I never had a salaried position where knocking off at 2 was an option or taking 2 hour lunch because I felt like it was OK either. I had other people counting on me to be there and if I left or took a long lunch it was an undue hardship on others...so you didn't do it.

 

I agree that it doesn't matter, I was just wondering for people that have a salaried job and are told that you are expected to work 40 hours per week for example is it a straight 40 or 40 plus an hour per day for lunch.

 

You may be correct for your position. But there are just as many where the opposite is true. Friday comes and you leave a little early or something comes up at home and you come in a little late.

 

Salary positions allow that flexibility and your pay check to be stable.

 

I understand this ruling but I also think salary limit may be to high. I could maybe see a law that disallowed this for entry level position at a certain amount.

If a company is offering a job of any kind at any pay, there will always be people willing to take that job, that doesn't mean it is fair pay for the job expected.

 

Are you really using the word fair with compensation ? Who determines fair ?

Continuing to mandate to employers is bad for business, bad for the economy and ultimately bad for the workers. Mandated healthcare, mandated minimum salary wage, mandated leave with pay. The price of everything goes up. Or companies decide they will have to let some people go. Or they cut back on their 401(k) match. Or no bonuses.

 

The little guy decides he's going to fold up shop. He can't compete with big business. The little margins he had disappear by all the mandates. So, now you have no choice who to buy from. The rich actually get richer through these mandates as they are the only ones who can afford to keep up with the mandates.

 

As for choice where you work, I am in agreement. You choose and agree, for the most part to accept terms and conditions of employment. One local bank is notorious for being a "sweatshop". Yet people continue to choose to work there because of the benefits and opportunities of working there...Or you take a job and come to find out it involved more travel, more weekends, more hours. I have seen people leave and come back quickly because of these items.

 

Again to mandate is bad. You want see our economy grow and more jobs available, this is not the way it's going to happen. Careful what you wish for...Save me Mr President!

In 1975, more than 65 percent of salaried American workers earned time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. Not because capitalists back then were more generous, but because it was the law. It still is the law, except that the value of the threshold for overtime pay—the salary level at which employers are required to pay overtime—has been allowed to erode to less than the poverty line for a family of four today. Only workers earning an annual income of under $23,660 qualify for mandatory overtime.

 

Read more: What Overtime Gets You - Business Insider

 

IMO we are looking at more of catching up with 2015....that was 40 years ago.

In 1975, more than 65 percent of salaried American workers earned time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. Not because capitalists back then were more generous, but because it was the law. It still is the law, except that the value of the threshold for overtime pay—the salary level at which employers are required to pay overtime—has been allowed to erode to less than the poverty line for a family of four today. Only workers earning an annual income of under $23,660 qualify for mandatory overtime.

 

Read more: What Overtime Gets You - Business Insider

 

IMO we are looking at more of catching up with 2015....that was 40 years ago.

 

At least your consistent in every thread you think government is the answer.

So many people have a warped view of working because all they know is what they have experienced. Even though the new OT rules would benefit them personally, gee golly, that's going to put all these little guys out of business and then I personally might be out of a job! Hogwash. I worked under a union contract for more than a quarter-century that called for time and a half if management extended your 8-hour day, or you had to work specified holidays. Here's another pearl of wisdom: The OT rule made management more effective in making sure everything got done in the standard 8-hour day. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Usually "salaried" positions come with management responsibility. Hard to believe "managers" in some organizations were/are making less than $27,000 unless some places were making the job "salaried" to get by the OT pay. Which I am quite sure some did. On the face of it I have no problem with this new proposal.

Usually "salaried" positions come with management responsibility. Hard to believe "managers" in some organizations were/are making less than $27,000 unless some places were making the job "salaried" to get by the OT pay. Which I am quite sure some did. On the face of it I have no problem with this new proposal.

 

New college grads in business and finance are not manager level but are salaried due to their professional status. Probably goes for other occupations also. They would be well over the current threshold though.

Usually "salaried" positions come with management responsibility. Hard to believe "managers" in some organizations were/are making less than $27,000 unless some places were making the job "salaried" to get by the OT pay. Which I am quite sure some did. On the face of it I have no problem with this new proposal.

 

Exactly what happens.

 

I think the 50k threshold is too high. I think it should be more in the 30k range.

