Trump wants to eliminate overtime rules

Well, Trump is Pro-Business not Pro-Worker!

You should stand up to your boss if you're consistently working overtime hours. There is a point of being a good employee going above and beyond and being taken advantage of by your employer.

I guess it really all depends on if working your "dream job" and want to move up in the company or trying to start your own thing on the side.

Don't know how much credit you can give to the source, but I feel like you can look at this Trump presidency as a gift to the right after the gift to the left that was Obama.

And the pendulum swings will keep getting higher until something breaks.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

overtime causes cancer now?

a reply to: xuenchen
Without confirmation, I think Trump was addressing the salaried employees overtime. There's a lot of controversy with that Obama regulation.

I agree with both points.

When I first read the write-up on that regulation it struck me as a false assumption that by cutting off an employee at 40 hours an employer would need to hire to fill unmet hours. Business, particularly small business just doesn't work that way.

Had that regulation been in place back when I first began in my career, back when I'd work extra hours as a salaried employee not only because I was eager to learn but also so I could excel, the company could excel, and both would benefit, I'd not own my own business today. Eventually my employer rewarded my work ethic and dedication with 10% annual raises every year for 10 years, and never questioned my early departures or late arrivals. Had it been otherwise, I had the freedom to seek employment elsewhere.

Havn't read but the first page of this, but I doubt anyone would be able to abolish overtime laws. Take away mandotory time and a half, and you'd have half the folks that voted for Trump ready to hang him on the national mall. I'm generally conservative, and could probably get behind alternative methods of compensation for that time and a half like PTO useable at will, extra employer compensation to retirement, or something else of equal value. In most cases it's actually comparable or cheaper to pay time and a half for companies than to hire train and pay insurance for extra employees.Under 45 hours it's probably cheaper to pay the OT as needed than to hire more. Over you should probably be thinking about hiring anyway, because the diminishing return of the worn out employee. There are only 24 hours in a day and 2 of seven days off seems pretty reasonable. We could of course get a tariff passed that punishes imports from countries that don't have comparable overtime laws .

Honestly make mandatory overtime over 8 hours for 3 weeks out of the month illegal and I don't give a # how many hours a person is willing to work, as long as it's not forced.

No one should ever be forced to have no days off a week, it's cruel and unusual punishment in my opinion.

I have no concern for voluntary overtime, people should be allowed to work as much as they want with their employers consent.

Mandatory, however, should have very strict limits, with employers trying to coerce employees to work more than that should be open to fines, lawsuits, etc as worker discrimination.

If a job wants to function 24/7 then, hire more damn people and move your shifts around, there are plenty of ways to do it.

Here's one example, only requires 4 rotating shifts:
1st: 6 Am - 6 Pm, Sunday through Wednesday one week for 48 hours, and Monday through Wednesday the next week for 36 hours.
2nd: 6 Pm - 6 Am, Sunday through Wednesday one week for 48 hours, and Monday through Wednesday the next week for 36 hours.
3rd: 6 Am - 6 Pm, Thursday through Saturday one week for 36 hours, and Thursday through Sunday through Wednesday the next week for 48 hours.
4th: 6 Pm - 6 Am, Thursday through Saturday one week for 36 hours, and Thursday through Sunday through Wednesday the next week for 48 hours.

Yeah 12 hour shifts suck, but everyone always get 3 to 4 days off a week, with at least one day on the weekend and roughly 2 full weekends off per month. You pay 16 hours overtime out as an employer per week, but also 8 hours less regular time. All it takes is hiring one more shift and certainly beats paying for 3 shifts to work 7 days a week.

Just one example, one I personally would be happy with. Company gets maximum productivity and everyone gets to have a life.

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
a reply to: Doctor Smith

overtime causes cancer now?

Excessive stress. Not eating properly. Not enough rest. Eating the wrong foods. pollution. GMO's. etc etc etc. No time or energy to exercise. No time to have a life.

originally posted by: Kettu
All these salaried people saying, "so what".

This would hurt the lower income people the most. People living today have no idea what the people who bled and died for overtime went through. People today have no idea what it would be like if the overtime rules were scrapped.

It's painful, maddening and sad to see how moronic, ignorant, brainwashed our population has become.

Especially the ones that don't realize the thread is about an overtime regulation put in place only two years ago.

Harte

originally posted by: jefwane
Havn't read but the first page of this, but I doubt anyone would be able to abolish overtime laws. Take away mandotory time and a half, and you'd have half the folks that voted for Trump ready to hang him on the national mall. I'm generally conservative, and could probably get behind alternative methods of compensation for that time and a half like PTO useable at will, extra employer compensation to retirement, or something else of equal value. In most cases it's actually comparable or cheaper to pay time and a half for companies than to hire train and pay insurance for extra employees.Under 45 hours it's probably cheaper to pay the OT as needed than to hire more. Over you should probably be thinking about hiring anyway, because the diminishing return of the worn out employee. There are only 24 hours in a day and 2 of seven days off seems pretty reasonable. We could of course get a tariff passed that punishes imports from countries that don't have comparable overtime laws

.

