Overtime Versus Comptime?

The Republican House is floating an bill that would replace the current model of paying time and a half as compensation with letting the employers decide if they will pay you extra for overtime or give you extra time off for overtime.

Which would you want as an hourly worker more, extra time off or more pay? When I was just starting off, I needed the cash more, but now I would prefer more time off.

My company used to do that unofficially fairly often, after a couple 60 hour weeks to finish the quarter, the bosses didn't mind if you missed a couple days off to start the next quarter.

The non-starter in this bill is that the company gets to choose how they will recompense you. If the employee got to choose, I would be all behind it. So many people, especially parents, would like the extra time for their kids or something else.

FredHayek wrote: The Republican House is floating an bill that would replace the current model of paying time and a half as compensation with letting the employers decide if they will pay you extra for overtime or give you extra time off for overtime.

Which would you want as an hourly worker more, extra time off or more pay? When I was just starting off, I needed the cash more, but now I would prefer more time off.

My company used to do that unofficially fairly often, after a couple 60 hour weeks to finish the quarter, the bosses didn't mind if you missed a couple days off to start the next quarter.

The non-starter in this bill is that the company gets to choose how they will recompense you. If the employee got to choose, I would be all behind it. So many people, especially parents, would like the extra time for their kids or something else.

It seems to me that employers have the freedom to decide how they want to offer compensation. I've worked under both systems. Why do we any legislation regarding this? Why does it need to change?

Unless you are an exempt employee, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires employees to be paid time and half for wages over 40 hours a week. The employer does not have a choice.

Isn't this really Adults vs. Children....which one are you?

If the employees are children and the employer is an adult, I think they should let parents/guardians decide or negotiate with the employer, if both employers and employees are children, then they should both have their parents negotiate the pay, perhaps with the employer child having some say, this kid was together enough to create a job.....but if we are talking about adult employers and adult employees, they can work the pay out between themselves...or they are really children being managed. Their is no role for govt in that relationship (especially if we offered these folks full educations to learn how to deal with this stuff) and any reasonable adults would work to have full negotiation rights for themselves, not less negotiation rights via pay manipulating OT regs, why would anyone in their right mind give up their right to decide and negotiate your own pay or give more of it up to accounting needs. Price fixing ruins our value system, costs people opportunity and results in misallocated resources (which of course the govt will fix by misallocating them even further).

Additionally, every hourly employee I have every had that reached 40 hours and I cut them off said they would be happy to work for straight pay. I just reminded them that the govt treats them as children and they don't have that right and I give them their rep's phone number so they can request their adulthood back. That was back before I cleaned house after the state made me fill out another stupid form one year, now my desire to do stuff overwhelms the burden the govt puts forth, so I still hire, but at a fraction the rate I would with less regulations and paperwork.

The discussion should be how to get them out of your adult relationships, so more opportunity will exist and you can decide your own fate. What's next, we will let the govt decide who can and cannot get married - how you have sex - what you can and cannot own? Are people just tired of being grown up?

Something the Dog Said wrote: Unless you are an exempt employee, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires employees to be paid time and half for wages over 40 hours a week. The employer does not have a choice.

You are only half right. It is the law, but does not have an effect other than more accounting, game playing and of course since the employee pays for every regulation - less take home pay.

If an employer has a $500 budget for pay for a person (ignore taxes for now) and needs 50 hours of work, this is how it works in the real world.

1. OT laws....$500 = 40x +10*1.5x, solve for x which is hourly pay, x = $9.09.
2. No OT laws $500/50 = x. solve for x which is hourly pay, x = $10.
3. OT laws, min wage below typical pay, pay per unit, say I need 50 units, I pay $10 per unit, I don't care how long it takes, you are fired if your pay averages below min wage.

The $500 is determined by demand, not the govt. If the govt is involved, more of the $500 will go to them, at the expense of the employee, every time.

But no matter what, since I decide my pay budget (including all the other crap that the govt tacks on to employers which does not always come out of your pay, but always lowers your pay plus paperwork fees), I am going to get my 50 units for $500 in pay or you are out of here. If you make more then 50, in time, because I am way better at negotiating than employees (most employers are, which is how they got there in the first place), I will lower your pay and make you think it is in your best interest.

