Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Conservatives fighting for the middle class again

2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
We don't need overtime rules cause they actually hurt people who should get overtime.

Under the new rules finalized today, those who earn a salary of less than $47,476 a year will automatically qualify for overtime pay of time-and-a-half if they work more than 40 hours a week. Previously, those who earned more than $23,660 were exempt from overtime pay. The new rules will affect 4.2 million workers in the U.S. when they go into effect starting Dec. 1.

“This regulation hurts the very people it alleges to help. Who is hurt most? Students, non-profit employees, and people starting a new career," Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said in a statement today.

"By mandating overtime pay at a much higher salary threshold, many small businesses and non-profits will simply be unable to afford skilled workers and be forced to eliminate salaried positions, complete with benefits, altogether. For the sake of his own political legacy, President Obama is rushing through regulations -- like the overtime rule -- that will cause people to lose their livelihoods. We are committed to fighting this rule and the many others that would be an absolute disaster for our economy," Ryan added.


https://gma.yahoo.com/house-speaker-paul-ryan-committed-fighting-overtime-rule-185537464--abc-news-personal-finance.html

Comments

  • TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Paul Ryan would make a good President.



    Oh.
  • sarktasticsarktastic Member Posts: 9,208
    you sold your vote for overtime pay?
  • SoutherndawgSoutherndawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,314 Founders Club

    In Hondo's world that doesn't translate to yet more reason to replace full time positions with part time employment.

    #Obamanomics
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 106,802 Founders Club

    Paul Ryan would make a good President.



    Oh.

    You can't win if you don't run
  • GreenRiverGatorzGreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165
    This is actually a very shrewd political move by the Obama administration. Trump has been attracting middle class voters in droves lately, and a lot of them, especially the union types, are dumping their democratic affiliation in favor of the GOP.

    This is a policy that more or less forces Trump to put his money where his mouth is. If he opposes it, he risks alienating a large number of his voters who have flocked to him solely because they view him as a savior of the middle class. If he supports the policy, this will drive a huge wedge between him and the GOP establishment, at a time when the two sides have been making a lot of progress towards unifying.

    Obama could have released this policy a year ago if he wanted to. The timing of it is not at all a coincidence.
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,506 Standard Supporter

    Paul Ryan would make a good President.



    Oh.

    You can't win if you don't run
    Mods?
  • sarktasticsarktastic Member Posts: 9,208

    This is actually a very shrewd political move by the Obama administration. Trump has been attracting middle class voters in droves lately, and a lot of them, especially the union types, are dumping their democratic affiliation in favor of the GOP.

    This is a policy that more or less forces Trump to put his money where his mouth is. If he opposes it, he risks alienating a large number of his voters who have flocked to him solely because they view him as a savior of the middle class. If he supports the policy, this will drive a huge wedge between him and the GOP establishment, at a time when the two sides have been making a lot of progress towards unifying.

    Obama could have released this policy a year ago if he wanted to. The timing of it is not at all a coincidence.

    sure it is... a policy that affects at most... 4,000,000 / 157,833,000 workers... that wont take effect until after the election (if ever) is a real game changer.
  • GreenRiverGatorzGreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165

    This is actually a very shrewd political move by the Obama administration. Trump has been attracting middle class voters in droves lately, and a lot of them, especially the union types, are dumping their democratic affiliation in favor of the GOP.

    This is a policy that more or less forces Trump to put his money where his mouth is. If he opposes it, he risks alienating a large number of his voters who have flocked to him solely because they view him as a savior of the middle class. If he supports the policy, this will drive a huge wedge between him and the GOP establishment, at a time when the two sides have been making a lot of progress towards unifying.

    Obama could have released this policy a year ago if he wanted to. The timing of it is not at all a coincidence.

    sure it is... a policy that affects at most... 4,000,000 / 157,833,000 workers... that wont take effect until after the election (if ever) is a real game changer.
    If you don't think this is going to be a relevant talking point on the campaign trail then this must be your first election.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,519 Standard Supporter
    Bankers, accountants and lawyers will put up the most fuss over this. Because they are of the mentality that young professionals need to 'pay their dues' as slave labor before receiving meaningful compensation.

