Save overtime petition

[Darth Wong]

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.

Which is to say you never had any real responsibility. I was a student paying rent off my part-time employment paycheque once. If you think it's comparable to living like an adult, you're living in a fantasy world.

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.

Whatever. When I was a student, I paid for my education and worked more hours than that. Again, this has nothing to do with being a member of the workforce with responsibilities.

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.

Paying rent is not responsibility, dumb-ass. No one can come and take anything away from you which you've worked for over 10 years if you miss a rent payment. In fact, renters are protected by an assload of legal regulations. Nice to espouse the removal of legal regulations when they don't affect you; would you also support the abolition of all landlord/tenant regulations? After all, if your landlord decides to throw you out in the street one day in the middle of a snowstorm with no warning and toss your belongings onto the lawn, you must not have been paying enough rent, right? So no complaints, and no need for laws, right?

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?

It's not hard to believe at all. Executives would agree with you. The point was that you spoke about how fulltime workers should negotiate in the labour market yet you have no experience living in that world. Do you think you can casually gamble with your job by regularly facing down your employers when they try to push you over a barrel even though you could lose your house if you gamble wrong? And what do you do during an economic downturn, when your job is most precarious, your chances of finding a replacement are most slim, and your employers are most eager to cut their costs? I mention your abysmal lack of experience with the real world because it is relevant to your abysmal inability to understand labour relations.

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?

Nothing "entitles" anyone to more compensation. The question is how much misery is doled out in this world, and your ideal society would create quite a bit of it. The unemployed person ends up on the dole; quite unhappy. But if corporations can move their employees around as easily as you propose, they will push everyone down to a ridiculously low wage. The effect will be less money going to the workforce overall than the conventional situation where most people have certain minimum benefits guaranteed and regulations making it difficult to dump employees at will.

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?

You missed the part where I explained that it's not as hard to break unions as you think. I have worked in shops where the owner swore that he would simply close it down and start a new one if the shop ever unionized, and I know he wasn't bluffing. You, on the other hand, speak purely from theory.

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.

Again, you speak from pure theory, with no regard whatsoever for realistic conditions. Management knows that the disruption to your life of a job search is massive, and they use that knowledge to pay you just enough to keep you around, while trying to force you to work hours which will destroy your home life.

Unpaid overtime allows corporations to demand ridiculous hours of their employees with no effect on their bottom line. Ridiculous hours have a corrosive effect not only on the employees themselves, but on their families and ultimately on the whole of society. You argue that it is not a government matter; I say that it is, inasmuch as anything which fucks up society as much as absent fathers can be.

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.

Don't be ridiculous. Time and a half is a far better system than criminalizing it, since many companies undergo emergencies and crises which occasionally do legitimately require overtime. If it's important enough to the company to demand the overtime, it's important enough to pay for it. Yet again, you offer a solution pulled out of the theoretical air, betraying an astounding inability to think in the real world.

Unions didn't WANT their members working overtime. They wanted MORE MEMBERS.

I don't give a fuck what unions want. Individual employees themselves want shorter workweeks, but they also want to be compensated when they're forced to work overtime.

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.

Obviously, because you have as little experience in management as you do in labour. Hiring and training new workers is not something you can do to solve a labour shortage when you need to make a rush delivery on a last-minute order, dumb-ass. Ever heard of transient demand? Fuck, the number of ridiculously unrealistic tenets in your position could pile up and bury a house.

[tharkûn]

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

Because in an economic downturn the value of your labor has gone down (increased supply) but your compensation hasn't (unless you take a pay cut or some such).

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.

So how many individuals can you toss before somebody notices? Have you ever fired someone who talks about unionizing?

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.
The value of labor follows a supply and demand curve like anything else. During the upturn the value of your labor goes up because the demand increases and the supply decreases. During a downturn the value of your labor decreases because the demand decreases and the supply increases. What was fair market compensation during the upturn is more than fair market compensation during a downturn.

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.
No I never said they are useless. I said they are being compensated at or above fair market value. If I can do your job and I beleive that your level of compensation is fair and reasonable why shouldn't I be able to have your job if you demand more compensate (and please leave aside the obvious fact that you are a more productive individual than I, let's play make beleive and pretend I'm your equal and not your inferior)?

Yes there may be exceptions, but if you can be replaced easily you aren't exactly working for less than fair market value.

TK:
Indeed. Aparently Tharkun has never seen an employment application with the "we reserve the right to terminate at will" clause in it.
You choose to sign it, you reap the consequences. How many at will terminations will occur if you are working for less than what the market values your labor?

Management doesn't screw workers because they are sadists, they screw workers because they have a more profitable alternative. If you are truly underpaid management doesn't fire you because replacing you will cost them more.

Jawa:
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.

If people choose not unionize even when they have legal protection, then that is their choice. If the legal protection is ineffective, then that is the flaw of the legal system ... not the process of unionization itself. Indeed if you honestly can't unionize that requires FAR more pressing action than losing mandatory time and half. Screw petitioning about losing overtime, petition to get real collective bargaining protection. Treating the symptoms and not the cause is rarely a good idea.

[The Kernel]

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?

In an economic downturn, people are willing to do anything that lets them eat moron. During a downturn, employeers are concerned with keeping corporate profits up so they will simply make cutbacks in staff and work the rest harder to compensate.

Your idea of leaving it up to the market is the same crap Libertarians spew, without them realizing that economics isn't as simple as they would believe.

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?

HAHAHAHAHA!! I'm going to print that quote out and frame it on my wall. Yeah, people really love being non-union. It helps them so much when employers institute mass firings, yank benefits and cut salaries.

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.

You really don't seem to get this. What if your employeer FORCED you to work a 70 hour week or get fired? The overtime pay laws exist to prevent this kind of thing.

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.

Why not benefit the people who are actually doing the work?

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.

Are you that stupid? Unions want more members certainly, but they are usually fighting to increase the benefits of those who already work there and making sure they don't get fired. Or are you unaware that unions are made up of people that actually work at these companies?

[The Kernel]

TK:
Indeed. Aparently Tharkun has never seen an employment application with the "we reserve the right to terminate at will" clause in it.
You choose to sign it, you reap the consequences. How many at will terminations will occur if you are working for less than what the market values your labor?

Management doesn't screw workers because they are sadists, they screw workers because they have a more profitable alternative. If you are truly underpaid management doesn't fire you because replacing you will cost them more.

Jawa:
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.

If people choose not unionize even when they have legal protection, then that is their choice. If the legal protection is ineffective, then that is the flaw of the legal system ... not the process of unionization itself. Indeed if you honestly can't unionize that requires FAR more pressing action than losing mandatory time and half. Screw petitioning about losing overtime, petition to get real collective bargaining protection. Treating the symptoms and not the cause is rarely a good idea.

How can you put two mutally exclusive statements like these together? Employeers fuck you before you even get hired because they will all put clauses like these for unskilled labor. So it is your fault for accepting them when you have no alternative? Then you go on to say that people should just unionize when they would get fired for doing so?

