Overtime Cuts

Nimhe · Post by **Nimhe** » October 1, 2003, 5:17 am

Not sure if this has already been brought up as its getting to be old news, but its worth a look.

http://www.saveovertimepay.org/

While thats an AFL/CIO site, you can find some less one-sided info here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/1...D-PAY.html

I'm not going to try and convince anyone of any given side on this issue, but its something that affects OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of people who work in public services, especially 24 hour services. The bill was already rejected by the senate and is on its way to the house.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2003, 6:47 am

Well overtime pay is a funny thing.

A lot of unionized jobs like nursing and city/federal workers rake in a ton of overtime pay because the union makes workers work as part time only with full time hours. So they may work 40-50 hours a week but anything over 25 hours a week counts for overtime (at whatever rate: usually time and a half). The benefit to it is the union doesn't have to pony up the cash for part time worker benefits and neither do the employers. one thing unions and big corps agree on is the less money they have to spend on the workers the wealthier they become so everything works out great.

I think stuff like that is what the bush administration is trying to stop, at least at the level of government. of course the people that want to "save overtime pay" aren't going to tell you that.

the end result will be either fewer people working full time hours or unions and corporations and taxpayers paying out more money to full timers. it would actually be in the self interest of most workers to want to work full time hours at a full time rate of compensation but a lot of people just prefer a bigger paycheck and hope they don't ever need a hospital and that they win the lottery the day before they retire and realize they have no pension.

although for a lot of full timers, working that extra overtime hour to make more money for their families are going to get screwed in this deal too.

unfortunately big business seems to dictate government policy and has been for quiet some time. increasingly its getting harder for the middle class to get ahead because of stuff like this. blowing away overtime pay for a lot of people is going to save big business and government billions and billions of dollars a year which will automatically be funnelled to the people who already don't need it, while the middle class and working poor grow even worse off.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 1, 2003, 8:05 am

kyoukan wrote:So they may work 40-50 hours a week but anything over 25 hours a week counts for overtime

Huh? Where does this happen? Sign me up.

While I've never heard of it, it sounds like a provision the union put in the contract to avoid the situation below.

Much more common are places hiring primarily part time folks (no benefits), and working them 39 hours a week to cut costs. A couple big US retailers have been sued for this recently. That's one of the few areas where I've seen unions doing any good recently.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » October 1, 2003, 9:22 am

Overtime usually cuts into the managers bonus so that is why they are frantic when you get overtime.

Greedy fucks.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 1, 2003, 10:36 am

The government shouldn't be mandating what pay structures should be in the first place. Businesses say what type of compensation they are going to offer for a certain job and the employee can decide if he wants to take the job. No different than evaluating different benefit packages or overall wage in my opinion.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2003, 3:28 pm

Overtime pay? What's that? : (

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2003, 3:48 pm

Chmee wrote:The government shouldn't be mandating what pay structures should be in the first place. Businesses say what type of compensation they are going to offer for a certain job and the employee can decide if he wants to take the job. No different than evaluating different benefit packages or overall wage in my opinion.

you're totally insane. you'd be getting paid $2 an hour right now if the government didn't mandate pay structures.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 1, 2003, 3:51 pm

Winnow wrote:Overtime pay? What's that? : (

No joke, I've been salaried forever.

Though we did get paid extra for carrying the on call pager at a place I worked a couple years ago.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 1, 2003, 3:52 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Chmee wrote:The government shouldn't be mandating what pay structures should be in the first place. Businesses say what type of compensation they are going to offer for a certain job and the employee can decide if he wants to take the job. No different than evaluating different benefit packages or overall wage in my opinion.
you're totally insane. you'd be getting paid $2 an hour right now if the government didn't mandate pay structures.

