New overtime rules could cost 8 million workers OT pay...WTF

[Natorgator]

Ok, so I am not so sure what kind of crack Bush and his cronies are smoking, but here is the link:

Touch me

I'm not really sure why they are doing this in the first place, since most of the time salaried workers don't get paid overtime anyway. Anyone have any thoughts?

[Xenophobe3691]

Ok, so I am not so sure what kind of crack Bush and his cronies are smoking, but here is the link:

Touch me

I'm not really sure why they are doing this in the first place, since most of the time salaried workers don't get paid overtime anyway. Anyone have any thoughts?

Republicans = Pro Corporation. This'll save corporations money.

[Joe]

happy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The study’s numbers sharply contrast Labor Department estimates that 1.3 million low-wage workers would qualify for overtime under the new rules, while 640,000 professional workers would lose their potential for overtime.
Some 2.5 million salary earners and 5.5 million hourly employees would lose their overtime, according to the estimates by the group, which is affiliated with labor unions.

This is just a potential estimate, which sharply contrasts the government numbers no less, and was done by a group affiliated with big-labour.

[Natorgator]

This is just a potential estimate, which sharply contrasts the government numbers no less, and was done by a group affiliated with big-labour.

Like the government numbers are going to make it look bad. They will twist the facts to make them look good.

On the other hand, the labor unions would probably twist them to make them look worse, so you probably can't really trust either. In any case, is there even a need to reform labor laws?

[Pablo Sanchez]

On the other hand, the labor unions would probably twist them to make them look worse, so you probably can't really trust either. In any case, is there even a need to reform labor laws?

Perhaps... but not to make them more friendly to the employer.

[nechronius]

Not every reform allegedly benefitting the worker is a good one. Take for example union laws dictating that tenure is more meritorious than ability. That sort of thinking is counter to logic. Why would a union want a worker in the staff if their production level is X and their pay is Y when someone with a later employee number can produce X+5 and their pay is Y-5 as dictated by standardized salary rules?

Consider that if the entire work staff as forced onto a company was so contrary to logic, the price of products would rise while the quality would drop. Would you be willing to pay for shoddier stuff that cost more just to support underachieving workers?

Granted that is a bit of an extreme scenario, but I'm just making the point that a constant "anti-big business" mantra is not always a good thing. Business is business, whether big or small. Both sides of an issue need to be carefully weighed before a decision is made. A decision that should probably be a compromise that doesn't fully satisfy either party as is the American Way.