Should Overtime Rates Be Increased to 2.5 Times?

[DamianTV]

So here is my thought.

Employers are now abusing the few employees they have left. They work their employees to death, or they don't work them at all, there seems to be very little in between. There are so many people out there who are under employed, not being allowed to work more than 32 hours in a week so that said company doesn't have to pay out for their health insurance. On the opposite side of the coin, places cut employee positions where available and dump the rest of the workload on the remaining employees. The companies find that if they need to have a full time employee that it is effectively cheaper (depends on their benefits and the size of the company) to pay that employee overtime than to hire a new employee.

The effect of the economy goes both ways. Employers shed more jobs and more people, and take the ones they keep and squeeze every ounce of worth they can out of them. Either way, they do it to save money. It is no longer "profitable" or in their best interests to work an average joe an average 40 hours per week. Not that I am that much for Federal Regulations, but the entire idea of overtime was to make it cost prohibitive to companies to work their employees to death. At the same time, the idea of an overtime rate of pay works very well because the government is not the one benefitting from being worked more than the allowed 40 hours in a work week. Those benefits go straight to the employee, although they put them into a higher tax bracket. I swear that if the idea of overtime were introduced in today's legislature, the government would fine every company X ammt of dollars for working their employees more than 40 hours a week, then turn around and not require the company to pay the 1.5 times the rate of regular pay for the employee.

Obviously I've never worked for a union.

Every employer in the US would fight something like this tooth and nail, and, honestly, although it has the intent of benefitting the little people and doesn't benefit the government (as they don't get to collect fines for overtime), it has perked some questions in my mind. If this were to happen, not that I want to push for it, or against it, just a hypothetical scenario, a bunch of things would happen.

Would this be better for the economy as employers have to pay more, or would it cause more jobs to go overseas and more businesses to close down? Just food for thought, a fun idea.

Debate.

[sevin]

No because it shouldn't be up to the government to decide what employers pay for overtime.

[newbitech]

other - the over time rate should be set by the relationship between the employer and employee without any outside intervention.

[Seraphim]

It may sound odd froma dude who makes a lot of money working overtime (and getting paid for it).

But I'd like to see min. wage and lawfully forced OT wages removed.

Just write out a contract between employee and employer. If the contract states

"you are to work 35 hours a week for 20 dollars an hour, all surplus hours worked are to be paid at minimum of 20 dollars and subject to negotiation (on the higher end) based on both parties needs"


If you are the LAST person who can work X shift and you KNOW they need you, you have more leverage and can ask for 2.5 OT pay and simply refuse to work more then 35 hours if you are not being paid based on labour demands. If they need the extra body and the 2.5x pay (50$) per hour is worth it for the employer, boom both parties are satisfied. Supply and demand. If 8 people are able to work the OT hours (and/or want to) then the supply of labour increases and the employer has the leverage and can simply find the one(s) who will work for their normal wage.

[newbitech]

It may sound odd froma dude who makes a lot of money working overtime (and getting paid for it).

But I'd like to see min. wage and lawfully forced OT wages removed.

Just write out a contract between employee and employer. If the contract states

"you are to work 35 hours a week for 20 dollars an hour, all surplus hours worked are to be paid at minimum of 20 dollars and subject to negotiation (on the higher end) based on both parties needs"


If you are the LAST person who can work X shift and you KNOW they need you, you have more leverage and can ask for 2.5 OT pay and simply refuse to work more then 35 hours if you are not being paid based on labour demands. If they need the extra body and the 2.5x pay (87.5$) per hour is worth it for the employer, boom both parties are satisfied. Supply and demand. If 8 people are able to work the OT hours (and/or want to) then the supply of labour increases and the employer has the leverage and can simply find the one(s) who will work for their normal wage.

exactly +1

[Jordan]

Seems like most people who are putting in big overtime that I know are on salary. So their extra labor is essentially free.

[erowe1]

It may sound odd froma dude who makes a lot of money working overtime (and getting paid for it).

But I'd like to see min. wage and lawfully forced OT wages removed.

