Beer Baron wrote: In reply to SVreX: I am paid salary. I consistently work >40hours/week. Probably 45-50/wk average. I am currently paid $37k/year for this.
Time for them to just make you a part owner (fully vested of course) and you can work all you want since you'll technically be self employed.
In reply to SVreX:
I'm fine with that! Hire another person to do grunt work and pay someone to do sales and rep at festivals. That's fine. I'm doing a lot more work than what I am compensate for at this point. I either want more compensation or less work.
slefain wrote:Beer Baron wrote: In reply to SVreX: I am paid salary. I consistently work >40hours/week. Probably 45-50/wk average. I am currently paid $37k/year for this.Time for them to just make you a part owner (fully vested of course) and you can work all you want since you'll technically be self employed.
I have suggested this many times.
SVreX wrote: They will make sure your Head Brewer job is limited to 40 hours per week, and hire a part time doo-flunky to do all the other crap you do.
Man I begged for a part time doo-flunky for years but there was never approval for head count. However, there was plenty of money for management "training sessions" in sunny locations....
In reply to Beer Baron:
If you become an owner, they don't have to pay you at all. 
Beer Baron wrote:slefain wrote:I have suggested this many times.Beer Baron wrote: In reply to SVreX: I am paid salary. I consistently work >40hours/week. Probably 45-50/wk average. I am currently paid $37k/year for this.Time for them to just make you a part owner (fully vested of course) and you can work all you want since you'll technically be self employed.
Point is... no matter which way this is cut, this is a huge point I can use to bargain some major boons for myself.
I believe the unintended consequence of this will be:
More part timers will be hired to keep costs down. Additionally, more output will be expected of each worker (because you CAN be replaced).
This will lower the unemployment rate (which will look great on paper).
But the average income will go down (because of so many part timers). And the worker satisfaction will go down (because of everyone working so hard to keep their job).
Then, employers will learn just how much they can get done with part timers. As they get trained up and their skillsets improve, companies will be able to do more with less.
Which will lead to layoffs for senior employees (who will then be too expensive compared to their part time counterparts)
Which will lead to higher unemployment, particularly for skilled workers.
Rinse, repeat.
Lower quality will also be a by-product, but companies will care less and less about this.
It's pretty much what happened to the labor force in the construction industry in the last 10 years. No reason it can't happen to everyone else.
We are still dealing with the aftermath of the "great job consolidation" that happened during the Great Recession. One person being forced to do three jobs or else they get let go too. You either perform all three or the company will find someone who will. Productivity looks good, but quality takes a nosedive. But hey, payroll costs are down so management gets a performance bonus, hooray! Now all those people who were being squeezed to do three jobs can't work the 60 hours weeks it required, so what Paul said will happen as well.
SVreX wrote: It's pretty much what happened to the labor force in the construction industry in the last 10 years. No reason it can't happen to everyone else.
A better question is how many industries pay their labor in salaried positions and use that to make them work over time, and have earnings less than $47k/year. Like the construction industry.
Part time = wage. So replacing salaried OT with PT won't save that much money- the "free" time before now has a cost.
Switching to wages = certain OT with different OT rules. That "free" time have even more cost.
It's really going to take good math to determine what jobs and salaries need to be supplemented to keep those employees under 40 hours a week or they just get paid OT. Impossible to use sweeping generalities, as every situation is different.
But how many industries are the real skilled labor earning less than $47k on a salary? Other than construction. and only part of that, since many of the skilled trades are part of unions.
In reply to alfadriver:
Construction plays a lot of games, but the one you just described is pretty rare. Very few people in construction are paid salary, except legit management.
Unfortunately, their game is often worse. But this change will mean very little to the construction industry.
In reply to alfadriver:
It's not hard at all.
Company policy: no overtime. Get your job done in 40, no more.
I know LOTS of people who would clock out at 40, but work an extra 5 to get the work done so they don't lose their job.
The workers HAVE to be willing to push back. Many are not.
Except union shops, of course.
SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Construction plays a lot of games, but the one you just described is pretty rare. Very few people in construction are paid salary, except legit management. Unfortunately, their game is often worse. But this change will mean very little to the construction industry.
I'm confused, then. The post of what will happen seems as if that is what happened in the construction industry.
So all of that is a guess?
If more people are employed, but it's because of a bunch of new lower overall wage workers filling in the OT, I'n not sure how that's bad- in the long run, more people and more money will be cycling through the economy- and consumerism is most of what our economy is based on. Yes, the average wage will go down (numerically), but more money will cycle, net benefit.
If then the less skilled part timers become skilled, and can do more work- that also seems like a good thing. If they become skilled to replace higher skilled labor, then they will probably be compensated for it- and if not, they can use that skill to find a better job- which is what happens here with our hired workers. They don't push out the skilled, they move on to better jobs. And the cycle starts over again.
If a skilled worker loses his job, then the skill isn't really that valuable, is it?
SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: It's not hard at all. Company policy: no overtime. Get your job done in 40, no more. I know LOTS of people who would clock out at 40, but work an extra 5 to get the work done so they don't lose their job. The workers HAVE to be willing to push back. Many are not. Except union shops, of course.
Now they have the law to push back.
Fear of your employer sucks.
SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: It's not hard at all. Company policy: no overtime. Get your job done in 40, no more. I know LOTS of people who would clock out at 40, but work an extra 5 to get the work done so they don't lose their job. The workers HAVE to be willing to push back. Many are not. Except union shops, of course.
Yup, I had to stand up to a boss one time who told me to go clock out because I hit my 40, but then he needed me to finish a project. I told him either I work on the clock or I go home. He was pissed, accused me of not being a "team player" and that I needed to rethink my priorities. I then proceeded to list my priorities for him, which placed my job somewhere around #7 (and below my cat). I do plenty of work for free, but not if someone is making money off my sweat.
In reply to alfadriver:
The shifts in construction were also impacted dramatically with completely out of proportion quantities of undocumented workers, who will have a net benefit of absolute zero from these changes.
When a skilled worker is forced out of his job because there is a cheaper way and it results in a net loss of quality, yes, his skill was valuable until some bureocrat thought he could create a law that made the world better, which only created loopholes for irresponsible people to take advantage of.
In reply to alfadriver:
No law will help people push back on their employer who are afraid of loosing their job or being deported.
SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: The shifts in construction were also impacted dramatically with completely out of proportion quantities of undocumented workers, who will have a net benefit of absolute zero from these changes. When a skilled worker is forced out of his job because there is a cheaper way and it results in a net loss of quality, yes, his skill was valuable until some bureocrat thought he could create a law that made the world better, which only created loopholes for irresponsible people to take advantage of.
I get that, but it doesn't really have to do with this salaried worker OT rule update.
Given the rules to be employed, if you are covered by this law, it's incredibly unlikely that undocumented workers can do your job or OT. Otherwise, your owner would be cheating the rules already, which would render this new law pointless.
SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: No law will help people push back on their employer who are afraid of loosing their job or being deported.
No, it won't. But if you are afraid of being deported, this law is not for you, anyway.
On the other hand, if you are over worked, and underpaid, and not willing to push back- at least look for a new job. Unless misery is good for your health.
slefain wrote:SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: It's not hard at all. Company policy: no overtime. Get your job done in 40, no more. I know LOTS of people who would clock out at 40, but work an extra 5 to get the work done so they don't lose their job. The workers HAVE to be willing to push back. Many are not. Except union shops, of course.Yup, I had to stand up to a boss one time who told me to go clock out because I hit my 40, but then he needed me to finish a project. I told him either I work on the clock or I go home. He was pissed, accused me of not being a "team player" and that I needed to rethink my priorities. I then proceeded to list my priorities for him, which placed my job somewhere around #7 (and below my cat). I do plenty of work for free, but not if someone is making money off my sweat.
Commie.
I love when you two go at each other.
Fast food is an industry where this $47k will have an impact.
I see the HCE now...
Neither Alpha nor I will be effected in any way by this change. Feel free to ignore us both.
Let me give you all a real-world example. At my previous employer they exploited every loophole in the HCE for all 11 stores. The "Store Manager" and "Assistant Manager" were paid between 25-30K/year and required to work a minimum 55-hour week (and both usually worked 70). Now they will either have to bump all 22 of those employees up to just under $48K/year OR actually pay them OT OR have them work a 40-hour week like every other employee in the stores. The owner got rich on the backs of those managers, who often threw away their entire lives including divorce, bankruptcy, and loss of child custody all because they were never home and didn't make a real living wage. This is a similar story to nearly every retail type store. There doesn't need to be a price increase or anything crazy because often the CEO/owner of these chains makes well over $1 million "on the books" (driving a company vehicle, writing off all travel expenses, etc, etc) when the reality is he can easily take a $396K pay cut to pay his 22 hardest working employees what they actually deserve.
In reply to Javelin:
Well said.
dculberson wrote:Beer Baron wrote: Whelp... looks like I'm about to get a great big raise. And/or we will have to have a big discussion on what sorts of activities are working and what are "volunteering" (e.g. Festivals).You can't "volunteer" for a for-profit business, that's also illegal. You do work, you get paid.
Sort of.
NASA is a for-profit and I get paid in track time for my work as a right seat instructor. I am a volunteer.
I do ski patrol for the local hill. I get a season pass, meal vouchers and free passes for my kids. I am listed as a volunteer.
I'm not sure how it is legal but since it is benefiting me in a way that I don't report as income and do not receive a 1099 for - it's cool with me.
If my employer suddenly demoted me to volunteer and provided my meals and lodging but not any form of liquid asset - that would suck. I have no idea how that distinction is made that one is ok and the other is not because I'm sure someone would try it if they could.
You'll need to log in to post.
