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

[alexw]

Please point out where I've been inconsistent in my application of this worldview. As to what I want the government to control. I want the government to prevent monopolys, to allow for competition. I want the government to enforce regulation that prevents producers from defrauding consumers and their employees. I want regulations for how industrial waste is handled, and how resources are used. The list goes on. The general theme though is I want government to promote competition, protect consumers and workers, and protect the environment. I don't want the government to interfere with private transactions between consumers, producers, and workers. I'll make exceptions for some subsidies, but that is more complicated and is more of a case by case thing.

You have said "I don't want government artificially setting wages". But by its very nature that is what government does. It by everything it does influences the level of wages. Yet when I bring that point up it's "semantics". The only way to explain that is that you view the laws you like which influence wages in x way as good and proper and the laws which you don't like which influence wages in y way as evil and wrong.

So for example if you were against government artificially setting wages, then you should be for removal of child labor laws so that parents can send their 8 year old children out to work. But you are not are you?

That is hypocrisy. Either you are for government intervention in labor markets or you are not. You can not pick and choose in the way you are doing and not be hypocritical.

[prwraith]

Yep was super pissed when I read this. Employers can still keep requiring nearly unlimited overtime as long as your salary is over 23k. This is fucking stupid and republicans should be ashamed for enabling the continued rape of hard workers.

[alexw]

No kidding. Apparently people should be happy to work 80 hours a week for less than minimum wage as a salaried employee, which is exactly what this injunction allows.

Seriously question why people vote Republican. Shameful.

Because they are people who formed their worldview 20, 30, or 40 years ago. Now it's pretty much fixed and if reality conflicts with their right-wing political beliefs, well, its reality that gets ignored not their old worldview. That's how you get large numbers of people cheering this nonsense.

There's hope for the future though. Everything the republicans stand for is anathema to millennial's and gen z who come after them, so as the boomers die off so will their batshit crazy belief-system.

[jdbond592]

Sadist me in is glad. More misery for blue collar workers, please!

[Logwyn]

The problem with graphs like that is it ascribes to the fallacy that wealth is a finite thing, and for someone to have more, another has to have less. In fact, wealth grows, and a person with a lesser share in 2010, can in-fact be far better off hand have a higher quality of life, than the person who had a larger share in 1970.

Now if you're railing against the government stacking the deck in favor of major corporations by creating regulatory burdens which prevent small startups from entering the marketplace, I'm right with you man. Minimum wage laws, have nothing to do with that however.

How is wealth not a finite thing? You are limited by number of hours you can work. Years you can work. Amount the company or you can make. Amount of goods that can be shipped. Amount of capital that exists. Amount of materials that can be harvested. Etc.

There's a limit on the amount of money that exist or it pushes the value of the currency to zero. Everything is limited. How there there be infinite wealth when all the factors creating it are finite?

- - - Updated - - -

It all boils down to this in the US.

Vote Democrat you are voting for welfare for the poor
Vote Republican you are voting for welfare for the rich.

[Teebone]

Remember, businesses are people too.

Straight from the mouths of the same Justices who ruled money is free speech. This particular free speech amounted to an extended middle finger to a lot of middle class Americans.

[iperson]

Yep was super pissed when I read this. Employers can still keep requiring nearly unlimited overtime as long as your salary is over 23k. This is fucking stupid and republicans should be ashamed for enabling the continued rape of hard workers.

Wait, I thought we were at full employment and we needed to import people to fill all the empty jobs Americans can't/won't do. If that's the case then the people you're talking about should just get another job...

[Themius]

Worst advice ever.

Unions serve no beneficial purpose other than protecting bad behavior.

Yet unions are literally one of the only ways to give power back to people and away from corporations.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Heresy!!!

What is this "market" god you republicans are fucking? Because let me tell you, the "market" is "how much can I fuck over people while still maintaining good profitibility"

[Bling]

How are the republicans getting blamed for this when it was blocked by a Democrat Judge appointed by Obama?