Just write out a contract between employee and employer. If the contract states

"you are to work 35 hours a week for 20 dollars an hour, all surplus hours worked are to be paid at minimum of 20 dollars and subject to negotiation (on the higher end) based on both parties needs"


If you are the LAST person who can work X shift and you KNOW they need you, you have more leverage and can ask for 2.5 OT pay and simply refuse to work more then 35 hours if you are not being paid based on labour demands. If they need the extra body and the 2.5x pay (50$) per hour is worth it for the employer, boom both parties are satisfied. Supply and demand. If 8 people are able to work the OT hours (and/or want to) then the supply of labour increases and the employer has the leverage and can simply find the one(s) who will work for their normal wage.

There's nothing at all odd about that. In fact, the whole idea that the government has any business at all dictating what kind of agreements employees and employers should have is what's odd.

[TonySutton]

Government should not mandate the terms of contract between two people.

[ARealConservative]

employers are now abusing the few employees they have left.

Karl,

You misspelled bourgeois

Love,

ARealConservative

[Brian4Liberty]

In Silicon Valley, it is quite common for tech companies to tell hourly workers to work overtime for free (work 50 hours, write 40 hours on the time-card). Of course it is often people from India who are afraid to complain, but with high unemployment, they can get away doing it to Americans too.

[Brian4Liberty]

Seems like most people who are putting in big overtime that I know are on salary. So their extra labor is essentially free.

Yep, that is rampant.

[Travlyr]

Seems like most people who are putting in big overtime that I know are on salary. So their extra labor is essentially free.

This is the result of government overtime regulations. Pass overtime laws to 2.5 times and everyone will be salaried.

[DamianTV]

No because it shouldn't be up to the government to decide what employers pay for overtime.

Leave it up to the employers then and they will pay you minimum wage for working 120 hours in a week. Edit: They will pay you for 40 hours for working 120 hours in a week.

There is a balance, it comes from the conflict between the employers adn the government. See, I'm not even sure I like the idea myself, but one of the jobs of the government is to keep the companies, not the people, the companies in check.

[amy31416]

Seems like most people who are putting in big overtime that I know are on salary. So their extra labor is essentially free.

Did that for years. Good way to burn yourself out if you're into that sort of thing.

In regards to the poll--don't care if an employer offers extra incentives for overtime, though I would say that perhaps they shouldn't be able to fire you if you refuse OT--I've seen that.

[Brian4Liberty]

This is the result of government overtime regulations. Pass overtime laws to 2.5 times and everyone will be salaried.

That is one factor.

In addition, salaried employees were not abused in the past because they were valuable, and because there was a sense of moral decency. Not anymore.

[erowe1]

Leave it up to the employers then and they will pay you minimum wage for working 120 hours in a week.

Part of what leaving it up to the employers would mean is that there would be no such thing as a minimum wage. And that's a good thing.

[Seraphim]

Leave it up to the employers then and they will pay you minimum wage for working 120 hours in a week. Edit: They will pay you for 40 hours for working 120 hours in a week.

There is a balance, it comes from the conflict between the employers adn the government. See, I'm not even sure I like the idea myself, but one of the jobs of the government is to keep the companies, not the people, the companies in check.

The employees and the employers are the ones where that "conflict" needs to come from. That is how the balance is achieved. Throwing in a pompous self righteous 3rd party skews things worse.

[erowe1]

one of the jobs of the government is to keep the companies, not the people, the companies in check.

Where did you get the idea that that's the government's job?

And even if that were the job of the government, it's impossible to keep companies in check without keeping the people in check. If they pass a law prohibiting companies from paying someone <$10/hr. that's the same as a law prohibiting people from offering their labor for <$10/hr. The same problem applies to OT laws.

[RedStripe]

"In a free market, wages will represent a fair exchange between employers and employees"

OK? Too bad this is a rigged game in favor of employers, and always has been. I think employees should fight back by not working as hard, and be as lazy as possible.

[Brian4Liberty]

Leave it up to the employers then and they will pay you minimum wage for working 120 hours in a week. Edit: They will pay you for 40 hours for working 120 hours in a week.

There is a balance, it comes from the conflict between the employers adn the government. See, I'm not even sure I like the idea myself, but one of the jobs of the government is to keep the companies, not the people, the companies in check.

