That evil, evil man! - Page 5

chequita guevara · May 8, 2003, 21:07

We always said Shrub would take us back to the 19th Century.

Al B. Sure! · May 8, 2003, 21:15

i dont know jack about this issue except what i can figure out from boris' and imran's debate but does this mean that people can't put in more time to get paid more? is this just for gov't workers or even in the private world?

I dont know about this... if someone wants to work more than 8 hours a day (which is damn reasonable) they damn well should get extra pay (well assuming there's at least something for them to do)... i guess they could work a second job but having to find a second job and having to commute from one job to another is hard as ****.

thanks

Imran Siddiqui · May 8, 2003, 21:19

Quote:

does this mean that people can't put in more time to get paid more?

No... people can work more, but ONLY if their managers say they can, because they have to pay them time and a half for every hour after the limit. Of course, managers are not going to allow this to happen much (if at all). That is for everyone, btw.

I worked in CVS, there is no way that a worker could work more than ~38 hours. Some people needed money and worked two jobs, every day a week (about 12 hours a day). It probably would have been easier for them to just work more than 40 hours a week in one place, IMO.

chequita guevara · May 8, 2003, 21:20

OT means that you get time and a half over forty or eight hours, depending on the state. It's over forty Federally. The purpose of OT is to keep employers from forcing their employees from working more than eight hours a day. Some folks, who either need the money or just have nothing better to do, need/want the extra work. OT protection also helps push down unemployment.

Boris Godunov · May 8, 2003, 21:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because so many people have perpetuated a stereotype on this thread that government workers are lazy and abusing the system

.

Managers will err on the side of caution, meaning that over 40 hours isn't scheduled too often. I know of people sent home half a day earlier, because they were almost reaching that 40 hours, when they WILLINGLY worked late one day to help some guy get his COBRA notice (or whathaveyou). It seems totally silly, especially when the person wants to work the extra hours so they get more money.

Of course, they can't because they aren't allowed to work more than 40. Just get rid of it, let government employees work how much they wish.

Managers should be given more leeway to authorize overtime for necessary projects, but time-and-a-half should not be done away with. Paid overtime is vital for curtailing the abuse of workers, as che points out.

Kidicious · May 8, 2003, 21:22

What we don't want is managers saying we have to work more than 8 hours a day without time and a half. And that's why we need the law.

Al B. Sure! · May 8, 2003, 21:23

if a manager needed another worker for the night shift, it'd be cheaper to hire a one shift worker than have an established worker work over-time... i mean we aint exactly talking about skilled labour over here... so managers would never let workers work over-time for over-time pay

i think this **** is a bad idea for the sake of the worker... damn why did some *******s have to take advantage of the system and ruin it for everybody else?

Imran Siddiqui · May 8, 2003, 21:25

In some industries (aerospace, defense, health care, high tech - as said in the AFL's propaganda piece) the 'abuse' is not that great. Those people can easily find work in the civilian sector. However, they may need to work more hours for various reasons. OT pay interferes with that.

People don't have to work for the government either, if they don't want. States have their own OT pay provisions. If they wan t that, they can work in those states.

Kidicious · May 8, 2003, 21:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
People don't have to work for the government either, if they don't want. States have their own OT pay provisions. If they wan t that, they can work in those states.

What is your point? Why should all workers not get treated fairly? Just because someone can quit, it doesn't mean they aren't going to hire someone else.

HershOstropoler · May 9, 2003, 02:22

Could someone give a more detailed description of the overtime law? I doubt it is as stringent as some described it. If so, you can instantly stop ridiculing the French for their 35 hour week.

Are there for example no time accounts that allow flexibility over a month or year? Exceptions for unexpected peak workloads? Opening clauses for collective bargaining?