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.

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

You don't have to give all those illegal immigrants taking all the jobs perks like overtime or holidays do you?

 azazel the cat wrote:
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.

As was pointed out in my post of 05/13/2013 07:16:12 when I said "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"

 azazel the cat wrote:
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?

I would posit that this is a very different argument to the ones previously advanced by you i.e. that it was "certain", and that it would happen to a "statistically significant" number.

Are you saying that Mr Kline is incorrect?

John Kline, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said that "powerful special interests" -- that is, organized labor -- have stood in the way of the comp time reform. "There are extensive protections in this bill, but we've seen the straw men and heard the accusations," he said.

If so can you please give details as to why/how the "extensive protections" are not sufficient.

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

heh...good point.

Kinda OT...

But, I don't see how this changes Union Shops... their pay is determined by their collective bargaining agreements. I seriously doubt that if the union don't want this, they'll negotiate accordingly.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
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?

I would posit that this is a very different argument to the ones previously advanced by you i.e. that it was "certain", and that it would happen to a "statistically significant" number.

Are you saying that Mr Kline is incorrect?

John Kline, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said that "powerful special interests" -- that is, organized labor -- have stood in the way of the comp time reform. "There are extensive protections in this bill, but we've seen the straw men and heard the accusations," he said.

If so can you please give details as to why/how the "extensive protections" are not sufficient.

This is the same idea I have expressed since the beginning.

As to Kline's comments and the "extensive protections" he describes, do you have a link to what these alleged protections are? Because I'm disinclined to take his word for it.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is the same idea I have expressed since the beginning.

As to Kline's comments and the "extensive protections" he describes, do you have a link to what these alleged protections are? Because I'm disinclined to take his word for it.

Since the beginning you haven't been saying that it was certain that the new law would be abused? Your first line is a little unclear.

Considering that you were insistent that there would be certain abuse of the provisions of this legislation I was under the impression that perhaps you had seen them and weren't just looking at this from an ideological perspective. If you are unable to locate the legislation itself I believe this is the link - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1406/text
Is Mr Kline dishonest as a person, or is there something else that makes you disinclined to take his word for it?

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is the same idea I have expressed since the beginning.

As to Kline's comments and the "extensive protections" he describes, do you have a link to what these alleged protections are? Because I'm disinclined to take his word for it.

Since the beginning you haven't been saying that it was certain that the new law would be abused? Your first line is a little unclear.

Considering that you were insistent that there would be certain abuse of the provisions of this legislation I was under the impression that perhaps you had seen them and weren't just looking at this from an ideological perspective. If you are unable to locate the legislation itself I believe this is the link - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1406/text
Is Mr Kline dishonest as a person, or is there something else that makes you disinclined to take his word for it?

I generally don't take any politicians at their word, irrespective of party lines (to which I am actually not certain what Kline's are; I know next-to-nothing about him).

Since the beginning I have been saying that employees would be abused in the absence of legal protections against such.

I am still saying that. I am saying that employees already suffer these abuses; in the absence of their legal protections I expect the number of instances of such to increase significantly.

So, after reading the act, I have some concerns. The first one that jumps out at me is the alleged protections to the worker against being intimidated or fired for choosing one option over the other. I'm unclear how that will interact with Right to Work legislation, but I suspect that it'll work exactly like I suggested it would in an earlier hypothetical monologue I wrote in reply to Whembly a couple pages back. additionally, I'm curious as to what will happen to any accrued or rollover comp time that is hanging in the aether when the sunset clause kicks in. However, even beyond that, simply due to the specific language of this bill (which I attribute to lazy writing rather than malice), it would appear that an employee can work overtime and bank the extra hours at the 1.5x rate, then be fired, wherein the employer only has to pay out those banked hours at the standard 1.0x rate, effectively performing an end-run around the existing overtime laws for entry-level workers in high-turnover positions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is the same idea I have expressed since the beginning.

As to Kline's comments and the "extensive protections" he describes, do you have a link to what these alleged protections are? Because I'm disinclined to take his word for it.

Since the beginning you haven't been saying that it was certain that the new law would be abused? Your first line is a little unclear.

Considering that you were insistent that there would be certain abuse of the provisions of this legislation I was under the impression that perhaps you had seen them and weren't just looking at this from an ideological perspective. If you are unable to locate the legislation itself I believe this is the link - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1406/text
Is Mr Kline dishonest as a person, or is there something else that makes you disinclined to take his word for it?

Thanks for that...

Reading this now...

-compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.

Holy gak! That'll help me out! Whoohoo!. I only get time off at standard rate.

‘(A) MAXIMUM HOURS- An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of compensatory time.

meh... we used to be able to accrue something like 600+ hours, but our limit is currently at 240 and will be set at 160 by next year anyways.

‘(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period

. So no more "Use it or Lost" Policy? This is a Win-Win...right?

