Save overtime petition

[tharkûn]

Exactly why does the government need to garuntee overtime for these 8 million people? Why can they not simply negotiate it in their own private contracts ... and if it is because they would be fired before reaping the concession ... then is it possible they are overpaid if they demand compensation in excess of what the labor market can bare?

Millions of people don't have overtime, because they signed contracts that work outside of the framework. If the people are being underpaid they are free to find a job which pays their true market worth. Hell if people don't work overtime it might just prompt the companies to employ more people.

Wrong, they pay very little in income taxes, however the average payroll taxes for a family of four making $35,000 is $5,355. And I might add that during the BUSH SPONSERED Tax Family Events during the 2000 campaign, it turned out that most lower class families would have gotten greater tax returns under Gore's plan then Bush's.

Yes into a "security system" they allegedly will receive back when they retire. They aren't being taxed they are investing their money into a social contract

Benefitting yes, but you called us hypocrites for bashing Bush tax cuts that largely benefitted the wealthy. People making > $125,000 recieved the most benefits from the tax cuts (even though they needed it the least) all while Bush cut social programs that hurt the lower class.

Of course the most benifit went to the top, the top pays the most. If memory serves, the JFK tax cuts were top heavy (less so because the top paid a lesser percentage of the tax burden back then, again assuming I wasn't asleep in that economics course). Certainly the Reagan tax cuts were obnoxiously worse than anything Bush has proposed. Exactly what type of tax cut would be fair?

[The Kernel]

Exactly why does the government need to garuntee overtime for these 8 million people? Why can they not simply negotiate it in their own private contracts ... and if it is because they would be fired before reaping the concession ... then is it possible they are overpaid if they demand compensation in excess of what the labor market can bare?

For the exact same reason that the government establishes minimum wage laws. To prevent the abuse of employees. These people make a living on their overtime work, if the employeers cut the overtime, then the standard of living for these people takes a dramatic drop.

Millions of people don't have overtime, because they signed contracts that work outside of the framework. If the people are being underpaid they are free to find a job which pays their true market worth. Hell if people don't work overtime it might just prompt the companies to employ more people.

Have you ever heard of a little thing called indirect compensation?

Wrong, they pay very little in income taxes, however the average payroll taxes for a family of four making $35,000 is $5,355. And I might add that during the BUSH SPONSERED Tax Family Events during the 2000 campaign, it turned out that most lower class families would have gotten greater tax returns under Gore's plan then Bush's.

Yes into a "security system" they allegedly will receive back when they retire. They aren't being taxed they are investing their money into a social contract

Which Bush dug heavily into in order to pay for his massive tax cuts. You are so certain that Social Security will still exist in 30 years when these people are old enough to collect it?

Besides, it is still real money that these people are being taxed on. Durran pointed out that these people weren't paying taxes and I corrected him.

Of course the most benifit went to the top, the top pays the most. If memory serves, the JFK tax cuts were top heavy (less so because the top paid a lesser percentage of the tax burden back then, again assuming I wasn't asleep in that economics course). Certainly the Reagan tax cuts were obnoxiously worse than anything Bush has proposed. Exactly what type of tax cut would be fair?

Did you read my post about how people at the bottom are the reason that people at the top are capable of making such vast fortunes? Of course the rich should pay the biggest taxes, what are you suggesting, a poll tax? The poor need the money to survive (which by the way would have been better off under Gore's plan) whereas the rich do not. You can't have it both ways, either the rich get their massive income disparity and have to pay higher taxes or they don't. The money to keep everyone in the country up to a certain standard of living has to come from somewhere.

BTW, don't start with the conservative propeganda statement of "class warfare". It is not class warfare to argue different tax standards for the super-wealthy of America.

[Durandal]

Exactly why does the government need to garuntee overtime for these 8 million people? Why can they not simply negotiate it in their own private contracts ... and if it is because they would be fired before reaping the concession ... then is it possible they are overpaid if they demand compensation in excess of what the labor market can bare?

