Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Bush's dreams of regressing labor laws dies.

RoadRage · 09-13-2003, 10:57 AM

The proposed rule change is a bad idea all the way across the board.

1. Companies would declare everyone "of substantial importance" just to prevent the paying of overtime.

2. Few jobs allow opting out of overtime. Refusal to work overtime can be grounds for termination.

3. If you don't pay for the overtime, that is money that doesn't circulate in the local economy. Less money circulating means job losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again.

4. Overtime makes companies have to strike a balance between working current employees more versus hiring new employees. Remove the overtime requirement and:

a. No new employees are hired while the current ones are forced to work more, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again.

b. The current employees become more prone to "accidents" and "illness", resulting in lost productivity. Enough employees "sick" one day, and the business has to shut down. You can't make money if you're not open for business. Not working means less money circulating means job losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again.

c. Massive walkouts due to exhuastion of overwork forces a company to hire significant underskilled workers. The product suffers because of this and the company goes into decline, leading to job losses and stockholders losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again.

Any possible gains from this are extremely short-term in nature. This is a long-term disaster waiting to happen. The lack of the current overtime rules is one of the problems that led to the formation of unions back in the early 1900s, and the removal of this rule would led to a revival of labor and profesional unions in less than a generation.

If you don't think this is possible, I will cite you an example. Grandy's Restaurants had been an expanding restaurant chain in the Southwest until 1997. Then they decided to set a cap on what the store manager can earn. Nearly two-thirds of the store managers walked out within a month and almost all within a year. The company's last profitable year was 1998. Ever since, they've been in decline, closing restaurants, not advertising, paring back menu selections, and removing the senior citizen's discount in an effort to stay alive. They blame the decline on customer's changing habits. They don't realize that when the store managers walked, the replacements were substantially inferior, leading to the hiring of poor employees and a lowering of food quality. When the food sucked, customers didn't come back.

Ideas like this is why I don't consider Bush II a conservative. A true conservative wouldn't propose such idiocy.

09-13-2003, 10:57 AM	#14 (permalink)
RoadRage Stay off the sidewalk! Location: Oklahoma City, OK	The proposed rule change is a bad idea all the way across the board. 1. Companies would declare everyone "of substantial importance" just to prevent the paying of overtime. 2. Few jobs allow opting out of overtime. Refusal to work overtime can be grounds for termination. 3. If you don't pay for the overtime, that is money that doesn't circulate in the local economy. Less money circulating means job losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again. 4. Overtime makes companies have to strike a balance between working current employees more versus hiring new employees. Remove the overtime requirement and: a. No new employees are hired while the current ones are forced to work more, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again. b. The current employees become more prone to "accidents" and "illness", resulting in lost productivity. Enough employees "sick" one day, and the business has to shut down. You can't make money if you're not open for business. Not working means less money circulating means job losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again. c. Massive walkouts due to exhuastion of overwork forces a company to hire significant underskilled workers. The product suffers because of this and the company goes into decline, leading to job losses and stockholders losses, the recovery stalls, and we start sliding toward a depression again. Any possible gains from this are extremely short-term in nature. This is a long-term disaster waiting to happen. The lack of the current overtime rules is one of the problems that led to the formation of unions back in the early 1900s, and the removal of this rule would led to a revival of labor and profesional unions in less than a generation. If you don't think this is possible, I will cite you an example. Grandy's Restaurants had been an expanding restaurant chain in the Southwest until 1997. Then they decided to set a cap on what the store manager can earn. Nearly two-thirds of the store managers walked out within a month and almost all within a year. The company's last profitable year was 1998. Ever since, they've been in decline, closing restaurants, not advertising, paring back menu selections, and removing the senior citizen's discount in an effort to stay alive. They blame the decline on customer's changing habits. They don't realize that when the store managers walked, the replacements were substantially inferior, leading to the hiring of poor employees and a lowering of food quality. When the food sucked, customers didn't come back. Ideas like this is why I don't consider Bush II a conservative. A true conservative wouldn't propose such idiocy. __________________ Join TFP Team SETI 43K workunits complete, 34 members, more of each needed.