    Not necessarily saying government intervention is the right answer here. Maybe if some of the partners picked up a pencil or fired up their computers and did some actual work every once in a while, they'd be a little more sympathetic to their peons.

    So don't twist.

  • GreenRiverGatorzGreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165

    Bankers, accountants and lawyers will put up the most fuss over this. Because they are of the mentality that young professionals need to 'pay their dues' as slave labor before receiving meaningful compensation.

    Not necessarily saying government intervention is the right answer here. Maybe if some of the partners picked up a pencil or fired up their computers and did some actual work every once in a while, they'd be a little more sympathetic to their peons.

    So don't twist.

    All three of those professions are actually exempt from the overtime policy. Not that it would matter, very few professionals in any of those categories will ever make less than $47K a year.

    http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,789

    Paul Ryan would make a good President.



    Oh.

    You can't win if you don't run
    Mods?
    Fuck you and your 5.3 minutes
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 34,214 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    We don't need overtime rules cause they actually hurt people who should get overtime.

    Under the new rules finalized today, those who earn a salary of less than $47,476 a year will automatically qualify for overtime pay of time-and-a-half if they work more than 40 hours a week. Previously, those who earned more than $23,660 were exempt from overtime pay. The new rules will affect 4.2 million workers in the U.S. when they go into effect starting Dec. 1.

    “This regulation hurts the very people it alleges to help. Who is hurt most? Students, non-profit employees, and people starting a new career," Ryan, R-Wisconsin, said in a statement today.

    "By mandating overtime pay at a much higher salary threshold, many small businesses and non-profits will simply be unable to afford skilled workers and be forced to eliminate salaried positions, complete with benefits, altogether. For the sake of his own political legacy, President Obama is rushing through regulations -- like the overtime rule -- that will cause people to lose their livelihoods. We are committed to fighting this rule and the many others that would be an absolute disaster for our economy," Ryan added.


    https://gma.yahoo.com/house-speaker-paul-ryan-committed-fighting-overtime-rule-185537464--abc-news-personal-finance.html

    Silence you lowly scum! The king has spoken! Right Hondo?
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,931

    Bankers, accountants and lawyers will put up the most fuss over this. Because they are of the mentality that young professionals need to 'pay their dues' as slave labor before receiving meaningful compensation.

    Not necessarily saying government intervention is the right answer here. Maybe if some of the partners picked up a pencil or fired up their computers and did some actual work every once in a while, they'd be a little more sympathetic to their peons.

    So don't twist.

    This is FS IMO

    One of the big problems that we have with rising minimum wage, etc. is that it's pricing what I'd term "unskilled" labor out of jobs. If you were a business owner, would you want to pay a HS kid $15 an hour in a few years? What about a college student?

    We want our young people to learn accountability, take responsibility, learn, and grow. A lot of jobs that many people had on this board aren't even realistic anymore. To a certain degree, that also applies to a number of college jobs.

    For myself personally, one of the jobs that I got while in school was a summer internship with Wells Fargo. I got paid shit ($8/hour) but the experience that I was able to gain doing the job, the insights I was able to learn, and the added responsibilities were invaluable. So was being able to put a Fortune 500 company on my resume. Same with another internship that I had my last year of grad school that basically gave me the foundation to transition seamlessly into a job after graduation. There was a ton that I learned about deadlines, responsibility, communication, commitment, etc. that I would have never realized or understood without jobs in the professional world giving me a primer. I was far from perfect even then and it's something that my first professional boss and I look back and laugh at now ... we didn't laugh so much then.

    The point is that we need to look at jobs differently than what we've looked at them historically. We need to get away from having jobs that should be filled by the next generation of workers looking to gain experience and responsibility being filled by your average aspire to nothing person working 2 8-hour shifts at McDonald's and Wendy's to get by.