Because if employers weren't legally required to pay overtime, they wouldn't. Labor laws exist for a reason. I thought this was obvious.

[Hamel]

then is it possible they are overpaid if they demand compensation in excess of what the labor market can bare?

No, it's just another scheme to fuck employees out of their rightful pay. Don't hand us this bullshit about what markets can bare; if the market truly had its way, every joe would be underpaid. Every employer will rape workers in the ass and there would be no point in looking for better pay elsewhere.

[The Kernel]

Aparently tharkun hasn't studied history. Here's a hint bozo, look up a little thing called the Industial Revolution.

[Hamel]

BTW, don't start with the conservative propeganda statement of "class warfare". It is not class warfare to argue different tax standards for the super-wealthy of America.

Oh man, don't get me started on this class warfare crap. Ohio's republican governer, Bob Taft, is the best example of conservative class warfare. He cut funding for social programs that my uncle worked in. He raised fees for fucking trailer houses, which are overwhelmingly owned by the dirt poor. He raised license fees. He's trying to make stuff outrageously expensive for the people who have trouble affording it the most, while handing out cash to a bunch of punks.

[Darth Wong]

Tharkun, where do you work? I'm curious what kind of employment someone has when he would think it's that simple.

[darthdavid]

I see he's too busy sucking George Bush's dick to talk. Spit out that republicum and get talking stupid.

[tharkûn]

For the exact same reason that the government establishes minimum wage laws. To prevent the abuse of employees. These people make a living on their overtime work, if the employeers cut the overtime, then the standard of living for these people takes a dramatic drop.

So why doesn't the government cover everyone? If we must prevent "abuse" why exempt huge numbers of salaried employees?

If the employers cut their overtime, and these people do not beleive they are receiving fair compensation, then they are free to strike, collectively bargain, seek other employment.

Have you ever heard of a little thing called indirect compensation?
Irrelevant. I can understand why people would choose to want overtime or choose to give it up depending on the circumstances. My question is why must it be mandated? Why can't the government simply leave it to individuals or their unions to seek just compensation for their labour?

Which Bush dug heavily into in order to pay for his massive tax cuts. You are so certain that Social Security will still exist in 30 years when these people are old enough to collect it?

Besides, it is still real money that these people are being taxed on. Durran pointed out that these people weren't paying taxes and I corrected him.

Personally I think the entire social security system is a lousy idea (as it pays no interest and gets hosed by demographic shifts), but if it is going to exist the payroll tax has got to be one of the stupidest ways to fund it.


It still is real money, but it is allegedly money well spent by the poor, investing in their future. If we really beleive that social security is a sound investment shouldn't the poor want to pay into social security rather than receive a tax cut?

Did you read my post about how people at the bottom are the reason that people at the top are capable of making such vast fortunes? Of course the rich should pay the biggest taxes, what are you suggesting, a poll tax?

I subscribe to the Laffer curve and I don't care about the nature of the tax cut (my assumption being we are to the right of T*). I asked you what a fair tax cut would be.

The poor need the money to survive (which by the way would have been better off under Gore's plan) whereas the rich do not. You can't have it both ways, either the rich get their massive income disparity and have to pay higher taxes or they don't. The money to keep everyone in the country up to a certain standard of living has to come from somewhere.

So why not tax everyone above the "survival" threshold at an equal rate and everyone below it not at all? Bluntly the middle class doesn't need the tax cut to survive, but it does help them become more affluent. The US tax system is not set up on a basis of survival needs verses aflluence ... why should a tax cut be any different?


Here's a hint bozo, look up a little thing called the Industial Revolution.
Here's a hint look up The Knights of Labour, the AFL-CIO, and the phrase "strike". There are numerous ways the supply side of the labour market can force concession besides governmental mandate.

What is so unusual about this particular form of compensation that it must be statutorially protected while others, like say healthcare, are not?


