It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Trump wants to eliminate overtime rules

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 03:35 PM

originally posted by: bill3969Generally 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 best products aren't the most successful. The most competitive ones are. The most competitive products are generally the ones that require repeat purchases. The best products are the ones that last a lifetime.

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 04:24 PM
a reply to: Kettu

He definitely has something like that in mind from what I've been reading, I'd better do a bit more digging on his economic policy.

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 04:30 PM
There are so many companies going to contract labor now it isn't funny. You do not get vacation pay, holiday pay, overtime pay, employee paid half of Social Security deductions, or health insurance. There is usually no retirement benefit either. The pay they give does not reflect the difference in what they save on those things. It sounds good but most times you are loosing out from what the employer used to supply.

Our country has been going backwards for about eight years and people can't even comprehend it is happening. Regular workers don't usually know what all those benefits add up to, they get five bucks an hour more and think it is great. Trump did not start this slide, it has been going on since the crash in 08 when Obama took over. He did nothing to help us with this either.

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 04:46 PM

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: seasonal
The Nations academic scores have plummeted since this department was created.

That's ironic. But not unexpected given the effect of bureaucracy. I remember a 7th grade science teacher I had, this saying he lived by and taught in class at the start of the science. He wrote this on the board. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.

And it went right in line with what a 3rd grade teacher taught. This big Italian geography teacher with his giant beard. He said always go with your first pick on a multiple choice test. Most of the time it will be right. Only when you try to select a different answer with too much analytical thinking you pick the second answer and get it wrong.

This over analytical thinking is exactly the problem that the bureaucracies like the DOE get into. And it what drives the failure.

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 05:11 PM
We should work 32.

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 06:14 PM

originally posted by: Doomsday1290
We should work 32.

Lots of people are. My wife, for example. Not because she wants to, but because Obama regulations make it too expensive for her to work more than that.

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 07:36 PM

originally posted by: CB328
Inside an article about Trump's economic plans is mentioned that he wants to eliminate overtime laws for employers. What that means for workers is not only that people could work long hours for less pay, but also an end to the 40 hour work week. It has been pointed out before that the overtime requirements for employees working more than 40 hours a week are a big incentive for employers to not overwork their employees. If you take away the threat of having to pay more money per hour, what incentive is there for companies to not overwork their people?

In Japan so many people die from overwork that they invented a word for it. The same thing could happen in the US if Republicans have their way, and most likely they will.

Anybody who actually works in the low/middle class work force, slash anybody who actually employs these people should understand that this is a good thing.

Prime example; I used to work for homedepot here in Manatee County, Bradenton FL -- and 85% of the employees at the store were required to be "Part Time" employees. With that said, we were all limited to working 30 hours a week. Do you know what home depot did? Worked me every day of the week for 2-6 hour shifts. I could have worked my entire 25 hour work week in three 8 hour shifts, yet they had me on the schedule 7 days in a row. Then made me work 62 hours, 7 days straight, but they put me on the schedule in a way that half of the hours technically fell in the previous pay period, which made it look like I only worked for 30 hours, when I did indeed work double that. All of these laws and regulations are precisely the reason why labor is undervalued and people are working way harder for less pay. If they didn't have to work me part time because they couldn't afford the potential time and a half, than I would have made tremendously more money and had much better schedules.

So basically what home depot did, was force me to work overtime without paying me overtime. That's what mandatory overtime laws do. It sounds good on paper, you go yeah -- if someone works over 40 hours, time and a half is great for them -- but the reality is, they end up working the same hours and just get beat on the money anyway -- the company favorites get shifted into overtime and make all the money.

The more regulations the government puts on business, the more expensive it is for the business to operate, so that raises costs, which lowers wages. What the average american doesn't realize is -- that a company is putting in bids for employees, and each employee is their own business selling their labor. So in a totally free market, you can leave home depot and go to someone else who bids higher for your labor. When the market is constricted with regulations, all businesses have the same cost increase, which means that Lowe's can't offer you more than Home depot, and that causes STAGNATION.

If I were Trump; I'd author an official educational series that explains how the world works at the macro level and make all of that information available for free, because the number one hurdle to economics is poor educational awareness on how it all works, and the causes and effects of regulation policy.

We need to take the power away from government and give it back to the people. I need to be able to quit when a wage isn't competitive, but I can't, because the general reason the wage isn't competitive is the same reason why the alternate job can't offer me a competitive wage also. So it boils down to there being no actual difference to the employee between Home Depot and it's Competitor Lowes.

Free market only works when it's free, regulations are the anti-thesis of free market. Regulations are literally what turn Capitalism [which is proven to work] into Crony Capitalism [which is proven not to work.]

edit on 13-11-2016 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 08:30 PM

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Lots of people are. My wife, for example. Not because she wants to, but because Obama regulations make it too expensive for her to work more than that.

