Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

HR 1406 Your tax dollars at work...... making sure you can't make anything extra.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MilesTeg


(1) GENERAL RULE- An employee may receive, in accordance with this subsection and in lieu of monetary overtime compensation, compensatory time off at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by this section.
Source: www.govtrack.us...

Emphasis mine

It extends the time and a half rule to comp time as well as paid overtime.

TheRedneck




posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Yes! Only the business owner and the ones spending your tax dollars benefit. The working man/woman that puts in the extra hours, effectively making money for the business owner, gets the shaft no matter how you look at it. The only people that will be unaffected are people that work 40 or less hours. So in a sense you would be better off working up to 40 hours and then going home...... BUT factories DO NOT operate on a 40 hour a week basis. There are times that a factory worker has to work 6 or 7 days a week for months. And you do not get an option of not coming in. You work those 6 or 7 days or you look for another job.

Once again, the single parent or only bread winner in the family that depends on time and a half overtime pay gets screwed. You will not convince me that anything about HR1406 benefits the common man. You can, however, convince me that you have no clue as to what's going on in your microcosm of a world.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


AS CHOSEN BY THE EMPLOYER. YOU DON'T GET A CHOICE. YOUR EMPLOYER CHOOSES FOR YOU.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MilesTeg
 


Yes that is the impression I got from the bill, the wording as usual with this bills is open interpretations, sadly not for the worker but for the bosses, if you have a good employer that respect you as a worker he will do his or her best to keep you happy and productive and will not short hand you, but sadly that is not the same with the majority in this country, after all we are a "capitalistic" economy

Still I found more on who is behind the bill, who opposed and given reasons and who was Interestinglying it was more lobbying for opposition than for the bill

$13,480,198 lobbying went for political candidates pro bill

$21,921,068 lobbying against the bill

On the link provided it shows how much money each individual politicians got before and during the passing of the bill

Groups for the bill, and big political donors



Restaurants & drinking establishments

Food stores

Electrical contractors

Hotels & motels

Health, Education & Human Resources

Special trade contractors

Builders associations

Retail trade

General business associations

Funeral services

Food & Beverage Products and Services

Commercial printing & typesetting

Chambers of commerce

Wholesale trade

Manufacturing

Small business associations (split)


Against the bill




Democratic/Liberal

Women's issues

Teachers unions

Manufacturing unions

State & local govt employee unions

Abortion policy/Pro-Choice

Food service & related unions

Federal employees unions

Commercial service unions

Minority/Ethnic Groups

Gay & lesbian rights & issues

Elderly issues/Social Security

Labor Unions

Children's rights [About]

Churches, clergy & religious organizations

Welfare & Social Work

Health & welfare policy

Other unions

Human Rights

Consumer groups

Small business associations (split)


maplight.org...




edit on 13-5-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MilesTeg
 


Yes you are right,!!!!!!!!!!!! occurs sugar coated into making sure "you get the forced flexibility proposal" or else, you can get fired.




posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I like this.

Not sure how it will ultimately play out though.
I once had a job where we worked 65 hours a week for over a year straight (I left the job so have no idea how long the "mandatory overtime " went on-) 6 days a week for a year can kill you. There was no choice in the matter as it was "mandatory".

My Family life suffered . I had tons of money but was far too tired to spend it. I missed parent/teacher conference and for a year I was just the guy who left in the morning, came home at night and slept.

I love OT. I really do.... But some of these employers kill you with it.

I also had a job which had a program in place like this through the Union. Anytime you worked on a Sunday (it wasnt just for OT though) you would get 2 paid hours off for each hour worked (if you had 40 hours or more on the Sunday you worked) but you still had to get the time off approved and had to use at least a half day at a time... Worked GREAT.

-But we will see... Right now nobody I know is getting OT (which is funny they pass this NOW) as everyones hours seem to be hovering around 26 or they are paid "salary"...



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MilesTeg

Can I get some more context? "As chosen by the employer" appears in which section?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Sadly it will play into the hands of temployer no you the worker.