‘(5) TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT- An employee who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, be paid for the unused compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (6).

So if fired or voluntarily leave job... employer still has to pay for accrued time. This is a change currently. Win-win?

(D) POLICY- Except where a collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise, an employer that has adopted a policy offering compensatory time to employees may discontinue such policy upon giving employees 30 days notice.

This gives Employers that chance to NOT offer this... erm... yay?

‘(4) PRIVATE EMPLOYER ACTIONS- An employer that provides compensatory time under paragraph (1) to employees shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of--

‘(A) interfering with such employee’s rights under this subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for overtime hours; or

‘(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.

So... no more bullying?

And it has a 5 year shelf life so that Congress can decide to renew or let it expire.

All in all... it ain't doom & gloom y'all.

 whembly wrote:

Reading this now...

-compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.

Holy gak! That'll help me out! Whoohoo!. I only get time off at standard rate.

‘(A) MAXIMUM HOURS- An employee may accrue not more than 160 hours of compensatory time.

meh... we used to be able to accrue something like 600+ hours, but our limit is currently at 240 and will be set at 160 by next year anyways.

‘(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period

. So no more "Use it or Lost" Policy? This is a Win-Win...right?

‘(5) TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT- An employee who has accrued compensatory time off authorized to be provided under paragraph (1) shall, upon the voluntary or involuntary termination of employment, be paid for the unused compensatory time in accordance with paragraph (6).

So if fired or voluntarily leave job... employer still has to pay for accrued time. This is a change currently. Win-win?

(D) POLICY- Except where a collective bargaining agreement provides otherwise, an employer that has adopted a policy offering compensatory time to employees may discontinue such policy upon giving employees 30 days notice.

This gives Employers that chance to NOT offer this... erm... yay?

‘(4) PRIVATE EMPLOYER ACTIONS- An employer that provides compensatory time under paragraph (1) to employees shall not directly or indirectly intimidate, threaten, or coerce or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any employee for the purpose of--

‘(A) interfering with such employee’s rights under this subsection to request or not request compensatory time off in lieu of payment of monetary overtime compensation for overtime hours; or

‘(B) requiring any employee to use such compensatory time.

So... no more bullying?

And it has a 5 year shelf life so that Congress can decide to renew or let it expire.

All in all... it ain't doom & gloom y'all.

Thank you whembly for pointing out everything that I was going to concerning the benefits and protections

I find this article funny... I work for a construction company, our field crews work... about 55 hours a week on average for minimum hourly wage. They dont get time and a half (which i believe is illegal, anyone know who i can report my employers to? ). What makes House Democrats think that the time and a half law isnt abused?

Keep in mind that our field crews are all here legally (Ive had to file the paperwork for background checks personally, we are very careful not to hire illegals after an incident before i started working here) but all employees are foreigners, so they are probably unaware the law exists...

But seriously, eho do I report my employers to?

chaos0xomega wrote:
I find this article funny... I work for a construction company, our field crews work... about 55 hours a week on average for minimum hourly wage. They dont get time and a half (which i believe is illegal, anyone know who i can report my employers to? ). What makes House Democrats think that the time and a half law isnt abused?

Keep in mind that our field crews are all here legally (Ive had to file the paperwork for background checks personally, we are very careful not to hire illegals after an incident before i started working here) but all employees are foreigners, so they are probably unaware the law exists...

But seriously, eho do I report my employers to?

Looking at your location...

Go here?
http://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/viollblw.shtm

Department of Labour

 azazel the cat wrote:
Department of Labour

Yep... Chaos... go here:
https://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/ls_ContactUs.shtm

If the employer was required to pay out unused time at the end of the year, I think I'd be OK with this.

 Ouze wrote:
If the employer was required to pay out unused time at the end of the year, I think I'd be OK with this.

Good news then;
"(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period"

chaos0xomega wrote:
I find this article funny... I work for a construction company, our field crews work... about 55 hours a week on average for minimum hourly wage. They dont get time and a half (which i believe is illegal, anyone know who i can report my employers to? ). What makes House Democrats think that the time and a half law isnt abused?

Keep in mind that our field crews are all here legally (Ive had to file the paperwork for background checks personally, we are very careful not to hire illegals after an incident before i started working here) but all employees are foreigners, so they are probably unaware the law exists...

But seriously, eho do I report my employers to?

