Thank you George, Congress...

[ctdahle]

I've spent some time over the past week reviewing payroll practices for several business clients, So I want to thank the Bush administration for fiddling with the Fair Labor Standards Act (which had not been fiddled with for 50 years) by adding an additional layer of regulations concerning overtime.

Previously the statute was simple, easily read and well understood by most small business people. Now it is complex and filled with a number of loopholes, some of which require overtime for people who formerly were not eligible and others which allow savvy employers to avoid paying overtime to people who formerly recieved it. Just the way it needs to be so lawyers can write long, ambiguous, confusing and expensive opinion letters, and employers can stumble into lots of expensive and futile litigation.

So...

...Thank you Congress for passing this latest version of the Attorney's Full Employment Act of 2004.

[Cablemender]

What revison to the FLSA are you referring to, Chris?

Maybe being an attorney you don't see it, but lately ALL laws seem that way. If a law was made that declared the sky was BLUE, and that's all it said, there'd surely come a suit challenging what shade, what time of day, etc. Society has grown so litigious that no one with any sense would dare transact any kind of commerce without consultation, even if it is plainly readable. I'm pretty sure you edjamacated me on this very principle a few times back in the Can when I quoted a law, and you lawyered it for us to reflect real-world applications.

Don't knock it.. India has a lot of lawyers looking for work.

[Cablemender]

I forgot to mention.. weren't some changes made to the fed labor laws because of exactly what you mentioned.. some businesses started doing this less-than-40-hour business to avoid the benefits and the overtime that would result from 40-hr per week employees? Not that I fault them if it's legal and people are willing to work under those circumstances, but I think I remember reading that some of the unions and workers advocacy groups being up in arms about that kind of stuff. Could that be related to the changes you are referring to?

[JohnC]

If a job requires constant overtime to get things done, perhaps the employer needs to see if the employee(s) are really giving him a full eight hours work.

If this is the case, then perhaps he need to hire more people.

If the employees can't earn enough in eight hours to live on, and need the overtime, perhaps he needs to hire wetbacks? ;D JohnC

[jim]

One aspect of overtime is that the employer has already paid the price to have the employee, so it is likely more profitable for the employer to pay overtime rather than hire and train additional employees. The universal thing I hear from working stiffs is that they are being worked more and more hours as cutbacks are made. One wonders how efficient they are while working the extra hours.

Jim

[JohnC]

That was basically my point, Jim.

I'll tell you, when I was in the Air Force I worked enough overtime (with no overtime pay) to pretty much sour me on the concept. After I retiree I kept hearing about all the extra hours and how your paycheck looked so much better.

Then, on several occasions I actually had to work overtime and when I got my check, the pay stub said "Thanks for the extra money, JohnC... your federal/state tax systems."

If I had to work overtime to accomplish a task for a legitimate reason, that was fine and I did it. But more thatn once I went on record as feeling somebody had dropped their end of the job and should be counciled over it at the least! No, I never did get fired - too diplomatic I guess. JohnC

[Galvin]

From the even tone of the posts from "Jim" it just has to be Professor Jamie T.

Welcome to the avatar of the old Trash Can, Jim.

[ctdahle]

Cablemender said:

<SNIP>....What revison to the FLSA are you referring to, Chris?....<SNIP>

For those of you who were not aware, the revisions to the overtime rules were passed in April I beleive and took effect this week.

Variations in state laws interact with the federal law and may or may not result in a change in a particular employer's obligation to pay overtime.

Your mileage may vary, keep off the grass, no animals were harmed in the drafting of this post.

[Patch]

I was curious about how these new overtime rules are going to work. I'm sure it sounds reasonable...however....

Many companies (like automotive and agriculture) have busy periods and slow periods. It is cheaper to pay the overtime than it is to hire more people. Also, if they did hire more people, they'd just get laid off anyway during the slow/regular periods, then the tax payers would be shelling out for unemployment.

Most companies that have people work less than 40 hours are variety stores, restaurants etc. that just simply don't have enough profit to pay out benefits/OT etc.