If that were true, why isn't everyone getting paid the minimum wage?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2003, 4:02 pm

Unions.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 1, 2003, 4:05 pm

Chmee wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
Chmee wrote:The government shouldn't be mandating what pay structures should be in the first place. Businesses say what type of compensation they are going to offer for a certain job and the employee can decide if he wants to take the job. No different than evaluating different benefit packages or overall wage in my opinion.
you're totally insane. you'd be getting paid $2 an hour right now if the government didn't mandate pay structures.
If that were true, why isn't everyone getting paid the minimum wage?

10th grade economics.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 1, 2003, 4:12 pm

I don't belong to a union, and the sector of the economy I work in (IT) has very little unionization in general. Wages for IT though in general are well above minimum wage.

Even involving unions in the initial discussion, if some workers want to get together to try to increase their bargaining power then it still boils down to the companies and the union members negotiating what contract they want to come up with (or if they can come up with a mutually agreeable contract). There is no need for the government to become involved.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 1, 2003, 4:13 pm

The percentage of union jobs is so small as to be inconsequential.

The FLSA changes are supposed to realign a lot of positions that are teetering on the line between exempt and non-exempt.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2003, 4:29 pm

yes but union wages dictate wages outside of their industry for competitive purposes. I didn't mean to imply that you were in a union. you wouldnt be making a decent wage in IT if that garbageman or nurse wasn't making a decent wage at their job.

capitalists always say that the free market should dictate wages, but that has failed in basically every country in every time period since the industrial revolution. letting the free market dictate wages is why unions exist in the first place. any private or publically held corporation will fuck you in the ass the absolute first chance they thought they could get away with it.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » October 1, 2003, 4:32 pm

kyoukan wrote: any private or publically held corporation will fuck you in the ass the absolute first chance they thought they could get away with it.

Exactly. Now, American corporations set up manufacturing in 3rd world countries, because they can fuck them in the ass easily.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 1, 2003, 4:38 pm

The trick lies in not giving corps the opportunity to get away with such things.

No argument that unions have improved compensation, particularly in blue-collar jobs. This, however is a discussion on the FLSA rules and the possibility of changes thereto.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 1, 2003, 4:44 pm

Skogen wrote:
kyoukan wrote: any private or publically held corporation will fuck you in the ass the absolute first chance they thought they could get away with it.
Exactly. Now, American corporations set up manufacturing in 3rd world countries, because they can fuck them in the ass easily.

That's just the beginning. Manufacturing was just the first step. Now it's IT, customer service and managment that's going over to places like India. But that's a whole other topic.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 1, 2003, 5:27 pm

kyoukan wrote:yes but union wages dictate wages outside of their industry for competitive purposes. I didn't mean to imply that you were in a union. you wouldnt be making a decent wage in IT if that garbageman or nurse wasn't making a decent wage at their job.

capitalists always say that the free market should dictate wages, but that has failed in basically every country in every time period since the industrial revolution. letting the free market dictate wages is why unions exist in the first place. any private or publically held corporation will fuck you in the ass the absolute first chance they thought they could get away with it.

Non union wages though vary wildly though, in some cases going substantially above union pay rates. Union wages have some effect I am sure, since they are part of the overall labor market, but they don't dictate it. Wages are a price, as a price they are subject to the laws of supply and demand and will fluctuate accordingly. Your argument basically says that companies have all the market power (outside of intervention by the government or unions), which just isn't the case. Companies compete for employees with all the other companies that are hiring. That competition will vary of course, when demand is low and supply is high, companies will have more market power, but when demand is high and supply is low the employees will have more. And yes, some companies will indeed "fuck you in the ass" when they can, but employees will do the same to the companies when they can. It happened a lot in the IT market in the 90s. Demand was very high and if an employee wasn't happy in his current position for whatever reason (environment, wages, whatever) chances are they would leave (and usually get a better deal).

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2003, 5:34 pm

ok well you go ahead and keep thinking that free market will dictate your wages fairly where virtually every single piece of historical and contemporary evidence exists to the contrary and we'll just agree to disagree.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 1, 2003, 5:41 pm

Agreed Kyoukan.

