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.


Bush ends 60-year-old law pay time-and-a-half for overtime

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:54 PM
Oh, yeah, and as a Veteran, the whole no overtime for specialties learned in the military is an abomonible insult to anyone who served.

Obviously, Bush thinks, since we work ungodly amounts of overtime in the military, we wont be too bothered by doing the same in civilian life. WRONG.

As much as working 12-18 hours+ a day in the army with the same monthly paycheck was interesting, lemme point out a few things.

In the military, we have to be trained to work constantly no matter what, since the purpose of our work and mission is one that never sleeps. We know this when we go in, our whole lives are controlled and regulated by our superiors, which is simply one aspect of military living. Though working so much overttime is not fun, we also know its part of our job, something we know the necessity of. Our cause is a noble and just one: defending America, and thus, working a few days in a row with no sleep is justified.

However, in the civilian world, well...........who are we working for? private citizens who want to get rich. fair enough. Ill help you get rich. But you had better be prepared to compensate me for all the time and pain I spend making you rich. This includes when my employer makes me stay more hours after work to do something. Time i could be spending at school learning a trade, at home with my family and friends, or out on the town enjoying some relaxation and fun.

So while I did not mind sacrificing extra hours fro uncle sam with no extra compensation, I sure as hell dont feel the same generosity towards a guy who wants to make even more money at my expense.

Just because veterans labored and worked hard in the military defending thier home, does not mean were so nice we wanna do the same for Bill Gates.

When we become civilians again, we should reap the same rewards from civilian employers.

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
When we become civilians again, we should reap the same rewards from civilian employers.

When we become civilians again to reap same rewards? We get VA loans, get to go to the PX to buy groceries at cost (tax free) amoung other things.
Civies don't get this option.

[edit on 5/9/04 by Intelearthling]

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:14 PM
Intelearthling ,

how many sweatshops do you own and how many illegals have got in your books?

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 10:20 PM
Must be a state thing because a company I used to work at had required overtime. My state doesn't seem to be a very worker friendly state. They sell out to big business any chance they get.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Labor laws state that a person is not required (in my state) to work over 40 hrs. a week. But that's not a decent living unless you're making over a grand a week. Two bedroom with one bath is $900-$1000 a month around here. To me, that's ridiculous for a working family.

[edit on 5/9/04 by Intelearthling]

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:06 PM
The thing is this will have a really bad effect on the economy too besides the lowered wages, companies will utilize making their employees work more overtime for the reason being that the more overtime they make their already (if their lucky) insured worker work more hours thus saving themselves the money for the employee they are not hiring because they would have to pay benefits. Due to so many being out of work many will work the overtime due to being job loss scared.

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:14 PM
This is a sad state of affairs - & a disgrace to America too, I might add.It's so easy to say that unions have outlived their usefulness, but totally wrong. People once died for the right to form. & belong to, unions. Of course unions ask for the sky - they know full well they won't get it, their claims are never met, but they hope that even a percentage of them will be. And without unions, what rights, what safety standards, would ever have been granted to workers? That's right - a big fat zero.

Same thing is happening in Oz as we become more & more "Americanised" to the detriment of the working class. Only 20% unionism here now, we're working longer hours, we've adopted US "working on contract", & the incidence of both parents working F/T & spending less & less time with their kids as a result, this figure is rising constantly. This "lucky country" has disgraceful poverty figures too, they're irrelevant to this topic in hand for which I'm thankful - I'd be ashamed to quote them.

I'd no idea the US poverty figures were so high

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 02:19 AM
If Bush had his way workers would pay for the privilege of working.

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Intelearthling
How many people has to work a second job to make ends meet?

How does cutting their pay help?

How many families has both parents working to pay bills?

How does cutting their pay help?

How many workers are getting to work any overtime in the first place?

Well, according to the law, anyone who works more than 40hrs a week at one job........

How many small business owners out there would like to have their workers work a little bit of overtime to meet deadlines, but can't afford to pay the overtime because premiums on group insurance, workmans compensation, unemployment insurance, the higher cost of raw materials, and all overhead has skyrocketed in the last 10 years?

Why shouldn't the workers be compensated for providing the labor that lets that business owner meet the deadline? Why does the owner have the right to receive benefits for a job requiring extra work, but the worker who actually performs the work that allows the owner to produce ANYTHING doesn't?

How many people has wanted to work extra hours on their first job to get a little bit of extra income, even if it's for straight time, but are refused because laws that are already in place prevents it?

Maybe they could just apply for one of those many many jobs you see in the paper?

How many people would like to see lower prices on U.S. manufactured goods, to where they may compete with influx of imports, and may become more affordable?

How many would just like to make enough in wages to let them buy those goods regardless of where they are made? How does cutting their wages help this?

How many people out there is not looking at the big picture, that this law will benefit us down the road?

How many people would be working 60hr weeks in sweatshop conditions if it wasn't for laws like this?

How many people aren't willing to sacrifice a little luxury for a stronger economy?

Good idea, lets start with the people with the most to give- the corp execs making in excess of 10mil a year, while complaining about having to pay their workers (who by the way actually MAKE the items they are selling) minimum wage.

I've always known that one day this type of action would have to happen for our benefit, because the average "American" has gotten lazier (look at the beltline and the problem with obesity), developed the mentality that we have to "keep up with Jones's", and our "give me something for nothing" attitudes has finally caught up with all of us.

Ah, a new diet! Just get fired and you'll lose weight!

We can keep going like we're going and suffer even more in the future or start sacrificing now so things will start to change for the better.

Like I said, good idea! Lets start with the people who have the most to give!

Edit: screwed up the quotes again, d**n it!

[edit on 9/6/2004 by Montana]

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:38 AM
I didn't realize the importance of the cuts, till i remembered its labour day!

Any way...

look here to see what Greg Palast has drummed up on this topic:

Check out the part where the Labout Dept. actually shown employers how to pay workers LESS!

Happy labour day!

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 12:40 PM
To tell ya the truth, I'm kinda glad GW is putting all his effort into foreign affairs. Can you imagine the damage he would do if he was concentrating on the domestic side?

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in