View Single Post
Old 09-10-2003, 10:13 PM   #12 (permalink)
ctembreull
Crazy
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA, USA, Earth
Quote:
Originally posted by j8ear
Thanks...and with that:

* Workers who earn a salary of $65,000 or more would get no overtime pay regardless of their job duties.

Agree
At first blush, this looks like a reasonable thing - but imagine the worker in San Francisco, just as a f'r'instance. He may make $65,000 - but that doesn't mean he can afford to support himself in that city. Many folks can support themselves on that much - some cannot. There's a lot of circumstances, I think, where this stricture is not a good move - it's nothing more than pandering to the average.

Quote:
* Salaried workers who make more than $22,100 per year and perform work that is of “substantial importance” or requires high-level training would not be eligible for overtime pay.

This is the sticking point I guess? To me "substantial importance" or "high level training" means you should go find a job that pays more then 22k, AND should have no trouble doing so.
Problem here is that there's nothing to stop a company from declaring someone's job "important" for arbitrary reasons. Imagine this: a floor manager at Wal-Mart has received some training on customer relations, some on basic management, etc. He doesn't make much, but his overtime covers most of his shortfall. If this rule were to pass, Wal-Mart could declare his job "substantially important" - and then require him to work more than 40 hours per week, without paying him overtime. How can they require this, you ask? With the advent of "at-will" employment contracts, companies can release an employee for any reason or for no reason at all. Wal-Mart could quite easily make his job security a function of his willingness to work overtime for no extra pay - and there'd be nothing in the law to prevent it. I find that substantially unfair. You?

Overtime pay laws are, first and foremost, the guardians of the 40-hour work week. That's what the Administration is seeking to undo here.

Perhaps tangentially, I hesitate to bring any worker-compensation laws before our Congress right now - given that in this time of deficits and a poor economy, they've just voted themselves yet another pay raise. Cute, eh?
__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!
ctembreull is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360