Obama plans to expand overtime eligibility for millions of workers

[rightwinger]

what does "employers govern themselves" mean?

If you had been an employer, you would know. Since you haven't, not to worry.

LOL, at one time I had over 100 people working for me. I was an employer. We paid very good wages and gave very good benefits. my employees were non-union. My competitors paid similar wages.

If you are saying that employers should share the profits with employees, that is exactly what we did at the end of each year. BTW, evil walmart does that too. Walmart employees get walmart stock as part of their compensation package.

Mandating more overtime pay will only result in fewer overtime hours for the people who need it.

this is nothing but another stupid left wing attempt to buy votes. It wil never pass the house, so obama is once again pissing up a rope.

It is amazing that we have a president who seems bent on making sure the way he feels things should be are the way they are.

Employees and employers existed long before him and will exist long after him. They've been doing well for a long time.

I've stated that I think we have a wage issue......but Obama is not the one to fix it.

They even existed before we had labor laws

Government stepped in to make sure workplaces were safe and that employees were fairly compensated for their labor

You want employees to give up their life for you? Pay them for it

Hard to believe we still have conservatives who oppose the 40 hour week

Salary agreements usually come with higher pay and more benefits than hourly workers get.

Why not let people make up their own mind about taking a salaried position or staying in an hourly position?

All this new regulation will do is deny people the extra pay and benefits of salaried positions.

Fine...pay them over $50,000 and you can treat them how you like

Below that....pay them for their hours worked

 

[rightwinger]

That's the spirit! Anyone can be stuck at work for 60 hrs a week at $23k a year, and still find plenty of room in their schedule and their budget to go back to school and get their college degree. It's only the reasonable thing to do.

I was just telling my cook that while I would enjoy the OT pay for anything over 50, I'd rather have the quality of life of o ly working50 instead of my 67....

Let me know how you approach your boss and how it works out

You make a good point

Surrendering your quality of life for no additional compensation is an abuse of the employee. 67 hours is six eleven hour days which essentially means you get no time after work and one day a week to have....a life

Half of my shifts are graveyards.....I actually get two consecutive days off so I work 13,14,15hrs days.....my first day off I sleep it away

My son used to work hours like that. He could come home from work, grab some sleep and head back to work for six days straight.
He had one day a week to "have a life" then back to work

Cry me a river.

WHen I was young and trying to get ahead I worked every day I could.

It's called ambition and sacrifice.

Were you paid or did you give the extra time for free?

 

[auditor0007]

There is nothing socialist about the change.

Geaux has an extremely limited vocabulary and understanding.

In a consumer economy, the more money the working consumers have to spend, everyone, including owners, are better off.

You've never heard of 'passing on the cost to the consumer' I take it

That's why you're a liberal with a limited understanding of economics

-Geaux

We know, everyone should have to work for $4 per hour and work 100 hours per week. That would be the great American way. You obviously are clueless to our history and how hard working Americans came to get better working conditions and higher pay. Had it not been for these positive changes, there would be only a very small middle class. Most Americans would be poor.

 

[rightwinger]

There is nothing socialist about the change.

Geaux has an extremely limited vocabulary and understanding.

In a consumer economy, the more money the working consumers have to spend, everyone, including owners, are better off.

You've never heard of 'passing on the cost to the consumer' I take it

That's why you're a liberal with a limited understanding of economics

-Geaux

We know, everyone should have to work for $4 per hour and work 100 hours per week. That would be the great American way. You obviously are clueless to our history and how hard working Americans came to get better working conditions and higher pay. Had it not been for these positive changes, there would be only a very small middle class. Most Americans would be poor.

Its what conservatives call "building character"

It also ensures that the one percent remain the one percent

 

[hortysir]

That's the spirit! Anyone can be stuck at work for 60 hrs a week at $23k a year, and still find plenty of room in their schedule and their budget to go back to school and get their college degree. It's only the reasonable thing to do.

I was just telling my cook that while I would enjoy the OT pay for anything over 50, I'd rather have the quality of life of o ly working50 instead of my 67....

Let me know how you approach your boss and how it works out

You make a good point

Surrendering your quality of life for no additional compensation is an abuse of the employee. 67 hours is six eleven hour days which essentially means you get no time after work and one day a week to have....a life

Half of my shifts are graveyards.....I actually get two consecutive days off so I work 13,14,15hrs days.....my first day off I sleep it away

My son used to work hours like that. He could come home from work, grab some sleep and head back to work for six days straight.
He had one day a week to "have a life" then back to work

Cry me a river.

WHen I was young and trying to get ahead I worked every day I could.

It's called ambition and sacrifice.