Durandal:
if employers weren't legally required to pay overtime, they wouldn't. Labor laws exist for a reason. I thought this was obvious.
I see so if Ford decided it wasn't going to pay overtime the UAW would bend over and accept it? If one hospital decides to pay its nurses less they won't simply seek employment at one which does?

Why are people incapable of securing these benifits themselves if they are fair and reasonable compensation?

Hamel:
No, it's just another scheme to fuck employees out of their rightful pay. Don't hand us this bullshit about what markets can bare; if the market truly had its way, every joe would be underpaid. Every employer will rape workers in the ass and there would be no point in looking for better pay elsewhere.

I take it you have never heard of collective bargaining, strikes, boycotts, negative pubilicity and all the other nonmandatory actions that are used by labour to receive fair and reasonable compensation?

[Darth Wong]

So why not tax everyone above the "survival" threshold at an equal rate and everyone below it not at all? Bluntly the middle class doesn't need the tax cut to survive, but it does help them become more affluent. The US tax system is not set up on a basis of survival needs verses aflluence ... why should a tax cut be any different?

Everything above the "survival threshold" should be considered equivalent? From what dark folds of your lower colon did you pull this idea? When someone literally doesn't have to do an honest day's work in his entire life, that's rich. When someone works his ass off 70 hours a week so he can afford a nicer lifestyle for his family, that's not rich. Yet you would treat them the same, wouldn't you?

What is so unusual about this particular form of compensation that it must be statutorially protected while others, like say healthcare, are not?

Nothing. Healthcare should be considered a social responsibility as well. But that's a different subject, and you're guilty of a red herring.

Why are people incapable of securing these benifits themselves if they are fair and reasonable compensation?

Perhaps because companies have no particular incentive to give fair and reasonable compensation, dumb-ass.

I take it you have never heard of collective bargaining, strikes, boycotts, negative pubilicity and all the other nonmandatory actions that are used by labour to receive fair and reasonable compensation?

That only works when you can unionize. Not everyone can unionize. Most small shops are non-unionized because labour actions only work when you have large numbers of employees. That's why they are most effective against the biggest companies. Ever heard of a small 20-person independent shop undergoing a strike? Ever wonder why not?

I say again: what do you do for a living? I'm curious how someone could have these beliefs about the labour market.

[tharkûn]

Tharkun, where do you work? I'm curious what kind of employment someone has when he would think it's that simple.

I'm a lab grunt for a university biophysics program. And I don't get paid squat for what I do. A tuition waver and the cost of living, no overtime even when I have to sleep in my shared office to run some experiments overnight.

On the upside I recently inherited enough cash to buy a house and leave a decent chunk left over.

I don't think it is wrong to get paid overtime, I just don't see why employees can't negotiate it (or not) by their own means ... or request other compensation instead.

I inherently view government action as a last resort. Why is it necessary to mandate it?

[Hamel]

I take it you have never heard of collective bargaining, strikes, boycotts, negative pubilicity and all the other nonmandatory actions that are used by labour to receive fair and reasonable compensation?

Not a guarantee, and by the time these actions become fathomable workers are not going to have the money to organize a national effort to get it done. It takes money, time, organization, and a helluva lot of people to do these things. If we ever get a Reagan clone into office then you can say "sayonara" to the possibility of crippling strikes.

And factoring in the in-your-face conservative propaganda, strong enough as it is, and likely to increase in the future, lots of people won't give a damn anyway.

[Darth Wong]

Tharkun, where do you work? I'm curious what kind of employment someone has when he would think it's that simple.

I'm a lab grunt for a university biophysics program.

In other words, you've never been in the workforce, you don't know what it's like to have a wife and kids and a mortgage bill coming at the end of the month, yet you hold forth confidently on what people in the workforce should do based on your theoretical bullshit. Gee, how unique

And I don't get paid squat for what I do. A tuition waver and the cost of living, no overtime even when I have to sleep in my shared office to run some experiments overnight.

