The Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold — $23,660

[SwimExpert]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you really think this is going to make a difference, other than giving petulant disgruntled former employees grounds to lose in court and cost the company alot of money in the meantime?

Part of the fundamental concept of a salaried job is that you are being paid by the hour. You're expected to work an average amount of time, but it might be a little less one week, a little more another week. Maybe it'll be alot more another week. But shit has to get done. When you're paid salary, you're not being paid for time so much, you're being paid to get the job done. How do you propose to define overtime in such a circumstance? While some positions may have some kind of monthly tracking system, most of the time that simply complicates things.

The only reason for having a minimum threshold is to simply prevent salary abuse for low level jobs. And honestly, the natural market already does that sufficiently. Why would a business want to pay a flat salary to a low level position that should rightfully be paid hourly, and open themselves up to the substantial risk that the employee will fail to put in the necessary time, when the nature of the position is much more reliant on putting in time.

This is a pointless proposal. Ultimately it is unenforceable. Even if it was, there is no extant problem it proposes to solve.

Did you even read what this does?
"As early as this week, the Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold — $23,660 – to as much as $52,000, extending time and a half overtime pay to millions of American workers."
I've heard it all before:

Obama and you are Fucking stupid if you think they will get more money, employers will just put them on hourly and cut the rate. It will work out the same in the end.

But shhh, nobody will agree to that.

Isn't funny how socialist thought it was a really great counter argument to point out that employees have leverage in the relationship by choosing to not accept, or continue in, the relationship as they please, but it doesn't occur to him that they can equally use that leverage to advocate for favorable wages without a law requiring them?

 

[Socialist]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you really think this is going to make a difference, other than giving petulant disgruntled former employees grounds to lose in court and cost the company alot of money in the meantime?

Part of the fundamental concept of a salaried job is that you are being paid by the hour. You're expected to work an average amount of time, but it might be a little less one week, a little more another week. Maybe it'll be alot more another week. But shit has to get done. When you're paid salary, you're not being paid for time so much, you're being paid to get the job done. How do you propose to define overtime in such a circumstance? While some positions may have some kind of monthly tracking system, most of the time that simply complicates things.

The only reason for having a minimum threshold is to simply prevent salary abuse for low level jobs. And honestly, the natural market already does that sufficiently. Why would a business want to pay a flat salary to a low level position that should rightfully be paid hourly, and open themselves up to the substantial risk that the employee will fail to put in the necessary time, when the nature of the position is much more reliant on putting in time.

This is a pointless proposal. Ultimately it is unenforceable. Even if it was, there is no extant problem it proposes to solve.

Did you even read what this does?
"As early as this week, the Labor Department could propose a rule that would raise the current overtime threshold — $23,660 – to as much as $52,000, extending time and a half overtime pay to millions of American workers."
I've heard it all before:

Obama and you are Fucking stupid if you think they will get more money, employers will just put them on hourly and cut the rate. It will work out the same in the end.

But shhh, nobody will agree to that.

Isn't funny how socialist thought it was a really great counter argument to point out that employees have leverage in the relationship by choosing to not accept, or continue in, the relationship as they please, but it doesn't occur to him that they can equally use that leverage to advocate for favorable wages without a law requiring them?

Depending on the employees conditions, they do have leverage, but this depends on where the employees live, and other factors. In the majority of the world, employees do not have this leverage, or adequate representation. Yeah, yeah, I urge you to open a history book and look at America before the minimum wage, child labor laws... It wasn't pretty, I guess all those 7-8 year olds wanted to work all of that time in horrid conditions because they liked it, they could've just found another employer, amiright?

 

[SwimExpert]

Depending on the employees conditions, they do have leverage, but this depends on where the employees live, and other factors.

In other words, it depends on the individual's merits. If you don't have any merits, that's your problem.

In the majority of the world, employees do not have this leverage, or adequate representation. Yeah, yeah, I urge you to open a history book and look at America before the minimum wage, child labor laws... It wasn't pretty, I guess all those 7-8 year olds wanted to work all of that time in horrid conditions because they liked it, they could've just found another employer, amiright?

We're talking about America.

 

[Socialist]

Depending on the employees conditions, they do have leverage, but this depends on where the employees live, and other factors.

In other words, it depends on the individual's merits. If you don't have any merits, that's your problem.

In the majority of the world, employees do not have this leverage, or adequate representation. Yeah, yeah, I urge you to open a history book and look at America before the minimum wage, child labor laws... It wasn't pretty, I guess all those 7-8 year olds wanted to work all of that time in horrid conditions because they liked it, they could've just found another employer, amiright?

We're talking about America.

I know we're talking about America, and don't get me started on the merit bullshit, it's common of those holding the superiority complex, people are stuck in a cycle of poverty, working 2-3 jobs, not able to afford college education or have the time for it, you can paint a disgusting picture over everyone working jobs without these "negotiable" benefits and claim it's all their fault and they're stupid people, the usual right wing superiority complex, but I don't partake in that, and maybe you should address my point on America before the government stepped in with Child labor laws and the minimum wage.

 

[SwimExpert]

Depending on the employees conditions, they do have leverage, but this depends on where the employees live, and other factors.

In other words, it depends on the individual's merits. If you don't have any merits, that's your problem.

In the majority of the world, employees do not have this leverage, or adequate representation. Yeah, yeah, I urge you to open a history book and look at America before the minimum wage, child labor laws... It wasn't pretty, I guess all those 7-8 year olds wanted to work all of that time in horrid conditions because they liked it, they could've just found another employer, amiright?

We're talking about America.

I know we're talking about America, and don't get me started on the merit bullshit, it's common of those holding the superiority complex, people are stuck in a cycle of poverty, working 2-3 jobs, not able to afford college education or have the time for it, you can paint a disgusting picture over everyone working jobs without these "negotiable" benefits and claim it's all their fault and they're stupid people, the usual right wing superiority complex, but I don't partake in that, and maybe you should address my point on America before the government stepped in with Child labor laws and the minimum wage.

Oh, blah, blah, blah. Don't get started with me about that bleeding heart bullshit. Your problem is that you're so young, dumb, and full of **** that you're blinded to the real world by your reactionary sensationalism. To wit: I am the biggest advocate in the world for the fact that our country if royally screwing over the poor. I am constantly on this messageboard talking about how we need to reform our education system because education and vocational training are far too expensive and inexcessible, and how there is far too little opportunity for people to lift themselves out of poverty and difficult times.

When discussions go down bashing the poor, I'm right there telling people to go fuck themselves with their shitty attitudes. I'm the first person to talk about how overzealous greed by the extreme few is wreaking havoc on the American economy. I constantly talk about how current income and wealth inequality is ruining our country, and how the current "of the rich, for the rich, by the rich" environment is unstable and unsustainable.

But the thing about me is that I'm an adult with plenty of real world experience, who is prepared to adopt real solutions and to follow real and actual plans to get there. You? You just like to talk. You just want to hear yourself, and rub your woody while you do it. I am willing to earn my way, and I want people to actually make as much as they have earned. And I'm willing to go out of my way to help other people navigate an avenue to improving their circumstances. You just want people to be given what you want them to have. And you want them to have what you want them to have.

Now shut your mouth and go clean your room.

 

[Misty]

This will hurt employees because employers will cut back overtime. So the employees will end up not working overtime at all.