Only an employee or a green employer would quote laws like that like they rule the land and make employers pay more. The employee suffers for every last aspect of employment law, the employer only half so. So in the end, employers win from every one of these laws. They win when you even have a debate like this, you get dumbed down so much, you are bound to stay as an employee.

Additionally with the classified vs. nonclassified crap....literally the mandating of CLASS, come on? This should also be unacceptable, resisted and never accepted. How much more opportunity do we have to burn. I have so many recent masters grads working retail counters right now, it is nuts. Sadly, they are not even that great at it, they have been to specially trained as chemists or whatever. I have one guy that is giving up and just moving back with mom and dad and not working (lucky he can). This is all by design (mostly at the request of these unemployed children's mothers and fathers), by having useless debates as to how to ruin the economy, in stead of get out of the way so it can fix itself.

Other Adults can work this out without us even discussing this or the govt spending time on it. Most of my adult employees, even in retail, are paid 2-3 times min wage, but they sure as heck earn it - but that is just their gross - they take home much less and typically less than 50% of what it costs me to employ them between the countless back end taxes, forms, insurances, etc. So when my budget is $500, the employee takes home $225 or so, when he thinks his pay is $325. The accelerating regulations are also why pay is not going up with inflation , the cost to the employer is going up with inflation or faster (meaning even less jobs in the future), the take home is not and the govt is pocketing the difference. Enjoy. Glad to be an employer where this is all just semantics. To employees, this is a real burden to their pay, to the unemployed, it is the consequence.

on that note wrote: Isn't this really Adults vs. Children....which one are you?

If the employees are children and the employer is an adult, I think they should let parents/guardians decide or negotiate with the employer, if both employers and employees are children, then they should both have their parents negotiate the pay, perhaps with the employer child having some say, this kid was together enough to create a job.....but if we are talking about adult employers and adult employees, they can work the pay out between themselves...or they are really children being managed. Their is no role for govt in that relationship (especially if we offered these folks full educations to learn how to deal with this stuff) and any reasonable adults would work to have full negotiation rights for themselves, not less negotiation rights via pay manipulating OT regs, why would anyone in their right mind give up their right to decide and negotiate your own pay or give more of it up to accounting needs. Price fixing ruins our value system, costs people opportunity and results in misallocated resources (which of course the govt will fix by misallocating them even further).

Additionally, every hourly employee I have every had that reached 40 hours and I cut them off said they would be happy to work for straight pay. I just reminded them that the govt treats them as children and they don't have that right and I give them their rep's phone number so they can request their adulthood back. That was back before I cleaned house after the state made me fill out another stupid form one year, now my desire to do stuff overwhelms the burden the govt puts forth, so I still hire, but at a fraction the rate I would with less regulations and paperwork.

The discussion should be how to get them out of your adult relationships, so more opportunity will exist and you can decide your own fate. What's next, we will let the govt decide who can and cannot get married - how you have sex - what you can and cannot own? Are people just tired of being grown up?

Something the Dog Said wrote: Unless you are an exempt employee, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires employees to be paid time and half for wages over 40 hours a week. The employer does not have a choice.

You are only half right. It is the law, but does not have an effect other than more accounting, game playing and of course since the employee pays for every regulation - less take home pay.

If an employer has a $500 budget for pay for a person (ignore taxes for now) and needs 50 hours of work, this is how it works in the real world.

1. OT laws....$500 = 40x +10*1.5x, solve for x which is hourly pay, x = $9.09.
2. No OT laws $500/50 = x. solve for x which is hourly pay, x = $10.
3. OT laws, min wage below typical pay, pay per unit, say I need 50 units, I pay $10 per unit, I don't care how long it takes, you are fired if your pay averages below min wage.

The $500 is determined by demand, not the govt. If the govt is involved, more of the $500 will go to them, at the expense of the employee, every time.