Hello!! Mutually exclusive goals asshole!!

[Darth Wong]

Because in an economic downturn the value of your labor has gone down (increased supply) but your compensation hasn't (unless you take a pay cut or some such).

Or pay freezes, which slowly erode your paycheque through inflation. These are very common. But what they do at the same time is they "expect" you to make more sacrifices for the company. And what are you going to do about it, when you really have no choices left?

So how many individuals can you toss before somebody notices? Have you ever fired someone who talks about unionizing?

Of course not. What you do is you call the guy into your office, and you give him a list of all the mistakes he's made in the last three years. You explain to him that you have serious concerns about the quality of his work, and you say that he'd better start shaping up. You don't say a word about unionizing. He'll get the message, and it won't be the kind that he can take to the labour board.

And trust me, this works on anybody. Every employee makes mistakes, and if you're the sort of manager who meticulously keeps records of them (ie- all managers), you can use them as a perfectly reasonable-looking justification to dump his ass whenever you want.

And do you think other employees will march in and bravely get fired too, to help the first guy make his case that the company was union-busting? Fat chance, they will go back to their stations and shut the fuck up.

You really haven't got a clue, have you?

The value of labor follows a supply and demand curve like anything else. During the upturn the value of your labor goes up because the demand increases and the supply decreases. During a downturn the value of your labor decreases because the demand decreases and the supply increases. What was fair market compensation during the upturn is more than fair market compensation during a downturn.

Thank you, Mr. Obvious. How does this make it acceptable to force employees to work unpaid overtime by threatening to fire them if they won't get with the program?

Yes there may be exceptions

"Exceptions" such as the entire workforce during any economic downturn.

but if you can be replaced easily you aren't exactly working for less than fair market value.

You admit that your rule is not really a rule, yet you restate that it's a rule anyway. Lovely.

Management doesn't screw workers because they are sadists, they screw workers because they have a more profitable alternative. If you are truly underpaid management doesn't fire you because replacing you will cost them more.

Unless you're in an economic downturn, particularly in an absence of all these labour laws you find so onerous, because they can get some poor shmuck to take a ridiculously unfair wage out of desperation.

If people choose not unionize even when they have legal protection, then that is their choice. If the legal protection is ineffective, then that is the flaw of the legal system ... not the process of unionization itself.

Yet you insist that there should never be a legal solution to labour issues. Please try to avoid contradicting yourself.

[Durandal]

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?

The majority of the workforce is not unionized. If they try to unionize, they'll get fired because employers can literally fire at will; it's part of most employment contracts. In economic downturns, employers know that their employees are clinging to their jobs tooth and nail. If they weren't obligated to pay them overtime, employers would simply force them to work atrocious hours with penalty of firing.

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

I dare you to get a factory job and then start telling your employer that you want more benefits and overtime. After he tosses you out on the street and calls up the guy he picked you over for the job, maybe you'll get it. In an economic recession, there's always someone who's willing to work longer hours for less than you are, because any paycheck is a good paycheck.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Jawa:
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.

If people choose not unionize even when they have legal protection, then that is their choice. If the legal protection is ineffective, then that is the flaw of the legal system ... not the process of unionization itself. Indeed if you honestly can't unionize that requires FAR more pressing action than losing mandatory time and half. Screw petitioning about losing overtime, petition to get real collective bargaining protection. Treating the symptoms and not the cause is rarely a good idea.

Do you realize you just made a case for gov't regulation of the labor market?

As for saving OT thats simple. OT is something guarenteed NOW. It is easier to save something you have now, than fight for a future possible benefit. In the time you fight for the future benefit the bank has taken your home.

[tharkûn]

Which is to say you never had any real responsibility. I was a student paying rent off my part-time employment paycheque once. If you think it's comparable to living like an adult, you're living in a fantasy world.

I see and what bills do you have I didn't? Car payments? Needing to eat? Having to provide a roof over your head?

Tell me what is the massive difference between a single member of the "real world" and a student who pays all the same bills?

Whatever. When I was a student, I paid for my education and worked more hours than that. Again, this has nothing to do with being a member of the workforce with responsibilities.
I see what responsibilities was I lacking that a single member of the workforce was lacking?

Paying rent is not responsibility, dumb-ass. No one can come and take anything away from you which you've worked for over 10 years if you miss a rent payment. In fact, renters are protected by an assload of legal regulations. Nice to espouse the removal of legal regulations when they don't affect you; would you also support the abolition of all landlord/tenant regulations? After all, if your landlord decides to throw you out in the street one day in the middle of a snowstorm with no warning and toss your belongings onto the lawn, you must not have been paying enough rent, right? So no complaints, and no need for laws, right?
So all the people who live in apartments have no responility? I'd have no problem if they removed most of the rent protections, I signed a contract which stipulated in detail my obligations and the landlords obligations. So long as he lives up to his end of the bargain, I don't care. Bloody hell why do you think they invented contracts?

It's not hard to believe at all. Executives would agree with you.

Right and they make up the rank and file of the republican party People in all walks of life support limited government, it is not simply bacause you lack experience.

he point was that you spoke about how fulltime workers should negotiate in the labour market yet you have no experience living in that world. Do you think you can casually gamble with your job by regularly facing down your employers when they try to push you over a barrel even though you could lose your house if you gamble wrong? And what do you do during an economic downturn, when your job is most precarious, your chances of finding a replacement are most slim, and your employers are most eager to cut their costs? I mention your abysmal lack of experience with the real world because it is relevant to your abysmal inability to understand labour relations.
I dunno maybe I might sign a contract during the upturn and negotiate during the upturn?

The simple fact of the matter is the value of your labor goes down during a downturn. One should not press for greater compensation when you are already compensated at the fair market value of your labor. When the upturn comes you get concessions, when the downturn comes you may have to make concessions. If you are wise you plan for the eventuallities.

Nothing "entitles" anyone to more compensation. The question is how much misery is doled out in this world, and your ideal society would create quite a bit of it. The unemployed person ends up on the dole; quite unhappy. But if corporations can move their employees around as easily as you propose, they will push everyone down to a ridiculously low wage. The effect will be less money going to the workforce overall than the conventional situation where most people have certain minimum benefits guaranteed and regulations making it difficult to dump employees at will.

And when the inevitable upturn comes the employees will push their wages up to ridiciously high values (late happen before dot.com bombed). Further one bright employer might offer slightly better compensation than his competitors to lure away the best members of the workforce. Another one comes along and ups it just a bit more.

Management wants cheap workers but they also want productive workers. There is a natural point where the tradeoff is optimum.

You missed the part where I explained that it's not as hard to break unions as you think. I have worked in shops where the owner swore that he would simply close it down and start a new one if the shop ever unionized, and I know he wasn't bluffing. You, on the other hand, speak purely from theory.
So how much would it cost him to shut down the shop and reopen? How many times can he do this before he gets a reputation for being an ass and watches his labor supply evaporate during the upturn when he needs it most?

