| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2003 10:11:51 PM · #1 |
Read article
Message edited by author 2003-09-25 22:22:40. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 10:31:21 PM · #2 |
It has many pluses and minuses but more people are effected by not being able to work over 40 hours due to forced over time than those who get over time...
Many people are forced to work 2 and 3 jobs because they are only allowed to work say 30 hours a week. By removing forced over time they could now work the say 50 hours they need at one job. Because this time would be spent at one company instead of 2 or 3 they would also have more personal and family time because they would no longer have down time in between or rteally screwed up shifts...
Of course along with removing overtrime they also need to bulk up laws making it hard or impossible for companies to force workers to work more than 40 hours a week un voluntarily....
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 10:37:59 PM · #3 |
If there is no overtime,I wouldn't be having camera or ability to have $50 a month for DSL connection.
And 2-3 jobs in Chicago? Good luck finding even one! Are you kidding me?
Message edited by author 2003-09-25 22:39:03. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 11:04:09 PM · #4 |
As someone who use to be an employee and someone who now owns his own business I don't think OT makes logical sense... I completly aggree that the OT pay is nice and that many people depend on it... But I'm not sure if the original argument for implementing it stands up to current times...
I know the money is nice, but looking at it from an impartial view I don't think OT pay is right/correct... I would really need to do some more research to make my opinion 100% solid though!
|
|
|
|
09/26/2003 12:04:32 AM · #5 |
| When your job has decent benefits it becomes less expensive for the employer to make you work many more hours than to hire enough workers to get the job done in 40 hrs per person. The payment of time and a half helps to prevent mandatory 50-60-70 hour per week scheduling. But we have been going backwards on the benefits for quite some time now, in the USA at least. If Bush really wanted to help workers he could do something to improve benefits (health insurance, retirement, etc.) for middle income, and especially, lower income workers, instead of messing with the OT rules. If the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce are in favor of it, and the AFL-CIO are against it, it shouldn't be too hard for you to figure who is going to benefit from Bush's proposed changes to overtimes rules and eligibility. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 11:44:01 AM · #6 |
Well, two weeks after implementation of the new overtime rules, it appears that more folks have GAINED entitlement to O/T pay than lost it.
A recent article says:
"The misplaced concerns about the overtime rules can be traced to a report by the pro-union Economic Policy Institute (search), which estimated that six million workers would lose statutory overtime protection under the new rules. This report drew much attention before the new rules took effect, but since then nearly every employer who has applied the new rules has found either no changes, or found workers who gained overtime" (ref here)
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 12:23:23 PM · #7 |
Fox News?
You are joking , right ?! |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 12:28:38 PM · #8 |
A fox news article?
Rupert Murdoc?
The same guy who owns "The New York Post"
hahahahahaha
Now THATS a reputable rag if I ever read one!
Guess I better believe whatever FOX has to say....
NOT
Message edited by author 2004-09-07 12:29:58.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 12:29:14 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Fox News?
You are joking , right ?! |
HAHAHA! Well said! |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 12:31:31 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, two weeks after implementation of the new overtime rules, it appears that more folks have GAINED entitlement to O/T pay than lost it.
A recent article says:
"The misplaced concerns about the overtime rules can be traced to a report by the pro-union Economic Policy Institute (search), which estimated that six million workers would lose statutory overtime protection under the new rules. This report drew much attention before the new rules took effect, but since then nearly every employer who has applied the new rules has found either no changes, or found workers who gained overtime" (ref here) |
The source you provided is not a news "article," it's an opinion piece written by a scholar at The Heritage Foundation, whose mission statement reads:
"Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
[see here]
Accordingly, the author's opinion has a clear bias.
..........
For more on the history of The Heritage Foundation see here.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 12:36:30 PM · #11 |
FOX/FIX news is ALL opinion based.
They ar ebeing sued for misleading the American people with the line "Fair and Balanced"
It's more like "Right and Biased"
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 12:48:30 PM · #12 |
Ron you should know better.
Anyone else have any first or third hand experience into how this law has changed overtime? |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 12:51:15 PM · #13 |
Looks like the anti-Bush folks can't be bothered by little things like the facts. So, just out of curiousity, which of these statements is NOT true:
"A spokesman for Franks Nursery and Crafts, a retail chain based in Troy, Mich., noted in Crain̢۪s Detroit Business magazine that they were not affected.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas announced that none of their 1,850 workers would lose or gain overtime rights under the new rules.
Office Depot, headquartered in Delray Beach, Fla., announced that they expect no changes.
