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.

This seems like an awful idea. I work on a really small team, and we have a hard enough time taking all of our vacation as-is. This seems like a way to de-facto rob people of overtime by converting it from a simple and unassailable right (anything over 40 hours is time and a half) to one which, essentially, managers can approve or disapprove at their convenience. I also have to imagine the bookkeeping for this would be substantially more than what we have now.

I mean, how many jobs are really busy at the end of the year, where sometimes vacation is blacked out but overtime is mandatory? That's almost every retail job. You'd be earning time you couldn't possibly take before losing it at the end of the year; your OT gets converted into nothing.

What's the big deal with this? o.O

It would work the same way as if you're a salaried employee instead of being paid by hour.

In fact... if you have a choice to get flex-time and OT pay... to me, that's even BETTER.

As a salary worker, I can only get flex-time if I work over 40 hrs (I don't get OT pay).

Am I missing something?

 whembly wrote:
What's the big deal with this? o.O

It would work the same way as if you're a salaried employee instead of being paid by hour.

In fact... if you have a choice to get flex-time and OT pay... to me, that's even BETTER.

As a salary worker, I can only get flex-time if I work over 40 hrs (I don't get OT pay).

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing the FACT that overtime pay at time and a half is a

simple and unassailable right

. I think it wraps up into the bill of rights somewhere.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If employers are staffing fully rather than making due with short staff and longer hours, there will be more part time positions available out there.

I wouldn't bet any serious money on that...

Or if they really do want to be fully staffed, their human resources department is staffed by idiots.

Although, that said, I've known more than a few HR departments staffed mostly by idiots.

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.

That might very well be right.

I remember a manager who kept trying to get a new worker, but HR kept putting the requirements for the job way too high (it was a starter position and they required 2 to 4 years of experience plus a bachelor's degree). He had to basically appeal over their heads to get someone who would be willing to force them to lower the requirements and hire an inexperienced worker, because no one who matched their requirements was willing to work in such a low-level position-- they had waited more than a year to fill the position, being constantly understaffed, before the manager found out why it wasn't being filled.

 CptJake wrote:
Yes, you are missing the FACT that overtime pay at time and a half is a

simple and unassailable right

. I think it wraps up into the bill of rights somewhere.

Hey, look at you, pretending I said something I didn't because that's easier than arguing with what I did say.

/pats head

Don't ever change, you. Your kind of post is what continues to give the OT that special flavor.

If your boss shorted you on your overtime, and when you asked about it, and his response was, "lol, it's not in the bill of rights" would he be legally right, or legally wrong? Are we pretending that the entire US code is a fictitious thing with no legal weight?

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What's the big deal with this? o.O

It would work the same way as if you're a salaried employee instead of being paid by hour.

In fact... if you have a choice to get flex-time and OT pay... to me, that's even BETTER.

As a salary worker, I can only get flex-time if I work over 40 hrs (I don't get OT pay).

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing the FACT that overtime pay at time and a half is a

simple and unassailable right

. I think it wraps up into the bill of rights somewhere.

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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
This seems like an awful idea. I work on a really small team, and we have a hard enough time taking all of our vacation as-is. This seems like a way to de-facto rob people of overtime by converting it from a simple and unassailable right (anything over 40 hours is time and a half) to one which, essentially, managers can approve or disapprove at their convenience. I also have to imagine the bookkeeping for this would be substantially more than what we have now.

I mean, how many jobs are really busy at the end of the year, where sometimes vacation is blacked out but overtime is mandatory? That's almost every retail job. You'd be earning time you couldn't possibly take before losing it at the end of the year; your OT gets converted into nothing.

I think that would be more of an workplace issue or the nature of the job...

What you described can happen in a "salaried" position as well when using Earned Time Off (taking vacations).

The managers need to ensure that not everyone uses that to the detriment of the business...

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Yes, you are missing the FACT that overtime pay at time and a half is a

simple and unassailable right

. I think it wraps up into the bill of rights somewhere.

Hey, look at you, pretending I said something I didn't because that's easier than arguing with what I did say.

/pats head

Don't ever change, you. Your kind of post is what continues to give the OT that special flavor.

If your boss shorted you on your overtime, and when you asked about it, and his response was, "lol, it's not in the bill of rights" would he be legally right, or legally wrong? Are we pretending that the entire US code is a fictitious thing with no legal weight?