If people don't unionize, it is because they don't value it enough to take whatever risk it entails.

Again, you speak from pure theory, with no regard whatsoever for realistic conditions. Management knows that the disruption to your life of a job search is massive, and they use that knowledge to pay you just enough to keep you around, while trying to force you to work hours which will destroy your home life.
And labor knows how much a disruption it is to train new employees and get them integrated into the workforce. They demand just enough to keep the management from looking elsewhere for labor.

Unpaid overtime allows corporations to demand ridiculous hours of their employees with no effect on their bottom line. Ridiculous hours have a corrosive effect not only on the employees themselves, but on their families and ultimately on the whole of society. You argue that it is not a government matter; I say that it is, inasmuch as anything which fucks up society as much as absent fathers can be.
Okay society has incentive to stop people from working ludicrious hours, but they don't have an incentive to stop people from working ludicrious hours if they get paid highly for it.

It seems to me that the negative effects of absent fathers and the like happen regardless of how much you get paid for your work. So exactly why is the debate over time and half and simply banning overtime except in critical situations (with some type of safegaurds on abuse of that system)?

Don't be ridiculous. Time and a half is a far better system than criminalizing it, since many companies undergo emergencies and crises which occasionally do legitimately require overtime. If it's important enough to the company to demand the overtime, it's important enough to pay for it. Yet again, you offer a solution pulled out of the theoretical air, betraying an astounding inability to think in the real world.
Actually I was pulling from historical examples. Jospin slashed the French workweek to 35 hours and required extra hours be converted to vacation time. Non-compliance was a criminal offense.

Revocation of corporate charter was put forward by numerous labor activists in the 1800's.


I don't give a fuck what unions want. Individual employees themselves want shorter workweeks, but they also want to be compensated when they're forced to work overtime.
In other words you have no historical examples of how options other than government mandate failed to secure overtime for workforces who wanted it?

Obviously, because you have as little experience in management as you do in labour. Hiring and training new workers is not something you can do to solve a labour shortage when you need to make a rush delivery on a last-minute order, dumb-ass. Ever heard of transient demand? Fuck, the number of ridiculously unrealistic tenets in your position could pile up and bury a house.

No the number you ascribe to me without basis could bury a house. Historically the union solution to overtime was to limit the workweek. Yes cases exist where overtime is warranted, and I beleive you aught to be able to engage in it.

However I also beleive one aught to be able to sell their own labor under whatever terms they beleive to be desirable. If I want to work 45 hours at my normal pay rate, I should be able to. I should not be forced to work fewer simply because the company has a standing no overtime policy.

TK:
In an economic downturn, people are willing to do anything that lets them eat moron. During a downturn, employeers are concerned with keeping corporate profits up so they will simply make cutbacks in staff and work the rest harder to compensate.

Your idea of leaving it up to the market is the same crap Libertarians spew, without them realizing that economics isn't as simple as they would believe.

People are willing to do "anything" (not really but let's ignore the hyperbole) because the value of their labor is less than it was before. If your labor is worth 80k a year as a pharmacist, but their are no pharmacists jobs open ... then you sell it at market value for 40 k to do medical billing or 20k to be a pharmacy tech.

[The Kernel]

Tharkun, why don't you go down to the Nike factory in some third world country and try spouting this crap to the child laborers over there? I'm sure they would love to hear your repetative banter about the free market system with zero government controls over labor.

Since you now have seemingly become immune to logic and are refusing to do anything but repost your same old shit, I see no reason to take apart your argument further.

[The Kernel]

BTW, there is something called a "quote" command, I suggest you use it to make your posts more readable.

[Howedar]

Signed.

[Joe]

Tharkun, why don't you go down to the Nike factory in some third world country and try spouting this crap to the child laborers over there? I'm sure they would love to hear your repetative banter about the free market system with zero government controls over labor.

Since you now have seemingly become immune to logic and are refusing to do anything but repost your same old shit, I see no reason to take apart your argument further.

Fine, put your money where your mouth is. No more third world made products for you!

[Darth Wong]

I see and what bills do you have I didn't? Car payments? Needing to eat? Having to provide a roof over your head?
...
Tell me what is the massive difference between a single member of the "real world" and a student who pays all the same bills?
...
I see what responsibilities was I lacking that a single member of the workforce was lacking?

I see you're too fucking stupid to notice all of the times I mentioned kids and a mortgage in every post prior to this one. Thanks for repeating your irrelevant non-rebuttal several times, though. I'm sure you thought the repetition would make it even more powerful.

So all the people who live in apartments have no responility?

They do if they have kids. But kids + mortgage is the biggest responsibility, which is why I keep mentioning it and you keep ignoring it.

I'd have no problem if they removed most of the rent protections, I signed a contract which stipulated in detail my obligations and the landlords obligations. So long as he lives up to his end of the bargain, I don't care. Bloody hell why do you think they invented contracts?

Try negotiating a contract without those laws in place to guarantee that contracts cannot contain certain enforceable stipulations, dumb-ass. You keep thinking that in a perfect unregulated world, those with more power and those with less power can negotiate on even terms.

Right and they make up the rank and file of the republican party People in all walks of life support limited government, it is not simply bacause you lack experience.

Oh, so anyone who supports laws forcing employers to pay for overtime must be against "limited government?" I had no idea that I was in favour of UNlimited government. Thank you for the black/white fallacy.

I dunno maybe I might sign a contract during the upturn and negotiate during the upturn?

you think you could sign a long-term guaranteed contract as a typical worker at a typical company? Yet again, I see that Mr. Peter Pan Fantasy World has a plan. And what a pretty little plan!

The simple fact of the matter is the value of your labor goes down during a downturn. One should not press for greater compensation when you are already compensated at the fair market value of your labor. When the upturn comes you get concessions, when the downturn comes you may have to make concessions. If you are wise you plan for the eventuallities.

And of course, it's impossible for something to go wrong in such a manner that you have no control over it. Good show disproving my assertion that you're living in a fantasy world.

And when the inevitable upturn comes the employees will push their wages up to ridiciously high values (late happen before dot.com bombed).

In that case, the company goes out of business and the employees pay the price. What is the penalty for companies who fuck their employees and ruin their home lives when they have an opportunity to do so?

Further one bright employer might offer slightly better compensation than his competitors to lure away the best members of the workforce. Another one comes along and ups it just a bit more.

Your theories work perfectly during a boom. Unfortunately, they result in misery during a downturn. Only an idiot designs a machine which only works under ideal conditions and falls apart under load, dumb-ass.

Management wants cheap workers but they also want productive workers. There is a natural point where the tradeoff is optimum.

Optimum using what measure of performance?

If people don't unionize, it is because they don't value it enough to take whatever risk it entails.

It's easy to talk about risk when it's somebody else's hypothetical kids who will be told that they have to leave their home and all of their friends, Mr. Fantasy World.

