It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump wants to eliminate overtime rules

page: 4
103
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Because along with that salary comes a LOT of benefits equivalent to a much higher income. Don't complain about things you don't understand.


Does it? What's stopping a company from paying you 26k, requiring 60 hours a week, and offering no benefits?

Besides that, if they're offering benefits you're not really making 26k. You're making 26k+benefits, which brings your actual compensation to some value above 26k.




posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Trump cares what's good for Trump.

I think he'll be confirming that by his decisions.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell
yes we do but the alternative was a murderous money grubbing crone who loves to give out state secrets to ENEMY STATES like most people give halloween treats. if she made it to oval office here is what would happen she would institute a no fly zone over syria then one of our planes patroling the no fly zone would shoot down a russian plane and kick of war with russia meanwhile her saudi friends would be laughing there asses off. so trump might not be perfect but hell i say lets give the man a chance he was the lesser evil.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Good grief. He doesn't accept Ryan's position. He just wants a carve out for small businesses. Left the way it is, that approach will ensure many of the little guys wont be able to work for themselves or employ others because they can't afford the expense, and force many to work for the larger corporations most of you rail against.


edit on 12-11-2016 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Annee

Good grief. He doesn't accept Ryan's position. He just wants a carve out for small businesses. Left the way it is, that approach will ensure many of the little guys wont be able to work for themselves or employ others because they can't afford the expense, and force many to work for the larger corporations most of you rail against.



You could also flip that around and say that the legislation lets large businesses offer better pay/benefits than small businesses, in turn putting them out of business.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Because along with that salary comes a LOT of benefits equivalent to a much higher income. Don't complain about things you don't understand.


Does it? What's stopping a company from paying you 26k, requiring 60 hours a week, and offering no benefits?

Besides that, if they're offering benefits you're not really making 26k. You're making 26k+benefits, which brings your actual compensation to some value above 26k.


Simple. I can find another company that wants my skills and compensates me better.

This is the part where you say "What if they all screw you over?!?!" or something similar.

Then I laugh and say you have no clue.

Then you try to say something you think is clever but still shows you don't understand running a business.

And I laugh again.

Now that we have fast forwarded, what else do you have?



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Making it more expensive for entrants into the marketplace is always a bad idea. Period. I favor economic policies that encourage competition.

If you want the economic benefit of massively large corporations to trickle down to labor, then fine, I can live with fair wage laws that seek fair compensation to these employees. But, honestly, the real incentive that will create for the 'big guys' is off-shoring to cheaper labor markets or technological innovation to replace human labor altogether.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

You are incorrect. He's never said that and your source seems to be a joke.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Making it more expensive for entrants into the marketplace is always a bad idea. Period. I favor economic policies that encourage competition.


Increased wages make it more expensive too. That doesn't mean we should decrease wages in order for more people to enter the marketplace.



If you want the economic benefit of massively large corporations to trickle down to labor, then fine, I can live with fair wage laws that seek fair compensation to these employees. But, honestly, the real incentive that will create for the 'big guys' is off-shoring to cheaper labor markets or technological innovation to replace human labor altogether.


I see nothing wrong with replacing human labor. It means more leisure time.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Deleting, picture not appearing
edit on 12-11-2016 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I've rarely heard of someone working overtime in the 21st century. Most employers are very strict about the time you clock and make sure you either get zero overtime, or very little.

I get something similar, but it's not the same thing. I'm on salary, but if I work especially long hours to get a project finished, there's small bonuses.

If you work for corporate asshats, or fund these corporate assholes with your pocketbook, that's your own thing. Go get a job with a company that cares about you, and provides you a wage worthy of your skills and talent. Better yet, start up your own company or corporation.

This isn't a knock against Trump. Simplifying the system and getting rid of rules that create artificial environments and inefficient organizations is a step in the right direction.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

I see nothing wrong with replacing human labor. It means more leisure time.


To shoot your meth around a street-corner?

It would be nice to have more leisure-time AND have a basic income, but try to sell that to the policy makers. You would need too much to shift all at once for it to work out. As is, replacing human labor means effectively shrinking the labor pool. Less jobs are being created than are replaced as we move forward. The only solution is to rework the social contract.
edit on 12-11-2016 by SignalMal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
If I work over 40 hours I get time + 1/2 overtime. And I barely want to do the extra work now. If they take away overtime I probably won't work more than 40 hours. We are moderately skilled workers and it isn't easy for them to replace us. Sometimes I work overtime to help the company make the numbers.

