Now you’re sounding like a seven year old.
Because it says something about our society. Do we have empathy, do we have mercy?
Do we take some of our plenty and help the less fortunate or do we say “Fuck you, I got mine.”?
Strawman argument.
You wanted to know why society shouldn’t try, I answered your idiot question.
Disagreeing with constructive policies, without suggesting or supporting any alternative solutions to the problems those policies are trying to address, is obstructionism.
:dubious: Unless, of course, they happen to be Governor LePage, and possibly Bricker and you. “Waaaah, the mean old Department of Labor is being so UNFAIR to employers by saying they can’t exploit their salaried employees for extra work anymore! I’m gonna SUUUUUUUUUUE!!” :rolleyes:
FFS, economic unfairness and how to alleviate it is one of the main issues that our entire governance system is built to address. The idea that trying to redress systemic unfairness in our economic system is tantamount to childish “whining”, and that workers being exploited economically should just suck it up instead of using the mechanisms of democracy to work for greater fairness, is classic drool-level libertarian stupidity.
Looneytarians. They want to make America 1885 again.
Agreed. So employers who don’t think it’s fair that they have to pay overtime to workers who work overtime should shut the fuck up, stop whining, and get back to work selflessly creating jobs instead of pissing and moaning. Who told the rich and powerful that life was fair?
A worker who believes himself exploited by his employer should quit that job. That’s the fair solution.
I don’t agree that it’s exploitation.
How do you determine what a fair minimum wage is? You seem to think that the fairness of a wage depends on what minimum the worker needs. I don’t agree that’s a factor at all.
I pay a wage in order to get a service. I get a wage when I provide a service. My need to put my kid in orthodonture doesn’t transform my work into having more value.
No u.
And what, starve to death or become homeless? You’re living in la-la land if you think everyone can just up and quit and walk right into a better job so easily.
If they have a valuable skill to offer an employer, why would they not be able to walk into a better job?
If it’s because employers have no trouble finding other people to do that job, then perhaps the skill isn’t all that valuable?
How do you think the value of a job should be calculated?
The value of menial labor jobs comes from the fact that you, as an employer, don’t have to do them yourself. Swept floors and scrubbed toilets don’t directly add value to a business, but hiring someone else to do those tasks for you means that you can focus your time and effort on the main purpose of your business.
I have no problem with society collectively deciding on a minimum wage through its elected representatives or through ballot initiatives. Employers and employees are certainly free to agree on a higher wage, but setting a legal floor prevents a race to the bottom that inevitably results from too much competition.
I have no problem with overtime laws, because society has correctly decided that leisure time matters, too. That’s why we have overtime laws to begin with; they’re not as much about extra pay for employees, but about reduced working hours. All work and no play doesn’t just make Jack a dull boy; it also means he’s neglecting his life outside of work. It’s unhealthy for him, and it’s unhealthy for society as a whole.
And finally, one of the purposes of our government is to promote the general welfare of society as a whole, not just the welfare of those who own businesses.
I suppose that’s true, we did elect the people who wrote those laws about labor. And if someone says otherwise, well, then, they are petitioning for change. And, as everybody knows, the guy who wants to change stuff is the guy who has to prove his case. After all, the way things are is the way they’re supposed to be, except for the stuff that used to be so much better.
I guess not, or at least not in Texas is the 1990s. She worked at an Eckard’s Pharmacy in Falls or Mesquite. They got bought out by CVS or Walgreens (I can’t remember which) and she got laid off.
I tried to edit Falls to Dallas but missed the window
Some info on Chinese Overtime (sorry if this is an offensive term)
OK.
In this particular case, the elected representatives indeed passed a law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, which has not changed.
So it seems to me you’d agree with LePage: the law hasn’t been changed by ballot initiatives or elected representatives. Instead, the Department of Labor “re-interpreted” it to change the way overtime rules are applied. The law itself requires an inquiry into whether an employee is actually working in an executive, administrative, or professional capacity; the new DOL reg basically just looks at salary.
Wrong again. Who decides which policies are “constructive”? You?
And an employer who doesn’t think it’s fair to pay workers overtime when they work overtime is perfectly free to not ask workers to work overtime. Or close up shop and go home. Just like workers don’t have a guarantee of a job, employers don’t have a guarantee that they can run a profitable business. You’ve got all these excuses and “the dog ate my homework” when it comes to reasons businesses can’t pay overtime, but when employees complain you suddenly turn hardass.
Life is so unfair, and that’s what’s great about it! According to conservatives unfairness is awesome because it teaches you that life is unfair, which is a valuable thing to know. Now these employers are learning that valuable lesson.
The question in this case, Lemur, is who gets to write the rules. You suggest that it’s fair to require employers not to ask for overtime. But I disagree. So how shall we settle this dispute?
Now, when Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, they created a set of criteria for when employers were permitted to require uncompensated overtime and when they were not.
The Department of Labor announced a new rule in which they “re-interpreted” those criteria.
The lawsuit challenges the Department’s reinterpretation process and results.
So in light of that framework, there seem to be two general possible outcomes: the courts will defer to the Department of Labor, or the courts will find the the Department acted improperly.
So my query to you is: do you have an opinion on the issue of whether the Department of Labor acted properly?
I have no opinion on the legalities of the situation, other than to note that the “managerial/professional” classification that exempts an employee from overtime is very frequently abused, and given to employees who are obviously in no way managers or professionals.
The point is, are we arguing over what’s legal, or over what’s fair? Because D’Anconia was complaining that it wasn’t fair to try to make the system fair, since life is unfair and ameliorating that unfairness only makes things worse. If it’s unfair to make employers pay overtime to their employees who work overtime, well, life isn’t fair. Sucks to be an employer sometimes. If you don’t like being an employer, feel free to quit, the door is thataway. I hear Galt’s Gulch is beautiful this time of year, and they’re always looking for employers who got tired of the unfairness of life.
I don’t care to debate what 's “fair,” because I have a manifestly different view than you do on the subject and we already have a method in society for resolving opposing views of fairness.
That method produced the Fair Labor Standards Act, the DoL rule, and the lawsuit.