular part of the job, from petrochemical plant shift workers to convenience store cashiers. Hey try working a 40 hour week on a tug boat, see how that works out for ya. You're a fucking idiot.

Holy shit...
This silly song.
Ok, let's look at it from the other angle.
If a person is hired with the knowledge that OT is required, so be it. The employee is duly compensated.
Now, if there is a reduction in hours to 40 for whatever reason, the employee is not owed for anything more than hours worked.
Happens all the time. I worked at a firm where we were very busy. The hiring mgr told me that OT was required. Once things stabilized all OT was gone. So what? Anyone who spent their pay as though OT would never come to an end. That's their problem.
Not that this has a thing to do with PTO vs OT pay.

Wait a minute..

Aren't you a NYC police officer?

Heck no....I do not live in the Northeast any longer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If it's an hour and a half of PTO for over hour of OT, then I'm okay with it. If it's hour for hour match, then forget it. Bosses need to get their tightwad checkbooks out and start paying for their labor.

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

You would feel pressured to take Paid time off?

Think about what you just blathered.

You'd rather work than get paid to stay home drinking bear.

Don't you mean drinking beer?

 

[WorldWatcher]

When I used to work for other people I never worked for comp time.

If i had to work for someone else I would not work for time. if I work i get paid. Period.

I look at value.
We get raped on taxes for our OT hours. Taking comp time reduces that tax burden. A paid day off in lieu of a heavily taxed 1.5 hours of labor is a better option. IMHO.

According to my employment documents and work schedule, I make about $35 an hour, for OT that would be $52.50 per hour. After taxes with my deductions that is about $22.75, at an over time rate that is still $34.13. The idea that you shouldn't work to earn more money simply because it's taxes seems - well - silly.


But then of course I'm salaried and get paid the same amount whether I work the minimum 40 hours a week required or the 50 or so hours per week that is normal.


>>>>

 

[candycorn]

We used to have it where you could sell back your time at the end of the year (within reason--up to 40 hours). Ahh, the good old days.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

I understand you and your ilk think no one should depend on their job to make a living, but millions do.

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.

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!"

One should only think about their base pay and live accordingly.

So people should starve their children so they can save 100% of their OT pay. That makes a lot of sense.

You are a living art masterpiece.
Who the hell said anything about 'people who work 60 hour weeks'?
Ok Rio Linda....If OT is available or mandated, work it. Fine. But the point is to not expect it to be there in perpetuity. OT is not part of the 'regular' wage package. Therefore it should not be expected. When I work OT, I bank that part for a rainy day. I do not spend it as though it were part of my regular pay. The reason is simple. It is NOT to be spent. It is to be saved. I pretend it does not exist so that I do not become tempted to spend it stupid shit. I save it for needed repairs on vehicles or my home. Save it for vacation money. Save it for those unexpected needs such as if a major appliance needs to be replaced.
I have a friend who makes very good money. He is hourly. His wife does not work. He told me with his OT he made over $130,000 last year. They have two girls. She spends money faster than he can make it. She will make a trip to the store to buy one thing and end up spending a couple hundred because she saw something for one of the kids or both. The girls are in cheerleading. He told me it costs $500 per month for this activity. FIVE HUNDRED!...And their kids both compete. He told me yesterday he figures between travel expenses fees, food and lodging, they will spend $8000 for the competitions. And that DOES NOT include the five hundy per month.
He is ALWAYS complaining about money. Everything is so expensive. he confided to me they have NO savings. He works as much OT as he can just to cover his wife's absurd ( his word) spending.
This is what I am talking about. Here's a guy who depends on OT just to get by. He told me if he did not work OT, they'd be broke. In other words, they live far beyond their means. And he is coming to the end of his busy time of year. All summer , he rarely works OT and because they don't save any money while the OT is rolling in, they really struggle. Do you now understand?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

My friend across the street works for a large telco( Not AT&T) he has the option of overtime or comp time. He chooses the time and a half.
I think it should be a choice.
FOr me, comp time would be better. The reason is the overtime tax liability increases dramatically making it almost not worth the effort.

You'd need a high paying job or work a LOT of hours for that to happen.

I make over $30 per hour on OT..I get SMOKED on taxes.

 

[Noomi]

If you are a full time worker, you should be getting at least four weeks paid holidays per year, as well as overtime should you work longer.

But that's in Australia, of course.

 

[Againsheila]

If you are a full time worker, you should be getting at least four weeks paid holidays per year, as well as overtime should you work longer.

But that's in Australia, of course.

Yeah, here in America we work more hours, have a higher productivity rate and get less vacation time and less pay. Something is wrong here.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When I used to work for other people I never worked for comp time.

If i had to work for someone else I would not work for time. if I work i get paid. Period.

The Repukes want to take that away.

There is a federal labor law that mandates ALL non management employees MUST be paid hourly and are of course eligible for time and a half for all hours worked past 40.
Sounds like a good idea, correct?
Well when this law was proposed, the unions went ballistic. Why? Because it was introduced and sponsored by mostly GOP House Members AND endorsed by Bush 43.
So you tell me when you want to change your bullshit story.

