It's bullshit you don't have the right to waive your rights

[Anathema]

You admit that you don't care about the work you do. Why try to spin it?

I do care about the work I do. However, I care much more about ensuring that I get properly compensated for the work that I do. There are no freebees in life. If you want 110% out of me, you're going to have to compensate me for that extra 10%; and trust me it's going to cost you more than 10% beyond what my 100% compensation is.

My department currently has 8 employees. We're all offered 8 hours of Overtime a week. I don't work it. Why not?, you ask. Very simple.... 8 hours x 8 employees = 64 man hours = we need 2 more full time employees in the department.

 

[ClosedCaption]

They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load.

You're killing them AHAHAHAHA this is the funniest thread yet

So what you are saying is that you don't like your job ?

Or are you saying that nobody likes their job ?

People typically dont work for shits and giggles. Pretty safe to say that the people working do it for economic reasons.

So why do people volunteer ?

Guess that screws up your universe.

People don't volunteer for economic reasons. I bet you think that a job and volunteer work is the same...except one pays

 

[dblack]

My single biggest problem with labor protection laws comes down to this. They never take the worker's personal judgment into consideration. They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load. They don't accept that maybe some people might prefer to work for less than the legal minimum wage for some reason. Maybe they want to be competitive in a secondary job. Maybe they feel uncomfortable making as much as more valuable employees. The law doesn't know their situation. Then there's the fact that working as a minor is so heavily regulated. I mean, yeah, forcing ten year olds to work in a textile mill is bad. Nobody but the most rabid capitalist denies that. But, you know, some of us actually wanted a job at 13.

Allow people to do it, and companies will force people to do it. It's called capitalism.

Actually, under free market capitalism, companies aren't allowed to use force. Only government is authorized to do that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My single biggest problem with labor protection laws comes down to this. They never take the worker's personal judgment into consideration. They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load. They don't accept that maybe some people might prefer to work for less than the legal minimum wage for some reason. Maybe they want to be competitive in a secondary job. Maybe they feel uncomfortable making as much as more valuable employees. The law doesn't know their situation. Then there's the fact that working as a minor is so heavily regulated. I mean, yeah, forcing ten year olds to work in a textile mill is bad. Nobody but the most rabid capitalist denies that. But, you know, some of us actually wanted a job at 13.

Allow people to do it, and companies will force people to do it. It's called capitalism.

Actually, under free market capitalism, companies aren't allowed to use force. Only government is authorized to do that.

What?

I didn't say they would use force. I said they would force them.

You know the difference between a noun and a verb?

 

[dblack]

My single biggest problem with labor protection laws comes down to this. They never take the worker's personal judgment into consideration. They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load. They don't accept that maybe some people might prefer to work for less than the legal minimum wage for some reason. Maybe they want to be competitive in a secondary job. Maybe they feel uncomfortable making as much as more valuable employees. The law doesn't know their situation. Then there's the fact that working as a minor is so heavily regulated. I mean, yeah, forcing ten year olds to work in a textile mill is bad. Nobody but the most rabid capitalist denies that. But, you know, some of us actually wanted a job at 13.

Allow people to do it, and companies will force people to do it. It's called capitalism.

Actually, under free market capitalism, companies aren't allowed to use force. Only government is authorized to do that.

What?

I didn't say they would use force. I said they would force them.

You know the difference between a noun and a verb?

Yep. Are you suggesting that forcing someone to do something isn't the same as using force??

 

[frigidweirdo]

My single biggest problem with labor protection laws comes down to this. They never take the worker's personal judgment into consideration. They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load. They don't accept that maybe some people might prefer to work for less than the legal minimum wage for some reason. Maybe they want to be competitive in a secondary job. Maybe they feel uncomfortable making as much as more valuable employees. The law doesn't know their situation. Then there's the fact that working as a minor is so heavily regulated. I mean, yeah, forcing ten year olds to work in a textile mill is bad. Nobody but the most rabid capitalist denies that. But, you know, some of us actually wanted a job at 13.

Allow people to do it, and companies will force people to do it. It's called capitalism.

Actually, under free market capitalism, companies aren't allowed to use force. Only government is authorized to do that.

What?

I didn't say they would use force. I said they would force them.

You know the difference between a noun and a verb?

Yep. Are you suggesting that forcing someone to do something isn't the same as using force??

Yes I am.

"Dude, you either work 60 hours a week or you're fired" = forced to do something
"Dude, you either work 60 hours a week or we take you and your family and shoot you all in the head" = using force.

See the difference?

 

[dblack]

My single biggest problem with labor protection laws comes down to this. They never take the worker's personal judgment into consideration. They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load. They don't accept that maybe some people might prefer to work for less than the legal minimum wage for some reason. Maybe they want to be competitive in a secondary job. Maybe they feel uncomfortable making as much as more valuable employees. The law doesn't know their situation. Then there's the fact that working as a minor is so heavily regulated. I mean, yeah, forcing ten year olds to work in a textile mill is bad. Nobody but the most rabid capitalist denies that. But, you know, some of us actually wanted a job at 13.