Reimbursement Technologies, a medical billing company in Conshohocken, Pa., found that 40 of their employees would gain overtime and none would lose it, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
And, of course, the 2,000 Sears Roebuck and Co. employees will be gaining, not losing, overtime pay."
OR, can anyone provide evidence of where the new O/T rules HAVE had a negative impact on large groups of employees?
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 12:51:30 PM · #14 |
First off, Ron, even if you wanted to call this article reporting, which it's not, it's written not even two weeks into the new overtime rules and as such cannot yet guage the impact of these new rules. Many companies are confused by the rules as to how to reclassify their employees and so haven't had the chance to implement them yet. Also, the new rules seem to have given employees the loophole to reclassify their employees as professional if they are doing any kind of administrative, or supervisory, work, giving the employer the legal rights to deny those people overtime pay.
These new laws will also allow employees to save money in hiring new employees (so unemployment will continue to rise), saving them money in training costs, because they will not have to worry about mandatory overtime pay. That means workers will have to work more hours, and for less money. As a nurse, I can tell you that I work every second of the day already, under very harried and stressful conditions, and work overtime every single shift. I don't always get paid for that time and these rules will allow my employer to force me to work mandatory overtime when they are short staffed, which I can honestly say is every single shift. Do you really want that to happen to people in jobs that have a direct impact on the health and well being of people in health care facilities?
Message edited by author 2004-09-07 12:52:42. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 12:56:41 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Looks like the anti-Bush folks can't be bothered by little things like the facts. So, just out of curiousity, which of these statements is NOT true:
"A spokesman for Franks Nursery and Crafts, a retail chain based in Troy, Mich., noted in Crain̢۪s Detroit Business magazine that they were not affected.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas announced that none of their 1,850 workers would lose or gain overtime rights under the new rules.
Office Depot, headquartered in Delray Beach, Fla., announced that they expect no changes.
Reimbursement Technologies, a medical billing company in Conshohocken, Pa., found that 40 of their employees would gain overtime and none would lose it, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.
And, of course, the 2,000 Sears Roebuck and Co. employees will be gaining, not losing, overtime pay."
OR, can anyone provide evidence of where the new O/T rules HAVE had a negative impact on large groups of employees? |
***I would say that most of the employers listed above pay their employees minimum wage already and probably pay little in the way of benefits...so these employees probably will gain very little by these new rules. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 01:25:16 PM · #16 |
Please give some examples of people that lost or will lose overtime.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 01:55:54 PM · #17 |
FYI,
Although the article I linked to was published by FoxNews, and originated at The Heritage Foundation, the AUTHOR of the article is Paul Kersey - a labor research associate for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich.
From their web site ( ref here ):
"The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonpartisan research and educational organization devoted to improving the quality of life for all Michigan citizens by promoting sound solutions to state and local policy questions. The Mackinac Center assists policy makers, scholars, business people, the media and the public by providing objective analysis of Michigan issues. The goal of all Center reports, commentaries and educational programs is to equip Michigan citizens and other decision makers to better evaluate policy options.
But don't consider the SOURCE or the FACTS - only cosider the messenger(s). That way you can plead BIAS!, BIAS!, BIAS!, and ignore the facts.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-09-07 13:58:57. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 01:58:22 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
***I would say that most of the employers listed above pay their employees minimum wage already and probably pay little in the way of benefits...so these employees probably will gain very little by these new rules. |
Even if you're RIGHT ( and I don't believe that you are ), that still doesn't support the contention that millions would LOSE under the new rules. GAINING VERY LITTLE is STILL NOT "LOSING".
Ron |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 02:01:32 PM · #19 |
This article has some pretty detailed information. It does infact look like millions will loose their overtime pay.
 |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 02:43:41 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
First off, Ron, even if you wanted to call this article reporting, which it's not, it's written not even two weeks into the new overtime rules and as such cannot yet guage the impact of these new rules. |
It can for the companies mentioned.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Many companies are confused by the rules as to how to reclassify their employees and so haven't had the chance to implement them yet. |
This may be true. But the longer they wait, the more money they will have to pay out as back-pay to those who are being denied O/T under the new rules. And I doubt that any company would try to take back pay that they gave to employees who become exempt under the new rules.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Also, the new rules seem to have given employees the loophole to reclassify their employees as professional if they are doing any kind of administrative, or supervisory, work, giving the employer the legal rights to deny those people overtime pay. |
How can you call it a "loophole" if it's explicitly stated in the regs?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
These new laws will also allow employees to save money in hiring new employees (so unemployment will continue to rise), saving them money in training costs, because they will not have to worry about mandatory overtime pay. That means workers will have to work more hours, and for less money. |
Only if the employer opts to pay at least $23,000 per year instead of minimum wage. You CLAIM that most of the companies mentioned in the article pay minimum wage - do you think that all of those minimum-wage employees were suddenly given raises to put them above the lower limit?