Did I quote your actual words? Well yes I did.

Overtime is not a right. Point of fact, many, MANY workers never get overtime. It is guaranteed to some (not all) workers. That 'some' kind of shows it is not a right.

I see. So we're now pretending (I hope) to be ignorant of the fact it's possible to have rights other than what is delineated in the Bill of Rights. This should be very useful for re-instituting slavery, for example.

If you have a job, you have a right not to be sexually harassed on the job despite the fact there is nothing in the first 10 amendments about it. I mean, I hate the fact I'm even descending into what is clearly a troll argument at this point.

Time and a half payment for Overtime is currently your legal right, if you work more than 40hrs in a week and aren't in a salaried position.

A legally-protected benefit doesn't stop being a "right' just because there are some restrictions on it. If that's your definition, then firearm ownership isn't a right either.

The company can restructure to salaried employees. What happens to your 'right' then?

You can call it a right, but it is pretty narrow, does not apply to everyone so calling it 'simple and unassailable right' is simply silly because it is clearly not.
It is a requirement for some companies to pay some employees an amount when they meet a certain criteria.

A whole list of non-salaried employees not entitled to overtime in Washington state for example here: http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/Overtime/Exemptions/default.asp

It sure as heck is not a right that applies to everyone, so it would seem it is not 'unassailable'.

Well, it's clearly being assailed right now, anyway.

And as we've established, other rights (like gun ownership, and voting) have restrictions on them too.

Yes, but since those are rights guaranteed to each individual by basis of being a citizen, they are a lot harder to get rid of (and rightfully so). To take away a citizens right to vote usually requires that citizen to be convicted of a felony for example. It is not a right guaranteed to ONLY some who happen to get hired on to certain jobs.

That is all I am saying, Constitutional rights are supposed to be universal to all citizens and apply except in narrowly defined cases. Overtime is just not in that category. In fact, it exists only because employers can force workers to work beyond the standard 40 hours.

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'!"

 CptJake wrote:
That is all I am saying, Constitutional rights are supposed to be universal to all citizens and apply except in narrowly defined cases. Overtime is just not in that category. In fact, it exists only because employers can force workers to work beyond the standard 40 hours.

You are literally the only person in this thread who equated overtime with a constitutional right.

 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'!"

Okay... two things.

a) That treatment can happen with salaried employee (w/o the extra pay). gak, I've worked in a salaried position where I worked more than 40 hrs, but only got paid the flat 40.

b) It can cost businesses more to only "bank time off" hours than to simply pay time-in-a-half... that's 1 of the major reasons why there's a limit to "earned time off".

*shrugs*

I thing this is fear mongering.

 azazel the cat wrote:
"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'!"

That wouldn't be theoretical and uncertain would it?

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.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
"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'!"

That wouldn't be theoretical and uncertain would it?

No, it's not. 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.

A slippery slope would be if I said "this legislation will open the doors for further legislation to do other things".

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, it's not. 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.

A slippery slope would be if I said "this legislation will open the doors for further legislation to do other things".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom

Your argument is that the small step of introducing this bill will leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect - abuse of workers and implied threats of dismissal. I think that fits the definition quite well

Actually I'm fairly certain that past precedent supports Azazel's situation.

Current conditions support it.

whembly wrote:

 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'!"

Okay... two things.

a) That treatment can happen with salaried employee (w/o the extra pay). gak, I've worked in a salaried position where I worked more than 40 hrs, but only got paid the flat 40.

Are you honestly stuck in the concrete operational stage? The vast majority of jobs are not salaried positions, and even if that weren't the case, a salary pays you a flat rate if you put in only 10 hours as well.

Whembly wrote:b) It can cost businesses more to only "bank time off" hours than to simply pay time-in-a-half... that's 1 of the major reasons why there's a limit to "earned time off".

*shrugs*

I thing this is fear mongering.

You work 50 hours a week. Instead of you being paid 1.5x for the extra ten hours, you are told you can either bank the hours or you're fired (Right to Work state!). But there's a limit to "earned time off", and you've already hit your cap. So you have to bank the hours, but never take them, then they'll expire. Which means your boss just forced you to work for him for free.

*shrugs*

whembly wrote:Am I being a complete idjit here?

Yes.

Right, I know plenty of places that would gladly do that if it meant they could cut down on employees and thus try to bring good news to their shareholders (despite the fact that they're also cutting down on overall productivity in the process-- shareholders are notoriously stupid like that).