And that balance is called supply and demand. Outsourcing jobs and importing cheaper labor has flooded the labor market. They abuse employees because they can.

Supply and demand is the root cause. Government regulations and Unions treat the symptoms. Massive importation of cheap labor benefits the government, the Unions, and the employers. Now you know why immigration law has been ignored...

[Seraphim]

"In a free market, wages will represent a fair exchange between employers and employees"

OK? Too bad this is a rigged game in favor of employers, and always has been. I think employees should fight back by not working as hard, and be as lazy as possible.

It's only a rigged game if the money itself is a rigged game- which it is right now.

Funny enough you just provided a free market solution to a free market problem.

If wage earners feel undervalued, being lazy/striking can show the employer just how badly the employees are needed. If there is a lot of available labor, lazy workers get fired. That's a good thing.

[Seraphim]

And that balance is called supply and demand. Outsourcing jobs and importing cheaper labor has flooded the labor market. They abuse employees because they can.

Supply and demand is the root cause. Government regulations and Unions treat the symptoms. Massive importation of cheap labor benefits the government, the Unions, and the employers. Now you know why immigration law has been ignored...

This whole post seems to counter act everything I've ever seen you write. Are you being sarcastic? I'm not even sure where to start with this if you are serious.

Should we blame gravity if we jump off a building? Or should we try to use it to our advantage?

[RedStripe]

It's only a rigged game if the money itself is a rigged game- which it is right now.

A rigged monetary system is a sufficient rather than necessary condition of an overall rigged economic system.

Funny enough you just provided a free market solution to a free market problem.

If wage earners feel undervalued, being lazy/striking can show the employer just how badly the employees are needed. If there is a lot of available labor, lazy workers get fired. That's a good thing.

And what if there is a "surplus" of workers because the government has erected barriers to self-employment/self-sufficiency? I guess we should cheer on the layoffs, downsizing, and stagnant wages as "just how the free market works?"

I think you're on the right track. You might enjoy this paper - (link to paper at bottom http://c4ss.org/content/4182 )

[Brian4Liberty]

This whole post seems to counter act everything I've ever seen you write. Are you being sarcastic?

No. After many years of analyzing the situation, it really does come down to supply and demand. Creating an oversupply of labor results in more government, Unions, and employer abuse of workers. Each individual becomes worth less. Shortages of labor make each individual worth more. By extension, this may even apply to personal liberties. The more your nose is to the grindstone (and the less power you have), the easier it is take away your basic liberties. That is one aspect.

You are probably wondering about the other aspects: "free trade" and open borders. I was once a 100% free trade, open borders advocate. While that is an ideal situation, the reality of it has changed my mind to a certain extent.

[Seraphim]

A rigged monetary system is a sufficient rather than necessary condition of an overall rigged economic system.



And what if there is a "surplus" of workers because the government has erected barriers to self-employment/self-sufficiency? I guess we should cheer on the layoffs, downsizing, and stagnant wages as "just how the free market works?"

I think you're on the right track. You might enjoy this paper - (link to paper at bottom http://c4ss.org/content/4182 )

In a truly free market, with honest free market money...people are free to work and produce and trade by means they see fit- not subject to the state...then the issue of surplus workers is irrelevant. If there is a surplus of workers it means there is a surplus of production (which is SAVINGS) and the marketplace can "afford" less production- at least temporarily. AKA a real recession.

[sevin]

L See, I'm not even sure I like the idea myself, but one of the jobs of the government is to keep the companies, not the people, the companies in check.

Oh, I didn't know it was the government's job to keep companies in check.

[Seraphim]

Oh, I didn't know it was the government's job to keep companies in check.

+1

It is NOT the govts job. It YOUR job. MY job. End of argument.

[oyarde]

"In a free market, wages will represent a fair exchange between employers and employees"

OK? Too bad this is a rigged game in favor of employers, and always has been. I think employees should fight back by not working as hard, and be as lazy as possible.

WTH , Redstripe has been spying on me at work again .

[Bruno]

No because it shouldn't be up to the government to decide what employers pay for overtime.

should have ended the thread right there

[Icymudpuppy]

Where did all the statists come from.

You really want me to fire my 5 employees, or tell them they can't work overtime anymore because I can't afford it?