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.
Originally posted by blanketgirl
Doesn't there come a point where a person is making enough that it gets silly to pay them more? My company has employees that cost about $80/hour for us to have on overtime (and those are the blue collar carpenters!)
Originally posted by FredT
Originally posted by blanketgirl
Doesn't there come a point where a person is making enough that it gets silly to pay them more? My company has employees that cost about $80/hour for us to have on overtime (and those are the blue collar carpenters!)
Thats part of the point, supply and demand. carpenters get a high rte because thier skills are needed and they are in demand. Just because someone is "blue collar" why can't they earn a decent living part. if you are keeping them above and beyond thier regular work week. I am a registered nurse. My base rate is about 49 an hour. If the hospital req me to work overtime, that puts my rate at around 75 and hour. Am I being overpayed? I think not.
Originally posted by Indy
Blanketgirl I think you are missing the point of this. The idea is to prevent corporate abuse. Without the penalty of overtime they are free to overwork/abuse their staff because they are inept and do not properly staff their workforce. As for voluntary OT. If the company doesn't want to pay OT then don't let your people work it. Its that simple. Don't try and get legislation to cover for your gross incompetence. And if your employees are making more money than you its probably because you are a bad business manager. Again don't blame other people for your own faults. Own up and accept responsibility. Why should a business benefit by overworking their staff? The ONLY person that should benefit is the person being overworked.
Originally posted by blanketgirl
I do understand that point-
But preventing corporate abuse is no more important than preventing individuals from abusing the corporation. (do you understand that?) I believe legislation like this comes up because too many people ARE crossing that line.
When people decide that they want more hours but don't want to get another separate job so they are going to request more hours- the employer shouldn't have to suffer.
Specifically with the employees and OT- it's not that simple. if an employee just clocks in longer than they are supposed to or just doesn't leave the job site on time- would you suggest they just don't get paid if it wasn't okayed? I'm sure that would go over well- NO, you have to pay them the overtime and there really isn't anything you can do... Well, you could fire them then pay them unemployment for the next 6 fiscal quarters... yeah... because that isn't self-defeating!
Originally posted by marg6043
All this comes down to the same thing another way for this administration to give more power to big business, this is not the first time during bush rule that he has benefit the business corporations over the working population in this country.
Originally posted by lmgnyc
That doesn't make sense. The company has the power--they have the ability to fire you and replace you. If you abuse the company (steal, lie etc), they can let you go and the laws are on their side.
Huh? The business owner controls their business--if they can't afford to pay employees more hours, why would they?
This is mismanagement. If your employees are cheating you out of overtime, it is your responsibility to rectify the problem, not creating laws that effect everyone. This has nothing to do with the government. My mother works for Macy's and they are given a set number of hours to work in advance. If they clock out beyond those pre-determined hours, they are reprimanded (and they don't get payed for the extra time unless it was pre-approved.) Too many reprimands, and they are fired. This isn't self-defeating--this is getting rid of employees who are stealing from you.
[edit on 23-8-2004 by lmgnyc]
Originally posted by groingrinder
Overtime ONLY APPLIES TO HOURLY EMPLOYEES. The extremely wealthy are not usually HOURLY EMPLOYEES.
Originally posted by intrepid
Originally posted by groingrinder
Overtime ONLY APPLIES TO HOURLY EMPLOYEES. The extremely wealthy are not usually HOURLY EMPLOYEES.
And they get performance bonuses. When's the last time you got a bonus? This is just another way to keep the working class down.
Originally posted by blanketgirl
In this specific case, they are choosing by themselves to work that overtime, then later they turn in the hours. They do it whenever they need extra money for something- not on company demand and we are required to pay as they worked it.
marge10...:
You are right salary employees do not have to worry about this pay check cut that this administration is doing to middle class Americans.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Also, what makes anyone here think that any employees are entitled to overtime in the first place? Or even a minimum wage? Those aren't rights, they're aspects that have be garnered by labour over the decades. I am certainly not saying that these things should be done away with, and I -really- think its a lot of b/s to tell a nurse who works 70-80 hours a week on 14-15 hour shifts that she isn't allowed to get paid time and a half for any portion of the workweek over 40 hours. These people aren't working because they are greedy, they need the money. If people thought there was a nursing shortage before, well this definitely won't help.
[edit on 23-8-2004 by Nygdan]