That's (sorry post blocked but this is for javelin)^ not the HCE unless they also made commission or bonus from my understanding.
Restaurant and Sales clerks are probably the biggest targets for this law, it was needed for the food industry where lots of "managers" make an hourly equivalent of $10-12/hr to run a store front.
In reply to Javelin:
I understand the math of what you posted, but not the logic.
You said your employer exploited every possible loophole and had no concern for the ruin of his own employees.
Then you said he can take a $396K pay cut so others coukd get what they "deserve".
Why would a man like that do such a thing? Do you think he will now be incapable of finding the loopholes? Is he now gonna suddenly care?
I think that is silly.
Javelin wrote: 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.
this is the kind of business the changes in the law are targeted at.
chandlerGTi wrote: 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...
How many fast food workers are salaried??? Mangers, maybe (I wasn't). But none of the workers.
SVreX wrote: In reply to Javelin: I understand the math of what you posted, but not the logic. You said your employer exploited every possible loophole and had no concern for the ruin of his own employees. Then you said he can take a $396K pay cut so others coukd get what they "deserve". Why would a man like that do such a thing? Do you think he will now be incapable of finding the loopholes? Is he now gonna suddenly care? I think that is silly.
Plus, IIRC, if any others are like J- your time there was brief. If you are being exploited beyond you pay- look for another job.
At some point, one needs to do the math- 50 hours a week with two weeks off is 2500 hours of work. And if you are pulling down 32.5k/year, that's just $15/hr. Which is the limit some cities are putting minimum wage.
If it's a skilled trade, as much as people hate unions, they can help you get a very nice earning.
alfadriver wrote:chandlerGTi wrote: 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...How many fast food workers are salaried??? Mangers, maybe (I wasn't). But none of the workers.
Yes, managers.
How will this affect entry level teacher pay?
I think It said it excludes Union negotiated agreements.
chandlerGTi wrote: That's (sorry post blocked but this is for javelin)^ not the HCE unless they also made commission or bonus from my understanding. Restaurant and Sales clerks are probably the biggest targets for this law, it was needed for the food industry where lots of "managers" make an hourly equivalent of $10-12/hr to run a store front.
in addition to this, some chefs are salaried at nicer places, which is great for the owners, but not the employees, most of the time.
Was it that impossible for them to find another job??
Javelin wrote: 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.
revrico wrote:chandlerGTi wrote: That's (sorry post blocked but this is for javelin)^ not the HCE unless they also made commission or bonus from my understanding. Restaurant and Sales clerks are probably the biggest targets for this law, it was needed for the food industry where lots of "managers" make an hourly equivalent of $10-12/hr to run a store front.in addition to this, some chefs are salaried at nicer places, which is great for the owners, but not the employees, most of the time.
And if it's really a nicer place, the good chefs are earning more than $47k.
Again, I'm not sure if one could detect the impact of this on the food industry- since the people who would benefit are a small part of the system.
In reply to Nathan JansenvanDoorn:
Shushhhh! We are having a moment boss-bashing.
The conversations on this site are fiercely independent until it comes to discussions involving employers, at which time everyone seems to want to roll over and expect the employer to be their provider, or pass laws that will turn monstrous employers into feel-good Care Bears. It's the GRM way.
Can't disagree on that Alfa, this whole thing affects a small percentage of salary employees anyway. I think the stats said 90% of salary teammates were between $46k and 134k. That leaves 10% above AND below together.
I asked the question because I wanted to know what HCE applied to and found that out. The rest of this has been spin off discussion; good discussion but still spin off.
As a owner of a company with employees that happens to actually pay salaried emploies for it in the form of bonuses or vacation time at 2x instead of the ot multiplayer of 1.5 I am going to have to see if this will actually prevent me from continuing this and instead just paying the ot. hummmm
Oh and listening to people complain about there boss / company owner is funny. I have an open door policy in my company. The door is always open for anyone to leave if they are unhappy. I don't want unhappy employees.
This I also going to potentially move jobs overseas. I outsource CAD services to the Philippines. Email and ftp sites make this a snap. I pay them about 2x the going rate in there country and it is about half of what it costs me to pay someone here. I know you all have focused on the food and brick and mortar businesses but I wonder how thus is going to impact the bottom end of the tech market. Things like data entry and what not.
I may be an unhappy employee where I am, Dean, but it is not the boss or the company I am upset with.. unless you consider my boss' complete inability to fire anybody a reason to be upset with him.
