No More Overtime?! Really?!
Some things just absolutely tick me off.
Initially, I was even like “OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!”
Why? Because that money I like to have when I’ve been working for over 40 hours a week.
That was my initial line of thinking because as an individual, overtime pay has helped me through a lot of rough spots. It allowed me to avoid having to get a second job more often than not. But now that I am running my own company, I see immediately where the government (de)regulation here will remove an absolutely HUGE burden on many many employers here in the U.S. and allow a LOT of staffing opportunities to occur.
This type of legislation will definitely rock the boat, but not necessarily in a bad way. At first I was skeptical because of the impact it has on workers that rely on overtime. Then I realized that this only applied to employees who actually get to work over 40 hours a week (with a few exceptions). Those hit the worst on this type of legislation are union workers, whose inflated salaries are a HUGE drain on employers. Followed up by contractors used to gouging on time over 40. After that…well…it’s not actually that bad.
Here’s the kicker though. This potentially saves employers a TON of money. The reason companies dont like overtime in their service process is because it literally throws profitability in the shitter. Work-related accidents happen more often to employees working over 40 hours per week than those that dont. This affects disability, and workmans comp insurance. Immediate affects are seen in shared tax and compensation responsibilities. Essentially, businesses that dont have to pay overtime are far more likely to be able to employ their staff more, or allow for more staffers based on this (de)regulation.
Dont get me wrong, I love overtime, but to be honest it causes more pain to employers that it’s worth to the employees getting the extra pay, and allows companies to staff better.
Are there arenas where this may be a catalyst to working overworked people even more? Absolutely, but this tactic is already used and a TON of companies already dodge the overtime bullet by deliberately misrepresenting positions as exempt job types when they are nothing of the sort.
Anyhow, I am really curious if this is just another smokescreen platform to get us riled up while something else is pushed through or if it’s like SOPA/CISPA.
Article from the Daily KOS
Opposition Article from PoliticusUSA
HR 1119
Jacob Carlton liked this on Facebook.
Ron Stephens liked this on Facebook.
Companies already avoid paying overtime. One of our competitors pays assistant managers a salary, allowing them to abuse the assistants. If an hourly employee is getting close to 40 hours, they are given the rest of the day off and the salaried assistant is expected to step in and finish that employee’s shift, even if that assistant is already over 40 for the week. This is not a power industry, so the people who accept a salaried, low level management position are usually not aware of the abuse they will suffer, and then most would stay because it is easier than finding a better job. I think this is another ridiculous “hot button issue” cooked up to distract the sheeple.
Joseph O’Neil liked this on Facebook.
I think that everyone should receive overtime if they work in excess of 40 hours a week. If employers dont want to pay overtime then hire more workers, last time I checked there were millions of un-employed people in these here United States. Forty hours is enough over the course of a week but to be sure lets break it down;
7 days in a week = 168 hours,
168hrs – 56hrs for sleeping 8 hours a day = 112hrs,
112 hrs – 32 hrs from that for the 2 days that your off (sleep has already been subtracted) = 80 hrs left.
80hrs – 40 hrs of working = 40 hrs left
So with the exception of getting a couple of days off to recharge and spend some time doing the things that make the weekly flogging worth it, we already give as much to work as we do to are selves. I really see no reason they should get more. I would be willing to work 4 ten hour days which I wish more companies would go to. These are my thoughts, please do not let my prospective employers know how I really feel.
Your friend,
C
I don’t think it a simple a question of whether or not everyone deserves more for those hours. The OT compensation system is mismanaged far less in hourly situations than in salaried situations, and so this legislation doesn’t really correct a problem as much as it inflames another.
The debate on overtime is grossly misrepresented. There are benefits to both the employer and the employee in the overtime system. For each hour of overtime, the employer doesn’t pay any extra for the employee’s health insurance, dental, and in most cases 401(k). This is because unless you read your hiring contract closely, they base this on only the first 40 hours of work. So while the employer is paying you $10 per hour in wages, they are paying between $4 to $8 in benefits depending on how good they are. So when you get into overtime and they have to start paying you $15 per hour, nothing has really changed for them, in fact they could be paying less for you to work overtime than for you to work your first 40 hours. Sure they still have workers comp. insurance and payouts for increased accidents, but it still means they don’t have to hire another employee and cover all of the benefits for them.
Considering there are companies out there that already work their people 60-80 hours per week, 7 days a week, etc. etc… obviously this is a better deal for them than hiring more people. Now take away the time and a half pay requirement. LESS people will be employed because more companies will see the benefit of slave driving. Unless we want to set a maximum hours per week to go along with this, taking away overtime is a bad idea.
On a side note, studies have shown that long term, people working more than 53 hours per week are at an increased risk of OTJ injury. so working people 45-50 hours is your sweet spot.