If she wants to work more, she could always take a paycut. Work for the same wage, over a longer time. That's what repealing these overtime regulations will end up doing.

And before you say I don't know what I'm talking about, I know exactly what regulations you're referring to. They mandate overtime on lower paid salary employees. Where the employees before were clocking say 50 hours a week (with pay, but no overtime bonus), their companies are now capping them at 40 because they can't pay the overtime. So the person sees a reduction in their income of 20%.

There's another side to this though. Many of us don't want to see our work week increase out of the expectation that there's more work to be done. If a company has 60 hours of work for a position, we would rather see it split 40/20 between two people.

We don't live to work, or live to serve the company. Even people who want their company to succeed have limits. It shouldn't become an expectation that we put in 50, 60, or 70 hours a week for a company for a linear reward.

It reminds me of another poster here, who thinks everyone is lazy. His company has had an on call position open for over a year now, paying 80k to start, and he thinks it's ridiculous that no one will fill it. Never mind the fact that it's still 40 hours/week in addition to 24/7 on call. If you want to make those types of demands on peoples time, pay them properly for it and someone will accept.

The US already has one of the longest work weeks in the world, out of developed countries only the Japanese work longer than we do. We don't need to be making it even longer.

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:33 AM
America is being broken up and news medias isn't making it any better. Many Americans will not accept a Donald Trump Presidency, and thus is protesting for Impeachment. Even white supremacists will be surprised how Mr. Trump won't keep campaign promises, and will seem as if he is continuing the agenda of those before him. Countless white supremacists claim that they don't care if he brings in the New World Order. They only care that a caucasian President is sitting within the White House. Infact, many caucasians feel empowered since the White House is to be occupied by caucasians only. All throughout the north and southeastern regions of the U.S., many caucasians swear that they were in fear of President Obama's rein due to feeling that he would try and destroy them! White supremacists everywhere feel so empowered that they are threatening the lives of young minority women and men. They claim that when Trump finally gets into the White House they'll kill each and every minority who isn't tied into freemasonry. Presently, in Pennsylvania white supremacists feel so empowered that they are riding in the vehicles and is either shooting at minorities, throwing bottles, rocks, or other things at them, or is yelling racial epithets out the windows. Several hispanics have been revealing that in Newark and New Castle, Delaware, caucasian motorists screams out of car windows claiming the time is coming for the white race to kill all who isn't caucasian! Keep your eyes on Mike Pence.

One female hispanic cried saying, "our race turned against blacks for you; we spied and snitched on them, and now you have turned against us?" "You won't defeat the hispanic race white people, because we will burn this country to the ground!" There is alot of stuff that is going on in Pennsylvania right now. Countless people feel betrayed and is trying to overthrow the government. The globalists are working hard to ignore the will of the people. If you think the people have spoken and the victory of Trump is secure, you may want to think about the weapons and loopholes the globalists can use to thwart those who have decided to vote down their tyrannical coup de tat. Let this be a warning to all. Our election wasn’t just an election for the people of the United States, it was also a strike against the globalist world order, a strike that has resulted in the apoplexy of those who are ill informed, and are now acting out on their confused inner dialogue. The globalists will commit themselves to hijacking and thwarting the will of the people. We need to prepare ourselves for the possibility no matter how unlikely it may appear to be. Regardless of how Americans feel about a Trump victory, and regardless of what Trump has promised about standing up to the globalists, there is a darker sense of foreboding that something is afoot. Just after Americans elected Donald Trump as our president elect, there was a story that came out of the United Kingdom that set off an alarm.

The story from the BBC warned that there would be riots in England if Parliament vetoed the people’s choice to exit from the European Union. Nigel Farage, the interim leader of the U.K. Independence Party, has warned of civil unrest in Britain if citizens feel they have been cheated over the result of the Brexit referendum. His comments come after a court ruled that the entire U.K. parliament must vote on whether the country can start the process of leaving the European Union. This has dealt a blow to Prime Minister Theresa May, who had argued the government on its own could trigger Article 50, and start the divorce with the European Union. May’s stance had led to concerns that lawmakers at the heart of the U.K. government would opt and force through a so-called hard Brexit without the consent of Parliament. A hard Brexit scenario would likely mean a loss of access to the EU’s single market, but more control over its immigration policy. Farage has argued against staying a member of this single market and is now concerned that the country is heading for a half Brexit. Now why should we be concerned about this? Because Donald Trump’s victory as President has sent a message to the globalists that we as Americans want a divorce from world controls. Trump has stated that he will make America great again by putting it first and limiting relationships with NATO and the United Nations. This defiance and the majority of votes for Trump are being compared to the U.K. vote against the European Union, or the Brexit.

