Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Some employees are already doing it. And suspicions and concerns are good enough for yourself when it comes to other topics.

 d-usa wrote:
Some employees are already doing it. And suspicions and concerns are good enough for yourself when it comes to other topics.

Generally not when I claim things as certain. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to see it.

In 2003, for example, the Department of Labor investigated 40,000 cases of employer overtime law violation which led to more than $212 million dollars in back wage collection. That same year, over $10 million in civil overtime lawsuit damages were awarded to victims of overtime law violations

Here's a specific example; you can use this link to browse through pages upon pages of documents on the Department of Labour's website.

 azazel the cat wrote:

EDIT: Whembly, thank you for perfectly justifying my statement.

Um... thanks? Do I get the internetz cookiez pwease?

Also, I will submit to you my typical request: please try to not see the world as a binary between good and evil. I do not think that employers are evil (well, a select few are) but I won't make a sweeping generalization like that.

Man I find this statement hysterical coming from you...

Sure there's different shades of grey... it is YOU in this case is immediately lambasting this idea simply because it came from a Republican party.

I do, however, recognize and understand that employers treat employees as a cost of doing business (because they are), and will not employ them unless it is their last resort (because that is how a business works).

By the Emprah... what the feth are you saying here?

As such, any employer that has the ability to screw over employees by not paying them, such as in the manner this proposed bill allows, will be taken quite often in any situation wherein the costs associated with employee attrition is lower than the savings created by not paying out overtime. This is primarily related to entry-level positions, which are typically paid hourly wages. This is an equation similar to one that I have utilized personally when determining the value of an employee.

Paranoia much? Jeebus, you sound like a person who's not confident in their ability to get & hold a job yourself.

Wembly, my friend, if this concept is lost on you then it is you who has no idea what he's talking about (par for the course) and is either caused by willful ignorance due to parroting party slogans (likely), actual ignorance (less likely), or naivete (doubtful), or plain old-fashioned stupidity.

Wow... all I pointed out to you in the previous thread that I think this amounts to fear mongering, and you're attacking me personally in every manner, good job brah:

 azazel the cat wrote:

In 2003, for example, the Department of Labor investigated 40,000 cases of employer overtime law violation which led to more than $212 million dollars in back wage collection. That same year, over $10 million in civil overtime lawsuit damages were awarded to victims of overtime law violations

Here's a specific example; you can use this link to browse through pages upon pages of documents on the Department of Labour's website.

So 40,000 claims out of 146,743,000 of the population who actually work (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_are_employed_in_the_United_States). That equates to 0.0272% of the workforce. So because it may occur in a relatively small number of cases does that make it certain? It seems that the math would suggest that it is in fact far from certain.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Well... it still cost the employer one way or another.

You'd either get OT pay (x1.5 of base pay)... or
You'd get paid time-off (which basically employer pays you as if you're working).

BUT, you'd get a choice.

What's not to like?

Am I being a complete idjit here?

"Okay, son, here'd the deal. You're going to have to work 50 hours a week. Now, for those back ten, you have the choice: you can take it as overtime pay, or you can bank those hours for time off later. Now, between you and me, kiddo, I'd recommend you bank that time. I know you might need the extra money, but I don't like paying time-and-a-half, and, this being a Right-to-Work state and all, I might decide that I don't like your haircut or the cut of your jib after all, should you decided to opt for the overtime payout. Now, all the overtime hours you bank have to be taken by the end of the year, or else they expire. So you're gonna hafta co-ordinate with the scheduling manager to see what days are available -but don't even think about taking them during the 4th quarter, because that's a blackout period. Now, I know that sounds like you're getting completely screwed over if you work overtime during the 4th quarter, on account of you not being able to take any time off, but I assure ya it's a lot better to be workin' than it is to not be workin'!"

You pretty much nailed it right there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I have a federal job, so my take on this may be a bit different.

Where I work, we already have the option of earning comptime or overtime when we work over 8 hours in a day. However, overtime is only an option when there is money in the budget for it (which there usually isn't, thanks to the sequester and other budget cuts). Sometimes overtime is available, but these days it's only for people more special than me, and they get to voluntarily choose to work late, but when my extra hours are basically mandated by the operation I'm on, nope, no overtime for me because I'm not special enough (nooo, I'm not bitter...).