And labor knows how much a disruption it is to train new employees and get them integrated into the workforce. They demand just enough to keep the management from looking elsewhere for labor.

Thank you, Mr. Obvious. How does this support your assertion that labour laws are unnecessary?

Okay society has incentive to stop people from working ludicrious hours, but they don't have an incentive to stop people from working ludicrious hours if they get paid highly for it.

So why the fuck are you against regulations forcing companies to pay a premium for overtime work? You just contradicted your entire position, for fuck's sake!

It seems to me that the negative effects of absent fathers and the like happen regardless of how much you get paid for your work.

Fathers are less absent when they work shorter weeks, dumb-ass.

So exactly why is the debate over time and half and simply banning overtime except in critical situations (with some type of safegaurds on abuse of that system)?

Safeguards? What kind of safeguards? Surely you don't mean LEGAL safeguards, do you? After all, you insist that laws are unnecessary to regulate the labour market! Employees can just negotiate their own solutions, right Mr. Fantasy World?

Actually I was pulling from historical examples. Jospin slashed the French workweek to 35 hours and required extra hours be converted to vacation time. Non-compliance was a criminal offense.

Revocation of corporate charter was put forward by numerous labor activists in the 1800's.

Good to know you're basing your ideas on situations which are relevant to the modern world and modern societal expectations

In other words you have no historical examples of how options other than government mandate failed to secure overtime for workforces who wanted it?

Why should I need any? Government mandate is the only one which works for all workers across the nation rather than the chosen few who have enough leverage to force their employer into a concession.

No the number you ascribe to me without basis could bury a house. Historically the union solution to overtime was to limit the workweek. Yes cases exist where overtime is warranted, and I beleive you aught to be able to engage in it.

But you just said that either no regulation at all or outright criminalization of overtime are both superior solutions to mandated time and a half. So in your fantasy world, the 20% of workers who are in unions will have reasonable working conditions, and the rest can go fuck themselves if they can't negotiate their way to a better deal, right?

However I also beleive one aught to be able to sell their own labor under whatever terms they beleive to be desirable. If I want to work 45 hours at my normal pay rate, I should be able to. I should not be forced to work fewer simply because the company has a standing no overtime policy.

So you postulate a worker who wants to be paid less for his overtime, eh? Congratulations, you have successfully presented a hypothetical situation where my argument does not apply. The fact that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything remotely resembling reality is apparently not a problem for you, Mr. Fantasy World.

People are willing to do "anything" (not really but let's ignore the hyperbole) because the value of their labor is less than it was before. If your labor is worth 80k a year as a pharmacist, but their are no pharmacists jobs open ... then you sell it at market value for 40 k to do medical billing or 20k to be a pharmacy tech.

And the corporations take advantage of this to force you to work 80 hours a week because they can fire you otherwise. What part of this are you not getting?

[tharkûn]

Or pay freezes, which slowly erode your paycheque through inflation. These are very common. But what they do at the same time is they "expect" you to make more sacrifices for the company. And what are you going to do about it, when you really have no choices left?

What is fair and reasonable value for your labor? You seem to subscribe to the notion that the value of your labor is static regardless of the conditions of labor market.

If the labor market goes down you had better think about altering your lifestyle (or have planned ahead for it) to make up for the problems ensueing. Even in your world companies go broke and then you REALLY have no choices left, sometimes the cold hard nasty fact that the value of your labor goes down requires you to make changes.

Of course not. What you do is you call the guy into your office, and you give him a list of all the mistakes he's made in the last three years. You explain to him that you have serious concerns about the quality of his work, and you say that he'd better start shaping up. You don't say a word about unionizing. He'll get the message, and it won't be the kind that he can take to the labour board.

And trust me, this works on anybody. Every employee makes mistakes, and if you're the sort of manager who meticulously keeps records of them (ie- all managers), you can use them as a perfectly reasonable-looking justification to dump his ass whenever you want.

And do you think other employees will march in and bravely get fired too, to help the first guy make his case that the company was union-busting? Fat chance, they will go back to their stations and shut the fuck up.

You really haven't got a clue, have you?

So tell me how did the auto unions unionize? How do new unions manage to form AT ALL? How does the UAW, teamesters, ect. manage to actually unionize small shops if every manager can behave as you suggest?

Some how unions form. Somehow they can and do expand into small shops. If the majority truly value union representation then they will do so against known risks. If they don't, then they simply don't value union membership enough to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Obvious. How does this make it acceptable to force employees to work unpaid overtime by threatening to fire them if they won't get with the program?
Because you sign a contract about mandatory overtime. If you aren't willing to work overtime and someone else is, what right to do you have to keep the job and prevent them from accepting terms offered?

Exceptions" such as the entire workforce during any economic downturn.

Do we agree, as a general rule. that in a labor market that if a condition of high supply and low demand exists, the value of the labor is low? Do we agree, as a general rule, that in a labor market that if a condition of low supply and high demand exists, the value of the labor is high?

So say you hire in at 60k a year as an egineer somewhere. At the time there was a low supply of egineering labor and high demand. After a downturn the supply of egineering labor has increased and the demand has decreased. Do you not agree that the value of your labor has gone done?

You admit that your rule is not really a rule, yet you restate that it's a rule anyway. Lovely.


My apologees as a general rule of thumb if you can be easily replaced you aren't exactly working for less than fair market value.

Unless you're in an economic downturn, particularly in an absence of all these labour laws you find so onerous, because they can get some poor shmuck to take a ridiculously unfair wage out of desperation.
Being in an economic downturn has nothing do with it. Most managers are not sadists, they screw individuals over because a more profitable alternative exists.

Now imagine that "poor shmuck" he has the same problems as you, he has to get food and shelter. If you are truly interchangeable and he is willing to work at a wage that is a godsend to him ... why should be allowed to stand in his way?

Yet you insist that there should never be a legal solution to labour issues. Please try to avoid contradicting yourself.
Freedom of association was a constutionally garunteed right in the United States last I checked. Protecting the fundemental rights of the citizens of the United States is the alleged primary function of the government of the United States. If protections of fundemental rights, like freedom of association are infringable ... that is a problem. Not if some one wants to work overtime at less than time and half.

[The Kernel]

Tharkun, why don't you go down to the Nike factory in some third world country and try spouting this crap to the child laborers over there? I'm sure they would love to hear your repetative banter about the free market system with zero government controls over labor.

Since you now have seemingly become immune to logic and are refusing to do anything but repost your same old shit, I see no reason to take apart your argument further.

Fine, put your money where your mouth is. No more third world made products for you!

Boy, you just love fucking with us liberals don't you Durran.

I DON'T use third world made products if I can avoid it. I'm not against the idea, but the WTO needs to institute certain regulations on labor for trading partners. Anyways, nuff said; the WTO debate is something that has been debated to DEATH.