On another note though I do think some Unions are doing more harm than good because their wages are WAY too high for the job skillset. This leads to whole companies going under and everybody loosing their jobs. Right now there just isn't an easy answer...

Marb

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » October 1, 2003, 6:11 pm

kyoukan wrote:ok well you go ahead and keep thinking that free market will dictate your wages fairly where virtually every single piece of historical and contemporary evidence exists to the contrary and we'll just agree to disagree.

When I worked in a union environment I started out at minimum wage and moved up in pay at set intervals of set percentages. Upon moving to a non-union job, I started out 2 dollars above minimum and made pay increases based on performance reviews every 6 months, with no set percentage limit. I'd like to see some facts to back up this claim, and I have not experienced pay based on the scale you describe.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2003, 6:28 pm

I didn't describe a pay scale, idiot.

and you failed to specify what union job it was and what non-union job it was you had so your argument is stupid and pointless.

nor is this a thread about unions. I merely cited it as an example of why people get paid a living wage.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » October 1, 2003, 7:09 pm

kyoukan wrote:I didn't describe a pay scale, idiot.

kyoukan wrote:ok well you go ahead and keep thinking that free market will dictate your wages fairly where virtually every single piece of historical and contemporary evidence exists to the contrary and we'll just agree to disagree.

...

kyoukan wrote:and you failed to specify what union job it was and what non-union job it was you had so your argument is stupid and pointless.

Union: UPS, entry level.
Non-Union: Best Buy, entry level.

There was no intent to argue here, I was merely asking for your sources for the "historical fact" that union wages determine pay, and not free market practices.

kyoukan wrote:nor is this a thread about unions. I merely cited it as an example of why people get paid a living wage.

And all I'm asking for is a reference for your citation.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2003, 7:19 pm

are you reading the same thread as me? I said nothing of the sort.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » October 1, 2003, 7:44 pm

All of those quotes were from this thread.

yes but union wages dictate wages outside of their industry for competitive purposes. I didn't mean to imply that you were in a union. you wouldnt be making a decent wage in IT if that garbageman or nurse wasn't making a decent wage at their job.

capitalists always say that the free market should dictate wages, but that has failed in basically every country in every time period since the industrial revolution. letting the free market dictate wages is why unions exist in the first place. any private or publically held corporation will fuck you in the ass the absolute first chance they thought they could get away with it.

My apologies for not being concise. This is the statement that I would like to see supported with your sources. It was followed by:

ok well you go ahead and keep thinking that free market will dictate your wages fairly where virtually every single piece of historical and contemporary evidence exists to the contrary and we'll just agree to disagree.

And all I'm asking for is a source for that fact, because I have not experienced wage practices as you describe them.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2003, 8:07 pm

my "source" is the planet fucking earth. I can't believe you're asking me for a source how the free market fails to set fair wages. oh gee I don't know HOW ABOUT THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION SJKFHKJDSHF SKJF MY SOURCE IS CHINA URR HURR HURR

how the fuck am I supposed to find a "source" on such a basic economic principle. you might as well ask for a source on the sky being blue. I can't think of a single economist on the planet that would disagree with the fact that a pure free market like what existed in europe (which was so fucking terrible for workers that they gave birth to communism) is a smart way to go.

but why is this even being discussed? this is a thread about overtime pay.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » October 1, 2003, 8:11 pm

If that were the case, you could at the very least, quote an economics textbook.

I do not recall ever learning that in my high school or college economics classes, and I merely wanted to see a source. As you have none, I'll consider the issue dropped.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 1, 2003, 8:14 pm

Most IT folks, like me, would kill for OT! Any sysadmin, dba, web developer, etc.. end up working tons after hours doing any production server work, dev-to-prod migrations, etc...

edit: spelling>me as always

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » October 1, 2003, 10:20 pm

corprate places need a kick in the head ... where i work we are greatly undermaned for the job that we all have to do ... were always backed up all so that the incomptant store manager can get his 30,000 bonus for having hours cut so bad and the corprate office doesn't care because there saving money

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 1, 2003, 11:01 pm

Pahreyia wrote:If that were the case, you could at the very least, quote an economics textbook.

oh jesus fucking god will you shut up

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 2, 2003, 1:00 am

kyoukan wrote:
how the fuck am I supposed to find a "source" on such a basic economic principle. you might as well ask for a source on the sky being blue.

