In celebration of the working person's holiday...

[bopst]

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao has announced the Bush Administration's plan to end the 60-year-old law which requires employers to pay time-and-a-half for overtime. (http://www.gregpalast.com/)

[EN[i]GMA]

Why should employers be required to pay time and a half?

I don't think you realize how many workers are hurt because they can't GET extra time.

People want to work more for the extra money, but can't because their employer isn't willing to pay 1.5 extra.

[QueenAdrock]

I haven't heard of anyone being hurt by not getting extra time. Sure, a lot of my friends would rather work later and make more money, but that's extra - not something that they calculated in for when they first started working there. Time and a half was put in place so employers would have to let them leave at a certain time, or else they'd have to pay the price. It's a part of labor laws. If they are now allowed to keep people working until the hours they want without having to pay extra, that's ridiculous.

Employers are cheap. True, they're not willing to pay the $1.50 extra. So now that they don't have to pay the $1.50 extra, they'll be able to keep their employees to whatever time they want.

[EN[i]GMA]

I haven't heard of anyone being hurt by not getting extra time. Sure, a lot of my friends would rather work later and make more money, but that's extra - not something that they calculated in for when they first started working there. Time and a half was put in place so employers would have to let them leave at a certain time, or else they'd have to pay the price. It's a part of labor laws. If they are now allowed to keep people working until the hours they want without having to pay extra, that's ridiculous.

Employers are cheap. True, they're not willing to pay the $1.50 extra. So now that they don't have to pay the $1.50 extra, they'll be able to keep their employees to whatever time they want.

If people aren't making time and a half, do you think they'll be as likely to accept overtime?

This is a payment matter between employer and employee, perdiod.

You work out the terms of your employment with your employer, not with the government.

[Schmeltz]

You work out the terms of your employment with your employer, not with the government.


If such terms could always be reached fairly between employer and employee, there would never have been a need for government intervention, via legislation or any other method. But such negotiations don't take place on a level playing field, hence the need for arbitration. I know you think that employers are always fair, understanding, salt-of-the-earth folk who only have our best interests in mind, but those of us who actually do work for a living know better.

[QueenAdrock]

^Exactly.

[King PSYZ]

GMA']If people aren't making time and a half, do you think they'll be as likely to accept overtime?

This is a payment matter between employer and employee, perdiod.

You work out the terms of your employment with your employer, not with the government.
While we're at it, let's bring back child labor!

[valvano]

i find it funny that the same people bitching about the govt supposed lack of aid in new orleans want the govt to be their negotiator for empoyment issues.....

[ms.peachy]

i find it funny that the same people bitching about the govt supposed lack of aid in new orleans want the govt to be their negotiator for empoyment issues.....
Explain, exactly, how the two are inconsistent or even vaguely related.
Because that sentence makes about as much sense to me as "I find it funny that many people who wear pants sometimes also like to play baseball."

[Bob]

If such terms could always be reached fairly between employer and employee, there would never have been a need for government intervention, via legislation or any other method. But such negotiations don't take place on a level playing field, hence the need for arbitration. I know you think that employers are always fair, understanding, salt-of-the-earth folk who only have our best interests in mind, but those of us who actually do work for a living know better.

thank you!

[King PSYZ]

Explain, exactly, how the two are inconsistent or even vaguely related.
Because that sentence makes about as much sense to me as "I find it funny that many people who wear pants sometimes also like to play baseball."
this is how republicans play ball, they wait til some real grim shit is going down that they might have missed the boat on and then sneak in some of their initiatives for their golf buddies while america is concentrating on a disaster. then they'll point the finger back at you if you catch em.

[valvano]

Explain, exactly, how the two are inconsistent or even vaguely related.
Because that sentence makes about as much sense to me as "I find it funny that many people who wear pants sometimes also like to play baseball."

if you do not see the connection, you are blind...

[Bob]

if you do not see the connection, you are blind...

brilliant explanation, now i get it completely

[EN[i]GMA]

If such terms could always be reached fairly between employer and employee, there would never have been a need for government intervention, via legislation or any other method. But such negotiations don't take place on a level playing field, hence the need for arbitration. I know you think that employers are always fair, understanding, salt-of-the-earth folk who only have our best interests in mind, but those of us who actually do work for a living know better.

