Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[Winston Legthigh]

If a business has more than 40 hours worth of work per employee per week, perhaps they have too few employees.

good help is hard to find.

 

If I may take a stab, your exempt employees earn considerably more than the non-exempt, correct?

considerably.

[Guest Jules]

If a business has more than 40 hours worth of work per employee per week, perhaps they have too few employees.

completely wrong

[Guest Speed Racer]

considerably.

 

And so the non-exempt would also earn considerably more (though still considerably less than the exempt, I imagine) if they worked more than 40 hours/week. How is that not fair and just?

[bjorn_skurj]

I think people who criticize labor laws are like the people who criticize vaccinations. They don't have a clear idea of what life was like before - people working six-day, 12-plus-hours-a-day weeks and people dying in droves of smallpox. Unions may have gone too far in some instances, but they are a needed balance to laissez-faire capitalist thinking.

[Guest Jules]

And so the non-exempt would also earn considerably more (though still considerably less than the exempt, I imagine) if they worked more than 40 hours/week. How is that not fair and just?

Did he say it wasn't? It's pretty common for companies to have policies (written or unwritten) to not go over 40 hours for OT eligible employees.

[Guest Speed Racer]

completely wrong

 

Shockingly, I agree with you. We always employ below our workload, which I think is nothing short of prudent.

 

However, if you can't stay afloat without a considerable amount of your employees working more than 40 hours per week, and you cannot compensate them adequately for working more than 40 hours per week, something is wrong with your business model.

[Guest Jules]

Shockingly, I agree with you. We always employ below our workload, which I think is nothing short of prudent.

 

However, if you can't stay afloat without a considerable amount of your employees working more than 40 hours per week, and you cannot compensate them adequately for working more than 40 hours per week, something is wrong with your business model.

yep

[Guest Speed Racer]

I'd consider that a limit, and a pretty hefty one at that.

 

This is where I interpreted his statement to say it wasn't fair and just, though I could be wrong. It's in no way a limit on how much employees can work, it's a threshold for the bare minimum of acceptable compensation for work.

[Winston Legthigh]

And so the non-exempt would also earn considerably more (though still considerably less than the exempt, I imagine) if they worked more than 40 hours/week. How is that not fair and just?

?

 

I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about. I just was pointing out to jff that the government does indeed limit the amount of hours one may work, through financial sanctions. I never made any statement about the practice not being fair or just.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I never made any statement about the practice not being fair or just.

 

True enough, though I disagree that OT pay is a limit, and I wouldn't call time-and-a-half a sanction.

[jff]

good help is hard to find.

 

 

 

 

And good quality work is hard to do.

 

completely wrong

 

If you want to work 80 hours for base level pay, be my guest.

[jff]

 

 

I just was pointing out to jff that the government does indeed limit the amount of hours one may work [AT A SINGLE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT], through financial sanctions.

 

See Speed Racer's post above.

 

Many people work numerous jobs, adding up to more than 40 hours per week. The government does not interfere or attempt to limit that.

[Guest Jules]

If you want to work 80 hours for base level pay, be my guest.

What?

[Winston Legthigh]

This is where I interpreted his statement to say it wasn't fair and just, though I could be wrong. It's in no way a limit on how much employees can work, it's a threshold for the bare minimum of acceptable compensation for work.

It's definitely a limit, but I have no comment on it being fair or just.

 

Say an employer has a manufacturing job for 2 people. He wants 100 units produced a day. To do that, the 2 employees must work the line for 12 hours a day, at $10/hr. Without the FSLA, he could do this by paying them each $120/day. With the FSLA, he has to pay them each $140/day (8 hours@$10 + 4 hours@$15). That's a 17% markup on his budget, which is a financial sanction to him, which is a limit on the work hours set by the government.

[Guest Speed Racer]

That's a 17% markup on his budget, which is a financial sanction to him, which is a limit on the work hours set by the government.

 

From another perspective, it encourages him to look at a business model that fairly compensates workers. Not a sanction against the business, but a benefit to the workers.

 

Using your scenario, he can use the time and a half for four extra hours for both workers to employ a third manufacturer at $12/hour, plus any overhead costs for the extra employee with the extra halves from the time and a half (I'm guessing these folks aren't getting benefits with their job). If he doesn't have the equipment for a third employee, he can probably afford to take a salary cut (I'm going to take a stab and say that he's making significantly more than $12/hour). Or he can move his obviously small operation to a space with a lower rent. Or he can have the employees working on a rotating schedule so that three employees can safely use equipment for two.

 

What?

 

I think he just offered you a job.

[Winston Legthigh]

See Speed Racer's post above.

 

Many people work numerous jobs, adding up to more than 40 hours per week. The government does not interfere or attempt to limit that.

Fine.