And unlike the idiots that actually make my job suck.. I get along with the boss. I wouldn't go out drinking with him, but he's not an awful guy
SVreX wrote: In reply to Javelin: I understand the math of what you posted, but not the logic. You said your employer exploited every possible loophole and had no concern for the ruin of his own employees. Then you said he can take a $396K pay cut so others coukd get what they "deserve". Why would a man like that do such a thing? Do you think he will now be incapable of finding the loopholes? Is he now gonna suddenly care? I think that is silly.
He will not care, but he will also no longer be able to exploit any loopholes. Either he pays his current employees or he hires more or the sales tank, his call. And about damn time, too.
Nathan JansenvanDoorn wrote: Was it that impossible for them to find another job??
You work 70 hour weeks while having shifts change on you constantly and try to find another job. But still, yes, most of us got out. My particular position had a backwards-loophole (state law that mandated OT no matter the pay) and I fought and won, but still took off for a much better employer.
In reply to Javelin:
So you think there are no more loopholes?
Nope. You are definitely mistaken.
(rant)
My problem is that I watched how my Dad ran his six tire stores, because I was supposed to take over at some point. Dad was first in, last out every day for 22 years at the main shop. He took good care of his guys in both pay and perks. He knew them all, knew their families, and made sure everyone was happy. When it came time to shut the doors my Dad used the money he was withholding for the IRS to pay everyone their last full check. The IRS eventually got their money from my Dad personally (slowly over 20 years) but the employees got their money first because it wasn't their fault. Dad also found jobs for every single employee before closing the doors. They were people, they were his friends, and they were his family, so Dad said it was his job to take care of them. A lot of them came to Dad's funeral.
Today? Screw it, employees are just a number or a resource. I'm pretty sure we hit employee abuse rock bottom with the whole "on demand staffing" craze that the retailers pulled. Not full time, not even part time, just call in every day and find out if we need you. No set hours so it is impossible to have two jobs because both may want you at the same time. Hell I still remember my part time shift hours from flipping burgers in high school 20 years ago.
I've worked for big companies that cared and small companies that didn't, but my observations of the last few years have been pretty much a "mutually assured distrust" type relationship between employer and employee. There's an endless parade of employees out there, why bother retaining one when six more are happy to take their place? The Great Recession made it even worse.
That's why I'm a consultant now, and why I see it as the future of employment. I'm not head count, I'm a line item like the copier rental. I can be "fired" for no reason, no review, there is no H.R. person involved. My worth is purely tied to my ability to deliver my "product", which are my talents. I can tailor my costs to a client's budget by just letting them choose how many hours of my time they want to buy. I never ask for a raise, nor do I complain if my "salary" gets cut. No pension, no benefits to mess with. It is big business's last step in making employment truly a commodity.
There are awesome companies still out there that go above and beyond for their employees (like Coker Tire & GRM), but they are few and far between.
(/rant)
So much butt hurt here.
dean1484 wrote: As a owner of a company with employees that happens to actually pay salaried emploies for it in the form of bonuses or vacation time at 2x instead of the ot multiplayer of 1.5 I am going to have to see if this will actually prevent me from continuing this and instead just paying the ot. hummmm
It specifically says doesn't apply to better "unless" the finish number doesn't meet that $47kish number
And the big problem is: We have gotten used to this new "normal". My GrandFather fought to bring Unions into the Iron Ore Mines of Michigan not for money (they were paid well) but for safety and some control over their home lives. He would really hate how employers treat their employees now. We have never been more productive short of wartime footing, yet the employees get treated worse and worse each year.
I forget what billionaire told his fellow 1%ers this.. but to beware the Pitchforks and torches, they are coming... and I am sure it won't be pretty
Employers want to maximize production and revenue for minimal expense.
Employees want to maximize compensation for minimal effort.
All parties are self interested. Many are just strait up selfish, and their self interest is so short sighted that they will sacrifice long term sustainability for short term gains. (E.g. an employer will generally spend less money retaining employees by keeping them reasonably happy, than it will save by paying them a bare minimum that results in high attrition; an employee can ultimately make more money if the employer is financially healthy and able to invest in growth that expands revenue long term.)
It's a constant struggle back and forth to balance these competing desires. It's silly to think there are not power dynamics that one party or the other will try to take advantage of, and that the government needs to occasionally step in to regulate.
It is fallacious to think that just because we can't solve every problem, we shouldn't bother to solve any problem.
Some of us are willing to sacrifice and take lower compensation for more work early in their careers if it means they're setting themselves up for a better long-term position. That doesn't mean we're exactly happy with the current situation or won't use leverage to push for more compensation as things get more successful.
In reply to Beer Baron:
Good post.
You'll need to log in to post.