Actually your assertions require that wages do not respond to the laws of supply and demand, about as basic of an economic principle as you are going to find.

I can't think of a single economist on the planet that would disagree with the fact that a pure free market like what existed in europe (which was so fucking terrible for workers that they gave birth to communism) is a smart way to go.

How about two economists.

Ludwig Mises

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap30sec3.asp

Real wage rates can rise only to the extent that, other things being equal, capital becomes more plentiful. If the government or the [p. 776] unions succeed in enforcing wage rates which are higher than those the unhampered labor market would have determined, the supply of labor exceeds the demand for labor. Institutional unemployment emerges.

Firmly committed to the principles of interventionism, governments try to check this undesired result of their interference by resorting to those measures which are nowadays called full-employment policy: unemployment doles, arbitration of labor disputes, public works by means of lavish public spending, inflation, and credit expansion. All these remedies are worse than the evil they are designed to remove.

Milton Friedman

http://www.libertyhaven.com/thinkers/mi ... eedom.html

Price Controls, whether legal or voluntary, if effectively enforced would eventually lead to the destruction of the free-enterprise system and its replacement by a centrally controlled system. And it would not even be effective in preventing inflation. History offers ample evidence that what determines the average level of prices and wages is the amount of money in the economy and not the greediness of businessmen or of workers.

If Unions raise wage rates in a particular occupation or industry, they necessarily make the amount of employment available in that occupation or industry less than it otherwise would be -just as any higher price cuts down the amount purchased. The effect is an increased number of persons seeking other jobs, which forces down wages in other occupations.

Both winners of the nobel prize in economics. Two of the more influential economists of the 20th century.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 2, 2003, 1:09 am

Chmee wrote:Both winners of the nobel prize in economics. Two of the more influential economists of the 20th century.

and neither of them talking about the benefits of a free market dictating how much someone's work is worth. or have you decided to make another leap to another unrelated topic of discussion?

STOP YAPPING ABOUT UNIONS CHRIST ALL FUCKING MIGHTY

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 2, 2003, 1:22 am

Ok, here's something a bit more on topic.

Good old Governor Hlden just persuaded a major car manufacturer (Chrysler, I think) to keep a plant open near St Louis, MO. 172 jobs if I remember right.

Average salary on that line? 65k a year. I think I am going to need to hear some bitching from a non-union source before I get excited over the proposed changes.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 2, 2003, 2:11 am

Yet chrysler is still a profitable company and chryslers aren't overpriced or shoddily built cars. so what if the line workers make 65k a year? good for them. what does it have to do with anything in this thread?

Salis · Post by **Salis** » October 2, 2003, 6:31 am

Chmee wrote:
kyoukan wrote:
how the fuck am I supposed to find a "source" on such a basic economic principle. you might as well ask for a source on the sky being blue.
Actually your assertions require that wages do not respond to the laws of supply and demand, about as basic of an economic principle as you are going to find.

I can't think of a single economist on the planet that would disagree with the fact that a pure free market like what existed in europe (which was so fucking terrible for workers that they gave birth to communism) is a smart way to go.
How about two economists.

Ludwig Mises

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap30sec3.asp

Real wage rates can rise only to the extent that, other things being equal, capital becomes more plentiful. If the government or the [p. 776] unions succeed in enforcing wage rates which are higher than those the unhampered labor market would have determined, the supply of labor exceeds the demand for labor. Institutional unemployment emerges.