    I'm 100% for people earning a living wage for the work that they do. However, there shouldn't be handouts. You should have to apply yourself to get rewards. I remember in college working as many Sunday's and Holiday's as possible so that I could get time and a half ... overtime is great and a great incentive if used properly. The problem with the way that this law is proposed is that you're incentivizing the work to be inefficient in order to get to overtime. You are forcing employers to have to make quicker decisions on new employees and whether or not they are worthwhile at their current salary levels. And, perhaps even more simplistic, there's a simple workaround for this by employers setting base salary levels at say $50k and then not even having to worry about overtime. Honestly, this is a non-issue to me if handled right.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 106,802 Founders Club
    The threshold is just under 1K a week. If you aren't paying your salary employees over 48K a year you must own some shit business like Hondo does. Allegedly

    I don't know how this costs people jobs. The conservative argument should be that you don't do this by imperial decree, you do it by legislation.

    If you move them back to hourly you will damn sure watch how many hours they work. I've been salary and it was always enough that you knew you weren't being hired for 40 hours a week, you were being hired to get the job done. Throw in cars and gas cards and other bennies and there is no need for overtime.

    I don't believe in hiring someone at 30K a year and making them work 60 hours a week. That's bullshit. But again, the conservative argument is to let the market decide.

    Obama is meaningless in this election by the way. Other than helping Trump by acting like a dictator.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    Bankers, accountants and lawyers will put up the most fuss over this. Because they are of the mentality that young professionals need to 'pay their dues' as slave labor before receiving meaningful compensation.

    Not necessarily saying government intervention is the right answer here. Maybe if some of the partners picked up a pencil or fired up their computers and did some actual work every once in a while, they'd be a little more sympathetic to their peons.

    So don't twist.

    You clearly are poor if you don't know that bankers, attorneys, and accountants already make over $47k out of college. Not to mention you have no knowledge of the bill.

    And to Race, my only salaried employee is another partner. Everyone else is hourly and we pay overtime.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,519 Standard Supporter

    Bankers, accountants and lawyers will put up the most fuss over this. Because they are of the mentality that young professionals need to 'pay their dues' as slave labor before receiving meaningful compensation.

    Not necessarily saying government intervention is the right answer here. Maybe if some of the partners picked up a pencil or fired up their computers and did some actual work every once in a while, they'd be a little more sympathetic to their peons.

    So don't twist.

    All three of those professions are actually exempt from the overtime policy. Not that it would matter, very few professionals in any of those categories will ever make less than $47K a year.

    http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
    Banker peons get paid shit.
    Tequilla said:

    Bankers, accountants and lawyers will put up the most fuss over this. Because they are of the mentality that young professionals need to 'pay their dues' as slave labor before receiving meaningful compensation.

    Not necessarily saying government intervention is the right answer here. Maybe if some of the partners picked up a pencil or fired up their computers and did some actual work every once in a while, they'd be a little more sympathetic to their peons.

    So don't twist.

    This is FS IMO

    One of the big problems that we have with rising minimum wage, etc. is that it's pricing what I'd term "unskilled" labor out of jobs. If you were a business owner, would you want to pay a HS kid $15 an hour in a few years? What about a college student?

    We want our young people to learn accountability, take responsibility, learn, and grow. A lot of jobs that many people had on this board aren't even realistic anymore. To a certain degree, that also applies to a number of college jobs.

    For myself personally, one of the jobs that I got while in school was a summer internship with Wells Fargo. I got paid shit ($8/hour) but the experience that I was able to gain doing the job, the insights I was able to learn, and the added responsibilities were invaluable. So was being able to put a Fortune 500 company on my resume. Same with another internship that I had my last year of grad school that basically gave me the foundation to transition seamlessly into a job after graduation. There was a ton that I learned about deadlines, responsibility, communication, commitment, etc. that I would have never realized or understood without jobs in the professional world giving me a primer. I was far from perfect even then and it's something that my first professional boss and I look back and laugh at now ... we didn't laugh so much then.

    The point is that we need to look at jobs differently than what we've looked at them historically. We need to get away from having jobs that should be filled by the next generation of workers looking to gain experience and responsibility being filled by your average aspire to nothing person working 2 8-hour shifts at McDonald's and Wendy's to get by.