This is probably a bunch of made up BS that won't effect me. Trump didn't campaign on this. It won't hurt me, it will only hurt the company if they are foolish enough to try and get more than 40 hours out of me without compensation.

Remember Trump. We're suppose to make more money not less by renegotiating trade deals. Looks like we might have to fire him in 4 years if this is true. First Obama screws up health care even more than it was. Now Trump comes to reduce what little benefits some still have?


edit on 12-11-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: SignalMal

Where do you live? Cause working in both Virginia and Ohio it's been mandatory to sacrifice your life to the company. In fact in the US we work an average of 47 hours per week, which is more hours worked per week than all the other worlds largest economies.

It's #ing BS.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

47hrs a week is not "sacrificing your life". That's barely any overtime. I regularly work a hell of a lot more hours than that through my combined work, but it's all worth it. Heck, my boss doesn't care if I make monies working gigs while officially on the clock. If I get through everything that needs be done, why would he be opposed to me bettering myself over being bored to hell?

There's opportunities out there, but people have to go find them.

I'm willing to bet this "average 47 hours" is coming more from people with multiple jobs, than a single one where overtime would count.
edit on 12-11-2016 by SignalMal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sovaka
It sounds like you guys just have a really pathetic work culture over there.
Stop looking at the Fed as your first problem and look at changing the culture within your workplace.

For example, here in Australia, every company I've worked with and those of my friends and family, if you have set hours, you work ONLY those hours.
If it looks like you are going to go over, you're told to go home.
There is ZERO expectation to work overtime for free.
If you're required to work longer, then you're paid a penalty overtime rate based on your hourly wage.

Not going into taxation laws or living cost references, not too many people want to work more than 38hrs per week here.
If they do, it's usually negotiated with the employer to ensure they get the money they're looking for the hours required.

If your work culture moves away from "suck it up or lose it", you'll likely find a lot of these issues would disappear.
Then you can use that work culture to provide a national force for law reform to allow employers little more freedom to pay employees.


Its not like that here. We have a labor surplus, made worse by immigration.
The worker tries to please the company by going above and beyond. worker should be grateful they have a job kind of thinking. that is the kind of culture here.

most cases of overtime law should be fine and kept the same. the ACA made that overtime argument for low paid irrelevant anyways as most low paid workers have to work less than 30 per employer to keep the employer from having to provide health insurance.
edit on 12-11-2016 by jellyrev because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: SignalMal

It's more than most places in the world and that's AVERAGE which means that's including all the part timers working like 20 hours or so while going to school, or while retired but working a few hours.

I'm sorry but when we're working on average more than all the other major world economies you all with your, "no one's is working #" can all go take a flying #ing leap.

Life is about more than work. You all with your suck it up mentality are destroying everything it means to be a human. Families, friendships, real connections, parents for children, etc. Our countries children are being raised by daycare centers, because you people insist we all work for # all hours of the week for nickles and dimes.

Stop #ing over our country by enabling these monsters. We're working the MOST, there's no excuse for that. How can we both be the land of the FREE and be forced to dedicate MORE of our lives to working like dogs?

We're the land of the free supposedly.

Yet we're number one for incarceration, and when it comes to work of the largest economies we have the least FREE time.

Land of the free my #ing ass.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jellyrev

Here it seems you work for # for part time pay and no benefits, or give up your life working 6 to 7 days a week with benefits.

It's two extremes, and that's your only options.



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Yea... so you lie then make up BS about me.

Good work there, but you're not worth any more efforts.

Work Hours

I'm not going to apologize for not having an issue working a lot of hours and/or being more capable than you.

I'll be semi-retired before the age of 45, no college education, and no complaining BS.

Sorry!
edit on 12-11-2016 by SignalMal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963




Who bled and died from working overtime? Name them!


How about my friend at work who died last week from cancer? He always worked that overtime. I told him he would end up being the richest man in the cemetery and I was right.



new topics

top topics



 
103
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join