But no matter what, since I decide my pay budget (including all the other crap that the govt tacks on to employers which does not always come out of your pay, but always lowers your pay plus paperwork fees), I am going to get my 50 units for $500 in pay or you are out of here. If you make more then 50, in time, because I am way better at negotiating than employees (most employers are, which is how they got there in the first place), I will lower your pay and make you think it is in your best interest.

Only an employee or a green employer would quote laws like that like they rule the land and make employers pay more. The employee suffers for every last aspect of employment law, the employer only half so. So in the end, employers win from every one of these laws. They win when you even have a debate like this, you get dumbed down so much, you are bound to stay as an employee.

Additionally with the classified vs. nonclassified crap....literally the mandating of CLASS, come on? This should also be unacceptable, resisted and never accepted. How much more opportunity do we have to burn. I have so many recent masters grads working retail counters right now, it is nuts. Sadly, they are not even that great at it, they have been to specially trained as chemists or whatever. I have one guy that is giving up and just moving back with mom and dad and not working (lucky he can). This is all by design (mostly at the request of these unemployed children's mothers and fathers), by having useless debates as to how to ruin the economy, in stead of get out of the way so it can fix itself.

Other Adults can work this out without us even discussing this or the govt spending time on it. Most of my adult employees, even in retail, are paid 2-3 times min wage, but they sure as heck earn it - but that is just their gross - they take home much less and typically less than 50% of what it costs me to employ them between the countless back end taxes, forms, insurances, etc. So when my budget is $500, the employee takes home $225 or so, when he thinks his pay is $325. The accelerating regulations are also why pay is not going up with inflation , the cost to the employer is going up with inflation or faster (meaning even less jobs in the future), the take home is not and the govt is pocketing the difference. Enjoy. Glad to be an employer where this is all just semantics. To employees, this is a real burden to their pay, to the unemployed, it is the consequence.

Good post

Why would ANYONE want to work for somebody who was so mean? I'm surprised you can stay in business, because I'm sure your attitude "trickles down."

It's bosses like on that note that keep unions in business.

:thumbsup:

You guys are funny and very likely working for someone else for less money that you would if the laws you love were not in you or your bosses way. You live your live to help someone else reach their goals and you get the little sliver that is left. But I understand, you are happy enough with what you have, you don't even want more resources, even though you could make your political points better with them.

My employees like their jobs, they actually like having a boss with high expectations that pays well. They like being kept honest. Most of my employees are in their 20s (you know, the generation that can't find jobs because the govt ruined the economy at your request).

What kind of decent person would want mandated pay or compensation beyond what they could earn or convince someone to give themselves? Is it actually uncool to earn something at this point?

Let me get this straight. I make jobs just about every week and I am the bad guy, you guys push for job crushing and pay reducing policies while working hard for some other guy and I am the bad guy.

I am confident that the amount I have paid my employees since the start of 285 bound bound exceeds the total pay of all government loving, job crushing, 285bounders since 285 started. I am also confident that I have made more jobs, because I have so much I want and can do and don't have enough time (the only way a real job is ever ever ever made), again more jobs than the number of all government loving, job crushing, 285bounders since 285 started have themselves. I literally have personal deciding power on more of the economy than most of you combined, I am sure not all of you, but certainly most of you. You can try and lecture down to me, but you best look up, because that is where I am standing.

So assume all you want. I am the job creator and you guys are the job loosers, loosers because you are not only reducing opportunity for others via your influence on govt., loosers reducing opportunity because you still just work for someone else and reducing opportunity because if I see in your children that you raised them to think this bunk, I ain;t gonna hire them or if I do, I am sure as heck going to re-educate them so they understand the real world and will help my business succeed. Remember, many bosses that are not just middle management (employees anyway) are self made people, don't respect your politics and desire for control of their businesses and lives.

Give me a call when you get canned, maybe I can help, just make sure to hide your attitude. Have you not seen my posts, the effect of going the extra mile is amazing, mostly because others rarely do so. The effects of mandating something typically backfire, mostly because it is overdone. You mandate, it does not work and you fix it with propaganda. Enjoy your lower pay and unemployed children.

archer wrote: It's bosses like on that note that keep unions in business.