[matt4pack]

One reason I believe Unions fell out of favor is because work ethic isn't as universal as it once was. It just doesn't work as well in plant type settings where you're surrounded by your coworkers and see everyone each day. In the past everyone has pretty much the same work ethic but today that just isn't true especially with so many overweight people who are less productive usually.

Where it does still work is in fields where you aren't surrounded by co-workers as much like in transportation.

[Ishayu]

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?

Small businesses are often tightly knit (obviously) and there are special relationships between employers and employees. Also, if there are lots of small businesses vying for members of the work force, you cannot abuse them in any way you like, because they can quite easily quit and find another job ASSUMING we do not go down the route of killing small businesses with red tape.

Also, noone said the employee is doing charity. Maybe you have promised him a large bonus if the company succeeds, or shares in the business, or something else. This was very common in America for hundreds of years, and it worked just fine. However, the what you are proposing kills that company with no chance to even attempt this.

- - - Updated - - -

so because this business owner can't effectively run his company and make money....the workers must suffer?
and lets be truthful as soon and the money comes flowing in, most of the time it does not trickle down to the employee. they magically forget what got them there.

happened to the company i worked for. took pay freezes in 2008-2009 and 2010 when the stock tanked from 120 to 18. lost 40% of our customers due to bushcrash.

in 2010-2012 we came roaring back and had even more customers and huge profits, stock at 150-180.
what did they do with all that saved money, increased earnings and such.
Brought out another company for 8 billion in cash (yes paid outright for it) and gave executives 140% bonus poll, while employee rank and file of 24,000 got raises on average of 2%. No payback. i got my best performance reviews in those years and my best raise was 2.2%

oh and unionize. ha. they had 14 offices, when one attempted to unionize they shifted 60% of the work out of the office as a "shot across the bow" and effectively shut down that effort. they even shut down a PA office for 7 years when they voted and approved a union, then came back once people got the message.

any attempt to unionize nationally was met with lawsuits and legal pressure from the courts and states. made it almost impossible


so if you think there is any real way to go toe to toe with your corporate employer, good luck. i ain't seen it work unless there is a union there, that has been there for 50 years.

I didn't say anything about unionizing. If the market is controlled by many players instead of a few, you don't need to. You will have far more options, including making your own business, so a poorly run company won't function because people won't work for it.

And yes, if a business is not making money, it may or may not be the employees' fault. The employer and his employees should be free to decide on whose shoulders that responsibility rests. If workers are actually dumb enough not to read their own job contracts, then that's too bad.

That said, there should be regulations about the legibility and length of contracts, so we don't get the software world's ToU BS.

[Varaben]

Note this is for salaried individuals, not hourly

Hourly workers already have overtime, so why would this be about them? This is about people making 23-47k on salary and thus do not get OT. This would give that group of folks OT. So either businesses pay them a higher salary or pay them OT when they work more than forty hours per week. They could also reduce salary to balance OT. I don't know why overturning the new rule is good for small businesses. I guess some pay their workers salary in this range and expect them to work unpaid OT.

[prwraith]

Wait, I thought we were at full employment and we needed to import people to fill all the empty jobs Americans can't/won't do. If that's the case then the people you're talking about should just get another job...

Everyone is looking for a bigger and better job. But in the mean time I'm working 50-60 hours a week with no overtime pay. That's totally fair.

- - - Updated - - -

Hourly workers already have overtime, so why would this be about them? This is about people making 23-47k on salary and thus do not get OT. This would give that group of folks OT. So either businesses pay them a higher salary or pay them OT when they work more than forty hours per week. They could also reduce salary to balance OT. I don't know why overturning the new rule is good for small businesses. I guess some pay their workers salary in this range and expect them to work unpaid OT.

Business owners put their people above 23k which is almost nothing. and then yea work them like dogs. And these are the businesses republicans are defending. they're literally defending the destruction of the middle class they claim to represent.

[Varaben]

How are the republicans getting blamed for this when it was blocked by a Democrat Judge appointed by Obama?

