4 million lose overtime pay and Republicans rejoice the ‘victory’ for small business

[Slybak]

Case in point? Just see the lack of anti-competition laws negatively impacting the customers of non-google ISPs.

Hell, look at Google itself. And Apple. And Intel. And Adobe. And every other major IT corporation in Silicon Valley that engaged in the largest wage-fixing conspiracy in American history before they got busted with a $3 billion class action suit.

[Sylreick]

How would someone end up getting hurt by being paid for overtime?

It would most certainly agitate the pockets of those who would be forced to treat their workers decently. Can't have that.

[PosPosPos]

I never get the mentality of trying to squeeze your employees.

Even though I dont pay my employees overtime (they get extra free hours), they are compensated by a higher salary than is custom.
This year we also added a "13th month" because business is going very well.

My philosphy is that if I am doing well, so are my employees.

The funny part is, when the "left" says the exact same thing about paying a fair and livable wage, people like you come out and say they are "pandering to the lazy entitled millenials looking for a handout".

Although I really shouldn't be surprised that a trump apologist has problems applying the same set of criteria when judging the same action by different parties.

[Ishayu]

I find it absolutely astonishing how ignorant people are here.

This will HELP small business, as the republicans are saying.

Frequently, when you're setting up a business venture, you are very small and aren't selling enough to sustain yourself, but with a little extra work from everyone, you can all earn your fortunes.

The laws as they were made this much more difficult.

Corporations can't fuck around with people like they do today if it's easier to make your own business. If making your own business is easy enough, which it should be, then you can do that and you, the work, not the corporation, gains the power. When that happens, the employer has to treat you well or he can't run his business.

The only case in which the corporation gains power is when overwhelming legislation is making it too complex to manage your own business.

I see it much too frequently assumed you can just order there to be money for the poor, and suddenly there is. That's not how it works. The only way to help them is to give them power, and the only way to give them power is to give them freedom to start businesses and operate under whichever rules they want, provided those rules do not take away their ability to regain freedom when they desire it.

[TwistedSkull]

Thank god i don't live a place where Republicans have power.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

Luckily, thanks to not ignoring reality, we have found that the quality of life has been decreasing as well, and that your manufactured situation simply doesn't exist.

By what measure? We've more access to food and fresh water than we've ever had. We have shelter, we have transportation. We can cure and prevent more diseases than ever. We have ready access to the combined knowledge of the human race within reach. We are constantly entertained. The only degradation with regards to quality of life in the US can be linked to over-indulgence in destructive behaviors, i.e. drug use, lack of exercise and over-eating, none of which are linked to scarcity due to low wages.

[PosPosPos]

Hell, look at Google itself. And Apple. And Intel. And Adobe. And every other major IT corporation in Silicon Valley that engaged in the largest wage-fixing conspiracy in American history before they got busted with a $3 billion class action suit.

Yeah, and we have republicans telling us that things will apparently be bright and rosy, people will hold hands and sing kumbaya into the sunset if left to their own devices instead of tearing each others' hair out.

The reality warping is real.

[Azadina]

I find it absolutely astonishing how ignorant people are here.

This will HELP small business, as the republicans are saying.

Frequently, when you're setting up a business venture, you are very small and aren't selling enough to sustain yourself, but with a little extra work from everyone, you can all earn your fortunes.

The laws as they were made this much more difficult.

Corporations can't fuck around with people like they do today if it's easier to make your own business. If making your own business is easy enough, which it should be, then you can do that and you, the work, not the corporation, gains the power. When that happens, the employer has to treat you well or he can't run his business.

The only case in which the corporation gains power is when overwhelming legislation is making it too complex to manage your own business.

I see it much too frequently assumed you can just order there to be money for the poor, and suddenly there is. That's not how it works. The only way to help them is to give them power, and the only way to give them power is to give them freedom to start businesses and operate under whichever rules they want, provided those rules do not take away their ability to regain freedom when they desire it.

Great. I just started a small business. Now I'd like everyone work for free to make me fortunes. Sounds stupid? It is.

Why on earth should the employees do charity in order to make you rich? Of course slave work will help businesses. Who wouldn't profit from such?

[Deleted]

Good move.

When small businesses thrive, Americans thrive.

[PosPosPos]

By what measure? We've more access to food and fresh water than we've ever had. We have shelter, we have transportation. We can cure and prevent more diseases than ever. We have ready access to the combined knowledge of the human race within reach. We are constantly entertained. The only degradation with regards to quality of life in the US can be linked to over-indulgence in destructive behaviors, i.e. drug use, lack of exercise and over-eating, none of which are linked to scarcity due to low wages.

"To the rich" was what you conveniently left out and forgotten. But it's okay, you republicans will save the day and warp reality to not have those 3 words be included, right?

[ArguesWithStrangers]

because the side with the money has an unfair advantage

How is it unfair? You have a service which the employer requires and must pay for. The value of your service reflects the ability of the employer to get the same services from somewhere else. If you have brick layer skills, you get paid brick layer wages. If you have chief executive skills, you get paid chief executive wages. Supply and demand. It is upon you to increase your value, nobody can do it for you. If someone does, the businesses will simply find a way to replace your services, which is what has happened in businesses across America.

[May90]

No overtime pay? Is it even legal, according to other laws?

[ArguesWithStrangers]

"To the rich" was what you conveniently left out and forgotten. But it's okay, you republicans will save the day and warp reality to not have those 3 words be included, right?

This is just false, but okay. Unlike most of the people on this forum, I've actually seen real poverty, and stared it in the face. If you're living in the West, you're rich by default, as you have automatic access to more than much of the world can dream of. Your imagined poverty, is just in contrast to relative the wealth of others you envy, all to which I say, "poor you."