:thumbsup:

You are partially right. But not for the reason you think. I have many many union customers. So I use my nonviolent, peaceful ways (opposite yours - you mandate crap and like it - govt. mandates are force and have violent potential), to convince these union folks to trade with me. I get the money and they get goods and services - but here is the kicker, I sell to them at market rate and they sell to us far above market rate - but who makes up the difference, well all the non union workers of course.

If I did not sell to union people or if others refused to sell to union people, WHICH WE CAN, they would be worse off and pay higher prices. So by allowing these forcefull people (unions) to still have rights in my businesses, I help the unions by allowing those that force higher, non market prices on others, to pay market prices when they consume.

So in essence, by not penalizing the unions the way they penalize us. I help the union and hurt everyone that is not in one...perhaps yourself, and if so I am sorry, but I just cannot jack up my pricing the way unions do, it would hurt my business too much. So because I am selfish, I charge the same rates to everyone and allow the unions to still charge me more with I hire or pay for their services....and you suffer if you are not in a union or selling to one.

Now you can go back to your simple economic model where the collective and the central planners know best.

And in the theme of my last post, do you have any idea how much I have paid directly to union outfits. I bet more than the individual lifetime pay of anyone here supporting them. So you are supporting them verbally and I am sure they love it. I am actually hiring them in cases where I have no choice or in the rare case they provide the best value and I AM CREATING UNION JOBS TOO.

You employee types just don't have enough time to wrap your head around this stuff, this is all employers do, even if you are smart, you likely already spend a lot of time doing the specifics of your job. The topics I post on typically apply to the job I am doing every waking hour - employing people, working on economics and running companies. At least have the respect of explaining yourself in a debate about using force on people against their will - this is never simple and people around here act like forcing others to things is just no big deal, completely OK. But that is 285bound and perhaps your new nation, it is up to the other guy, how is he qualified? well he is not you, so he is the decider. It used to be the opposite and used to work better for the small guy.

Again, enjoy all the extra time with your unemployed children - you are working hard to make sure they stick around.

on that note wrote:

archer wrote: It's bosses like on that note that keep unions in business.

:thumbsup:

You are partially right. But not for the reason you think. I have many many union customers. So I use my nonviolent, peaceful ways (opposite yours - you mandate crap and like it - govt. mandates are force and have violent potential), to convince these union folks to trade with me. I get the money and they get goods and services - but here is the kicker, I sell to them at market rate and they sell to us far above market rate - but who makes up the difference, well all the non union workers of course.

If I did not sell to union people or if others refused to sell to union people, WHICH WE CAN, they would be worse off and pay higher prices. So by allowing these forcefull people (unions) to still have rights in my businesses, I help the unions by allowing those that force higher, non market prices on others, to pay market prices when they consume.

So in essence, by not penalizing the unions the way they penalize us. I help the union and hurt everyone that is not in one...perhaps yourself, and if so I am sorry, but I just cannot jack up my pricing the way unions do, it would hurt my business too much. So because I am selfish, I charge the same rates to everyone and allow the unions to still charge me more with I hire or pay for their services....and you suffer if you are not in a union or selling to one.

Now you can go back to your simple economic model where the collective and the central planners know best.

And in the theme of my last post, do you have any idea how much I have paid directly to union outfits. I bet more than the individual lifetime pay of anyone here supporting them. So you are supporting them verbally and I am sure they love it. I am actually hiring them in cases where I have no choice or in the rare case they provide the best value and I AM CREATING UNION JOBS TOO.

You employee types just don't have enough time to wrap your head around this stuff, this is all employers do, even if you are smart, you likely already spend a lot of time doing the specifics of your job. The topics I post on typically apply to the job I am doing every waking hour - employing people, working on economics and running companies. At least have the respect of explaining yourself in a debate about using force on people against their will - this is never simple and people around here act like forcing others to things is just no big deal, completely OK. But that is 285bound and perhaps your new nation, it is up to the other guy, how is he qualified? well he is not you, so he is the decider. It used to be the opposite and used to work better for the small guy.

Again, enjoy all the extra time with your unemployed children - you are working hard to make sure they stick around.

lol