The problem with the comptime we earn is that it expires one year after you earn it. Not usually a problem if you don't earn a lot of it, but if you're one of the people who usually earns about 5-8 hours of comptime a week, in addition to your annual leave that is capped at saving 240 hours a year, you tend to have more time off than you can reasonably take, since we're a bit overworked and if you take off for 2-4 weeks, you come back to a huge pile of work that you now have to work extra hours (again) to clear up so you're back in the hole again because most of your work won't be covered by someone else while you're on leave because everybody else already has their own huge piles of work and so on and on.

I may have a rambled a bit there, but in short: comptime is great if you can actually use it, but otherwise, show me the money.

Another one with the truth of things about comp time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those that support the comp time saying it's all good, I have to disagree strongly since I worked for a company that tried that. One day the comp time disappeared because we were told things were too busy. When I asked about overtime coming back, I was told I had a bad attitude and was let go within seconds of my statement.
I once again state that in a busy company that's going balls out, there are going to be a lot of people unhappy about comp time because they'll end with more racked up than they can take in a year.
Hourly employees cannot be treated like salaried ones simply because they most often don't have the same benefits package. Most hourly workers are just average Joes trying to get by and a lot of times, unfortunately, the overtime is what keeps the food in the cupboard.

Knowing the last company I worked for, I can safely clock in with team "This is a horrible fething idea"

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

In 2003, for example, the Department of Labor investigated 40,000 cases of employer overtime law violation which led to more than $212 million dollars in back wage collection. That same year, over $10 million in civil overtime lawsuit damages were awarded to victims of overtime law violations

Here's a specific example; you can use this link to browse through pages upon pages of documents on the Department of Labour's website.

So 40,000 claims out of 146,743,000 of the population who actually work (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_are_employed_in_the_United_States). That equates to 0.0272% of the workforce. So because it may occur in a relatively small number of cases does that make it certain? It seems that the math would suggest that it is in fact far from certain.

That's 40,000 claims in one year. Assuming the average person spends 30 years working, that would mean the average person has a 1 in 12 chance of suffering this abuse at some point in their careers. This, of course, is not to speak of the fact that those claims were the only ones with enough evidence to investigate; the dark figure surrounding the issue is likely to be quite large, simply because not every person is likely to file a claim with the DoL.

However, I do believe you are a proponent of the 2nd amendment on the grounds that the US government could turn tyrannical and you would save the day. The odds of that happening would suggest that it is in fact far from certain as well, yet you seem to be in favour of not taking the chance.



@Whembly: You are the only person who believes in party lines as something to swear allegiance to. This is a terrible bill entirely designed to take advantage of employees no matter who wrote it. However, are you really so blind as to how a company is run that you do not recognize an employee to be a cost of doing business?

 azazel the cat wrote:
That's 40,000 claims in one year. Assuming the average person spends 30 years working, that would mean the average person has a 1 in 12 chance of suffering this abuse at some point in their careers. This, of course, is not to speak of the fact that those claims were the only ones with enough evidence to investigate; the dark figure surrounding the issue is likely to be quite large, simply because not every person is likely to file a claim with the DoL.

Can you clarify where you got 1/12? If there are 40,000 claims, a workforce of 146,743,000, and according to you 30 surely that would be;
(40,000/146,743,000) x 100 = 0.0272
0.0272 x 30 = 0.816

1/2 = 8.3333%
So it would seem there is a discrepancy.

Even we accept your 1/12 premise that is still a long way off being "certain".

as someone who works retail i dont like this. its hard enough Jan-Oct to pay 'normal' bills. come this years holidays Ill have 2 nephews, 1 neice, 1 daughter and another one on the way Id hate to loose my overtime. Yes I know I would get a few extra days off but that wont stop the bills.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That's 40,000 claims in one year. Assuming the average person spends 30 years working, that would mean the average person has a 1 in 12 chance of suffering this abuse at some point in their careers. This, of course, is not to speak of the fact that those claims were the only ones with enough evidence to investigate; the dark figure surrounding the issue is likely to be quite large, simply because not every person is likely to file a claim with the DoL.