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
As a nurse, I can tell you that I work every second of the day already, under very harried and stressful conditions, and work overtime every single shift. I don't always get paid for that time and these rules will allow my employer to force me to work mandatory overtime when they are short staffed, which I can honestly say is every single shift. Do you really want that to happen to people in jobs that have a direct impact on the health and well being of people in health care facilities? |
FIrst of all, I absolutely do NOT want a tired, overworked medical practitioner working on ME, or anyone else for that matter. However, in certain ( emergency ) circumstances, I'd rather have a tired, overworked medical practitioner than none at all. I can live with scars, but I can't live with massive blood loss. ( As an aside, I truly believe that ( just ) one of the real problems with U.S. style healthcare is the "requirement" that no procedure result in "scarring", etc. ).
Then again, I don't want tired, overworked people performing police, fire, construction, or many other types of work, either.
Ron |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 02:59:41 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
This article has some pretty detailed information. It does infact look like millions will loose their overtime pay.
|
To paraphrase my critics:
------------------------
Pitsaman:
CNN News?
You are joking, right?!
----------------------------
Ericlimon:
A CNN News article?
Time Warner?
The same company that has Ted Turner on its Board of Directors?
hahahahahaha
Now THATS a reputable rag if I ever read one!
Guess I better believe whatever CNN has to say....
NOT
----------------------------
bdobe:
The source you provided is not a news "article," it's an opinion piece written by a staff writer at CNN.
CNN is owned by Time Warner.
Time Warner has donated $13,149,880 to political parties since 1989. Of that, 73% went to the Democratic Party, and 26% went to the Republican Party. ( ref here
Accordingly, the author's opinion has a clear bias.
........
For more on the history of CNN see here.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-09-07 15:01:33. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 03:32:23 PM · #22 |
Ron stop your twisting games.
You simply cannot compare CNN with Fox in the "media bias" categories.
Another look at Fox News
The fact that your attempting to do so will serve to discredit you and shows your agenda.
Besides that fact, a quick look at that graphic I posted comes from "Economic Policy Institute" and "Department of Labor". |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 03:36:59 PM · #23 |
Funny how the same people that cite information from the AFL/CIO call FOX biased...
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 03:40:19 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Funny how the same people that cite information from the AFL/CIO call FOX biased... |
What does that mean? |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 03:41:07 PM · #25 |
Of course the "source" is important, since this is the only way we have (as consumers of information) of gauging what point of view is being advocated. Even the author of the opinion piece you cited uses "source" as a valid criteria for gauging how much credence he'll give to facts/information. In his opinion piece the author writes:
"The misplaced concerns about the overtime rules can be traced to a report by the pro-union Economic Policy Institute, which estimated that six million workers would lose statutory overtime protection under the new rules."
Note that the author injects his own bias by describing the Economic Policy Institute as pro-union and, too, thereby "alerts" the reader that the Institute's analysis should not be taken at face value.
As for the author of the opinion piece you cited, Mr. Paul Kersey, he is no mere "labor researcher." Mr. Kersey was a director at the National Right to Work Committee, which -- in almost Orwellian double-speak -- describes it self as pro-worker. However, one of the nation's largest workers union, the AFL-CIO, described Mr. Kersey's organization as the "far right wing anti-workers̢۪ rights National Right to Work Committee." [see here and here]
Now, all of this is just to show that sources do matter, and that just as many on the right don't trust main-stream media (and their sources), many of us on the left have similar complaints against the same institutions. And, as for the subject of this thread, I'm still doing research on it; however, I certainly will not take the Heritage Foundation's word regarding what's best for workers.
.......................................
Originally posted by RonB:
FYI,
Although the article I linked to was published by FoxNews, and originated at The Heritage Foundation, the AUTHOR of the article is Paul Kersey - a labor research associate for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich.
From their web site ( ref here ):
"The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a nonpartisan research and educational organization devoted to improving the quality of life for all Michigan citizens by promoting sound solutions to state and local policy questions. The Mackinac Center assists policy makers, scholars, business people, the media and the public by providing objective analysis of Michigan issues. The goal of all Center reports, commentaries and educational programs is to equip Michigan citizens and other decision makers to better evaluate policy options.
But don't consider the SOURCE or the FACTS - only cosider the messenger(s). That way you can plead BIAS!, BIAS!, BIAS!, and ignore the facts.
Ron |
|
|
