Oh this is smooth
Jan. 5th, 2004 07:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tiamatladyLabor Department makes suggestions as to how employers can cut overtime
That's not what bothers me. The Border's where Ben works FORBIDS overtime, it just isn't given, period. That's a valid way to cut overtime.
The one that bothers me is this:
--Making a "payroll adjustment" that results "in virtually no, or only a minimal increase in labor costs," the department said. Workers' annual pay would be converted to an hourly rate and cut, with overtime added in to equal the former salary.
Basically, you get paid your overtime, but it's factored into your payroll. As it says: Essentially, employees would be working more hours for the same pay.
Now, it's been a while since I've been "hourly" like that. We're not talking working at the local supermarket, or union jobs or anything like that. I'm thinking about a job I had, running A/P, where my co-workers were paid hourly, but were considered "salary" - as in they HAD to work the 40 hours, or be deducted, which doesn't happen with salary. But, as anyone on salary knows, you end up working MORE hours, not less. What would happen to those coworkers - they'd get their OT, but it wouldn't be classed as OT, their hourly rate would DROP, in whichever pay period they had OT.
That's disgusting. It's a push for more employees to be salaried. Which means your company can REQUIRE more hours worked for the same money.
Seriously, this is the accountant talking, this is wrong, it just feels dumb. Some people make most of their money on OT, and count on it. The companies should be looking INTERNALLY for solutions, not letting the government do their dirty work.
Honestly, Canada or the UK is looking better and better. I'm not sure what I'm losing is worth staying here.
Bah. BAH. I'm going to go to KMart and get some hangers, and a storage bin to get some other stuff outta my face. Then I have some work to do.
That's not what bothers me. The Border's where Ben works FORBIDS overtime, it just isn't given, period. That's a valid way to cut overtime.
The one that bothers me is this:
--Making a "payroll adjustment" that results "in virtually no, or only a minimal increase in labor costs," the department said. Workers' annual pay would be converted to an hourly rate and cut, with overtime added in to equal the former salary.
Basically, you get paid your overtime, but it's factored into your payroll. As it says: Essentially, employees would be working more hours for the same pay.
Now, it's been a while since I've been "hourly" like that. We're not talking working at the local supermarket, or union jobs or anything like that. I'm thinking about a job I had, running A/P, where my co-workers were paid hourly, but were considered "salary" - as in they HAD to work the 40 hours, or be deducted, which doesn't happen with salary. But, as anyone on salary knows, you end up working MORE hours, not less. What would happen to those coworkers - they'd get their OT, but it wouldn't be classed as OT, their hourly rate would DROP, in whichever pay period they had OT.
That's disgusting. It's a push for more employees to be salaried. Which means your company can REQUIRE more hours worked for the same money.
Seriously, this is the accountant talking, this is wrong, it just feels dumb. Some people make most of their money on OT, and count on it. The companies should be looking INTERNALLY for solutions, not letting the government do their dirty work.
Honestly, Canada or the UK is looking better and better. I'm not sure what I'm losing is worth staying here.
Bah. BAH. I'm going to go to KMart and get some hangers, and a storage bin to get some other stuff outta my face. Then I have some work to do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-05 07:07 pm (UTC)I don't miss retail.
I will also say this about my job. in my position, I wouldn't get overtime. However, I am not expected to work it. AND I also make enough money that I wouldn't have to rely on overtime.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-06 07:27 am (UTC)ugh ugh ugh
just undermine the entire FLSA whydontcha, dubya and elaine??[1]
[1]: chao, the DOL secretary. i'm almost embarassed that she went to my alma mater.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-06 09:06 am (UTC)I cringed, litereally, nothing about payroll adjustments brings to mind the word "simple." Even if you have a payroll service, it's a bitch and a half.
I giggled too tho. Hee hee, simple. I wonder how many employers are actually going to DO that? (Actually, probably a lot, since it's not upper management who will be making the changes, just making the decisions.)
no subject
Date: 2004-01-07 07:39 am (UTC)i bet ADP is just loving this. (or not.) :-/