[renic]

I dunno about anything that's been posted in this thread and plead ignorance to most of the health care debate. That is until recently I was diagnosed with diabetes. The medicine to treat my diabetes alone costs a small fortune and I am insured! And still I am paying out the wazoo to get the meds I need at that. I can only imagine what someone who is uninsured and in my same health has to pay.

 

 

this happened to me in march of this year. 4 days in the hospital to stabilize my blood sugar. now i have the pleasure of injecting 2 types of insulin up to 4 times a day & have to test myself all the time. i work 24 hours a week & i have no insurance. fun stuff huh!

 

however, the clinic that i go to is extremely knowledgeable in patient assistance programs (not to mention that i don't pay for the lab work for the tests) & since i fit into a certain income bracket, the hospital wrote off the entire stay, including a visit with a nutritionist and a diabetic educator (twice even). b/c of the 2 places, i now don't pay for either insulin or pen needles. i was also able to move into an apt owned by a friend that's like family so i pay next to nothing in rent so i can make sure i can properly take care of myself. the only thing i have not been able to find is some sort of program or discount for the test strips, which come to about a dollar a strip.

 

all in all, i got really lucky for being so sick.

[Winston Legthigh]

From another perspective, it encourages him to look at a business model that fairly compensates workers. Not a sanction against the business, but a benefit to the workers.

 

Using your scenario, he can use the time and a half for four extra hours for both workers to employ a third manufacturer at $12/hour, plus any overhead costs for the extra employee with the extra halves from the time and a half (I'm guessing these folks aren't getting benefits with their job). If he doesn't have the equipment for a third employee, he can probably afford to take a salary cut (I'm going to take a stab and say that he's making significantly more than $12/hour). Or he can move his obviously small operation to a space with a lower rent. Or he can have the employees working on a rotating schedule so that three employees can safely use equipment for two.

 

You're a problem solver. You must be exempt.

[uncool2pillow]

If a business has more than 40 hours worth of work per employee per week, perhaps they have too few employees.

Maybe it's all they can afford because they are expected to (or maybe soon required to) provide medical insurance.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Maybe it's all they can afford because they are expected to (or maybe soon required to) provide medical insurance.

 

To quote myself:

 

If you can't stay afloat without a considerable amount of your employees working more than 40 hours per week, and you cannot compensate them adequately for working more than 40 hours per week, something is wrong with your business model.

[uncool2pillow]

To quote myself:

So the government is can stack up any level of expensive regulation?? Like it or not, in today's world, companies who find the cost of employing people in the US too expensive have plenty of other options. Is that the business model you prefer?

[Guest Speed Racer]

So the government is can stack up any level of expensive regulation??

 

Never said that, actually. I was quoting myself; you are misquoting me. Your employees are paying health care costs through the wages you provide them; now you are paying the costs before it hits their wages. If the bill drives up your cost by 5%, cut pay across the board by 5% and I'll bet you make up the difference. If people in lower-wage sector of the business can't take the hit, then hit the people up-top. They might have to adjust their standard of living, but when you're life's a 10 and you have to move down to a 9 or an 8, (or a 7, 6, or 5) I can't say I care too much. There are ways of making things work, and if you can't make it work, I guess your business isn't viable. That's a shame, sure, but I can't say that any government program that has been tossed around in this thread does anything but provide the bare minimum of decent living to worker who get shit on.

 

Like it or not, in today's world, companies who find the cost of employing people in the US too expensive have plenty of other options. Is that the business model you prefer?

 

We live in a global economy, where businesses and workers alike are moving all over the place in various sectors. If the U.S. is no longer the superior power, that means we will likely export our labor. Tons of countries import their labor to the U.S. annually, at all levels of employment; if this is reversed, we'll all live, we'll all be employed, it's just that some of us will be employed somewhere else.

[Winston Legthigh]

some of us will be employed somewhere else.

I'm gunning for Switzerland.

[uncool2pillow]

I don't believe I quoted you at all, Speed Racer. Just trying to figure out how much the government can drive up costs before you move responsibility of failure to the high cost of government regulation instead of a poor business plan.

 

I think we're kind of in agreement of the effects of globalization. I just wonder (and I really don't know, I'm a public school teacher, not an entrepreneur or small business owner or employee for one of them) if these regulations stifle what could be better job growth here in the US. What's a better scenario: 3% unemployment, but millions of those who are employed do not have employer-sponsored health insurance, or 10% employment with all of those employed getting medical insurance and other benefits?

 

Is it this simplistic? No. But when you drive up the costs of employment, you drive down employment, especially when many businesses can move their jobs overseas and not worry about any of this for the people they hire in other countries.

[bjorn_skurj]

Christ. You know who's fault this all is? Robert Fucking Fulton's fault.