I couldn't find it evidence that he's a democrat. Are you saying that because he was appointed by one? Just curious. Doesn't the fact that he blocked the rule suggest he's conservative?

[Auxora]

Government hasn't really figured out well how to manage these whole low to low-middle hourly worker rules and wages anyway. Employers are always kind of a step ahead and just adjust to whatever laws come up in order to push them as a means of paying less. That's their purpose for existing so I don't really blame them.

So all employers do if the gov't has overtime enforced is to hire more lower hour workers. Instead of having someone work 50 hours and paying 10 overtime hours, they'll simply hire 2 25 hour workers and avoid it altogether. The problem for the 2 workers being good luck surviving on 25 hours a week. So many businesses do this already to get around Obamacare laws too. Retail management (especially store managers and assistant managers) is filled with these jobs. If companies couldn't fill those positions at 25-30 hours a week it would be different. But for some reason people love to have the manager title and jump at filling them, even if they are making $20k/year and are near poverty levels while being called a "manager".

[Zmaniac17]

The problem with graphs like that is it ascribes to the fallacy that wealth is a finite thing, and for someone to have more, another has to have less. In fact, wealth grows, and a person with a lesser share in 2010, can in-fact be far better off hand have a higher quality of life, than the person who had a larger share in 1970.

Now if you're railing against the government stacking the deck in favor of major corporations by creating regulatory burdens which prevent small startups from entering the marketplace, I'm right with you man. Minimum wage laws, have nothing to do with that however.

If I say things like, "The problem with graphs like that is it ascribes to the fallacy that wealth is a finite thing", will people think I know what I'm talking about too? I usually just tell people we can have infinite money guys and buy everything. All we have to do is find a Genie and make a wish. And they look at me like I'm crazy. But someday they're gonna regret it when I find that Genie. I am going to buy the whole world and show them how infinite... err... they'll have to find their own worlds to be infinite on. This one is mine.

[Spectral]

I'm not clear on the reasoning for the arbitrary salary cut lines; provided a business isn't dropping below minimum wage, I'm not sure why we'd be inclined to pick a number above which they must pay extra pay unless it just applied universally. If someone believes that there's a right to additional compensation when working more than X hours, it's not clear to me why that right would apply at $40K, but not at $70K.

Just a "those people have enough" mentality?

[xChurch]

It's alright, in the not to distance future, we'll all be looking back with joy on how the worst we had to worry about was loss of overtime pay for some people. This is just the opening salvo. Hopefully the earlier they start, the earlier people will start to get pissed off about it because this is the kind of stuff that will lead to a very interesting 2020.

[The Stormbringer]

You'll have the schlobs here claiming that Union Dues are theft and that the union bosses are only after padding their own pockets...

Yeah I think it's awful that I have to pay $200/month in Union Dues to make $588/day and rising to $600/day come January 1st.

I think it's terrible that my Union based insurance costs me $200/month to fully cover my entire family.

I think it's terrible that I pay $85/month for "Can Insurance" so that if I get disciplined unjustly (pulled out of service) I still collect a paycheck while awaiting my investigation hearing.

I think it's atrocious that if my co-workers and I do well that it reflects on our management team and they end up doing well -- the managers get their bonuses and we get a bargaining chip for higher wages come the next negotiation.

But I suppose some people will say how great it is that their bosses hold all the cards.

/shrug

Can... can you get me into a Union, bruh? I'd like to make $600 a day and only pay $485 a month in insurance and dues.

[Kreo]

Can... can you get me into a Union, bruh? I'd like to make $600 a day and only pay $485 a month in insurance and dues.

Dunno about US unions but here in Canada with new labor agreement we're loosing double time pay, it will be 1.5 now, plus if we're missing statutory holidays, no more double pay on a first full time day, 75c lesser rate when working maintenance and etc etc.
We're lost even more since the last year, I personally lost roughly 17k on annual income.

Btw he is talking about journeyman rate, before taxes, i guess. If you start as an apprentice, your wage would be 50% lower at starting point.
Let me guess, fellow oil sander ?