So you're a postgrad student, not an employee. It's part of the territory; in case you hadn't noticed, most students are paid no money at all no matter how much they do, because they are paying to receive this education.

On the upside I recently inherited enough cash to buy a house and leave a decent chunk left over.

Ah, a student who inherited money. Good thing you're not one of those people who's living in the real world

I don't think it is wrong to get paid overtime, I just don't see why employees can't negotiate it (or not) by their own means ... or request other compensation instead.

Try it sometime. You might get overtime if you negotiate hard enough. Of course, you might also get downsized.

I inherently view government action as a last resort. Why is it necessary to mandate it?

Because experience (both historical and the more personal type, both of which you seem to utterly lack) tells us that it is.

[tharkûn]

Everything above the "survival threshold" should be considered equivalent? From what dark folds of your lower colon did you pull this idea? When someone literally doesn't have to do an honest day's work in his entire life, that's rich. When someone works his ass off 70 hours a week so he can afford a nicer lifestyle for his family, that's not rich. Yet you would treat them the same, wouldn't you?

I didn't. The Kernal said that the rich should be taxed more because they don't need the money to survive. So shouldn't the guy working 70 hours be taxed the same because he doesn't need the money to survive?

Or could it be that taxation is not a function of survival?

Nothing. Healthcare should be considered a social responsibility as well. But that's a different subject, and you're guilty of a red herring.

And yet the vast majority of workers have it even though it isn't mandated. Could it be that things like strikes, career shopping and the like DO have an effect? That companies will give benifits they when not required by mandate to keep a productive workforce?

Perhaps because companies have no particular incentive to give fair and reasonable compensation, dumb-ass.

You mean things like bad PR, strikes, workforce flight, and all the other negative consequences of treating your workers like crap don't have an effect? Why do the auto companies hold marathon talks with the unions if they have no particular incentive to give fair and reasonable compensation?

That only works when you can unionize. Not everyone can unionize. Most small shops are non-unionized because labour actions only work when you have large numbers of employees. That's why they are most effective against the biggest companies. Ever heard of a small 20-person independent shop undergoing a strike? Ever wonder why not?

According the UAW, workforces of 2 persons can and do unionize. There is nothing that stops you from unionizing with other workers in the same union and having your union threaten industry wide action if basic standards aren't met.

Actually I have heard of 20 person shops striking, when you have a industry wide strike or a general strike people listen. When you stage a sickout right before an important deadline for your shop, the management listens.

The only time strikes are completely ineffective is when they can hire somebody else easier than can meet your terms.

[Hamel]

According the UAW, workforces of 2 persons can and do unionize. There is nothing that stops you from unionizing with other workers in the same union and having your union threaten industry wide action if basic standards aren't met.

BS. Walmart doesn't let their workers unionize.

[TrailerParkJawa]

According the UAW, workforces of 2 persons can and do unionize. There is nothing that stops you from unionizing with other workers in the same union and having your union threaten industry wide action if basic standards aren't met.

Or your company can just fire you for trying to unionize.

Actually I have heard of 20 person shops striking, when you have a industry wide strike or a general strike people listen. When you stage a sickout right before an important deadline for your shop, the management listens.

They will listen by letting you go.

The only time strikes are completely ineffective is when they can hire somebody else easier than can meet your terms.

Which can very often be the case, in all time except boom times when unemployment is very, very low.

[Robert Treder]

The only time strikes are completely ineffective is when they can hire somebody else easier than can meet your terms.

Which can very often be the case, in all time except boom times when unemployment is very, very low.

Especially when the job in question is low-skill (read: almost all retail jobs). Hollywood Video could replace nearly all of their in-store employees within a week, there are so many applicants. And, lo and behold, there is no union for video-store employees.