I don't think I make such an assumption.

But tell me, what role should the government take in employer/employee relations, as a rule?

[EN[i]GMA]

While we're at it, let's bring back child labor!

Do you really think child labor would come back if it were not for the laws against it?

[King PSYZ]

Yes in fact they made the law to stop the practice, and with so many people strugling to make ends meet if the government stepped away from employment matters alltogether like you suggest it would be a quick minute before kids were working again.

[Bob]

GMA']Do you really think child labor would come back if it were not for the laws against it?

there is the possibility that the moral objection to it would be so strong that no employer would be willing to face the public relations nightmare of bringing it back, yes, but would child labor have stopped in the first place if it weren't for the laws against it?

[QueenAdrock]

i find it funny that the same people bitching about the govt supposed lack of aid in new orleans want the govt to be their negotiator for empoyment issues.....

How's that funny? Because we're looking for the government to get up off their asses and do something good for once, about both situations?

[Schmeltz]

what role should the government take in employer/employee relations, as a rule?


As a rule, government should provide a legislative framework that allows both parties equal standing and the opportunity to negotiate a compromise in good faith.

[Bob]

a fair day's work for a fair day's gain goes both ways

[ms.peachy]

if you do not see the connection, you are blind...
Well let's just assume that's true, and that I need the help of someone as wise and insightful as yourself to explain it to poor little old me. So please, let me hear what you have to say.

[Ali]

GMA']Do you really think child labor would come back if it were not for the laws against it?Where?

It's common practice in places where the laws against it are not enforced.

[ChrisLove]

Interesting,

On one hand, it would seem clear that the apparently arbitary level of time and a half pay for overtime is pretty inefficient – I mean why 1.5 time? Why not 1.6234 or 1.232 time? It seems like the sort of thing that is best set by market forces rather than government intervention.

I would be concerned tho that if employers no longer had to pay this, they would be encouraged to pay fewer people to do more hours work, it may cause some short term unemployment but of more concern would be pressure on individuals to work longer hours.

At the end of the day, I suspect employers find ways around paying 1.5 anyway so I doubt it will make much difference.

[valvano]

remember the brankuptcy bill as well?

um, when people run up there credit cards and dont pay..who do you you think ultimately pays those bills...

everybody else...just like shoplifting

ever heard of personal responsibility???

[ms.peachy]

Just wanted to mention, I am still waiting for you to explain the apparent incongruity between wanting a government that protects workers from exploitation as well as one that provides care to its citizen victims of natural disasters, that you insist is so glaringly obvious to everyone except me.

Anytime you're ready...

[avignon]

When I get paid time-and-a-half for overtime, I get taxed so much more that it hardly makes it worth working the overtime. I don't think that paying me regular pay for overtime hours would make much difference in that though. I think the government will still tax the higher rate on anything over forty hours, viewing it as "extra" pay, which is what they do with holiday pay and vacation and personal day pay. So, not really much incentive, is it?

[valvano]

When I get paid time-and-a-half for overtime, I get taxed so much more that it hardly makes it worth working the overtime. I don't think that paying me regular pay for overtime hours would make much difference in that though. I think the government will still tax the higher rate on anything over forty hours, viewing it as "extra" pay, which is what they do with holiday pay and vacation and personal day pay. So, not really much incentive, is it?

i thought you guys loved taxes

[King PSYZ]

Who said that?
Fuck you're stupid, the only pro tax from democrats or "leftist" is making sure the 10% who control 90% of the wealth pay their fair share and not get loopholes negating all their taxes.

Taxes are a necessary evil in this world, but they need to be evenly applied.

[Qdrop]

be aware that this law is not all compasing and many sectors of industry are not touched- this mostly affects salary workers...

mine for one.
my printing companys is still required to pay it's hourly employees 1.5 for overtime...

but not required to pay us salary workers overtime....which it didn't anyway.


you have to understand the tedious nuances of business law and how much this will actually affect many companies...

this law repeal IS NOT the slippery slope/rape the bluecollar/anti-labor law that you think it is.