EXACLTY,

the current laws are being abused, which leads people to think these new ones will be as well,

except the current laws are mainly abused because we LET them, because we are afraid of what "our employers could do" (illegally)

I had someone pull the "we dont pay overtime in this industry" line on my when I was working my way through university, total bollocks of course, because by law, every industry has to pay OT at the 1.5 rate,

my reply was to simply to "inform" them that they could pay out all the back overtime they owed, or they can go through labour canada and the courts. (they were very aware already, apparently most resteraunts/bars/ect tell their employees they dont get over time, and the employees just accept it as face value)

OFC I got paid, but what was sad was that a lot of the server girls who worked there wouldnt listen to me and claim the OT they had earned, basically they were afraid of being fired or getting crappy shifts, so they never claimed it. which is a pitty, because not standing up for your rights as a worker just makes the problem worse, and living your life in fear of your employer is no way to live.

in canada you report them to labour canada, not sure who you report to in the states, but you must have some labour law or code you can print off and show to all the guys getting screwed, present the laws to the employer as a group, so there are witnesses (even video tape it) that way if they dont pay, you have an air tight class action suit that will likely pay out more then the OT was worth.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
If the employer was required to pay out unused time at the end of the year, I think I'd be OK with this.

Good news then;
"(B) COMPENSATION DATE- Not later than January 31 of each calendar year, the employee’s employer shall provide monetary compensation for any unused compensatory time off accrued during the preceding calendar year that was not used prior to December 31 of the preceding year at the rate prescribed by paragraph (6). An employer may designate and communicate to the employer’s employees a 12-month period other than the calendar year, in which case such compensation shall be provided not later than 31 days after the end of such 12-month period"

Yeah, on a first reading this seems solid. I'd have a concern about the language used in paragraph (6), though... it specifies "regular rate", but does not explicitly say it is the "regular 1.5x overtime rate", meaning I suspect there could be an interpretation that it is paid out only at the 1.0x "regular" rate... which effectively robs the employee of overtime pay. I attribute the writing of such to lethargy and lack of foresight, rather than malice.

Or I could be reading it wrong, but I have a feeling that it would still get challenged as such eventually.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Yeah, on a first reading this seems solid. I'd have a concern about the language used in paragraph (6), though... it specifies "regular rate", but does not explicitly say it is the "regular 1.5x overtime rate", meaning I suspect there could be an interpretation that it is paid out only at the 1.0x "regular" rate... which effectively robs the employee of overtime pay. I attribute the writing of such to lethargy and lack of foresight, rather than malice.

Or I could be reading it wrong, but I have a feeling that it would still get challenged as such eventually.

I'd like to see this clarified too because the language is arguable either way, so there is scope for mis-understandings

What problem is legislation solving?

 Easy E wrote:
What problem is legislation solving?

Um...

I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".

Attack!
Attack!

Wait... the bill does what?

Hmmmm... it might be doable...

Now the Democrat controlled Senate can choose to take the bill...then, make any adjustments as needed (ya know, clarify certain places that Azazel suggested?). Which would then have to go back to the House for them to approve or fail prior to sending to Prez.

It's like... it's how bills are supposed to work.

 whembly wrote:
I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".

Attack!
Attack!

Look, just... stop with this. It's not accurate, at all. The first 3 pages had at least 6 different posters articulating what they saw as concerns with it. You can argue the merits of those concerns (and we should, cause discussion forum!), but it's not accurate to misrepresent them the way you are doing here.

whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
What problem is legislation solving?

Um...

I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".

Attack!
Attack!

Wait... the bill does what?

Hmmmm... it might be doable...

Or, y'know, it does all of those bad things that I said it probably will.

 Easy E wrote:
What problem is legislation solving?

This is a very good question. Indeed, it should be the first question for any law. Has a rationale been articulated? I'm not too clear exactly what the problem with current law is on this.

Even with paying it out, there are problems. If they keep you from taking your accrued time for months on end via blackout periods and then paid it out later, you just essentially made an interest free loan to your employer. Not sure how that helps families.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".

Attack!
Attack!

Look, just... stop with this. It's not accurate, at all. The first 3 pages had at least 6 different posters articulating what they saw as concerns with it. You can argue the merits of those concerns (and we should, cause discussion forum!), but it's not accurate to misrepresent them the way you are doing here.

Yeah... I went overboard... sorry.

Well, sometimes what you describe does happen, on both sides. I just don't think it's happened here.

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
What problem is legislation solving?

This is a very good question. Indeed, it should be the first question for any law. Has a rationale been articulated? I'm not too clear exactly what the problem with current law is on this.

Even with paying it out, there are problems. If they keep you from taking your accrued time for months on end via blackout periods and then paid it out later, you just essentially made an interest free loan to your employer. Not sure how that helps families.

I think it's simply a PR tactic for GOP... *shrugs*

EDIT: Here's one of the writers:
"At the heart of the legislation is worker choice. Workers choose whether to accept comp time. Worker choose when to cash out their accrued comp time. And workers choose when to use their accrued time off," Kline said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Well, sometimes what you describe does happen, on both sides. I just don't think it's happened here.

Yeah... that attack dawg needs to sit here... for now.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
What problem is legislation solving?