Can you clarify where you got 1/12? If there are 40,000 claims, a workforce of 146,743,000, and according to you 30 surely that would be;
(40,000/146,743,000) x 100 = 0.0272
0.0272 x 30 = 0.816

1/2 = 8.3333%
So it would seem there is a discrepancy.

Even we accept your 1/12 premise that is still a long way off being "certain".

At this point you're kinda wasting my time. What exactly is your argument? is it that you think my argument is invalid because I rounded 0.082 up to 1/12 (which is 0.083) in my head because math tells me not to round down to 1/13 (which is 0.077) and didn't feel like using the awkward fraction of 41/500?

Either contribute something of value or else don't bother. The hairs you are attempting to split here are ridiculous.

SInce I'm about to either go to the private sector or federal government in say 4-5 months......I perfer comp time.....I rather not get tagged into a new tax bracket.....or...have a couple four day weekends.....the Comp Time bank is Use or Lose (Leave) for us......be creative on burning up comp time 3-4 day weekends

Jihadin wrote:SInce I'm about to either go to the private sector or federal government in say 4-5 months......I perfer comp time.....I rather not get tagged into a new tax bracket.....or...have a couple four day weekends.....the Comp Time bank is Use or Lose (Leave) for us......be creative on burning up comp time 3-4 day weekends

Yeah, when you can get it to work for you, it can be pretty sweet. Many moons ago, I was in a position wherein I had a ton of comp time, and I was also in charge of scheduling for my department. It was pretty epic. However, there were many stars that required to align in order to pull that off, and it is by far not representative of how the situation typically works.

 Mannahnin wrote:

In most companies I've worked for, HR has consistently been the least competent group I've interacted with. The least professional and responsive in terms of communication. I think it's a consequence of taking all those job applications, and the fact that you always need to weed out a bunch of junk applications. HR folks seem to get accustomed to seeing everyone who comes to them as supplicants, to whom any response from the HR is a beneficent boon.

Manny..you just won the thread. This has also been my experience, unfortunately, as well.

As to the whole issue of offering comp time instead of OT. I think it will be a rare thing for this to work out good for employees. I have been Exempt salary for a long time now, and one of the jobs I worked used the laws surrounding exempt salary employees, to there maximum favor. I.E. people would routinely work 70 and 80 hour weeks, but because they were exempt salary they only got paid for the 40. So, in effect, they got two employees for the price of one.


GG

 Mannahnin wrote:
Yup. At jobs I've worked, it's very normal for hardworking employees to have large quantities of banked time off and have a hard time using all of it by the end of the year. It's not uncommon for folks to lose some of it, because of the cap on how much can roll over. If you take away increased overtime pay in favor of comp time, you just exacerbate that issue while taking money out of the pockets of those folks working hard and extra hours.

That would be me right there.

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, I do believe you are a proponent of the 2nd amendment on the grounds that the US government could turn tyrannical and you would save the day. The odds of that happening would suggest that it is in fact far from certain as well, yet you seem to be in favour of not taking the chance.

I do not recall making any argument saying that it was certain that the US government would become tyrannical. If you can show me where I did I would be grateful. Otherwise your argument appears to be an attempt at deflection and inferring bad faith where none exists.

 azazel the cat wrote:
At this point you're kinda wasting my time. What exactly is your argument? is it that you think my argument is invalid because I rounded 0.082 up to 1/12 (which is 0.083) in my head because math tells me not to round down to 1/13 (which is 0.077) and didn't feel like using the awkward fraction of 41/500?

Either contribute something of value or else don't bother. The hairs you are attempting to split here are ridiculous.

1/12 is 0.083, however as a percentage it is 8.33%. As I have been working in percentages using a different format may add confusion. In any event I stand by my math above.

So asking you to clarify where you got a figure where it is not shown is not an attempt to waste time. It is an attempt to clarify matters so a discussion may take place on solid ground, and to reduce the chances of a strawman being advanced. In this instance the figures that I had given were percentages, whereas yours were fractions or decimals, and which furthermore did not correlate with the figures as I have shown above.

My argument is, as it has always been, that your claims that this will erode worker's rights is not certain and is very much dependent on a variety of factors. I believe that this has been demonstrated sufficiently. I have been clear and consistent on that throughout so apologies if you have mis-read my posts.