Allow people to do it, and companies will force people to do it. It's called capitalism.

Actually, under free market capitalism, companies aren't allowed to use force. Only government is authorized to do that.

What?

I didn't say they would use force. I said they would force them.

You know the difference between a noun and a verb?

Yep. Are you suggesting that forcing someone to do something isn't the same as using force??

Yes I am.

"Dude, you either work 60 hours a week or you're fired" = forced to do something
"Dude, you either work 60 hours a week or we take you and your family and shoot you all in the head" = using force.

See the difference?

Ahh.. ok. I wouldn't usually consider the first one force, but if that's what you meant, I can roll with that. It's the same way an employee could "force" a company to give them a raise. "Give me a raise and more vacation or I quit!"

 

[frigidweirdo]

Allow people to do it, and companies will force people to do it. It's called capitalism.

Actually, under free market capitalism, companies aren't allowed to use force. Only government is authorized to do that.

What?

I didn't say they would use force. I said they would force them.

You know the difference between a noun and a verb?

Yep. Are you suggesting that forcing someone to do something isn't the same as using force??

Yes I am.

"Dude, you either work 60 hours a week or you're fired" = forced to do something
"Dude, you either work 60 hours a week or we take you and your family and shoot you all in the head" = using force.

See the difference?

Ahh.. ok. I wouldn't usually consider the first one force, but if that's what you meant, I can roll with that. It's the same way an employee could "force" a company to give them a raise. "Give me a raise and more vacation or I quit!"

Yeah, exactly.

The point being that if you can only work 40 hours a week then the company can't make you work more. If you can volunteer to work more, the company can force you to work more hours. So, it's not actually a good thing.

Also, the same people who advocate workers "volunteering" to work much more at the same ones telling parents they need to parent their children, make their school lunches, help them with their homework, discipline then, be great parents. How do they do that when they're working all the time?

 

[dblack]

Actually, under free market capitalism, companies aren't allowed to use force. Only government is authorized to do that.

What?

I didn't say they would use force. I said they would force them.

You know the difference between a noun and a verb?

Yep. Are you suggesting that forcing someone to do something isn't the same as using force??

Yes I am.

"Dude, you either work 60 hours a week or you're fired" = forced to do something
"Dude, you either work 60 hours a week or we take you and your family and shoot you all in the head" = using force.

See the difference?

Ahh.. ok. I wouldn't usually consider the first one force, but if that's what you meant, I can roll with that. It's the same way an employee could "force" a company to give them a raise. "Give me a raise and more vacation or I quit!"

Yeah, exactly.

The point being that if you can only work 40 hours a week then the company can't make you work more. If you can volunteer to work more, the company can force you to work more hours. So, it's not actually a good thing.

Also, the same people who advocate workers "volunteering" to work much more at the same ones telling parents they need to parent their children, make their school lunches, help them with their homework, discipline then, be great parents. How do they do that when they're working all the time?

I don't think working more than forty hours a week is necessarily a good idea. I wouldn't agree to do it. My point is that we don't have any right to make that call for someone else. If someone else does want to work more, it's none of my business, and I certainly don't think there should be a laws, that use real force, to stop them.

 

[Anathema]

I don't think working more than forty hours a week is necessarily a good idea. I wouldn't agree to do it. My point is that we don't have any right to make that call for someone else. If someone else does want to work more, it's none of my business, and I certainly don't think there should be a laws, that use real force, to stop them.

In certain environments it is most definitely my concern if people are working more than 40 hours a week. Especially in a Union environment like I'm in now. However, in the prior non-Union environment it also affected me by creating an unrealistic expectation by the Company that everyone would/should work more than 40 hours a week.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What?

I didn't say they would use force. I said they would force them.

You know the difference between a noun and a verb?

Yep. Are you suggesting that forcing someone to do something isn't the same as using force??

Yes I am.

"Dude, you either work 60 hours a week or you're fired" = forced to do something
"Dude, you either work 60 hours a week or we take you and your family and shoot you all in the head" = using force.

See the difference?

Ahh.. ok. I wouldn't usually consider the first one force, but if that's what you meant, I can roll with that. It's the same way an employee could "force" a company to give them a raise. "Give me a raise and more vacation or I quit!"

Yeah, exactly.

The point being that if you can only work 40 hours a week then the company can't make you work more. If you can volunteer to work more, the company can force you to work more hours. So, it's not actually a good thing.

Also, the same people who advocate workers "volunteering" to work much more at the same ones telling parents they need to parent their children, make their school lunches, help them with their homework, discipline then, be great parents. How do they do that when they're working all the time?

I don't think working more than forty hours a week is necessarily a good idea. I wouldn't agree to do it. My point is that we don't have any right to make that call for someone else. If someone else does want to work more, it's none of my business, and I certainly don't think there should be a laws, that use real force, to stop them.