[Darth Wong]

If the labor market goes down you had better think about altering your lifestyle (or have planned ahead for it) to make up for the problems ensueing. Even in your world companies go broke and then you REALLY have no choices left, sometimes the cold hard nasty fact that the value of your labor goes down requires you to make changes.

Thank you for stating the obvious yet again. How does this eliminate the need for limits on the kind of impositions that the company can force upon you during those downturns?

So tell me how did the auto unions unionize? How do new unions manage to form AT ALL? How does the UAW, teamesters, ect. manage to actually unionize small shops if every manager can behave as you suggest?

Because they have more leverage, dumb-ass. Not all companies are the same, not all labour situations are the same. Large industrial concerns are particularly vulnerable to widespread organized labour. Decentralized small-business concerns are not. Yet again, you proudly demonstrate your ignorance of business.

Some how unions form. Somehow they can and do expand into small shops.

Very rarely, hence the fact that only 20% of the workforce is unionized even if you include the huge auto and trade unions. How many times do I need to repeat this before it sinks in?

If the majority truly value union representation then they will do so against known risks. If they don't, then they simply don't value union membership enough to do so.

If they don't, then they don't have the leverage to do it. Negotiation between parties of unequal power does not result in "fair and equitable terms", Mr. Fantasy World.

Because you sign a contract about mandatory overtime. If you aren't willing to work overtime and someone else is, what right to do you have to keep the job and prevent them from accepting terms offered?

It's not about rights; it's about placing limits on the ability of companies to run roughshod over their employees. I know you're one of these theoretical wonks who thinks that anything besides "rights" is beyond the purview of law, but quite frankly, you're wrong. Society is about more than simply the protection of basic rights, which is why we have more laws than just the Constitution.

Do we agree, as a general rule. that in a labor market that if a condition of high supply and low demand exists, the value of the labor is low? Do we agree, as a general rule, that in a labor market that if a condition of low supply and high demand exists, the value of the labor is high?

Can we agree that repeatedly stating the obvious is a fucking waste of time when it does not have anything to do with the point being made?

So say you hire in at 60k a year as an egineer somewhere. At the time there was a low supply of egineering labor and high demand. After a downturn the supply of egineering labor has increased and the demand has decreased. Do you not agree that the value of your labor has gone done?

Of course it has gone down. The point of labour laws is that there should be humane limits on just what corporations can demand of employees when the employees' bargaining positions are weak, dumb-ass.

You know? HUMANE? That concept which seems to escape your theoretical world where a wife and kids and a mortgage are just numbers to be plugged into an equation?

My apologees as a general rule of thumb if you can be easily replaced you aren't exactly working for less than fair market value.

Laws are not designed to ensure fair market value, Tharkun. Fair market value happens by itself. Laws are designed when it is deemed that unregulated environments will produce an unacceptable result. I can't believe I need to point this out.

Being in an economic downturn has nothing do with it. Most managers are not sadists, they screw individuals over because a more profitable alternative exists.

And government must balance the corporate profit motive with the damage wrought upon society.

Now imagine that "poor shmuck" he has the same problems as you, he has to get food and shelter. If you are truly interchangeable and he is willing to work at a wage that is a godsend to him ... why should be allowed to stand in his way?

Because eventually, everyone will end up being reduced to his level. The minority tragedy will become the majority tragedy, because the corporation has the power to make it happen and the government refuses to do anything about it. That's what's wrong with your laissez-faire scheme.

Freedom of association was a constutionally garunteed right in the United States last I checked. Protecting the fundemental rights of the citizens of the United States is the alleged primary function of the government of the United States.

But not its ONLY function, as you allege.

If protections of fundemental rights, like freedom of association are infringable ... that is a problem. Not if some one wants to work overtime at less than time and half.

Please find me these people who want to work overtime for a lower rate than the norm. I'd like to meet them.

[Robert Treder]

If the labor market goes down you had better think about altering your lifestyle (or have planned ahead for it) to make up for the problems ensueing. Even in your world companies go broke and then you REALLY have no choices left, sometimes the cold hard nasty fact that the value of your labor goes down requires you to make changes.

Lifestyle changes like putting your kids up for adoption, and selling your house? Give me a break.

[Stuart Mackey]

Of course not. What you do is you call the guy into your office, and you give him a list of all the mistakes he's made in the last three years. You explain to him that you have serious concerns about the quality of his work, and you say that he'd better start shaping up. You don't say a word about unionizing. He'll get the message, and it won't be the kind that he can take to the labour board.

And trust me, this works on anybody. Every employee makes mistakes, and if you're the sort of manager who meticulously keeps records of them (ie- all managers), you can use them as a perfectly reasonable-looking justification to dump his ass whenever you want.

And do you think other employees will march in and bravely get fired too, to help the first guy make his case that the company was union-busting? Fat chance, they will go back to their stations and shut the fuck up.

You really haven't got a clue, have you?

So tell me how did the auto unions unionize? How do new unions manage to form AT ALL? How does the UAW, teamesters, ect. manage to actually unionize small shops if every manager can behave as you suggest?

Some how unions form. Somehow they can and do expand into small shops. If the majority truly value union representation then they will do so against known risks. If they don't, then they simply don't value union membership enough to do so.

Jesus..what Mike just described, and you ignored, happned to me. Took me two years to get over it and the prossess damn near got me an ulcer.
Managers can act like this if the have case they can take to court, and what Mike described is a viable case. Most unions dont have the mucle to defend this because they tend not to be in a good barganing position like dockworkers

Could you use the proper quote fnctions? your habit of useing italics is very hard to read.

[tharkûn]

You're too fucking stupid to notice all of the times I mentioned kids and a mortgage in every post prior to this one. Thanks for repeating your irrelevant non-rebuttal several times, though. I'm sure you thought the repetition would make it even more powerful.

So according to you only people who own homes and have kids live in the real world? All the single apartment dwellers of the world have no real experience? One needs offspring to be a member of the workforce?

They do if they have kids. But kids + mortgage is the biggest responsibility, which is why I keep mentioning it and you keep ignoring it
Pardon me if I find it hard to beleive that no single, childless persons exist in the "real world" or that such persons have "no responsibilites".

Try negotiating a contract without those laws in place to guarantee that contracts cannot contain certain enforceable stipulations, dumb-ass. You keep thinking that in a perfect unregulated world, those with more power and those with less power can negotiate on even terms.
Sometimes the market favours labor, sometimes it favors management. It should tend to even out. Sometimes you can negotiate from a position of strength, sometimes you must negotiate from a position of weakness.

Oh, so anyone who supports laws forcing employers to pay for overtime must be against "limited government?" I had no idea that I was in favour of UNlimited government. Thank you for the black/white fallacy.
You and I both know that there are plenty of republican rank and file members who don't oppose this measure. You and I both know that perfectly knowledgable libertarians who have wives and kids have argued this for years. Do you honestly contend that NO ONE with real understanding of the "real world" (aside from management) could support this?

you think you could sign a long-term guaranteed contract as a typical worker at a typical company? Yet again, I see that Mr. Peter Pan Fantasy World has a plan. And what a pretty little plan!
Short term contracts can go both ways. If the upturn last longer then you renogiate for yet higher pay. These things should tend to average out, every tactic the company has to screw you in the downturn comes with ones employees can use to screw the company in the upturn. I mean seriously half of the time the economy is doing better than average.