That's the right thinking. Instead of decreasing benefits in the US force them to get up to our standards. No more 'n-word' slaves for the rich. Oh...... I used the "N" word.........Excuse the ##ck out of me.

a reply to: CB328

For sake of argument, let's say Trump does plan on eliminating overtime and nothing in that article was taken out of context, each state has their own laws on wages and hours that apply to employment subject to FLSA. When both the Act and a state law apply, the law setting the higher standard must be observed.

a reply to: CB328

I have only found that info on BS click-bait sites. This thread needs to be put into the hoax forum IMO.

I guess the Left are the ones fearmongering now after months of complaining about the Right fearmongering.

a reply to: CB328
I really don't think you are being honest with us and I'm calling you out. Times are becoming bad enough because of some people not cannot handle the election results and are willing to do whatever they can to agitate and disrupt. Well, we are on to ya.

a reply to: CB328

The overtime rules for what constitutes an "exempt" (salaried) vs non-exempt (hourly) job are silly as it is.

On a personal level, I don't care, as I typically work around 50 hours per week for a salary of $250/week. Most of my pay is commissions and bonuses though. I don't think my employer would care if they had to pay me $75/week overtime. Not really the point, just saying from my standpoint it doesn't matter.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Simple. I can find another company that wants my skills and compensates me better.

No you can't. Not you personally, the you for your field. If you take a higher paying job it just means someone else ends up with the lower paying one. Or alternatively, you stay with the lower paying job and someone else takes the higher paying one. Someone is always going to be on the bottom though.

People are going to fall into the range of jobs employers have available, which means that some people are going to be in the bottom x%. Potentially being able to improve your own individual situation does nothing to change that. It can only be changed by altering what employers are willing to pay. Either through market adjustments or through legislation.

Yeah....

Overtime laws are outdated like Glass-Steagall was...

We all are still living with the consequences of deciding to get rid of that "outdated" legislation...

I never even knew you had rules like this in the US.

I live in the UK and we have no rule saying that an employer has to pay enhanced rates for overtime.
Almost all do though, because most people will just say no otherwise.

A proper free market solution.

a reply to: Aazadan

No you can't. Not you personally, the you for your field. If you take a higher paying job it just means someone else ends up with the lower paying one. Or alternatively, you stay with the lower paying job and someone else takes the higher paying one. Someone is always going to be on the bottom though. People are going to fall into the range of jobs employers have available, which means that some people are going to be in the bottom x%. Potentially being able to improve your own individual situation does nothing to change that. It can only be changed by altering what employers are willing to pay. Either through market adjustments or through legislation.

That is a very limited view of the economy. You are assuming people are stuck in one type of job. Lets say you are working in a tire factory for minimum wage. The shoe factory across the street is paying more. You would apply to the shoe factory. If enough people do that, then the tire factory won't have enough employees to make tires. They will raise their rate of pay to get some back. That is how a free market works. There is always a better alternative, and if you are too lazy to look for it, you deserve to make minimum wage. The responsibility for your life and rate of pay is entirely yours. you are not forced to work for anyone. When the government gets involved, it always makes it worse.

originally posted by: bill3969
That is a very limited view of the economy. You are assuming people are stuck in one type of job.

Skills take time to learn, your specific job duties can change a bit from company to company, but people do get shoehorned into one type of job. Being on the bottom rung of a tire factory and a shoe factory isn't any different in terms of the skills it requires.

What your example misses though is that if the tier factory increases it's wages to above minimum wage, it means another company is reducing their wages to minimum wage, and you still end up with a group in the same place.

That is how a free market works. There is always a better alternative, and if you are too lazy to look for it, you deserve to make minimum wage. The responsibility for your life and rate of pay is entirely yours. you are not forced to work for anyone. When the government gets involved, it always makes it worse.

Free markets are a competition. Competitions are designed to create losers. Therefore there isn't always a better alternative, you can and will lose at times. Spread across the population, that means a portion of the population is always losing.

a reply to: Aazadan

What your example misses though is that if the tier factory increases it's wages to above minimum wage, it means another company is reducing their wages to minimum wage, and you still end up with a group in the same place.

No. As the tire company fills jobs, then the shoe company needs workers, and they raise wages. Until the point the economy can't go any higher. Companies are always in competition to maintain a good workforce. This is not a zero sum game, just because one goes up, doesn't mean another has to go down.

Free markets are a competition. Competitions are designed to create losers. Therefore there isn't always a better alternative, you can and will lose at times. Spread across the population, that means a portion of the population is always losing.

Wrong again. It is not that kind of competition. The people always win, in better jobs and wages. Sometimes companies loose and go out of business. Generally it is because of poor products or services, or someone else provided them for cheaper or were better. Thus the market is always fluid and improving. The basic trick to this upwards movement is having more jobs available than people. That is the natural state of capitalism. The problems always come when government tries to interfere with the system, and artificially control an aspect of it. We haven't seen a real capitalist system in over 100 years. It was the system which gave us our current prosperity, but we are riding the coat tails of a once great system.

a reply to: CB328

I love how everyone is kicking and screaming about cutting back on the government agencies that ARE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB!!!

They are all corrupt, and do not operate how they are intended. Our education system is in shambles, and people are complaining about an overhaul?

GIVE ME A BREAK!

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: CB328

I love how everyone is kicking and screaming about cutting back on the government agencies that ARE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB!!!

They are all corrupt, and do not operate how they are intended. Our education system is in shambles, and people are complaining about an overhaul?

GIVE ME A BREAK!

I wonder what the PISA tests will say about that. We'll know in a month.