    I'm 100% for people earning a living wage for the work that they do. However, there shouldn't be handouts. You should have to apply yourself to get rewards. I remember in college working as many Sunday's and Holiday's as possible so that I could get time and a half ... overtime is great and a great incentive if used properly. The problem with the way that this law is proposed is that you're incentivizing the work to be inefficient in order to get to overtime. You are forcing employers to have to make quicker decisions on new employees and whether or not they are worthwhile at their current salary levels. And, perhaps even more simplistic, there's a simple workaround for this by employers setting base salary levels at say $50k and then not even having to worry about overtime. Honestly, this is a non-issue to me if handled right.
    I'm talking about asshole partners grinding the newbies 75 or 80 hours per week, billing them out at $250 per hour and paying them butt squat.

    Not referencing college internships. I'm talking indentured servitude and asswipes who treat the underlings like shit simply because they outlasted everyone else and put up with the hazing.

  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,519 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    Bankers, accountants and lawyers will put up the most fuss over this. Because they are of the mentality that young professionals need to 'pay their dues' as slave labor before receiving meaningful compensation.

    Not necessarily saying government intervention is the right answer here. Maybe if some of the partners picked up a pencil or fired up their computers and did some actual work every once in a while, they'd be a little more sympathetic to their peons.

    So don't twist.

    You clearly are poor if you don't know that bankers, attorneys, and accountants already make over $47k out of college. Not to mention you have no knowledge of the bill.

    And to Race, my only salaried employee is another partner. Everyone else is hourly and we pay overtime.
    Having flashbacks to my youth.

    Not a fan of the indentured servitude model.
  • GreenRiverGatorzGreenRiverGatorz Member Posts: 10,165

    Bankers, accountants and lawyers will put up the most fuss over this. Because they are of the mentality that young professionals need to 'pay their dues' as slave labor before receiving meaningful compensation.

    Not necessarily saying government intervention is the right answer here. Maybe if some of the partners picked up a pencil or fired up their computers and did some actual work every once in a while, they'd be a little more sympathetic to their peons.

    So don't twist.

    All three of those professions are actually exempt from the overtime policy. Not that it would matter, very few professionals in any of those categories will ever make less than $47K a year.

    http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
    Banker peons get paid shit.

    Then I don't know which kind of "bankers" you're referring to (and to be fair, it is a very broad term). The "bankers" who work in the same kind of partnership/LLC structure that accountants and attorneys work in, are investment bankers and other high finance professionals. Entry level salaries for them are usually near six figures.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,519 Standard Supporter


    Bankers, accountants and lawyers will put up the most fuss over this. Because they are of the mentality that young professionals need to 'pay their dues' as slave labor before receiving meaningful compensation.

    Not necessarily saying government intervention is the right answer here. Maybe if some of the partners picked up a pencil or fired up their computers and did some actual work every once in a while, they'd be a little more sympathetic to their peons.

    So don't twist.

    All three of those professions are actually exempt from the overtime policy. Not that it would matter, very few professionals in any of those categories will ever make less than $47K a year.

    http://www.flsa.com/coverage.html
    Banker peons get paid shit.

    Then I don't know which kind of "bankers" you're referring to (and to be fair, it is a very broad term). The "bankers" who work in the same kind of partnership/LLC structure that accountants and attorneys work in, are investment bankers and other high finance professionals. Entry level salaries for them are usually near six figures.
    Very broad.

    I"m talking your guy right out of college at the local branch. Or the credit analyst or business banking associate. Those guys aren't making jack. Retail banking sucks donkey balls.

  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    Bankers, accountants and lawyers will put up the most fuss over this. Because they are of the mentality that young professionals need to 'pay their dues' as slave labor before receiving meaningful compensation.

    Not necessarily saying government intervention is the right answer here. Maybe if some of the partners picked up a pencil or fired up their computers and did some actual work every once in a while, they'd be a little more sympathetic to their peons.

    So don't twist.

    You clearly are poor if you don't know that bankers, attorneys, and accountants already make over $47k out of college. Not to mention you have no knowledge of the bill.

    And to Race, my only salaried employee is another partner. Everyone else is hourly and we pay overtime.
    Having flashbacks to my youth.

    Not a fan of the indentured servitude model.
    And those "indentured servants" can leave for more money and less hours at an instant and like 90% of the employees do. So I don't really cry for staff accountants making $65k a year working 2,300 hours.
Sign In or Register to comment.