And of course, it's impossible for something to go wrong in such a manner that you have no control over it. Good show disproving my assertion that you're living in a fantasy world.
And of course it's impossible for something to go wrong in such a manner you have no control over it if you had overtime. I don't claim removing the mandatory nature of nature will solve every problem in the world.

The mandatory nature of overtime should stand or fall on its own merits. Does it protect someone for whom castrophy strikes? It depends. It garuntees people better pay for overtime, but it denies other people any overtime at all. Say you have unforseen medical bills (or whatever catastrophy you wish) and you work for a company with a zero overtime policy, you can't bring home more money barring getting another job. However without the overtime rules you could volunteer to work more hours and bring home more money. Depending on the circumstances it can go either way.

In that case, the company goes out of business and the employees pay the price. What is the penalty for companies who fuck their employees and ruin their home lives when they have an opportunity to do so?
They receive a workforce that hates their guts and will jump ship to a more benificient company when the oppurtunity presents itself during the next upturn and the company gets bought up when they have no workforce to expand when their competitors do.

Let's say you worked for a company that did dick over your family life (and there are more ways than overtime to do this) during an economic downturn. Exactly how long would it be during the next upturn before you jumped ship? If there was a tight labor market and a competitor needed more MEs and they offered you the same job, but had a reputation for being family friendly would you be gone?

Your theories work perfectly during a boom. Unfortunately, they result in misery during a downturn. Only an idiot designs a machine which only works under ideal conditions and falls apart under load, dumb-ass.
During an upturn employees have the position of strength, during the downturn the employers have the position of strength. During the entire time it should average out to equality.

Optimum using what measure of performance?
Optimum in terms of whatever goals management sets. I would be a cheaper egineer than you. Your employer could fire you and hire me for peanuts. However your employer would be heartily screwed in the bargain. I would be a much less productive worker than you because I am not a trained egineer and have no experience at it. They can get lots of labor out of me, it would just be useless.

The best workers tend to be paid the best. The lower your wages go, the worse the quality of your labor becomes. There is an tradeoff between hiring for cheap wages and hiring for quality performance.

It's easy to talk about risk when it's somebody else's hypothetical kids who will be told that they have to leave their home and all of their friends, Mr. Fantasy World.
How does overtime solve the problem?

Say you work 50 hours at 20 bucks an hour, with overtime that comes out to 1,100 a week with overtime. Now management, being assholes, comes back and says well if you don't accept a 10% paycut we are going to fire you. Further the labor market is such that other people are willing to work at 18 dollars an hour.

Say you work 50 hours a week at 20 bucks an hour and with overtime you make 1,100 a week. Now management, being assholes, comes back and says well if you don't take regular time overtime we are going to fire you. Further the labor market is such that other people are willing to work overtime at regular pay.

Okay how did overtime protect you? Why is the first action less abhorrant than the second? If they are equally abhorrant why is the first not protected against by government mandate and the latter is?

Thank you, Mr. Obvious. How does this support your assertion that labour laws are unnecessary?
Labor laws might not be uncessary, but they should only be enacted when it has been demonstrated no other option is viable.

The blunt fact is you do nothing but talk about the downturn. During the downturn the employee gets the short end of the stick. During the upturn they get the long end. In the end it averages out.

So why the fuck are you against regulations forcing companies to pay a premium for overtime work? You just contradicted your entire position, for fuck's sake!

Sorry that should have ended in a question. If it is detrimental to scoiety to have people working long hours at normal pay, why is it okay to have them work it for a premium price?

Why is bad from a societal perspective to have somebody work for 50 hours a week at 22 dollars an hour with no overtime but okay for somebody to work 50 hours a week at 20 dollars an hour with overtime?

Fathers are less absent when they work shorter weeks, dumb-ass.

Irrelevant to your point. Does it matter how much the father gets paid if works the same hours? More telling if the father works for 50 hours at 22 with no overtime how is worse than working for 50 at 20 with overtime?

What is gained by paying more for overtime?

Safeguards? What kind of safeguards? Surely you don't mean LEGAL safeguards, do you? After all, you insist that laws are unnecessary to regulate the labour market! Employees can just negotiate their own solutions, right Mr. Fantasy World?
Again I don't think the work week should be limited. My position doesn't have one bit of government mandated enforcing another bit of government mandate.

Numerous people have suggested all manner of solutions to this question. I'd have to read up on the specifics of the French laws, but I think they audit your books and noncompliance reaps a stiff fine. Their solutions are simply alternatives I do not necessarily back ... BUT ARE ALTERNATIVES TO YOUR POSITION.

Good to know you're basing your ideas on situations which are relevant to the modern world and modern societal expectations
As opposed to labor regulations written in 1935

You do realize that Jospin enacted his reforms in 2000, right?

Why should I need any? Government mandate is the only one which works for all workers across the nation rather than the chosen few who have enough leverage to force their employer into a concession.
Okay you claim it is the only one, prove it.

But you just said that either no regulation at all or outright criminalization of overtime are both superior solutions to mandated time and a half. So in your fantasy world, the 20% of workers who are in unions will have reasonable working conditions, and the rest can go fuck themselves if they can't negotiate their way to a better deal, right?
No I said I don't support a government mandated 40 hour work week nor a government mandated overtime policy. If we removed both of these the need for union representation would go up and hence more people would join. Outright criminalization is not necessarily better, but it IS another option - essentially the claim that because you have a 40 hour work week you must pay time and over is fallacious.


So you postulate a worker who wants to be paid less for his overtime, eh? Congratulations, you have successfully presented a hypothetical situation where my argument does not apply. The fact that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything remotely resembling reality is apparently not a problem for you, Mr. Fantasy World.

Hardly. It is common practice to limit the number of hours employees can work. It is common practice for such workers to want to earn more money. If the option exists to earn more money without overtime or earn the same amount of money because the company forbids working more than 40 hours, some people will choose the former.

People want money and are willing to work for it. What does it matter if your hourly rate goes if you work more than 40 hours if your employer won't let you work more than 40 hours a week?

And the corporations take advantage of this to force you to work 80 hours a week because they can fire you otherwise. What part of this are you not getting?
The part where there is some difference between some company forcing you to work 80 hours at 20 an hour with overtime and forcing you to work 80 hours at 40 an hour without overtime. In this case you are essentially looking at a 50% paycut. Does it matter if they do it by cutting your overtime or just cutting your hourly pay?

Tell me Mike, how do you determine fair and reasonable market value for labor?

[Hamel]

Ludwig von Moses rots one's brain

[Hamel]

Tharkun, why don't you go down to the Nike factory in some third world country and try spouting this crap to the child laborers over there? I'm sure they would love to hear your repetative banter about the free market system with zero government controls over labor.

