-
Features
Obama waves imperial wand and gives 5 million workers more pay
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Gee. ...and there's no relation with stagnation of middle class incomes either./aintcapitalismwunnerful
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Interesting, I have been an exempted employee for the better part of a decade now, despite never having held an administrative or executive position. I had no idea that was what "exempted" was supposed to mean, as in my experience every salaried employee in the places I have been salaried were exempted employees. On the other hand, I have always made it a point to not work more than 40 hours a week on salary, unless absolutely necessary to hit a deadline, or support a software release.
I never understood the people who put in up to 60 hours a week, doing the same job I do, and not getting paid a cent more to do it. I also never understood how they could put in so much time at the office on a weekly basis, and in many cases get less quality work done in the process. I do my job, do it well, and go the fuck home. I get recognized for the good work I do, and they get recognized for what? Being at work an extra few hours a day with no discernible benefit to anyone. Corporate culture is certainly going to change with the new rules. Those people who are apparently just trying to suck up to the boss by "working" so many hours are going to get put under the microscope if they work too many hours.
I never understood the people who put in up to 60 hours a week, doing the same job I do, and not getting paid a cent more to do it. I also never understood how they could put in so much time at the office on a weekly basis, and in many cases get less quality work done in the process. I do my job, do it well, and go the fuck home. I get recognized for the good work I do, and they get recognized for what? Being at work an extra few hours a day with no discernible benefit to anyone. Corporate culture is certainly going to change with the new rules. Those people who are apparently just trying to suck up to the boss by "working" so many hours are going to get put under the microscope if they work too many hours.
Are you perhaps in IT/programming? There's a special exemption just for that...
ronburgundy
Contributor
Ignore this post below. A CNN story implied that the change applied to hourly workers who could lose income due to having their hours reduced to 40 per week.
FYI, many workers will lose income as a result of this, my good friend among them. He makes $30k per year without overtime. Due to his rent increasing, he took on a permanent double shift every Friday. I think his employer allows this only because he is not paid extra overtime pay for it. Now, his employer will prohibit overtime, cutting my friends income by 20% and making him unable to pay the rent on the apartment he just leased for a year.
IOW, many employers will now simply hire part-time employees to cover extra shifts rather than allow full time employees to increase their income by taking on extra shifts.
Last edited:
Does assuming this will result in people getting "more pay" assume the ruthless and evil and greedy and evil employers wouldn't come up with some dastardly plan like lowering the base comp to the point where people make about the same?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,567
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Who isn't exempt, other than field workers?
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Yes, I am. And that figures, doesn't it? Oh well, I do get paid well, and as noted, I seldom work more than 40 hours a week.
I don't know if that will be the case or not. Did many workers lose overtime when the current limit was introduced back in the 1970s?
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. But how is it the government's fault that your friend's employer is a greedy asshole? All this proposed rule change will do is bring the limit up to where it would have been if it had been indexed to inflation.
Something doesn't make sense about your friend's story though which may be entirely a reading comprehension problem on my end. Is your friend currently salary? I was assuming so since that is what the thread is about but now I'm not sure.
Anyway, if your friend took double shifts on Fridays but wasn't being paid extra overtime pay how would the employer prohibiting overtime effect your friend since he's already not being paid overtime for those extra hours, the implication to me being that he's being paid at a normal hourly rate for those hours rather than an overtime rate (which could also be illegal for the employer to do currently). And if he is salary how is he getting any extra money at all from the double shifts since by definition if you're salary the amount you are paid per pay period doesn't change?
Just because there are some bad actors out there doesn't mean change should not be implemented that would better the lives of a lot of people.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Sorry ksen, ignore my prior post. A CNN story gave an example of someone getting paid less because their hours are cut from 50 to 40, implying that the rule change applied to hourly wage earners.
However, it is still important to examine how employers will actually react to the change. The entire rule is based on the assumption of greedy employers who over-work their employees for as little as pay possible. That same assumption means employers will go to lengths to get around paying salaried employees overtime and skirting this rule change. How can they do that? First, they can keep salaries the same and just require more work be done within the 40 hours and fire anyone who claims it takes them longer. IOW, employees that spend more than 40 hours just will not report that they do for fear of being fired. Another option is to prohibit overtime and reduce salaries accordingly. IF an employee was given a salary under the assumption of 60 hours per week, they will now be reduced to 2/3 that salary, and the extra will be used to hire part-time employees to cover the other 20 hours.
Obviously, they don't have the leverage to do that in all areas, but the areas where they do are precisely those areas that this law change was designed to help workers, areas where employees are easily replaced and thus they don't have leverage to get higher salaries for the long hours in the first place.
However, it is still important to examine how employers will actually react to the change. The entire rule is based on the assumption of greedy employers who over-work their employees for as little as pay possible. That same assumption means employers will go to lengths to get around paying salaried employees overtime and skirting this rule change. How can they do that? First, they can keep salaries the same and just require more work be done within the 40 hours and fire anyone who claims it takes them longer. IOW, employees that spend more than 40 hours just will not report that they do for fear of being fired. Another option is to prohibit overtime and reduce salaries accordingly. IF an employee was given a salary under the assumption of 60 hours per week, they will now be reduced to 2/3 that salary, and the extra will be used to hire part-time employees to cover the other 20 hours.
Obviously, they don't have the leverage to do that in all areas, but the areas where they do are precisely those areas that this law change was designed to help workers, areas where employees are easily replaced and thus they don't have leverage to get higher salaries for the long hours in the first place.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,567
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
I know in my field it is a double edge sword. More pay yes! If OT is required for a project, the budget is going down quicker. EEK!!!
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 8,141
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
I have no doubt that the noble and right-thinking employers will find a way to fight this dastardly and unconstitutional move by Obama and continue to grant their employees the luxury of working more for less money.
As we've heard many times before, lower wages are actually a good thing for people. If you have to struggle to put food on the table, or work long hours for shrinking paychecks, your boss is actually motivating you to become more than just an employee.
I'm sure that companies will be motivating the hell out of people in the wake of this plan.
It seems stupid to me--if you're hourly you should get overtime, period.
Axulus
Veteran Member
And that's exactly what you are going to get - a pay cut along with an hours cut, and a hiring of part timers to cover the extra hours, or take two salaried positions and reduce it to 40 hrs/week and hire a 3rd person, or maybe try to get the worker to do more work in less hours.
Not sure how a pay cut is going to put food on the table for someone already struggling to do so, but there you go.
KeepTalking
Code Monkey
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,641
- Location
- St. Louis Metro East
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Well, then, you are in the wrong thread. This is about salaried workers, not hourly.