Republicans’ comp-time bill: More work, less pay, This is how is been sold by the proponents


H.R. 1406, named the “Working Families Flexibility Act,” would give employers the ability to avoid paying time-and-a-half overtime wages by offering compensatory time off, to be taken at the employer’s discretion. The bill’s proponents say workers get to choose between comp time and overtime pay, hence the “flexibility.” It passed the House on Wednesday 223-204 on a mostly party-line vote, with all six Democratic House members from Washington State voting “no.”


This is what the bill really do


H.R. 1406 does not allow workers to choose when they take comp time. That would be up to management. They say employers could simply refuse to schedule the comp time and pay the wages owed at the end of the year, amounting to employees giving a no-interest loan to their employer. But more importantly, opponents say workers who choose to keep their overtime pay could see their hours cut or be fired and would have no legal recourse


www.thestand.org...

If you work for a good company that respect you as a worker you are ok, but if you work for an all for profit employer he or she now can short hand you at will.
edit on 13-5-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I have the dubious honor of working for an employer who offers both options. When working a project last year that required a measly two or three hours of OT for a few weeks in a row, my boss suggested I opt for comp time. I said no thanks. She offered again a week later. Then again, a week after that. Finally, all of my overtime opportunities vanished. Of course the boss is a woman who openly fondles her breast in front of others so, fwiw etc...



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Look...... I know it isn't written in a context so that you understand what it means. They don't want us to understand it. It is implied. You can dispute me all you want and say you don't see the downside. Ostrich syndrome is common among the American people.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Sadly it will play into the hands of temployer no you the worker.

Republicans’ comp-time bill: More work, less pay, This is how is been sold by the proponents


H.R. 1406, named the “Working Families Flexibility Act,” would give employers the ability to avoid paying time-and-a-half overtime wages by offering compensatory time off, to be taken at the employer’s discretion. The bill’s proponents say workers get to choose between comp time and overtime pay, hence the “flexibility.” It passed the House on Wednesday 223-204 on a mostly party-line vote, with all six Democratic House members from Washington State voting “no.”


This is what the bill really do


H.R. 1406 does not allow workers to choose when they take comp time. That would be up to management. They say employers could simply refuse to schedule the comp time and pay the wages owed at the end of the year, amounting to employees giving a no-interest loan to their employer. But more importantly, opponents say workers who choose to keep their overtime pay could see their hours cut or be fired and would have no legal recourse


www.thestand.org...

If you work for a good company that respect you as a worker you are ok, but if you work for an all for profit employer he or she now can short hand you at will.
edit on 13-5-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

Thanks- I do NOT like this then...At all.
If it were the choice of the employee to either take the time off (even thought he time off would have to be approved through management) or the OT pay- I would totally support this.

-As it stands you are correct. Thanks.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MilesTeg
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Time and a half pay. That's what I'm talking about. No more time and a half pay for working more hours. It completely removes time and a half pay.


No it doesn't and you should seriously read the bill before you comment on it because your understanding of it seems to be 180 degrees off of the reality of the bill. It effectively moves workman's comp into a law which all workers will have available to them. Historically, workman's comp has just been a benefit to unionized laborers. It doesn't eliminate time & a half, it enhances time and a half, giving any employee who has worked overtime the option of either taking 1.5X their hourly pay or 1.5 hours of paid time off per hour worked.

You ripped a member above because their work in the performance industry "doesn't represent real world" work... have you ever had a real world job? Usually you earn between 1 and 2 weeks off per year when you first start a job. People have long loved to complain about how little time off they actually get... well, under this law a worker can realistically triple the available time off to them by investing just 3 hours of OT per week. It amuses me because, usually, you hear people bitching about how many hours they're working and how much they could use a break. Well, here's that paid break and still bitching ensues.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Yes, I have cleverly kept myself deliberately poor in order to maintain a non threatening profile.
Clever huh?



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
I once had a job where we worked 65 hours a week for over a year straight (I left the job so have no idea how long the "mandatory overtime " went on-) 6 days a week for a year can kill you. There was no choice in the matter as it was "mandatory".