[King PSYZ]

How do you figure? If they get away with this it is right on the edge of that slippery slope.
It won't take much of a nudge to push it over and down.

[ms.peachy]

be aware that this law is not all compasing and many sectors of industry are not touched- this mostly affects salary workers...

mine for one.
my printing companys is still required to pay it's hourly employees 1.5 for overtime...

but not required to pay us salary workers overtime....which it didn't anyway.


you have to understand the tedious nuances of business law and how much this will actually affect many companies...

this law repeal IS NOT the slippery slope/rape the bluecollar/anti-labor law that you think it is.

Mr.peachy is salary and works to deadlines, which means some weeks he puts in up to 20 hours overtime. For his overtime, his salary is prorated and he makes 1.5 on the additional hours. If he loses that .5, that's a serious amount of money. So yeah personally, it IS a slippery slope.


p.s. valvano - I'm still waiting. Whenever you're ready to enlighten me, please feel free to get started.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yes in fact they made the law to stop the practice, and with so many people strugling to make ends meet if the government stepped away from employment matters alltogether like you suggest it would be a quick minute before kids were working again.

Was the practice prevalent when the law was passed?

What was the percentage of children working when the law was passed?

I don't like these platitudes, I want numbers.

[EN[i]GMA]

there is the possibility that the moral objection to it would be so strong that no employer would be willing to face the public relations nightmare of bringing it back, yes, but would child labor have stopped in the first place if it weren't for the laws against it?

What was the percentage of child laborers when the law was passed?

[EN[i]GMA]

Interesting,

On one hand, it would seem clear that the apparently arbitary level of time and a half pay for overtime is pretty inefficient – I mean why 1.5 time? Why not 1.6234 or 1.232 time? It seems like the sort of thing that is best set by market forces rather than government intervention.

Agreed.

1.5 is totally arbitrary and almost assuredly un-economical.

I don't think the supporters of it have any economic data is support of the 1.5 number, or for the existence of the law at all, merely an emotional plea for more money for the workers.

I suspect the law hinders rather than helps this goal yet it's I who am lambasted for my callousness.


I would be concerned tho that if employers no longer had to pay this, they would be encouraged to pay fewer people to do more hours work, it may cause some short term unemployment but of more concern would be pressure on individuals to work longer hours.

Would people be accepting of more hours at a lower wage?

[King PSYZ]

If you need to keep a roof over a head you're left little choice.

[King PSYZ]

GMA']Was the practice prevalent when the law was passed?

What was the percentage of children working when the law was passed?

I don't like these platitudes, I want numbers.
I don't have specifics, but probablly a good 1/2 - 3/4 of the nation's children worked in some capacity during the time before regulation and anti-child labor laws.

the sweatshop was born in the good ol USA, coal mines were another favorite child labor spot. basiclly anything where they needed someone small or someone they could boss around.

[EN[i]GMA]

I don't have specifics, but probablly a good 1/2 - 3/4 of the nation's children worked in some capacity during the time before regulation and anti-child labor laws.

the sweatshop was born in the good ol USA, coal mines were another favorite child labor spot. basiclly anything where they needed someone small or someone they could boss around.

When were these laws passed?

I mean what was the rate at the time the laws were passed.

I think it was at a minimum.

[EN[i]GMA]

If you need to keep a roof over a head you're left little choice.

Then I would think the added money from overtime would aid you.

How many workers need extra money now but can't get it because their employer won't pay time and half?

Don't they matter?

[King PSYZ]

GMA']When were these laws passed?

I mean what was the rate at the time the laws were passed.

I think it was at a minimum.
These were passed quite a long time ago, and it's well documented in it's extensiveness.
GMA']Then I would think the added money from overtime would aid you.

How many workers need extra money now but can't get it because their employer won't pay time and half?

Don't they matter?
That's garbage, all that will happen to those people is they'll work 60 hour work weeks and eek by with never having time for their families.
Every employer pays overtime when needed, of course some employers avoid overtime but that's because they don't wan't to compensate their employees for doing the extra work.

The overtime money is a plus, but it shouldn't be something you have to budget by. That shows poor people management by the business.