Comparatively speaking, this is a great analogy. Donald Trump’s win on Election Day has been likened to Britain’s stunning vote to leave the European Union, but bigger. Trump said in the past the Brexit vote as a harbinger to his winning the presidency, drawing a parallel to the raucous British debate over whether the United Kingdom, should leave the European Union, despite warnings from elites that such a move would be a mistake. Trump called his candidacy, Brexit plus, saying that just as a populist movement in Britain led to the vote to leave the E.U., so too would a similar spirit land him the White House. His argument was dismissed as nonsense by his critics. Now, the parallels need to be reexamined again including the same possibility that Trump’s victory could be vetoed by the Electoral College. Now, we admit this is unlikely, but it is not impossible, and historically, we have seen attempts to overthrow decisions of the people before. The Electoral College has comes under fire from scholars and popular pundits alike. The fiasco in Florida in the wake of the 2000 election offered a short-term window into the important role which the Electoral College plays in the presidential selection process. The coverage of the count and recount, the historical Supreme Court decision that gave the election to George W. Bush and numerous stories about the constitutional role of the House of Representatives offered a civics lesson that few knew previously.

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 12:34 AM
It is important to remember, or perhaps simply to recognize, the United States is not a democracy, but rather a republic. As it relates to the Electoral College, the distinction means that voters are not voting for the presidential candidates themselves, but rather for a representative to vote on their behalf when the members of the Electoral College meet about a month after the presidential election to officially determine the winner. There is an often overlooked aspect of the Constitution and that is the Framers of the Constitution did not trust the voting masses to make good decisions. This is evident throughout, but very clearly in the electoral design of both the Senate and the president. The Framers created an Electoral College, or, at least in theory, a group of well-informed statesmen to act as a protective wall between the electorate and the selection of the presidency. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 68, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation” who “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. Sadly, for the first time in American history, the Electoral College is now seeing what is happening with the people, and the division the outcome of this election has caused. They are now being encouraged to validate its original mission: to prevent the election of an individual who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications, with the talents for low intrigue. Faithless Electors are members of the Electoral College, who, for whatever reason, do not vote for their party’s designated candidate.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 157 faithless electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast its votes. Three of the votes were not cast at all as three electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The other 82 electoral votes were changed on the personal initiative of the elector. Sometimes electors change their votes in large groups, such as when 23 Virginia electors acted together in 1836. Many times, however, these electors stood alone in their decisions. As of the 2004 election, no elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against his or her party’s designated candidate. Keep in mind that just because the media has called the election one way does not mean that that’s actually the outcome of the election. Twenty states do not legally require their electors to vote for the candidate who receives the most votes. However, in a literal sense, those electors would be following the original intent of the framers, and view their role as voting for the good of the country and not vote merely along party lines. Elements of the Democratic Party have not given up. There is a concerted effort, to convince Republican-pledged Electoral College Electors to switch their votes to Hillary Clinton. With 20 Electoral College votes still up for grabs it is conceivable that Hillary would need to “flip” just 21 of Trump’s 290 pledged votes to take the Presidency. The #NeverTrump movement may come back into play on December 19th, when the Electoral College votes.

Though Clinton officially conceded the race to Trump the morning after his reported win, a concession is not legally binding. During the 2000 election Al Gore conceded to George Bush on the night of the election, only to begin court proceedings a few short hours later to contest the results and initiate recounts. John Podesta took the podium after the Trump win and smugly said that Hillary would not concede. He bemused; "We can wait a little longer, can’t we? They’re still counting votes and every vote should count. Several states are too close to call so we’re not going to have anything more to say tonight." He was hinting at a Plan B, ironically, the media asked Trump if he would accept the election results, insinuating that he was going to lose. Now that he has won, the riots that are happening indicates the other side refuses to accept the results of the election. has already filed a petition asking members of Red States Electoral College to turn on the will of the people of their state and cast a vote for Hillary instead of Trump. Now keep in mind this is constitutionally legal. It has happened before however none of those faithless votes ever resulted in a significant shift in the election. Electors are bound by most states to cast the vote for their pledged party and failure to do so comes with fines and, in some cases, jail time. The election is definitely not over until the electoral votes are cast on December 19. If Hillary can flip 10 votes, we may see the will of the people ignored again.