 

[Noomi]

If you are a full time worker, you should be getting at least four weeks paid holidays per year, as well as overtime should you work longer.

But that's in Australia, of course.

Yeah, here in America we work more hours, have a higher productivity rate and get less vacation time and less pay. Something is wrong here.

I'd say. Most of us need to work 40 hours a week and we can live well on that. You guys need to work double the hours to get the same amount, and you get rewarded with no job security.

That's unfair considering the number of people in your country who work their butts off each and every day.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When I used to work for other people I never worked for comp time.

If i had to work for someone else I would not work for time. if I work i get paid. Period.

I look at value.
We get raped on taxes for our OT hours. Taking comp time reduces that tax burden. A paid day off in lieu of a heavily taxed 1.5 hours of labor is a better option. IMHO.

According to my employment documents and work schedule, I make about $35 an hour, for OT that would be $52.50 per hour. After taxes with my deductions that is about $22.75, at an over time rate that is still $34.13. The idea that you shouldn't work to earn more money simply because it's taxes seems - well - silly.


But then of course I'm salaried and get paid the same amount whether I work the minimum 40 hours a week required or the 50 or so hours per week that is normal.


>>>>

SO you would rather get paid for OT and LOSE nearly half of it( 43% to be exact) in deductions?
Ok...

 

[thereisnospoon]

We used to have it where you could sell back your time at the end of the year (within reason--up to 40 hours). Ahh, the good old days.

I worked for a company that allowed each worker in their first two years of employment to earn 1.5 days per month PTO....We could bank up to 5 days and carry them to the next year. We could also be paid for any unused days up to 5 more.
My second year there I had 26 PTO days..That's 5 WEEKS....I never used all of it.
We had three floating holidays.
I could take two PTO days and turn it into a 6 day weekend.
I did this every thanksgiving. I took Weds as a PTO. Thursday was a holiday, Friday as a floater, Have Sat and Sun off and use another PTO day Monday...
My third year, I earned 2 days per month PTO. The only stipulation was we could not take more than 8 PTO days at any one time. The exception was for family stuff. Weddings. Births, Deaths, illnesses. That was reasonable.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Base pay isn't a "permanent" paycheck either.

Nothing is permanent. However, the base is expected. The OT is extra. And it's never consistent.

According to who? The employers who require their employees show up for OT work?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Base pay isn't a "permanent" paycheck either.

Nothing is permanent. However, the base is expected. The OT is extra. And it's never consistent.

According to who? The employers who require their employees show up for OT work?

Arguing against the painfully obvious is futile.
Read my post regarding me neighbor.

 

[Two Thumbs]

My friend across the street works for a large telco( Not AT&T) he has the option of overtime or comp time. He chooses the time and a half.
I think it should be a choice.
FOr me, comp time would be better. The reason is the overtime tax liability increases dramatically making it almost not worth the effort.

You'd need a high paying job or work a LOT of hours for that to happen.

I make over $30 per hour on OT..I get SMOKED on taxes.

yes you do

 

[auditor0007]

I think we should reduce the work week to 35 hours, and make it mandatory that all employees receive six weeks vacation time on top of five sick days per year. All salaried employees should receive comp time for anything over 35 hours. Last of all, everyone's pay should be doubled.

This ought to get someone riled, lol.

Oh sure. I have an idea for you..Move to France or Germany.

I actually have to give everyone else credit. You were the only one to bite on this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We used to have it where you could sell back your time at the end of the year (within reason--up to 40 hours). Ahh, the good old days.

Too bad the Republican bill makes it so you can only sell back 160 hours, it means you can't complain.

 

[Ravi]

My friend across the street works for a large telco( Not AT&T) he has the option of overtime or comp time. He chooses the time and a half.
I think it should be a choice.
FOr me, comp time would be better. The reason is the overtime tax liability increases dramatically making it almost not worth the effort.

You'd need a high paying job or work a LOT of hours for that to happen.

I make over $30 per hour on OT..I get SMOKED on taxes.

Bullshit. If that's your OT rate then you are basically making 40K a year. An additional 5 hours a week OT wouldn't be taxed at a rate different than the rate you are already being taxed at. For that to happen, you'd have to start earning over 87K per year in total and even then, only earnings above 87K would be taxed at a higher rate.

 

[Ravi]

When I used to work for other people I never worked for comp time.

If i had to work for someone else I would not work for time. if I work i get paid. Period.

The Repukes want to take that away.

There is a federal labor law that mandates ALL non management employees MUST be paid hourly and are of course eligible for time and a half for all hours worked past 40.
Sounds like a good idea, correct?
Well when this law was proposed, the unions went ballistic. Why? Because it was introduced and sponsored by mostly GOP House Members AND endorsed by Bush 43.
So you tell me when you want to change your bullshit story.

You really should attempt to stop making things up.

 

[Old Rocks]

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 it is the option of the employee, and not the option of the employer, I would agree. Seeing as how it is Cantor pushing the bill, I sure as hell would read the language damned carefully.