Although I will note the irony of someone alleging that I am splitting hairs, when in a previous discussion that same person was relying on an archaic, and now uncommon, definition of a word in an attempt to make a point.

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of this. If Employers need to pay out all this overtime, maybe then they will consider actually hiring someone to fill the need instead? This helps our economy.

If they can essentially, "bank" the expense, what insentive does that make for companies to hire a new employee? Instead, they can have people wait to take the time off /comp time when the company is runnign slower.

I can see why the Company likes this, it reduces their risks of over/understaffing. I know how risk averse and scared business folks are all the time.

 azazel the cat wrote:



@Whembly: You are the only person who believes in party lines as something to swear allegiance to.

Uh...no... but, thanks for playing!

This is a terrible bill entirely designed to take advantage of employees no matter who wrote it.

I'm not saying that it's perfect or some unscrupulous employer wouldn't take advantage of that...

I'm just arguing that I'm not so sure that the "problems" you're expousing would be epidemic.

However, are you really so blind as to how a company is run that you do not recognize an employee to be a cost of doing business?

I went back to re-read that blurb... sorry, I thought you meant something else. Of course having "employees" is a cost of doing businees.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of this. If Employers need to pay out all this overtime, maybe then they will consider actually hiring someone to fill the need instead? This helps our economy.

If they can essentially, "bank" the expense, what insentive does that make for companies to hire a new employee? Instead, they can have people wait to take the time off /comp time when the company is runnign slower.

I can see why the Company likes this, it reduces their risks of over/understaffing. I know how risk averse and scared business folks are all the time.

You do know that "banking" Comp Time also incurs cost to the employers... dontcha?

I've asked two different business owners (one in family and another is a friend) who staffs 50+ hourly people. THEY would prefer just paying OT. It's simpler.

However, if they would offer "banked time off"... those hours "sit on the books" for the employer and are subject to additional tax implications for the entire business. That's why in most shops that offer this sort of thing (like for salaried folks), there's a limit as to how much you ca n bank. What I didn't see in this bill which SHOULD be included is the ability to "sell" any banked hours. That way, you don't lose it if you can't use it for whatever reason. If that isn't in there, then I wouldn't want this bill "as is". We have the ability to sell our "bank hours" on 3 predetermined days in the following year... that's like a really nice bonus check that we know it's coming. Further more, I'd argue that if you have excess hours at the end of the year... you're paid the difference, rather than "lose it".

The full impact isn't exactly known, because the rules to "how to implement this" for hourly employees are unknown at this point. So no, this is "me just parroting whatever the GOP is pushing"...

I am not a fan of this.

I trust employers about as much as I trust politicians.

When both agree that something "is a good idea" then I know where the common man is left in this decision.

Remarkably I sympathize with D-usa's position.

I have worked for several companies where overtime could be banked for time off instead of paid out,

I always had the choice between the two, heck i stil have two comp hours leftover from 4 years ago that I need to take off/pay out

I dont see employers getting away with making comp hours go "poof" and gone, I have never heard of a company getting away with that. that it literally stealing time and money from employees.

 easysauce wrote:
I have worked for several companies where overtime could be banked for time off instead of paid out,

I always had the choice between the two, heck i stil have two comp hours leftover from 4 years ago that I need to take off/pay out

I dont see employers getting away with making comp hours go "poof" and gone, I have never heard of a company getting away with that. that it literally stealing time and money from employees.

Many companies have a policy where unused time disappears at year end or a similar date shortly thereafter.

Every company I have worked for has had a rule that you can only carry over a maximum amount of banked time at the end of the year. Every single one has always done everything it could to get you to take the time (Reminding you before the year end, being very good with letting you take time off) but I could see how a less than helpfull manager (Never mind company, just supervisor level) could make the whole system brake.

A friend of mine works for a company where he can carry all of it over. He is up to about 6 weeks and plans to take it all off in one go at some point if he can. Lucky sod

To an outsider this seems like a very bad idea and wide open for abuse.

Interesting that you have a legal 1.5x overtime. That is one thing you have better than the UK.

how can this bill be awful for allowing that then,
if it is already allowed to make the time go "poof its gone" after a certain time?