I'm far from young.
I am still ambitious......enough to look for better
But, because I am "far from young', I'm either too old (which nobody will come out and say), overqualified, or too expensive.....most likely all of the above.
I've made the sacrifices to get to this level. I shouldn't be working this damned hard.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We need to put fair wages in the proper context. It is about being compensated fairly for the hours worked but it's also about the overall health and growth of our economy as a whole. This is the perspective I believe the pres has. With out a doubt, every sector of the economy benefits when there is a strong middle class. Let's not forget that nearly 70% of the GDP is consumer spending and 80% of consumers are middle earners and below. It only makes sense to put upward pressure on wages for the bulk of consumers in any reasonable way you can if you are trying to create growth. An increase in disposable income for the largest group of consumers would create more spending, increase demand and create jobs.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If you had been an employer, you would know. Since you haven't, not to worry.

LOL, at one time I had over 100 people working for me. I was an employer. We paid very good wages and gave very good benefits. my employees were non-union. My competitors paid similar wages.

If you are saying that employers should share the profits with employees, that is exactly what we did at the end of each year. BTW, evil walmart does that too. Walmart employees get walmart stock as part of their compensation package.

Mandating more overtime pay will only result in fewer overtime hours for the people who need it.

this is nothing but another stupid left wing attempt to buy votes. It wil never pass the house, so obama is once again pissing up a rope.

It is amazing that we have a president who seems bent on making sure the way he feels things should be are the way they are.

Employees and employers existed long before him and will exist long after him. They've been doing well for a long time.

I've stated that I think we have a wage issue......but Obama is not the one to fix it.

They even existed before we had labor laws

Government stepped in to make sure workplaces were safe and that employees were fairly compensated for their labor

You want employees to give up their life for you? Pay them for it

Hard to believe we still have conservatives who oppose the 40 hour week

Salary agreements usually come with higher pay and more benefits than hourly workers get.

Why not let people make up their own mind about taking a salaried position or staying in an hourly position?

All this new regulation will do is deny people the extra pay and benefits of salaried positions.

Fine...pay them over $50,000 and you can treat them how you like

Below that....pay them for their hours worked

Yup and now all those people who were salary at 45K will lose the extra pay and benefits of their salaried position, get a pay cut be denied overtime and will make less

Just what you people want

 

[Skull Pilot]

I was just telling my cook that while I would enjoy the OT pay for anything over 50, I'd rather have the quality of life of o ly working50 instead of my 67....

Let me know how you approach your boss and how it works out

You make a good point

Surrendering your quality of life for no additional compensation is an abuse of the employee. 67 hours is six eleven hour days which essentially means you get no time after work and one day a week to have....a life

Half of my shifts are graveyards.....I actually get two consecutive days off so I work 13,14,15hrs days.....my first day off I sleep it away

My son used to work hours like that. He could come home from work, grab some sleep and head back to work for six days straight.
He had one day a week to "have a life" then back to work

Cry me a river.

WHen I was young and trying to get ahead I worked every day I could.

It's called ambition and sacrifice.

Were you paid or did you give the extra time for free?

I've held salaried positions but I realized the extra pay and benefits of that position were worth more than the occasional overtime

 

[JakeStarkey]

Decently paid consumers drive well a consumption market for workers, consumers, and stock holders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

LOL, at one time I had over 100 people working for me. I was an employer. We paid very good wages and gave very good benefits. my employees were non-union. My competitors paid similar wages.

If you are saying that employers should share the profits with employees, that is exactly what we did at the end of each year. BTW, evil walmart does that too. Walmart employees get walmart stock as part of their compensation package.

Mandating more overtime pay will only result in fewer overtime hours for the people who need it.

this is nothing but another stupid left wing attempt to buy votes. It wil never pass the house, so obama is once again pissing up a rope.

It is amazing that we have a president who seems bent on making sure the way he feels things should be are the way they are.

Employees and employers existed long before him and will exist long after him. They've been doing well for a long time.

I've stated that I think we have a wage issue......but Obama is not the one to fix it.

They even existed before we had labor laws

Government stepped in to make sure workplaces were safe and that employees were fairly compensated for their labor

You want employees to give up their life for you? Pay them for it

Hard to believe we still have conservatives who oppose the 40 hour week

Salary agreements usually come with higher pay and more benefits than hourly workers get.

Why not let people make up their own mind about taking a salaried position or staying in an hourly position?

All this new regulation will do is deny people the extra pay and benefits of salaried positions.

Fine...pay them over $50,000 and you can treat them how you like

Below that....pay them for their hours worked

Yup and now all those people who were salary at 45K will lose the extra pay and benefits of their salaried position, get a pay cut be denied overtime and will make less

Just what you people want

Nope. The stock holders and owners want volume. They will take a slight dip in their profits to keep the profits coming.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is amazing that we have a president who seems bent on making sure the way he feels things should be are the way they are.

Employees and employers existed long before him and will exist long after him. They've been doing well for a long time.