Since you now have seemingly become immune to logic and are refusing to do anything but repost your same old shit, I see no reason to take apart your argument further.

Fine, put your money where your mouth is. No more third world made products for you!

As long as da boss gets da 6th extra bonus for the year it's all good.

[Darth Wong]

I don't claim removing the mandatory nature of nature will solve every problem in the world.

What do you claim, then? Let's cut to the chase instead of doing this endless tit-for-tat bullshit, shall we?

Your argument can be distilled down to 5 basic points:

1. You believe that "whatever the market will bear when all regulations are removed" is "fair market value", even under conditions where there is a huge asymmetry in bargaining posture between the parties in a negotiation (one party's risk is of enormous and immediate personal and emotional import to him, so much so that its loss has been documented to result in suicide in many cases, while the other party is merely shuffling numbers on a spreadsheet and considering long-term positions).
2. You believe that market value for labour is the only acceptable criterion for desirable working conditions. Anything which deviates from this is unjust and undesirable.
3. You believe that labour laws force deviation from whatever the market will bear (true), therefore they are unjust (not getting the point).
4. You disregard any notion that the labour market should be regulated in some manner as to ensure that working conditions are humane. If the fair market value is inhumane, then so be it according to you.
5. You believe that all of the examples and scenarios I have described in which people cannot individually negotiate, plan, or independently resolve unacceptable working conditions without government help are irrelevant, unimportant, or unrealistic, even though there are countless precedents for all of them occurring exactly as described. Your abysmal inexperience in the real world has been revealed repeatedly in your refusal to accept that certain things can happen even though they can and have, and like far too many snot-nosed kids who've never had real responsibilities in the real world, you refuse to accept the limitations of your inexperience.

Sorry, but your argument is bullshit, and I'm tired of fighting with you over its details while you refuse to see the forest for the trees. You harp on "fair market value" as if the objective of regulation is to ensure that the laws of supply and demand take effect: a ridiculous objective since they take effect on their own, and laws exist in order to limit the effect of natural tendencies like that. One of the things we expect from government is that it will prevent inhumane things from occurring, dumb-ass.

[tharkûn]

You believe that "whatever the market will bear when all regulations are removed" is "fair market value", even under conditions where there is a huge asymmetry in bargaining posture between the parties in a negotiation (one party's risk is of enormous and immediate personal and emotional import to him, so much so that its loss has been documented to result in suicide in many cases, while the other party is merely shuffling numbers on a spreadsheet and considering long-term positions).


I beleive that over time the results will average out, that a person will experience a time bargaining from power and a time bargaining from weakness.


You believe that market value for labour is the only acceptable criterion for desirable working conditions. Anything which deviates from this is unjust and undesirable

No I beleive that deviation from it is the option of last resort. In the case of overtime if you eliminate it as a mandatory requirement, the current result will be employers making it as concession to their workforce. In the longterm there will simply be a readjustment in wages or it being included as a fairly standard clause in contracts.


u believe that labour laws force deviation from whatever the market will bear (true), therefore they are unjust (not getting the point).

No I beleive that government has a fairly consistent record of paving the road to hell with good intentions. The use of governmental mandate is the option of last resort. If it is truly a problem, if it cannot be solved any other way (say through voluntary action by the populace), and if there is reasonable expectation that the government won'd do an assbackward job then it is cause to do things by mandare

You disregard any notion that the labour market should be regulated in some manner as to ensure that working conditions are humane. If the fair market value is inhumane, then so be it according to you.

The labour market should be regulated IFF:
1. It somehow impinges on basic rights.
2. A real problem persists which cannot be solved by other means and is not going to result in yet another government cock-up.
3. It somehow involves a dire threat to the nation (i.e. wartime regulation or national security)

5. You believe that all of the examples and scenarios I have described in which people cannot individually negotiate, plan, or independently resolve unacceptable working conditions without government help are irrelevant, unimportant, or unrealistic, even though there are countless precedents for all of them occurring exactly as described. Your abysmal inexperience in the real world has been revealed repeatedly in your refusal to accept that certain things can happen even though they can and have, and like far too many snot-nosed kids who've never had real responsibilities in the real world, you refuse to accept the limitations of your inexperience.

I beleive that all of the examples you cite are not solved by overtime laws. If an employer could reasonably walk up to an employee and say, "Give up your time and half" (resulting in a net 10% decrease in pay) they could also walk up to you and say, "Take a 10% paycut." In the end there is no functional difference between the two and why you would have a law protecting the one and not the other makes no sense. A law banning mandatory overtime would make more sense than mandatory time and half

One of the things we expect from government is that it will prevent inhumane things from occurring, dumb-ass.

So what is the difference between your employer demanding you not get paid time and half and you employer demanding you take a pay cut of equal value? The net result is equally "inhumane" yet one is protected and the other not. Given that the employer can screw the employee in another way to get the same effect and that this law does infringe on individuals' right to the pursuit of happiness; it therefore, is not a solution to a problem only government mandate can solve

Again I come back to what is the difference between losing time and a half when you are working 50 @ 20 an hour or being forced to take a 10% paycut when working 50 @ 22 an hour?

[Darth Wong]

Tharkun, START USING THE QUOTE FEATURE. You're not so fucking stupid that you don't know how, so you're obviously doing it this way to irritate all of the people who keep asking you to use it.

I beleive that over time the results will average out, that a person will experience a time bargaining from power and a time bargaining from weakness.

I see it does not occur to you that his individual risk factor is always much higher than the corporation's risk factor.

No I beleive that deviation from it is the option of last resort.

Yet you have failed to present workable alternatives, since your alternate suggestions (simply criminalizing overtime or eliminating all regulation) were shown to be completely unworkable through examples which you simply ignored in favour of axiomatic dogma.

In the case of overtime if you eliminate it as a mandatory requirement, the current result will be employers making it as concession to their workforce. In the longterm there will simply be a readjustment in wages or it being included as a fairly standard clause in contracts.

And you base this prediction on ...?

No I beleive that government has a fairly consistent record of paving the road to hell with good intentions. The use of governmental mandate is the option of last resort. If it is truly a problem, if it cannot be solved any other way (say through voluntary action by the populace), and if there is reasonable expectation that the government won'd do an assbackward job then it is cause to do things by mandare

More vague generalizations. You must address the merits of this case specifically rather than appealing to vague generalizations.

The labour market should be regulated IFF:
1. It somehow impinges on basic rights.
2. A real problem persists which cannot be solved by other means and is not going to result in yet another government cock-up.
3. It somehow involves a dire threat to the nation (i.e. wartime regulation or national security)

And you refuse to accept that condition #2 exists because of your abysmal ignorance of how labour relations work. Even after several of your ridiculous claims about the nature of labour negotiations were shot down with clear examples, you simply ignored them and doggedly soldiered on with your assumptions about how it should work. People who dismiss observation in favour of personal theory are not just being unscientific; they're being idiots.