- - - Updated - - -

The whole system is artificial. The whole construct is artificial and something that we humans created - every last bit of it is. Law courts, property rights, laws governing murder, theft, and pollution, laws outlawing child labor & slavery, planning laws, trade treaties, etc, etc, etc. There is nothing "natural" about any of this.

Thus the current system which is artificial, creates an artificial value for the economic value of its citizens, and the only decision we have to make is whether we want that to be high or low. I prefer high. You can of course believe that there should be no artificial setting of value, but if that's the case then you should be advocating 100% abolition of all functions of government. I am wondering why you aren't given your earlier stated position......

Nice false dichotomy. Clearly I'm not against all government intervention any more than you're for a completely totalitarian state presiding over a completely planned economy(giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.) We are debating the extent to which we want to embrace one or the other, and as such will describe things as being more or less "free, planned," or "natural" relative to each other. This is not invalid, and the fact you've driven this discussion into one of semantics is beneath you.

[Glorious Leader]

How is it unfair? .

The rich or more generally the employer can wait out any barganing position for much longer than the middle and lower classes. Furthermore higher unemployment and lower wages tend to put labor at a disadvantage in negotions. As does automation and "free trade" and the decline of any organized labor movement. The barganing power of individuals is undermined by all these factors. Its arguable wether or not this is a structural feature. Times were better for labor when unemployment was lower and union representation was higher. This was intolerable for the business class so they funded a pro market revolution. Thats when all this free market and free trade mishegoes became popular in the economic sphere. The chicago school stufr. Milton friedman etc etc

To be perfectly blunt im sure youve heard this before. Basically it amounts to who has the power in the negotiation. Cry and scream about pulling your own boot straps as much as youd like the fact is business has the power in most negotiations. Especially corporate business as its basically an immortal person at this point.

[Zan15]

Why the left feels it is inhumane to allow employers and employees to negotiate private contracts between themselves is beyond me.

ya sillly lefties they should also allow people and companies to decide how old is old enough to work, and workplace safety should be between owner and employee to decide how safe they want to be.



when corporations have all the leverage and money for high priced lawyers you have an imbalanced system where the employee never has the ability to have any leverage in negotiation. the govt has allowed this to happen through lobbyist passed bills/laws. they have to step in and offer up some balance or the whole system will implode.
zero to negative wage growth is a huge problem in this country and that is due to this very imbalance.

[Bathory]

As long as it has Obama's name on it, people will vote it down even at their own expense.


What a shame.

[Varitok]

Because Democrats feel you are a complete fucking idiot, and that every company is run by Satan, and therefore Big Brother must step in and mandate how life must be lived.

Government regulation on these business' would do people a lot of good. A completely free and barely regulated market makes things like this easier to get away with. Its such a joke. I forgot though, it would turn the government into a dictatorship/big brother spying program, People seem to be so scared of regulations.

[alexw]

This is just false, but okay. Unlike most of the people on this forum, I've actually seen real poverty, and stared it in the face. If you're living in the West, you're rich by default, as you have automatic access to more than much of the world can dream of. Your imagined poverty, is just in contrast to relative the wealth of others you envy, all to which I say, "poor you."

- - - Updated - - -



Nice false dichotomy. Clearly I'm not against all government intervention any more than you're for a completely totalitarian state presiding over a completely planned economy(giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.) We are debating the extent to which we want to embrace one or the other, and as such will describe things as being more or less "free, planned," or "natural" relative to each other. This is not invalid, and the fact you've driven this discussion into one of semantics is beneath you.

????

Your whole argument was based on semantics. You are the one who talked about "artificial" price setting. I simply used the same logic you have.

Rather it appears you are happy for government control and setting of systems when it sets them how you want them to be, but when they are set to someone elses preferences then its "wrong" and "artificial government meddling". That's a hell of a lot hypocrisy by you.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

The rich or more generally the employer can wait out any barganing position for much longer than the middle and lower classes. Furthermore higher unemployment and lower wages tend to put labor at a disadvantage in negotions. As does automation and "free trade" and the decline of any organized labor movement. The barganing power of individuals is undermined by all these factors. Its arguable wether or not this is a structural feature. Times were better for labor when unemployment was lower and union representation was higher. This was intolerable for the business class so they funded a pro market revolution. Thats when all this free market and free trade mishegoes became popular in the economic sphere. The chicago school stufr. Milton friedman etc etc

To be perfectly blunt im sure youve heard this before.

Of course I've heard this argument, I just think it is too narrow a view, and omits some important causal relationships. Union participation has not decreased in this country due to government policy attacking the unions. Indeed, in the places where unions were traditionally powerful, i.e. the rust belt and port cities, they still very much are. The problem, is the unions made their businesses non-competitive. They killed the host. The businesses either fled the states where legislatures were dominated by Union money to states or countries with better business environments. Other businesses increased automation. Many more just went belly up and were replaced by competitors.

Now let me be clear, I have no problem with collective bargaining in the private sector. I think it is a perfectly fine thing to do. I just believe it should be voluntary, as the right to bargain collectively does not supersede the right of an individual to bargain individually. Also, if the Union kills the company, they shouldn't be able to demand tax-payer intervention to protect them from their folly.

[Theinquisition]

How is it unfair? You have a service which the employer requires and must pay for. The value of your service reflects the ability of the employer to get the same services from somewhere else. If you have brick layer skills, you get paid brick layer wages. If you have chief executive skills, you get paid chief executive wages. Supply and demand. It is upon you to increase your value, nobody can do it for you. If someone does, the businesses will simply find a way to replace your services, which is what has happened in businesses across America.

you mean to tell me that you get paid what the market deems you are worth?

Heresy!!!