I've stated that I think we have a wage issue......but Obama is not the one to fix it.

They even existed before we had labor laws

Government stepped in to make sure workplaces were safe and that employees were fairly compensated for their labor

You want employees to give up their life for you? Pay them for it

Hard to believe we still have conservatives who oppose the 40 hour week

Salary agreements usually come with higher pay and more benefits than hourly workers get.

Why not let people make up their own mind about taking a salaried position or staying in an hourly position?

All this new regulation will do is deny people the extra pay and benefits of salaried positions.

Fine...pay them over $50,000 and you can treat them how you like

Below that....pay them for their hours worked

Yup and now all those people who were salary at 45K will lose the extra pay and benefits of their salaried position, get a pay cut be denied overtime and will make less

Just what you people want

Nope. The stock holders and owners want volume. They will take a slight dip in their profits to keep the profits coming.

yes because the only companies this will affect are publicly traded right?

Wrong.

 

[mgh80]

There is nothing socialist about the change.

Geaux has an extremely limited vocabulary and understanding.

In a consumer economy, the more money the working consumers have to spend, everyone, including owners, are better off.

If everybody woke up tomorrow with an extra $1million in their bank accounts, everybody would instantly be a millionaire. BUT would the poor be any less poor? No. Why? It's because of the law of scarcity.

Also, eventually the money will go back into the hands of the wealthy regardless, there's a reason why poor people are poor and why wealthy people are wealthy. Of course there's a always a few exceptions, but that's just reality.

 

[rightwinger]

LOL, at one time I had over 100 people working for me. I was an employer. We paid very good wages and gave very good benefits. my employees were non-union. My competitors paid similar wages.

If you are saying that employers should share the profits with employees, that is exactly what we did at the end of each year. BTW, evil walmart does that too. Walmart employees get walmart stock as part of their compensation package.

Mandating more overtime pay will only result in fewer overtime hours for the people who need it.

this is nothing but another stupid left wing attempt to buy votes. It wil never pass the house, so obama is once again pissing up a rope.

It is amazing that we have a president who seems bent on making sure the way he feels things should be are the way they are.

Employees and employers existed long before him and will exist long after him. They've been doing well for a long time.

I've stated that I think we have a wage issue......but Obama is not the one to fix it.

They even existed before we had labor laws

Government stepped in to make sure workplaces were safe and that employees were fairly compensated for their labor

You want employees to give up their life for you? Pay them for it

Hard to believe we still have conservatives who oppose the 40 hour week

Salary agreements usually come with higher pay and more benefits than hourly workers get.

Why not let people make up their own mind about taking a salaried position or staying in an hourly position?

All this new regulation will do is deny people the extra pay and benefits of salaried positions.

Fine...pay them over $50,000 and you can treat them how you like

Below that....pay them for their hours worked

Yup and now all those people who were salary at 45K will lose the extra pay and benefits of their salaried position, get a pay cut be denied overtime and will make less

Just what you people want

Where do the extra hours go?
Who works them?

A $45 K manager no longer works the 60 hour week. Who will pick up the extra 20 hours?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If one has been an employer in a private enterprise, he understands exactly what are greed, profit, and fairness. We had no trouble paying our employees well, above the chamber of commerce guidelines. Other employers grumbled. We took their better employees if they were who we wanted. If employers were able to govern themselves, this would not be an issue.

what does "employers govern themselves" mean?

If you had been an employer, you would know. Since you haven't, not to worry.

LOL, at one time I had over 100 people working for me. I was an employer. We paid very good wages and gave very good benefits. my employees were non-union. My competitors paid similar wages.

If you are saying that employers should share the profits with employees, that is exactly what we did at the end of each year. BTW, evil walmart does that too. Walmart employees get walmart stock as part of their compensation package.

Mandating more overtime pay will only result in fewer overtime hours for the people who need it.

this is nothing but another stupid left wing attempt to buy votes. It wil never pass the house, so obama is once again pissing up a rope.

It is amazing that we have a president who seems bent on making sure the way he feels things should be are the way they are.

Employees and employers existed long before him and will exist long after him. They've been doing well for a long time.

I've stated that I think we have a wage issue......but Obama is not the one to fix it.

They even existed before we had labor laws

Government stepped in to make sure workplaces were safe and that employees were fairly compensated for their labor

You want employees to give up their life for you? Pay them for it

Hard to believe we still have conservatives who oppose the 40 hour week

I am not a conservative.

Nobody said anything about a 40 hour work week.

You are a pro at making stuff up to argue against.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Maybe Obama should then pass a law that requires lower managers to get educated.

That's the spirit! Anyone can be stuck at work for 60 hrs a week at $23k a year, and still find plenty of room in their schedule and their budget to go back to school and get their college degree. It's only the reasonable thing to do.