Firmly committed to the principles of interventionism, governments try to check this undesired result of their interference by resorting to those measures which are nowadays called full-employment policy: unemployment doles, arbitration of labor disputes, public works by means of lavish public spending, inflation, and credit expansion. All these remedies are worse than the evil they are designed to remove.
Milton Friedman

http://www.libertyhaven.com/thinkers/mi ... eedom.html

Price Controls, whether legal or voluntary, if effectively enforced would eventually lead to the destruction of the free-enterprise system and its replacement by a centrally controlled system. And it would not even be effective in preventing inflation. History offers ample evidence that what determines the average level of prices and wages is the amount of money in the economy and not the greediness of businessmen or of workers.

If Unions raise wage rates in a particular occupation or industry, they necessarily make the amount of employment available in that occupation or industry less than it otherwise would be -just as any higher price cuts down the amount purchased. The effect is an increased number of persons seeking other jobs, which forces down wages in other occupations.
Both winners of the nobel prize in economics. Two of the more influential economists of the 20th century.

And both quoting pure economics, which you are attempting to apply to complex cultural and political arguments. There's no doubt that a pure free market, with maximum competition between firms, unregulated labour, and freedom from price controls is the most economically efficient structure for any given industry.

This leads us to conclude that IN ANY PERFECT SITUATION real wage inflation from unionisation and price control legislation is a bad thing, but unfortunately we live in a world were people are more than likely to fuck with above perfect system. In this argument - the captains of capitalism are well known for squeezing workers wages as much as possible given the chance.

Drop the fucking random google search and try to argue from a basis you understand, because it's pretty obvious you don't know what you're quoting.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 2, 2003, 8:35 am

...so what if the line workers make 65k a year?

Because if Bubba isn't willing to improve himself and move up in the company, he shouldn't get a raise other than cost of living every year just for sitting there attaching mufflers decade after decade. Long sentence

Wages are market driven, outside of minimum wage and some unionized jobs. Most govt jobs are union so they can be lumped in there too. Three years ago IT workers could pick and choose jobs at (sometimes grossly) inflated rates for instance. Today the salaries are a bit more realistic due to the worker surplus, and that's assuming you have a marketable skill for your area.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 2, 2003, 10:50 am

Salis wrote:And both quoting pure economics, which you are attempting to apply to complex cultural and political arguments. There's no doubt that a pure free market, with maximum competition between firms, unregulated labour, and freedom from price controls is the most economically efficient structure for any given industry.

Economics purpose is to explain economic activity. Sometimes models or experiments are used but generally with the intent to be able to relate it back to the real world. In this case, neither Mises or Friedman are talking about models, they are talking about how things occur in the real world.

This leads us to conclude that IN ANY PERFECT SITUATION real wage inflation from unionisation and price control legislation is a bad thing, but unfortunately we live in a world were people are more than likely to fuck with above perfect system. In this argument - the captains of capitalism are well known for squeezing workers wages as much as possible given the chance.

And workers will squeeze employers for more money if given the chance. Your argument assumes that workers don't have market power as well, and they obviously do.

Drop the fucking random google search and try to argue from a basis you understand, because it's pretty obvious you don't know what you're quoting.

It wasn't random. Kyoukan stated she couldn't think of an economist who would think a free market in labor was the way to go. I knew that Friedman, Hayek and Mises were all pretty likely to in fact have that opinion based on what I have read from them in the past. I read http://www.mises.org quite a bit anyway. I did have to google to find an applicable quote from Friedman, I wasn't able to locate one on the web for Hayek. Although the quotes don't just say a free market in labor is best, they support it indirectly by pointing out that when the government (or unions) interfere with the labor market by trying to push wages over their normal market price you end up incurring negative effects (unemployment being the main one).