OFC I dont agree with time disapearing, but is this bill really doing what we fear its doing, if what we fear it will do is already happening?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:
Every company I have worked for has had a rule that you can only carry over a maximum amount of banked time at the end of the year. Every single one has always done everything it could to get you to take the time (Reminding you before the year end, being very good with letting you take time off) but I could see how a less than helpfull manager (Never mind company, just supervisor level) could make the whole system brake.

A friend of mine works for a company where he can carry all of it over. He is up to about 6 weeks and plans to take it all off in one go at some point if he can. Lucky sod

To an outsider this seems like a very bad idea and wide open for abuse.

Interesting that you have a legal 1.5x overtime. That is one thing you have better than the UK.

my experience is very similar to yours above, they actively force you (to the point of booking it off for you if you dont do it yourself) to take the time off rather then have it go to waste,

oh except i get 2x overtime yay unions!

 whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You do know that "banking" Comp Time also incurs cost to the employers... dontcha?

I've asked two different business owners (one in family and another is a friend) who staffs 50+ hourly people. THEY would prefer just paying OT. It's simpler.

I did not know the specifics.

 whembly wrote:
However, if they would offer "banked time off"... those hours "sit on the books" for the employer and are subject to additional tax implications for the entire business. That's why in most shops that offer this sort of thing (like for salaried folks), there's a limit as to how much you ca n bank. What I didn't see in this bill which SHOULD be included is the ability to "sell" any banked hours. That way, you don't lose it if you can't use it for whatever reason. If that isn't in there, then I wouldn't want this bill "as is". We have the ability to sell our "bank hours" on 3 predetermined days in the following year... that's like a really nice bonus check that we know it's coming. Further more, I'd argue that if you have excess hours at the end of the year... you're paid the difference, rather than "lose it".

The full impact isn't exactly known, because the rules to "how to implement this" for hourly employees are unknown at this point. So no, this is "me just parroting whatever the GOP is pushing"...

I agree there needs to be some "Sell back" provision.

However, if a company has you bank it, they could then require you to take furloughs during aslow time, where peopel would naturally use their banked time; hence smoothing out the "ups- and-Downs" of the normal business cycle and oreducing overall risk and uncertainty. After all, isn't uncertainty the scariest thing that happens to a business?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, I do believe you are a proponent of the 2nd amendment on the grounds that the US government could turn tyrannical and you would save the day. The odds of that happening would suggest that it is in fact far from certain as well, yet you seem to be in favour of not taking the chance.

I do not recall making any argument saying that it was certain that the US government would become tyrannical. If you can show me where I did I would be grateful. Otherwise your argument appears to be an attempt at deflection and inferring bad faith where none exists.

I never said that you claimed it was certain; but you do claim that its possibility (however remote) is reason enough to have a personal legal protection against being disarmed. So why would you be against upholding worker's legal protections, even under your assumption that the odds of employees being abused be remote? (which, by the way, are exponentially greater than the odds of the US government turning tyrannical).

And you have not proven anything. I've used your own numbers and your own math to show that approximately 1 in 12 employees, in a 30-year working career, will statistically suffer from their employers taking advantage of them. 1 in 12 is not remote; that it a statistically significant number. All you have managed to "prove" is that you are skeptical because you just are. No reasons provided, mind you: you're merely crossing your arms and grunting. Hence, why I've asked you to contribute something. If you believe that I'm wrong when I say that the very nature of a for-profit business will take advantage of its labour force in any way possible, then why don't you provide something to the contrary other than "you rounded 0.082 up to 0.083 in order to use a 1/X fraction, theretore you must be incorrect about the entire principle." Seriously, unless you can provide better than that, I'm not going to respond to it.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I never said that you claimed it was certain; but you do claim that its possibility (however remote) is reason enough to have a personal legal protection against being disarmed. So why would you be against upholding worker's legal protections, even under your assumption that the odds of employees being abused be remote? (which, by the way, are exponentially greater than the odds of the US government turning tyrannical).