[tharkûn]

In other words, you've never been in the workforce, you don't know what it's like to have a wife and kids and a mortgage bill coming at the end of the month, yet you hold forth confidently on what people in the workforce should do based on your theoretical bullshit. Gee, how unique

In other words I worked as a pharmacy tech for several years while I did my undergrad which I payed for out of pocket and am now going to graduate school.

So you're a postgrad student, not an employee. It's part of the territory; in case you hadn't noticed, most students are paid no money at all no matter how much they do, because they are paying to receive this education.
The cost of the education is compensation for the work done. If I was taking no classes I would be paid more.

h, a student who inherited money. Good thing you're not one of those people who's living in the real world
I had 10 relatives with no direct next of kin ... namely because most of their kids were killed in places like Auschwitz. Half my family is Polish Jewry, as the oldest generation died off the wealth became concentrated because we are missing generations of relatives. Add to that the fact that one of the members of my generation was killed in this Intifada and another has been disinherited and you get concentration of wealth.

Try it sometime. You might get overtime if you negotiate hard enough. Of course, you might also get downsized.
If you are being undercompensated and it is cheaper for the company to capitulate than to fight, sure, why not?

Because experience (both historical and the more personal type, both of which you seem to utterly lack) tells us that it is.

How long would it take for the UAW to garuntee overtime in their contracts if the automakers decided to cut it out because it wasn't mandated? My current union has managed to get health care for TA's for pete's sake.

Historically overtime was enacted as part of the full employment idea. The idea was to provide incentive for companies to hire more employees at 40 hours a week, rather than work the ones they had at 60. Historically I don't remember any union asking for overtime, exactly which union struck to get overtime in the past and lost?

[Darth Wong]

Or could it be that taxation is not a function of survival?

It's not. It's a function of how easily the person can afford it without impact to his standard of living. A very rich person can pay much more tax with little or no impact at all on his standard of living, because he's so far above subsistence level that his money is making more money for him and he just fucks around.

Nothing. Healthcare should be considered a social responsibility as well. But that's a different subject, and you're guilty of a red herring.

And yet the vast majority of workers have it even though it isn't mandated. Could it be that things like strikes, career shopping and the like DO have an effect? That companies will give benifits they when not required by mandate to keep a productive workforce?

38 million people are uninsured in the United States, dumb-ass. You consider this a minor problem?

You mean things like bad PR, strikes, workforce flight, and all the other negative consequences of treating your workers like crap don't have an effect? Why do the auto companies hold marathon talks with the unions if they have no particular incentive to give fair and reasonable compensation?

Thanks for proving my point about huge companies and unions. Now try it with smaller companies.

According the UAW, workforces of 2 persons can and do unionize. There is nothing that stops you from unionizing with other workers in the same union and having your union threaten industry wide action if basic standards aren't met.

The boss firing your ass the next day will stop you. And he will do that.

Actually I have heard of 20 person shops striking, when you have a industry wide strike or a general strike people listen. When you stage a sickout right before an important deadline for your shop, the management listens.

Once again, try it. You are living off inherited money and have never held a real job, yet you presume to educate people on labour-management relations? Unbelievable.

The only time strikes are completely ineffective is when they can hire somebody else easier than can meet your terms.

Which is very easy if the economy is slow or the industry has been hit by downsizing and offshore relocation, since an unemployed person will take even a ridiculously unfair wage and benefits package over nothing. Your theoretical bullshit doesn't fly in reality (you know, "reality"; that place you've never had to live in).

[Darth Wong]

In other words, you've never been in the workforce, you don't know what it's like to have a wife and kids and a mortgage bill coming at the end of the month, yet you hold forth confidently on what people in the workforce should do based on your theoretical bullshit. Gee, how unique

In other words I worked as a pharmacy tech for several years while I did my undergrad which I payed for out of pocket and am now going to graduate school.

How does that change what I said. Did you have a wife and kids and a mortgage bill due at the end of the month?

The cost of the education is compensation for the work done. If I was taking no classes I would be paid more.