 

In my experience, there have been some supervisory hourly rate positions that became hard to manage, so employers made the salary, bumped the pay marginally yet expected the same duties performed, yet now no penalty to the company for all the hours worked.

 

From my perspeectibe, companies can be more prudent about the salary positions they create, and manage hourly supervisory staff more carefully. Or, make the pay commiserate with the hours worked expectation.

I don't see too many people losing their jobs. The companies that are playing games will simply change the job to an hourly position and calculate the rate that will give them the same expense over the average hours per week worked. Someone making $50,000 and working 60 hour weeks would be paid a rate of $13.73 per hour. That way their 40 hours at straight time and 20 hours at overtime would still be the same expense to the firm.

If a company is offering a job of any kind at any pay, there will always be people willing to take that job, that doesn't mean it is fair pay for the job expected.

 

As long as someone is willing to take the job it's absolutely fair. When the company is unable to fill the position due to the pay/benefits adjustments are made. That isn't the companies fault.

 

If GM wants $50,000 for a new truck and no one will pay it are they going to continue to charge $50,000? You're a home builder and you charge $100/sqft to build houses. Except you can't get any business because no one will pay $100/sqft. You going to continue to charge that or make adjustments?

Worked at Lowes in college. You could work 35-40 hours as a part time employ on a good week or work 50+ as a salaried employee every week for what equaled to about 23k. They started talking taking tests and salary. I said no thanks and found another job.

If that happened today though I'd be stuck. Sorry plantman it's a fleecing of middle class America by businesses.

Those evil businesses should be ashamed for having jobs and stuff. Someone should really do something about that.

 

Look, if you don't like what your making or you benefits you have a choice. This is America, no one is forcing you to stay in any job you don't like.

Do you think Seattle should have set the $15 minimum wage law ?

 

I'll branch off and answer here because it gets to the gist of my thoughts (which are admittedly fairly jumbled). No, I don't think something like $15/hour minimum wage is a good idea. I agree with the idea of a minimum wage and other workplace regulations, but these are most effective for preventing abuses. Raising the minimum wage as a tool to achieve goals like ending poverty, to me, hasn't been shown to be effective (and there are externalities that go beyond simply paying people more money). I'm happy to be proven wrong on that, but as of now it's a case of a measure with admirable goals but little evidence of success.

 

While what's at issue here is a little bit different in that it's a proposal meant to close a "loophole" being used by companies to follow the law but not the spirit, loopholes only exist because of the laws in the first place. Just as surely as companies have found a work around for the existing law, they will again once a new law is passed. And a lot of these laws come with other negative externalities, like companies choosing to hire many more part-time workers to keep from providing benefits to a fewer number of full-time workers. Some might argue that our society would be better off with more full-time work available instead of people scratching by working several part-time jobs or relying on government assistance to keep them afloat when their part-time paycheck isn't enough by itself.

 

But, I'm also not convinced at all that a total hands off approach to business/labor would be an improvement. There's a long history of people being put into awful situations by their employers simply because their only alternative is to starve. And as much as people want to finger point and say that people are simply lazy and only have themselves to blame, creating an economy where a huge swatch of people aren't able to get by is a problem for everyone, whether its weakened demand for businesses, higher crime, or more stress on social services, there is a need to find a way to get everyone into the economy. I just don't know how to best do that.

 

So, my question is this: Is there a way to achieve our goals with a simpler or more streamlined law, one where our process isn't to pass a law, wait for the consequences, close the loopholes, repeat?

Those evil businesses should be ashamed for having jobs and stuff. Someone should really do something about that.

 

Look, if you don't like what your making or you benefits you have a choice. This is America, no one is forcing you to stay in any job you don't like.

Choices also include (a) politely asking your boss or your company's HR department when to expect written company guidelines on complying with the new OT regulation or even (b) taking the first step toward collective bargaining.

 

There are always more choices than (a) putting your tail between your legs, keeping quiet and working 50-plus hours a week and (b) looking for a new job.

Choices also include (a) politely asking your boss or your company's HR department when to expect written company guidelines on complying with the new OT regulation or even (b) taking the first step toward collective bargaining.

 

There are always more choices than (a) putting your tail between your legs, keeping quiet and working 50-plus hours a week and (b) looking for a new job.

If the plan is put into law then yes you can do A.

You've always been able to do B.

I would also add a third option to your list. © start your business since all of those evil corporations aren't treating you fairly.