And about the white collar workers getting paid OT?? It's called competition for getting the best. Sure they won't get OT anymore, but they'll have to raise their annual salary to compensate enough to keep them.

I think it's a bad move. Canada has a bunch of rules too about how much OT can be worked, but we don't follow them anyway so I don't remember what they are. What are they going to do about it? send in our 5 army reservists?

I work in the automotive industry, we are hoping to get rid of the midnight shift (everybody, management and the employees) it's cheaper for the company to pay the OT, and we want the money for working it!

[jetmex]

Being management, I haven't gotten overtime pay in quite a while. If we worked extra hours, it was at straight time rates. Since we work 12 hour shifts, it got to the point for me that working overtime was no longer anything I desired, since it always seemed to bump me into the next higher tax bracket, and took entirely too much time away from family. So, I don't do overtime any more.

It does, however, cost my company a fortune. The unions have overtime rules written into their contracts. The rules are riddled with loopholes, which are taken advantage of at every opportunity by the "brothers" out on the line. The end result is that the company cut back on the overtime, preferring to work short rather than pay a bunch of unionistas overtime for doing very little or nothing at all. It was so bad at one point, that entire weekend crews were made up of people on overtime. And this (the airline) industry can ill afford that. If you're going to work, fine. If not, stay home.

Overtime? You can have it.

[JohnC]

You're right about the variety stores and such having more "part time" employees than say, in manufacturing, Patch. However, many of the department stores and comp[aines like Chinamart (Wal-Mart) are finding part-time employees are cheaper in that they don't have all the benefits to pay out.

Arizona is a "right to work" state and from what I can see, while it might keep the unions from getting a stranglehold on the employers, it still doesn't help the employees all that much, either. It also seems to keep the wages down.

Lately, though, I'm seeing more and more "Employment Agencies" that charge each person XX dollars to find them employment - usually temporary. They then establish a fee from the potential employer for certain services and "hire out" an individual (who has to first agree to so much per hour).

If you're lucky, as my son and daughter were, one of the companies you're sent to as a "temporary employee" uses these "Temps" agencies to shop for permanent workers without having to go through the process of trying to train the employee and hoping it works. If they like your work your supervisor tells you to sumbit an "in house" application (since you're working there, you can do that).
It seems to work out fairly well for the individual who has what the companies are looking for... my son went from under ten dollars/hour to "well above $18.00/hour, Pop" he says with a grin.

I asked a friend of mine who works at China-Mart who all worked forty hour week and he laughed and said it sure wasn't the stock men, cashiers or general "associates"!
According to him, most are lucky to get thirty hours, with the "cartcrew" guys and greeters getting the least .

Bear in mind, now that this is a Wal-Mart that's right on the Mexico/US border, where they can hire "legal" Mexican workers for less than most US citizens can afford to work for.

Hopefully this won't steal the thread, but several times there have been posts declaring that we've had X-number of jobs lost to outsourcing during Bush's term. I remember having to get some computer advice back in 1999 and 2000 , and I distinctly remember thinking it odd that three different time when I called Dell Computers that I was connected to three different men with different Indian/Pakistani names. JohnC

[Patch]

when ever there is $$ somebody will take advantage, be it some smarty wal-mart manager of some dipsh!t supervisor. The outcome will be in many cases, a shorthanded workforce, an undertrained workforce, and poor moral, while the guy that made the decision will get a pat on the back.

Let's face it. Companies don't go into business to make people happy, they do it for $$

I was a line supervisor for 5 years in an ununionized automotive shop (I'm with the same company, just in another department) We used a temp agency because of the heavy fluctuation I'll be the first to admit that we got a LOT of useless people, but we also got some real good ones (I was one of them ) As a supervisor, I liked it because you could get rid of people easily if they weren't working out. (my crew liked that too as I took their opinion first) We got a new manager, and he wanted to eliminate the temp force and hire people on directly hoping to draw in better people (full timers get about 3$ more/hour) It was a good idea, but what happened is that we really didn't draw in any better people, and ended up costing ourselves more with absenteeism, poor performance, and more unvolitary dismissals.