Still missing the point that you're a student, not a member of the workforce. You've never had a fulltime job and you've never had a wife, kids, and a mortgage to pay off out of your own pocket.

I had 10 relatives with no direct next of kin ... namely because most of their kids were killed in places like Auschwitz. Half my family is Polish Jewry, as the oldest generation died off the wealth became concentrated because we are missing generations of relatives. Add to that the fact that one of the members of my generation was killed in this Intifada and another has been disinherited and you get concentration of wealth.

How does any of that change the fact that a student who inherited his money is obviously ignorant of what it's like to be living in the real world?

Try it sometime. You might get overtime if you negotiate hard enough. Of course, you might also get downsized.

If you are being undercompensated and it is cheaper for the company to capitulate than to fight, sure, why not?

Obviously, you have never heard of economic downturns. They describe them in textbooks; this means you should theoretically have some knowledge of them despite your abysmal inexperience with the real world.

How long would it take for the UAW to garuntee overtime in their contracts if the automakers decided to cut it out because it wasn't mandated? My current union has managed to get health care for TA's for pete's sake.

80% of the workforce is not unionized, dumb-ass.

Historically overtime was enacted as part of the full employment idea. The idea was to provide incentive for companies to hire more employees at 40 hours a week, rather than work the ones they had at 60. Historically I don't remember any union asking for overtime, exactly which union struck to get overtime in the past and lost?

Shorter work weeks were mandated by law as a result of political lobbying from labour unions and similar organizations. And shorter work weeks are meaningless unless there is some penalty for exceeding them. But of course, you disagree with the use of law in the labour market, don't you?

[tharkûn]

BS. Walmart doesn't let their workers unionize.

Because walmart can replace their workers at will. If there is someone willing to replace you, you aren't exactly over compensated.

Jawa:
Or your company can just fire you for trying to unionize.
Umm holding a union vote is not grounds for termination, that leads can lead to rather hefty lawsuits.

They will listen by letting you go.
IFF they can easily replace you. If you can be replaced readily, then chances are you are being compensated and fair and equitable market rates.

Which can very often be the case, in all time except boom times when unemployment is very, very low.

Which means your value is less than what you wish it would be. Sorry but if you have no skills, the value of your labor sucks.

[Darth Wong]

BS. Walmart doesn't let their workers unionize.

Because walmart can replace their workers at will. If there is someone willing to replace you, you aren't exactly over compensated.

In an economic downturn, there is no employee who can't be replaced at will.

Umm holding a union vote is not grounds for termination, that leads can lead to rather hefty lawsuits.

Your total inexperience with the real world shows through again. I've been part of a union, I've been part of a non-union workforce, and I've been part of management. If you truly want to get rid of an individual, you can.

IFF they can easily replace you. If you can be replaced readily, then chances are you are being compensated and fair and equitable market rates.

Or you're in an economic downturn or your labour market is saturated because businesses in your sector have been moving offshore. Your argument is a non sequitur.

Which means your value is less than what you wish it would be. Sorry but if you have no skills, the value of your labor sucks.

Yet again, you repeat the non sequitur that anyone who can be replaced must be useless. This is true at the extreme ends of the spectrum, but there's a big gray area in the middle.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Jawa:
Or your company can just fire you for trying to unionize.
Umm holding a union vote is not grounds for termination, that leads can lead to rather hefty lawsuits.

They will listen by letting you go.
IFF they can easily replace you. If you can be replaced readily, then chances are you are being compensated and fair and equitable market rates.

Which can very often be the case, in all time except boom times when unemployment is very, very low.

Which means your value is less than what you wish it would be. Sorry but if you have no skills, the value of your labor sucks.

Wake up bro. California is an at will state. They can let you go for any reason at all. I have plenty of skills, so do thousands of high tech workers in this valley. Not one of them is going to risk losing a job because they mention unionizing. It is a small valley. You never know where you are going to be next, burning bridges is the dumbest thing you can do here.