I was just telling my cook that while I would enjoy the OT pay for anything over 50, I'd rather have the quality of life of o ly working50 instead of my 67....

Let me know how you approach your boss and how it works out

You make a good point

Surrendering your quality of life for no additional compensation is an abuse of the employee. 67 hours is six eleven hour days which essentially means you get no time after work and one day a week to have....a life

Half of my shifts are graveyards.....I actually get two consecutive days off so I work 13,14,15hrs days.....my first day off I sleep it away

My son used to work hours like that. He could come home from work, grab some sleep and head back to work for six days straight.
He had one day a week to "have a life" then back to work

And you were making him do it ?

Or his boss was holding a gun to his head.

He couldn't quit ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is amazing that we have a president who seems bent on making sure the way he feels things should be are the way they are.

Employees and employers existed long before him and will exist long after him. They've been doing well for a long time.

I've stated that I think we have a wage issue......but Obama is not the one to fix it.

They even existed before we had labor laws

Government stepped in to make sure workplaces were safe and that employees were fairly compensated for their labor

You want employees to give up their life for you? Pay them for it

Hard to believe we still have conservatives who oppose the 40 hour week

Salary agreements usually come with higher pay and more benefits than hourly workers get.

Why not let people make up their own mind about taking a salaried position or staying in an hourly position?

All this new regulation will do is deny people the extra pay and benefits of salaried positions.

Fine...pay them over $50,000 and you can treat them how you like

Below that....pay them for their hours worked

Yup and now all those people who were salary at 45K will lose the extra pay and benefits of their salaried position, get a pay cut be denied overtime and will make less

Just what you people want

Where do the extra hours go?
Who works them?

A $45 K manager no longer works the 60 hour week. Who will pick up the extra 20 hours?

That's the question

How often does that happen really?

Not as much as you think.

 

[rightwinger]

You make a good point

Surrendering your quality of life for no additional compensation is an abuse of the employee. 67 hours is six eleven hour days which essentially means you get no time after work and one day a week to have....a life

Half of my shifts are graveyards.....I actually get two consecutive days off so I work 13,14,15hrs days.....my first day off I sleep it away

My son used to work hours like that. He could come home from work, grab some sleep and head back to work for six days straight.
He had one day a week to "have a life" then back to work

Cry me a river.

WHen I was young and trying to get ahead I worked every day I could.

It's called ambition and sacrifice.

Were you paid or did you give the extra time for free?

I've held salaried positions but I realized the extra pay and benefits of that position were worth more than the occasional overtime

And thats the way it should be....not demanding free labor from $22k a year workers
Also look at the word "occasional" vs mandated or expected

 

[JakeStarkey]

They even existed before we had labor laws

Government stepped in to make sure workplaces were safe and that employees were fairly compensated for their labor

You want employees to give up their life for you? Pay them for it

Hard to believe we still have conservatives who oppose the 40 hour week

Salary agreements usually come with higher pay and more benefits than hourly workers get.

Why not let people make up their own mind about taking a salaried position or staying in an hourly position?

All this new regulation will do is deny people the extra pay and benefits of salaried positions.

Fine...pay them over $50,000 and you can treat them how you like

Below that....pay them for their hours worked

Yup and now all those people who were salary at 45K will lose the extra pay and benefits of their salaried position, get a pay cut be denied overtime and will make less

Just what you people want

Nope. The stock holders and owners want volume. They will take a slight dip in their profits to keep the profits coming.

yes because the only companies this will affect are publicly traded right?

Wrong.

Try it again. No wonder you are not an owner.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Half of my shifts are graveyards.....I actually get two consecutive days off so I work 13,14,15hrs days.....my first day off I sleep it away

My son used to work hours like that. He could come home from work, grab some sleep and head back to work for six days straight.
He had one day a week to "have a life" then back to work

Cry me a river.

WHen I was young and trying to get ahead I worked every day I could.

It's called ambition and sacrifice.

Were you paid or did you give the extra time for free?

I've held salaried positions but I realized the extra pay and benefits of that position were worth more than the occasional overtime

And thats the way it should be....not demanding free labor from $22k a year workers
Also look at the word "occasional" vs mandated or expected

Yeah how many 22K a year people are forced to work 60 hours a week for no extra pay?

I expect my salaried asst. mgr to put in 42-48 hours but she gets paid more than she was when she wasn't salaried and gets a better 401 package being management.

Now I don't know if I'll put her back to hourly at a lower pay and limit her to 40 hours a week but if the bottom line demands it I will

 

[BluesLegend]

The math shows that if consumers have more money in a consumer economy the better the economy works and the more the owners and workers have.

Good market forces do the best for all.

I don't mind educating Geaux, but I expect him to be honest.

No idiot you have to generate net new wealth not just spread existing wealth around deluding yourself that you accomplished something.