I do not recall making the tyranny argument. So please stop attempting to ascribe arguments to me, it does not aid discussion as it gives the impression that you are acting in bad faith.

 azazel the cat wrote:
And you have not proven anything. I've used your own numbers and your own math to show that approximately 1 in 12 employees, in a 30-year working career, will statistically suffer from their employers taking advantage of them. 1 in 12 is not remote; that it a statistically significant number. All you have managed to "prove" is that you are skeptical because you just are. No reasons provided, mind you: you're merely crossing your arms and grunting. Hence, why I've asked you to contribute something. If you believe that I'm wrong when I say that the very nature of a for-profit business will take advantage of its labour force in any way possible, then why don't you provide something to the contrary other than "you rounded 0.082 up to 0.083 in order to use a 1/X fraction, theretore you must be incorrect about the entire principle." Seriously, unless you can provide better than that, I'm not going to respond to it.

I would again respectfully contend that your math is incorrect, and that it is not 1/12. To date you have not shown how you claim to have used "my math" to prove your point.
(40,000/146,743,000) x 100 = 0.0272%
0.0272 x 30 = 0.816%
In other words (Claims Made/Total Workforce) x 100 = X%
X% x Career Span = % Chance of Employee Suffering from Malicious Employer

So as you can clearly see the correct figure that 0.0272% of all employees in a year, or 0.816% in a working life, is not a "a statistically significant number". In fact it is far from a certain outcome as you have claimed. That is sufficiently clear I believe and any further insistence that I am being unclear cannot be a reasonable assertion. If you are unwilling or unable to address my repeated assertion that this is of a low statistical probability and is clearly not a certain outcome per your argument then it cannot be said that you are acting in anything approaching good faith, especially when it seems that you are deliberately mis-interpreting my argument.

In summation;
- I gave my experiences with a similar system
- You asked for details, and I provided them
- You made a bold claim and I challenged as to whether the outcome was certain
- You responded with "The situation I have proposed is a direct result of the proposed bill. The only thing that would make this "uncertain" is whether or not Caesar is in a good mood"
- I countered that your argument was a slippery slope as the outcome claimed was not definite
- You claimed your argument was direct cause and effect
- I clarified what cause and effect was and pointed out that the result must be certain
- You responded with "It is certain. Not in all cases, but it is certain that some employers will do it."
- I asked you to substantiate your claim that it was certain
- You provided the figure of 40,000
- I showed that 40,000 out of 146,743,000 was a statistically insignificant number, therefore the result could not be certain
- You then brought up the 30 years as a career lifetime which would impact the figure I came up with, as well as a mysterious 1/12 figure, and attempted to deflect with a question on an unrelated matter
- I adjusted my calculations to show that even with the 30 year career lifetime the result was still not statistically significant (it being less that 1%)
- You did not refute my argument, nor my figures, but claimed that you were unclear as to what I was trying to say and began to accuse me of splitting hairs
- I responded by attempting to clarify my position, the figures that I used and how it related to your argument
- Which leads us to your last post as quoted above, which still does not refute argument, nor my figures, and has been written with a somewhat dismissive tone that does not help engender discussion.


As can be demonstrated I have been consistent in my argument and my points raised, I have tried to make the same clear and accessible and attempted in good faith to clarify any misunderstandings. I apologise if this is still unclear but at this juncture I am not certain how I could make it clearer for you.

Whether you choose to respond to my argument, my figures or the points raised is entirely at your discretion.

Ah, I see we are talking about a syntx error, then. I see that you did not include the % sign in your original equation. That being the case, I apologize, it would seem the mathematical error is mine.

Then I shall make a very concise counter-argument for you:

These abuses occurred despite the fact that there was currently a law to explicitly protect the workers from the abuses listed. If the law that prohibits that abuse is removed, do you think that the behaviours of employers would remain the same, or do you think that the level of abuse would increase once it was no longer prohibited by law? I posit that employers would immediately take advantage of it, because that is the nature of how a for-profit business operates.

I put forward that it is the current restrictions which keep employers in line, and not merely the goodness in their hearts (because capitalism doesn't run on "goodness").

EDIT: To put it another way: if doing otherwise were not against the law, what percentage of people do you think would drive only 20 mph in a school zone?

Why are republicans even worried about overtime? I thought everybody was getting dumbed to part-time anyway to avoid ObamaCare...