[The Kernel]

Jawa:
Or your company can just fire you for trying to unionize.
Umm holding a union vote is not grounds for termination, that leads can lead to rather hefty lawsuits.

They will listen by letting you go.
IFF they can easily replace you. If you can be replaced readily, then chances are you are being compensated and fair and equitable market rates.

Which can very often be the case, in all time except boom times when unemployment is very, very low.

Which means your value is less than what you wish it would be. Sorry but if you have no skills, the value of your labor sucks.

Wake up bro. California is an at will state. They can let you go for any reason at all. I have plenty of skills, so do thousands of high tech workers in this valley. Not one of them is going to risk losing a job because they mention unionizing. It is a small valley. You never know where you are going to be next, burning bridges is the dumbest thing you can do here.

Indeed. Aparently Tharkun has never seen an employment application with the "we reserve the right to terminate at will" clause in it.

I would add a point-by-point rebuttal, but Mike has already done an excellent job of destroying your argument. Tharkun, I suggest you actually talk to people that have blue collar jobs before you spout this shit. You obviously have no first-hand experience with how an unrestrained corporation treats its employees.

[tharkûn]

How does that change what I said. Did you have a wife and kids and a mortgage bill due at the end of the month?
Rent yes, mortgage no, I couldn't afford that. Wife and kids no, by intention I am not going to have a family until I can provide for one. I had every single bill a single member of the workforce has.

Still missing the point that you're a student, not a member of the workforce. You've never had a fulltime job and you've never had a wife, kids, and a mortgage to pay off out of your own pocket.
Let's see 5 night shifts a week (5-11) is 30 hours, every other weekend (9-6, 10-6) works out to 38.5 hours a week ... no you are right not quite full time (gee funny how they worked that out isn't it). Hell I'd rather have worked every weekend and gotten more cash ahead, but government rules meant that if they let me, they'd have to reclassify me as fulltime ... which means that regulations meant to protect me, screwed me.

How does any of that change the fact that a student who inherited his money is obviously ignorant of what it's like to be living in the real world?


Because I got none of the money until I inherited it a few months ago. Up until this July I had a negative net worth from student loans. Before I had to pay for all the basic necessities of life. If 1.5 hours a week doesn't give me "real world experience" sorry it don't mean much.

I'm not a trust fund and never have been. I worked my through like so many others. Why is so hard to beleive that some one could have experience and not support government mandated overtime? Who do you think elects republicans in places like Mississippi? Somewhere there has to be conservative who "live in the real world" and elect people like Bush.

Obviously, you have never heard of economic downturns. They describe them in textbooks; this means you should theoretically have some knowledge of them despite your abysmal inexperience with the real world.

In economic downturns the value of your labor goes down. If somebody else is willing to do your job for the compensation you receive now, what entitles you to more compensation and them nothing?

80% of the workforce is not unionized, dumb-ass.
By choice. If overtime is so vitally important they have the option to unionize over it. Did I miss Bush turning out federal troops to go strike breaking or something?

Shorter work weeks were mandated by law as a result of political lobbying from labour unions and similar organizations. And shorter work weeks are meaningless unless there is some penalty for exceeding them. But of course, you disagree with the use of law in the labour market, don't you?
Personally I think if I want to work a longer workweek at the same compensation I should be allowed to. If I want to work 45 hours a week as a part time employee I should be allowed to. It's my labor to sell at a price I feel is fair.

In any event there is no reason the penalty for longer workweeks must be time and half. The government could get the same results by having a special tax for companies which exceed the workweek, make it a criminal offense, or revoke the corporate charters. Some penalty must exist, but it need not be time and half.

Unions didn't WANT their members working overtime. They wanted MORE MEMBERS. All of the union strikes over the length of the workweek had one solution (so far as I read) ... hire more workers. I fail to see why unions which can lever all manner of other concessions couldn't get this particular one.