I beleive that all of the examples you cite are not solved by overtime laws.

Thus missing the point that overtime laws are but one of the many labour laws which exist to solve those problems, and evading the point that removing such laws will only worsen the situation.

If an employer could reasonably walk up to an employee and say, "Give up your time and half" (resulting in a net 10% decrease in pay) they could also walk up to you and say, "Take a 10% paycut."

Except that this would place no special penalty on asking for overtime, which is the whole point, and which you actually conceded at one point earlier when you admitted that society has a legitimate interest in limiting work time for employees. Again, you're missing the whole point.

In the end there is no functional difference between the two and why you would have a law protecting the one and not the other makes no sense. A law banning mandatory overtime would make more sense than mandatory time and half

See above.

One of the things we expect from government is that it will prevent inhumane things from occurring, dumb-ass.

So what is the difference between your employer demanding you not get paid time and half and you employer demanding you take a pay cut of equal value?

See above.

The net result is equally "inhumane" yet one is protected and the other not.

Wrong. One is more inhumane than the other because it encourages long work hours.

Given that the employer can screw the employee in another way to get the same effect and that this law does infringe on individuals' right to the pursuit of happiness; it therefore, is not a solution to a problem only government mandate can solve

Do you need me to show you mathematical examples of why your two scenarios are not equal? How dense are you?

Again I come back to what is the difference between losing time and a half when you are working 50 @ 20 an hour or being forced to take a 10% paycut when working 50 @ 22 an hour?

I suggest you purchase a device known as a "calculator", and try working out some scenarios with very long work hours under both schemes: reduction in overall pay rate by 10% and elimination of overtime 1.5x pay. It appears that you are too stupid to see what is an obvious inequality between the two scenarios without such calculations even though it's as plain as the nose on your face.

Hint: 1.5 x 90% = 135%

[tharkûn]

Tharkun, START USING THE QUOTE FEATURE. You're not so fucking stupid that you don't know how, so you're obviously doing it this way to irritate all of the people who keep asking you to use it.

I despise the bloody quote feature it gets damn annoying when the quotes go several deep. I used to use the standard accepted english symbol for quotes, namely quotation marks. People bitched, I switched to italics. People bitched about the italics so now I'm using the same exact scheme you use for the webpage. Is nothing acceptable except that hideous quote feature? Call it an irrational question of taste but I simply hate the stupid thing

I see it does not occur to you that his individual risk factor is always much higher than the corporation's risk factor.

Of course it does, but the company faces many more negotiations, if it isn't collective bargaining. Some things add up and a more benificient competitor will eat you alive during the upturn. In other words corporations can be utter asses during downturns, but it risks everything on the workforce not bolting once given the chance

And you base this prediction on ...? [/green]

The fact that despite having only 20% of the population unionized numerous benifits are standard in most employment agreements. Things like sick days, vacations, etc. I fail to see why corporations would grant concessions like these, you know things that help your family life at the expense of corporate profit, but not overtime pay if the average worker demands it.[/color=yellow]


And you refuse to accept that condition #2 exists because of your abysmal ignorance of how labour relations work. Even after several of your ridiculous claims about the nature of labour negotiations were shot down with clear examples, you simply ignored them and doggedly soldiered on with your assumptions about how it should work. People who dismiss observation in favour of personal theory are not just being unscientific; they're being idiots.

What I have seen amounts to ancedotal evidence and much talk about economic downturns. The negative effects during downturns should be counterbalanced by positive effects during upturns. Further all of your arguements about assymetrical negotiations fail when the question about why doesn't management simpy slash wages? If you will do "anything" to keep a job, why would managment dick around with things like overtime pay if they have you over a barral and can just cut your pay? Every scenario you mention about how a company could abuse non-mandatory time and half could also be used to cut wages outright.

Thus missing the point that overtime laws are but one of the many labour laws which exist to solve those problems, and evading the point that removing such laws will only worsen the situation.

There are no labor laws that protect your pay rate. Why don't employers walk up to their employees during downturns and slash wages? If such is happening what aren't their governmental protections?

You have stated that an employer could force an employee to work long hours at low pay (the actual harm in eliminating overtime) without the overtime regs. I see NOTHING that prevents an employer from doing the same by cutting your pay (or vacation days, paid sick leave, etc.). Why aren't employers getting the same results using slightly different tactics when those tactics are legal now?

Except that this would place no special penalty on asking for overtime, which is the whole point, and which you actually conceded at one point earlier when you admitted that society has a legitimate interest in limiting work time for employees. Again, you're missing the whole point.
Okay its the middle of downturn. The boss has decided to squeeeze the employees. He introduces mandotary overtime (which is currently allowed) while simultanously instituting a general paycut that exactly offsets the increased labor costs from overtime. How has society made a special penalty for overtime?

On the other hand I see a personal incentive for employees to work more. If you can get overtime you get rewarded more for the more you work. Instead of punishing an inidividual for working overtime, they now face a law of increasing returns for the more hours a week they work. In some cases, like say a tight job market, it would be more benificial for the company to have more overtime worked than hire and train new employees. If creating an incentive for companies to want individuals to work longer is bad, then creating an incentive for individuals to work longer must be as well (though I grant, not as bad as the former).

The blunt fact of the matter is most employers don't slash wages during downturns, they don't can vacation days ... for all the power of the assymetrical positions of power it simply is rare for massive cuts to be in things that are legal now.

If the employer can acheive the same net results by another method, yet chooses (for whatever reason) not to use that other method, why is the mandatory protection of time and half required?

Wrong. One is more inhumane than the other because it encourages long work hours.

The boss comes into the shop and states, "Starting tomorrow every man will work 10 hours longer a week and starting tomorrow every many will take a paycut equal to the overtime he would have earned."

The boss comes into the shop and states, "Starting tommorrow every man will work 10 hours longer at his normal pay rate."

The first is legal, and if I take your word is well within the bosses ability to do because of his superior bargaining position. It has the exact same effect as the second which you class as inhumane enough to warrant legal protection.

I suggest you purchase a device known as a "calculator", and try working out some scenarios with very long work hours under both schemes: reduction in overall pay rate by 10% and elimination of overtime 1.5x pay. It appears that you are too stupid to see what is an obvious inequality between the two scenarios without such calculations even though it's as plain as the nose on your face.

Witty comments about a calculator aside did you notice that above example was back calculated to work exactly? Say instead of the boss requiring 50@20 they want 60@35 to not pay time and half or 60@30 to pay time and half? If I beleive that the assymetrical bargaining positions allow the employer to demand and 14.5% pay by vritue of removing time and half ... why would I not also beleive he could get the same effect by using pay cut?

Whatever the hours in a specific situation require, cut the pay by the percentage needed to have the same effect. We don't see employers regularly soaking their employees for paycuts while demanding overtime; thus I beleive I am justified in beleiving they won't demand overtime without time and a half.