This is a very good question. Indeed, it should be the first question for any law. Has a rationale been articulated? I'm not too clear exactly what the problem with current law is on this.

Even with paying it out, there are problems. If they keep you from taking your accrued time for months on end via blackout periods and then paid it out later, you just essentially made an interest free loan to your employer. Not sure how that helps families.

I think it's simply a PR tactic for GOP... *shrugs*

EDIT: Here's one of the writers:
"At the heart of the legislation is worker choice.

If there is one thing the GOP is not exactly known for, it's caring about workers IMO.

Workers choose whether to accept comp time.

And when your employer goes "I don't do overtime. Either accept comp time or get out of here" it will be the workers choice to be without a job.

Worker choose when to cash out their accrued comp time.

Looking through the bill I couldn't tell. Can a worker cash out whenever they want, or is it only once a year?

And workers choose when to use their accrued time off," Kline said.

Yeah, just like most workers get to choose when to take vacations.

I'm still seeing this as a way to get rid of paid vacation and paid sick time.

"Look, we don't have to provide you with paid holidays, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, or paid vacation. None of that is required. If you want to go spend a week for the family you better do some overtime to bank up some comp time..."

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
What problem is legislation solving?

This is a very good question. Indeed, it should be the first question for any law. Has a rationale been articulated? I'm not too clear exactly what the problem with current law is on this.

Even with paying it out, there are problems. If they keep you from taking your accrued time for months on end via blackout periods and then paid it out later, you just essentially made an interest free loan to your employer. Not sure how that helps families.

I think it's simply a PR tactic for GOP... *shrugs*

EDIT: Here's one of the writers:
"At the heart of the legislation is worker choice.

If there is one thing the GOP is not exactly known for, it's caring about workers IMO.

And I can think of UNION backed Democrats that hurt the non-workers...

Workers choose whether to accept comp time.

And when your employer goes "I don't do overtime. Either accept comp time or get out of here" it will be the workers choice to be without a job.

Fear mongering... according to this law, they prohibit employers from bulling the workers into this. Besides... read it again, it's comped a the rate of 1.5 times pay. I don't get that now... that'd actually be a nice change for me.

Worker choose when to cash out their accrued comp time.

Looking through the bill I couldn't tell. Can a worker cash out whenever they want, or is it only once a year?

Looks like they leave it up to the Employer's descretion... now, hold on... that's how it is with my current (and 2 previous) employment. I have to "schedule" the cash out (determine how much Earned Time Off) on one of 3 dates in the next calendar year. Sure it sucks that I can't do that at will... but, with planning, it really ain't a big deal. Again, with this law in place, my cash out would be higher (as my comp would raise from x1 to x1.5 base pay).

And workers choose when to use their accrued time off," Kline said.

Yeah, just like most workers get to choose when to take vacations.

I'm still seeing this as a way to get rid of paid vacation and paid sick time.

"Look, we don't have to provide you with paid holidays, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, or paid vacation. None of that is required. If you want to go spend a week for the family you better do some overtime to bank up some comp time..."

Eh... we'll see.

Remember there's a 5 year sunset date... which, I suspect it was placed there to have an easy mechanism to get rid of this law if it proves to be unpopular.

If you're so concerned about it, call up your Senator and tell him/her to fix it.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".

Attack!
Attack!

Look, just... stop with this. It's not accurate, at all. The first 3 pages had at least 6 different posters articulating what they saw as concerns with it. You can argue the merits of those concerns (and we should, cause discussion forum!), but it's not accurate to misrepresent them the way you are doing here.

When Frazzled is nervous about it, everyone should stop cold and think about it a bit.

If you are working in an at-will-state, which Republicans love, then your employee can fire you if you don't like comp time.

And five years of people getting fethed over is not a good thing, just because it may automatically stop after that.

My senators are Inhoff and Coburn, it's not worth the bandwith to send them anything.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think this is the case of "Hey, this idea came from a Republican controlled house... so, it MUST be a bad idea".

Attack!
Attack!

Look, just... stop with this. It's not accurate, at all. The first 3 pages had at least 6 different posters articulating what they saw as concerns with it. You can argue the merits of those concerns (and we should, cause discussion forum!), but it's not accurate to misrepresent them the way you are doing here.

When Frazzled is nervous about it, everyone should stop cold and think about it a bit.

But...

We can distract you...

We got...

QUESO!

*LOOK*





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If you are working in an at-will-state, which Republicans love, then your employee can fire you if you don't like comp time.

You live in an "at will" state, dontcha?

Do you live in fear of your job? <-- honest question... (I though you work for VA... which is separate from State laws... right?)

And five years of people getting fethed over is not a good thing, just because it may automatically stop after that.

How do you even know people will get fethed over? Scrooged McDuck is in every corner?

My senators are Inhoff and Coburn, it's not worth the bandwith to send them anything.

Aha...

Okay