Well, my experience is that sometimes a worker is more than a worker. If a father goes to work 80 hours a week, is he going to be a good father?

Do social things never get a say here either?

Also, so many unemployed people. Why do we need people working 60 hours a week? We don't.

They want 60 hour a week workers because it saves them money. Change that then. Make it cost the same to have two 40 hour a week workers than one 80 hour a week worker.

 

[dblack]

I don't think working more than forty hours a week is necessarily a good idea. I wouldn't agree to do it. My point is that we don't have any right to make that call for someone else. If someone else does want to work more, it's none of my business, and I certainly don't think there should be a laws, that use real force, to stop them.

In certain environments it is most definitely my concern if people are working more than 40 hours a week. Especially in a Union environment like I'm in now. However, in the prior non-Union environment it also affected me by creating an unrealistic expectation by the Company that everyone would/should work more than 40 hours a week.

Should businesses be able to lobby for similar laws to protect their interests? For example, should grocery store owners be able to pass laws banning 24-hr convenience stores because they set an 'unrealistic expectation', or closing down discount stores that undercut their prices?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP is truly a moron.

 

[dblack]

The OP is truly a moron.

Good to see you've honed your argument.

 

[Alystyr]

They want 60 hour a week workers because it saves them money. Change that then. Make it cost the same to have two 40 hour a week workers than one 80 hour a week worker.

There's a lot of things I've seen here on USMB that I don't agree with you on, but this... this I do.

I've experienced it firsthand where the employer would rather work understaffed with overtime than hire any extra employees.
The only ways that I can think of to make two 40 hr. employees cost the same (or preferably less) than one 80 hr. employee is to either reduce the per employee costs to the employer (FICA, Unemployment Compensation, Worker's Compensation, Etc.) or raise overtime rates high enough to be prohibitive.
I can't see either of those being changed easily. Altering the first one would meet heavy resistance from the Fed. and state gov't.s (they'd lose revenue), and the second would be fought by every company with hourly employees.

 

[Anathema]

Should businesses be able to lobby for similar laws to protect their interests? For example, should grocery store owners be able to pass laws banning 24-hr convenience stores because they set an 'unrealistic expectation', or closing down discount stores that undercut their prices?

Apples and Oranges. I have both an implied and a physical contract with my employer. Stores (of any sort) don't have either implied or physical contracts with their competitors. Additionally, corporations should not be seen as having the same sort of rights as a person.

 

[dblack]

Should businesses be able to lobby for similar laws to protect their interests? For example, should grocery store owners be able to pass laws banning 24-hr convenience stores because they set an 'unrealistic expectation', or closing down discount stores that undercut their prices?

Apples and Oranges. I have both an implied and a physical contract with my employer.

If you have a contract, there's no debate - both parties are bound to their agreement. But most employees don't. That's what we're talking about here. And in that case, it's not apples and oranges, is the same concept of using the law to prevent competition you don't want to deal with.

 

[Correll]

They want 60 hour a week workers because it saves them money. Change that then. Make it cost the same to have two 40 hour a week workers than one 80 hour a week worker.

There's a lot of things I've seen here on USMB that I don't agree with you on, but this... this I do.

I've experienced it firsthand where the employer would rather work understaffed with overtime than hire any extra employees.
The only ways that I can think of to make two 40 hr. employees cost the same (or preferably less) than one 80 hr. employee is to either reduce the per employee costs to the employer (FICA, Unemployment Compensation, Worker's Compensation, Etc.) or raise overtime rates high enough to be prohibitive.
I can't see either of those being changed easily. Altering the first one would meet heavy resistance from the Fed. and state gov't.s (they'd lose revenue), and the second would be fought by every company with hourly employees.

I've seen similar situations too.

During times of genuine shortages, or crisis, I was happy to rise to the challenge and work above and beyond.

When it was just an employer trying to save money by having me work more than was reasonable, I did not.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, corporations should not be seen as having the same sort of rights as a person.

why not?? A corporation is just a group of people. A person can't kill someone and a person in a corporation should not be allowed to do so either.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

My single biggest problem with labor protection laws comes down to this. They never take the worker's personal judgment into consideration. They never allow for the possibility that a worker might want to work off the clock for some reason, be it that they simply enjoy working or it helps them keep up with a large work load. They don't accept that maybe some people might prefer to work for less than the legal minimum wage for some reason. Maybe they want to be competitive in a secondary job. Maybe they feel uncomfortable making as much as more valuable employees. The law doesn't know their situation. Then there's the fact that working as a minor is so heavily regulated. I mean, yeah, forcing ten year olds to work in a textile mill is bad. Nobody but the most rabid capitalist denies that. But, you know, some of us actually wanted a job at 13.

Allow people to do it, and companies will force people to do it. It's called capitalism.

I can't help ROTFLMAO.......

Allow people to do it ? Really. You are telling me that you want to disallow people from doing it ?

BTW: Not all companies do it. Nobody I've ever worked for has been the slave drive you guys describe.