This is seen as subterfuge in a way to forge a coup d’etat before Trump even takes office on January 20th 2017. There have been attempts at overthrowing a presidency before in this country. In the 1930’s a group of wealthy industrialists had been plotting to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the Marine Corps most highly decorated generals, Smedley Darlington Butler, was asked to head up an Army of 500,000 men to do the job. He refused. It was a Nazi Plot where Wall Street interest threatened to overthrow the government. They were a front called the American liberty League and those who supported it were several major companies including Heinz, Maxwell house Coffee, Colgate, U.S. Steel, and General Motors. The chief organizer was Prescott Bush. Now you have been given your dark civics lesson. Considering how big a lead Trump has, who the electors are, how their votes are counted, and hundreds of years of American democratic norms, statistics point to this being a liberal left fantasy play. But, it’s never been tested, and the Constitution gives the electors the right to make the final call. The dark question is whether or not the comparison of Brexit and Trump will play out to a vetoing of the will of the people. If electors should simply choose to make Hillary Clinton president, this would be tremendously dangerous for American democracy if it ever gained popularity.

Furthermore, electors overturning Trump particularly would certainly cause a constitutional crisis, because there is no world in which the Republican Party, who again, controls Congress, would accept Clinton taking the presidency in this way. So, is now encouraging what would be considered a call for destroying American democracy, at least so far as it relates to presidential election results. People are already asking for his impeachment before Trump can even get the chance to do anything, without any clear idea of what his potential for making real change is. Do we really want civil war in America?

November 14, 2016

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:07 AM
Overtime laws are killing businesses and employees at the same time. Many of our people would love to get extra hours but are restricted by stupid laws - at the same time we need to hire people to fill the required time and run them through the same expensive training program. It's a burden on both parties short and long term.

I am Ok with the law protecting certain workers based on their income-law like exempt Vs non-exempt status when you have a certain level of income but overtime protection doesn't work well in our modern times.

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 01:42 AM
a reply to: CB328

Has anyone compiled any evidence that employees are happier with their salary in places with overtime regulations than those without overtime regulation. Once again we have guess-based politics pretending people know when they don't.

Never mind its a violation of peoples private business life to control their work for any specific number of hours any any specific wage. Actually if it isn't your money, it isn't your business. Literally. Its literally none of your business what my contract is between me and the businesses I want to work for.

So not only are you violating people's property rights, but you are doing so without justification in the first place. We do not have civilization at all with that kind of process. No justification and after decades of this policy, did anyone bother to find out if it you know, worked or something?
edit on 14-11-2016 by fractal5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 02:19 AM
Hmmm, some interesting replies to this thread. At first glance I expected everyone to be opposed to eliminating overtime, but to my surprise many make arguments to the contrary.

In my experience, eliminating overtime causes further exploitation of low skilled workers. Applying this to high skilled workers is not really apt, as the scarcity/uniqueness of high skilled workers allows them the luxury to dictate how much they work and what services they will provide for their employer. However, low skilled workers are at the mercy of the employer. Their positions can be filled with a 1,000 others lined up right behind them, just waiting to take their place.

Salary is usual something that only applies to high skilled workers so overtime changes are irrelevant to them.

In a society where the employee has the power and can pick and choose the job they like (or more to the point, no job at all), a reduction in regulations favouring employers is not such a bad idea. The society we have is a far cry from that one. Employees have little to no power as it is, so further stripping away these protections is sheer lunacy. All that will happen is that more people will be forced to work longer hours for less.

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 03:44 AM
oops posted in wrong thread!
edit on 14-11-2016 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 07:47 AM
I'm ok with this. I don't like overtimecwork anyway

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 07:51 AM

originally posted by: Firsttimer
I'm ok with this. I don't like overtimecwork anyway

It's not eliminating overtime work. It's eliminating overtime pay. Because some people want to work for over 40 hours for their company for no additional reward beyond their usual rate.

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 07:54 AM
a reply to: Aazadan

So you were able to find a source that Trump want's to remove overtime pay?

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 09:29 AM

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Aazadan

So you were able to find a source that Trump want's to remove overtime pay?

No, but it's something that many (especially people in midwest states) have been wanting for awhile now. At issue is some regulations that went into effect a couple years ago that mandate overtime pay is given for working over 40 hours a week. People want the option of working at a regular wage, but the current laws take that option away.

It's seen as one of the bigger regulations that need repealed for small businesses so they can thrive.

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:03 AM

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: CB328

Care to back your statement up with a better source or are you just trolling because your angry?

The GOP have all branches of GOV. You should reserve your vitriol for those in to your question..

TRUMP: "We have to address the issues of over-taxation and over-regulation and the lack of access to credit markets to get our small business owners thriving again. Rolling back the overtime regulation is just one example of the many regulations that need to be addressed to do that.

Don't want to pay more workers overtime? Trump's election is good for you

Trump and Clinton differ on overtime rule

Presidential Election Will Decide Fate of Overtime Rule

* I intentionally provided HR and Benefits sources...not news spin, but people planning payroll and regulations under Trump.
edit on 14-11-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 14 2016 @ 11:04 AM
a reply to: raymundoko

Hell yes...Does your computer have an internet search function?

Both he and his advisors have been clear about it.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in