[EN[i]GMA]

These were passed quite a long time ago, and it's well documented in it's extensiveness.

And I have books on my shelf from conservatives that tell me child labor was all but gone when said laws were passed.

Whos version of revisionist history to believe?

I'm trying to be impartial here and look at the numbers myself, but the response I'm getting isn't condusive to that.

I don't accept what you're saying as common knowledge because there are people on my side of the aisle who deny it.

I'm trying to find out what really happend.

I know child labor was prominent at one time, but was it prominent when the law against it was passed? DId that law have a huge effect on child labor? Will it?


That's garbage, all that will happen to those people is they'll work 60 hour work weeks and eek by with never having time for their families.

Why isn't this the case now?


Every employer pays overtime when needed, of course some employers avoid overtime but that's because they don't wan't to compensate their employees for doing the extra work.

It's because it isn't profitable to do so, yes.

What makes you think that the overall work week will go up? Why won't new workers just be hired?


The overtime money is a plus, but it shouldn't be something you have to budget by. That shows poor people management by the business.

Yes it does.

[King PSYZ]

New workers won't be hired, causeing the 60 hour work weeks, because it's expensive to train, insure, and maintain employees.

Right now they don;t have 60 hour work weeks because they don't want to pay for it. Checks and Balances pretty much. Keeps the employee from losing a private life, and keeps the employer having a staff large enough to handle business flow. But it's already starting to happen, go around different shops here in the US that employ minimum wage workers and you'll find long lines and frustrated staff.

[Bob]

i'm trying to find some statistics on child labor prior to 1938 (when it was banned), but i tell you, it's not coming easy. i'm tired right now, and i really don't feel like doing a research project so i can look smart on the internet, but i'll show the only interesting thing i've found so far;

http://www.ufw.org/ap1214.htm

from the AP, it's on illegal child labor within america happening as of 1997, i've been reading textbooks all day and the nyquil's kicking in, so i've only really skimmed it, but here's some interesting parts;

In the past five months [the article's from 1997], The Associated Press found 165 children working illegally in 16 states, from the chili fields of New Mexico to the sweatshops of New York City.

They are children such as Angel Oliveras, 4, who stumbled between chili pepper plants as tall as his chin in New Mexico's fall harvest. Children such as Vielesee Cassell, 13, who spent the summer folding and bagging dresses in a Texas sweatshop. Children such as Bruce Lawrence, at 8 already a three-year veteran of Florida's bean fields.

The AP was able to follow the work products of 50 children to more than two dozen companies including Campbell Soup Co., Chi-Chi's Mexican restaurants, ConAgra, Costco, H.J. Heinz, Newman's Own, J.C. Penney, Pillsbury, Sears and Wal-Mart.

All the companies that responded condemned illegal child labor. Many launched investigations when told of suppliers employing underage children.

``If they are, that's against the law and they're gone - they don't supply to Campbell Soup Co.,'' said spokesman Kevin Lowery.

Although the number of children traced to any one company was small, there are uncounted thousands of boys and girls like Angel, Vielesee and Bruce. No one knows just how many because no one, the federal government included, has tried to count them all.

To make an estimate, the AP had Rutgers University labor economist Douglas L. Kruse analyze monthly census surveys and other workplace and population data collected by the federal government.

His study estimates that 290,200 children were employed unlawfully last year. Some were older teens working a few too many hours in after-school jobs. But also among them were 59,600 children under age 14 and 13,100 who worked in garment sweatshops, defined as factories with repeated labor violations.

Other estimates:

Close to 4 percent of all 12- to 17-year-olds working in any given week were employed illegally.

Employers saved $155 million in wages last year by hiring underage children instead of legal workers.

Kruse's study could not account for all children who work illegally because available data are limited. For example, census-takers, like labor enforcement agents, have trouble finding the very kids who are among the most easily exploited: children of migrant workers, illegal immigrants and the very young.

if i may be so bold as to make an inference in the face of a lack of statistics, if companies are willing to use child labor even now (ok, 1997), with laws against it (admittedly on a small scale, but it's still happening), why should i assume that it was on its way out before the laws were passed?

i know that's not very strong, but i'll try harder in the morning, i'm a little preoccupied right now