My Family life suffered . I had tons of money but was far too tired to spend it. I missed parent/teacher conference and for a year I was just the guy who left in the morning, came home at night and slept.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by MilesTeg
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Time and a half pay. That's what I'm talking about. No more time and a half pay for working more hours. It completely removes time and a half pay.


No it doesn't and you should seriously read the bill before you comment on it because your understanding of it seems to be 180 degrees off of the reality of the bill. It effectively moves workman's comp into a law which all workers will have available to them. Historically, workman's comp has just been a benefit to unionized laborers. It doesn't eliminate time & a half, it enhances time and a half, giving any employee who has worked overtime the option of either taking 1.5X their hourly pay or 1.5 hours of paid time off per hour worked.

You ripped a member above because their work in the performance industry "doesn't represent real world" work... have you ever had a real world job? Usually you earn between 1 and 2 weeks off per year when you first start a job. People have long loved to complain about how little time off they actually get... well, under this law a worker can realistically triple the available time off to them by investing just 3 hours of OT per week. It amuses me because, usually, you hear people bitching about how many hours they're working and how much they could use a break. Well, here's that paid break and still bitching ensues.

Workmans comp has nothing to do with unions.

Everyone gets it (if needed) its the law.

My issue is, if the choice isnt ours to make it will constantly go "back and forth" based on an employers whim. No more KNOWING If I bust my butt in November its going to be a great Christmas- Now it just might mean a few weeks off with the same exact money. Also, if I NEED time off and want to use this as flex time I ,might just end up with a bigger paycheck since my employer decided to pay me OT this week.

-Going to make it difficult to know whats going on from week to week and what I am really making.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
I once had a job where we worked 65 hours a week for over a year straight (I left the job so have no idea how long the "mandatory overtime " went on-) 6 days a week for a year can kill you. There was no choice in the matter as it was "mandatory".

My Family life suffered . I had tons of money but was far too tired to spend it. I missed parent/teacher conference and for a year I was just the guy who left in the morning, came home at night and slept.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Okay. We will all just have to give this time to see how it pans out, but I'm telling you that it will not benefit the majority of our work force. Remember NAFTA? This is going to be so much worse.

Yes.... I ripped on them and I apologized to them afterwards.

As far as the "more time off" thing goes they employer would have to hire more employees to make up for the time off, which won't happen. The employer is not going run their business with a skeleton crew, so you ask the employer for the time off accrued....... and they say no. So your overtime hours are basically you just working harder for absolutely no pay. Once again, you can try to rationalize this all you want. Nothing good will come of it for the people that work harder to keep their families sheltered and fed.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MilesTeg
reply to post by randomtangentsrme
 


You have to read the fine print. From what I understand of this bill..... it completely abolishes overtime. No matter what..... your paycheck is going to be the same whether you work a 40 hour week or a 60. I want my money this week, not next week. Beyond that..... if you have a death in the family or a sick kid etc. your employer can tell you
NO. You can't leave or you will lose your job. So there will be no attending gramma's funeral or sitting home with little Johnny or Jane when they are sick. They can tell you that you have to stay at work or your fired. How exactly is that a good thing?


Just re-read the link you provided. Here is how you get your overtime pay:


(E) WRITTEN REQUEST- An employee may withdraw an agreement described in paragraph (2)(B) at any time. An employee may also request in writing that monetary compensation be provided, at any time, for all compensatory time accrued that has not yet been used. Within 30 days of receiving the written request, the employer shall provide the employee the monetary compensation due in accordance with paragraph (6).


Here is how you take the time off:

‘(B) who has requested the use of such compensatory time, shall be permitted by the employee’s employer to use such time within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.


This is purely to the benefit of the employee. It changes nothing in regards to the normal operations of business as it is run currently. It only allows the employee to choose if they want to be payed overtime, or want paid time off instead.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MilesTeg

In other words, it simply does not say what you keep saying it says.

OK, so much for asking a simple question... please continue.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
My confusion grows...

I guess time will tell. If the employee gets some say this is a fantastic Law- If not- It isnt.

Even if the Employer has some input (they should) based on manpower needs.






top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join