Salis · Post by **Salis** » October 2, 2003, 2:38 pm

Chmee wrote:
Salis wrote:And both quoting pure economics, which you are attempting to apply to complex cultural and political arguments. There's no doubt that a pure free market, with maximum competition between firms, unregulated labour, and freedom from price controls is the most economically efficient structure for any given industry.
Economics purpose is to explain economic activity. Sometimes models or experiments are used but generally with the intent to be able to relate it back to the real world. In this case, neither Mises or Friedman are talking about models, they are talking about how things occur in the real world.

They're rationalising the real world by applying economic theory(re: based on models) to it. Borderline contradicting yourself here.

This leads us to conclude that IN ANY PERFECT SITUATION real wage inflation from unionisation and price control legislation is a bad thing, but unfortunately we live in a world were people are more than likely to fuck with above perfect system. In this argument - the captains of capitalism are well known for squeezing workers wages as much as possible given the chance.
And workers will squeeze employers for more money if given the chance. Your argument assumes that workers don't have market power as well, and they obviously do.

As Kyoukan said, name the moments in history where the workers have held the power. I can't think of any whatsoever. So your argument is at best vague.

Drop the fucking random google search and try to argue from a basis you understand, because it's pretty obvious you don't know what you're quoting.
It wasn't random. Kyoukan stated she couldn't think of an economist who would think a free market in labor was the way to go. I knew that Friedman, Hayek and Mises were all pretty likely to in fact have that opinion based on what I have read from them in the past. I read http://www.mises.org quite a bit anyway. I did have to google to find an applicable quote from Friedman, I wasn't able to locate one on the web for Hayek. Although the quotes don't just say a free market in labor is best, they support it indirectly by pointing out that when the government (or unions) interfere with the labor market by trying to push wages over their normal market price you end up incurring negative effects (unemployment being the main one).

The arguments put forward by those economists are in response to the general capitalism/socialism argument in economics, what we're talking about is a small deviation in policy with capitalism. I'll rephrase, use arguments/quotes that are appropriate and don't try to bullshit your way around it with generalised cut/pastes...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 2, 2003, 3:01 pm

Salis is alive! I don't know how he can type with both hands holding a beer though.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 2, 2003, 3:47 pm

Chmee wrote:Actually your assertions require that wages do not respond to the laws of supply and demand, about as basic of an economic principle as you are going to find.

It's not a law.. it's a model/theory/principal/etc. It's an important distinction to make. The reason it's important is that laws (see; Gravity, Law of) do not have exceptions.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 2, 2003, 3:48 pm

Salis wrote: The arguments put forward by those economists are in response to the general capitalism/socialism argument in economics, what we're talking about is a small deviation in policy with capitalism. I'll rephrase, use arguments/quotes that are appropriate and don't try to bullshit your way around it with generalised cut/pastes...

The thread's topic is the overtime pay legislation. I responded with my view on the legislation that it shouldn't be the government's job to dictate what pay structure wages should take. Kyoukan responded that if the government didn't mandate pay structures we would all be making $2 an hour. A sub-thread then developed discussing if this was true. In the course of it Kyoukan made the statement "I can't think of a single economist on the planet that would disagree with the fact that a pure free market like what existed in europe (which was so fucking terrible for workers that they gave birth to communism) is a smart way to go." I responded by listing two economists that are well known for their support of the free-market and their criticisms of government intereference with the labor market. That is all my mention of Friedman and Mises was meant to address. Yes, it is off topic from the original post but thread drift happens.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 2, 2003, 4:20 pm

Chmee wrote:The thread's topic is the overtime pay legislation. I responded with my view on the legislation that it shouldn't be the government's job to dictate what pay structure wages should take. Kyoukan responded that if the government didn't mandate pay structures we would all be making $2 an hour. A sub-thread then developed discussing if this was true. In the course of it Kyoukan made the statement "I can't think of a single economist on the planet that would disagree with the fact that a pure free market like what existed in europe (which was so fucking terrible for workers that they gave birth to communism) is a smart way to go."

In reference to worker's wages. Everybody seems to get that but you, which is why I keep asking you what the hell thread you are reading.