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
No, it's not. 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.

A slippery slope would be if I said "this legislation will open the doors for further legislation to do other things".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom

Your argument is that the small step of introducing this bill will leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect - abuse of workers and implied threats of dismissal. I think that fits the definition quite well

This is not a slippery slope:
Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> abuse occurs

That is an example of direct cause-and-effect.

This is a slippery slope:
Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> maybe another bill will be passed that does a thing --> maybe another bill will do another thing --> Hitler clones.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 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'!"

Okay... two things.

a) That treatment can happen with salaried employee (w/o the extra pay). gak, I've worked in a salaried position where I worked more than 40 hrs, but only got paid the flat 40.

Are you honestly stuck in the concrete operational stage? The vast majority of jobs are not salaried positions, and even if that weren't the case, a salary pays you a flat rate if you put in only 10 hours as well.

Uh, no... you can be terminated if you don't show up for work for those other 30 hours.

But no... continue saying Employers are evil... go ahead.

Whembly wrote:b) It can cost businesses more to only "bank time off" hours than to simply pay time-in-a-half... that's 1 of the major reasons why there's a limit to "earned time off".

*shrugs*

I thing this is fear mongering.

You work 50 hours a week. Instead of you being paid 1.5x for the extra ten hours, you are told you can either bank the hours or you're fired (Right to Work state!). But there's a limit to "earned time off", and you've already hit your cap. So you have to bank the hours, but never take them, then they'll expire. Which means your boss just forced you to work for him for free.

*shrugs*

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is not a slippery slope:
Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> abuse occurs

That is an example of direct cause-and-effect.

This is a slippery slope:
Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> maybe another bill will be passed that does a thing --> maybe another bill will do another thing --> Hitler clones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_and_effect

Cause and effect (also written as cause-effect or cause/effect or cause and consequence) refers to the philosophical concept of causality, in which an action or event will produce a certain response to the action in the form of another event.

It is not certain that the response that you proposed will in fact happen, whether or not it comes to pass is dependent of the person in power. Therefore it is uncertain and does not fit the definition. So your claim that it is cause and effect is erroneous. What you have proposed is slippery slope, as shown above.

We are a country where you can be fired for wearing green socks in most states. And people really think that you won't be fired for insisting that you get pay instead of comp-time?

Having any kind of gun law = government will ban all guns and take them from you.
Having a law saying 'don't have to pay overtime is employee is okay with it" =\= at-will employees that are not okay with it being let go

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This is not a slippery slope:
Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> abuse occurs

That is an example of direct cause-and-effect.

This is a slippery slope:
Bill is passed which removes protections from abuse --> maybe another bill will be passed that does a thing --> maybe another bill will do another thing --> Hitler clones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_and_effect

Cause and effect (also written as cause-effect or cause/effect or cause and consequence) refers to the philosophical concept of causality, in which an action or event will produce a certain response to the action in the form of another event.

It is not certain that the response that you proposed will in fact happen, whether or not it comes to pass is dependent of the person in power. Therefore it is uncertain and does not fit the definition. So your claim that it is cause and effect is erroneous. What you have proposed is slippery slope, as shown above.

The reason the overtime laws were passed in the first place is because the employees were not being paid fairly.

It is certain. Not in all cases, but it is certain that some employers will do it.


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

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.

 CptJake wrote:
Yes, but since those are rights guaranteed to each individual by basis of being a citizen, they are a lot harder to get rid of (and rightfully so). To take away a citizens right to vote usually requires that citizen to be convicted of a felony for example.

Per your apparent understanding of rights, you have no right to vote.

 CptJake wrote:

That is all I am saying, Constitutional rights are supposed to be universal to all citizens and apply except in narrowly defined cases. Overtime is just not in that category.

Neither is voting.

 azazel the cat wrote:
The reason the overtime laws were passed in the first place is because the employees were not being paid fairly.

It is certain. Not in all cases, but it is certain that some employers will do it.

You have nothing to substantiate your claim other than a base assertion that is itself uncertain. You have not shown that it is either known for sure; established beyond doubt (the definition of certain). Without that then it remains uncertain.

Also your tone when addressing another member of this community is starting to slip from what might be considered constructive, polite or even "magnanimous". People here have had differences of opinions with you without resorting to the same tone.