SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 The House of Representatives just passed a bill you may want to know about. The measure, backed by Republicans, would let employers give workers paid time off instead of time-and-a-half pay the next time they put in extra hours. The vote tally was largely along party lines, with no Democrats voting in favor of the bill. Six Republicans also voted against it. G.O.P. leadership has touted the legislation, called the Working Families Flexibility Act, as an attempt to codify flexibility for employees Discuss. -------------- There was a time when I worked 16 to 20 hours a week OT. Loved the extra pay. This? Not sure I think it's a good idea for people who could use the extra cash. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/02/news/economy/overtime-pay-bill-passes-house/index.html
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 What's the issue? From what I've seen the employee has the option to take the pay or the time. So are Democrats, again, accusing people of being too stupid to make the right decision? I think it's a great idea giving people the option of time vs money.
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 What's the issue? From what I've seen the employee has the option to take the pay or the time. So are Democrats, again, accusing people of being too stupid to make the right decision? I think it's a great idea giving people the option of time vs money. They're probably looking at it as fewer income taxes collected.
Just Jack Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 What's the issue? From what I've seen the employee has the option to take the pay or the time. So are Democrats, again, accusing people of being too stupid to make the right decision? I think it's a great idea giving people the option of time vs money. I've seen the same thing, people are not reading the bill and thinking the employer makes the choice. Personally, my company pays us OT for any hours worked outside of 8-5/M-F. Since most of work is at night and weekends, I've made some really nice paychecks. But there are weeks where I would opt to make some extra time off instead of pay.
Azalin Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 What's the issue? From what I've seen the employee has the option to take the pay or the time. So are Democrats, again, accusing people of being too stupid to make the right decision? I think it's a great idea giving people the option of time vs money. It would seem that they're only pro-choice when it suits them.
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 Now don't get me wrong people are too stupid to make the right decision. We just don't need the government protecting people from their own stupidity. Stupid should hurt. They're probably looking at it as fewer income taxes collected. Nah. They'll just tax the time as a benefit.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 Now don't get me wrong people are too stupid to make the right decision. We just don't need the government protecting people from their own stupidity. Stupid should hurt. Like people that do not understand investing? They should be charged for the "expertise" of brokers?
boyst Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 Like people that do not understand investing? They should be charged for the "expertise" of brokers? are you required to wear a helmet?
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 Like people that do not understand investing? They should be charged for the "expertise" of brokers? Not sure what your point is (big surprise there) however my point stands. Stupid should hurt. To address your point whatever it is. People that don't understand investing but still decide to give it a whirl on their own and lose everything? Stupid should hurt. So they don't understand investing they either a) don't invest b) learn about investing c) hire a professional to help. Those are their options. Why you put expertise in quotes is beyond me.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 4, 2017 Author Posted May 4, 2017 What's the issue? From what I've seen the employee has the option to take the pay or the time. So are Democrats, again, accusing people of being too stupid to make the right decision? I think it's a great idea giving people the option of time vs money. Didn't say there was an issue or an agenda. I was curious how many people would like the idea or not. When I was working all of the OT the company was so busy that people had to work the OT to get the job done. The company didn't have the luxury of giving people time off because the contracts ran for 6 years straight on a tight schedule. If people took time off they couldn't meet schedule.
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 Didn't say there was an issue Then what did you mean by this statement? Not sure I think it's a good idea for people who could use the extra cash.
Bray Wyatt Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 So according to the article the Dems are opposed as they think employers will limit when the employee could use said PTO, well shouldn't that be the issue and not the bill itself? Shouldn't there be a law that protects the employees right to use PTO? I get black out periods, but if those are explicitly stated at the beginning of a year, then the employee is aware of when they can and cant use their earned time so if they opt for the PTO what is the deal?
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 4, 2017 Author Posted May 4, 2017 Then what did you mean by this statement? Not sure I think it's a good idea for people who could use the extra cash. because sometimes people will volunteer to work OT in lieu of getting a 2nd job to earn some extra cash for beer, hobbies, vacations and such. getting a few hours off the following week doesn't buy a case of beer.
Chef Jim Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 because sometimes people will volunteer to work OT in lieu of getting a 2nd job to earn some extra cash for beer, hobbies, vacations and such. getting a few hours off the following week doesn't buy a case of beer. So you have an issue with the choices some people make?
Bray Wyatt Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) because sometimes people will volunteer to work OT in lieu of getting a 2nd job to earn some extra cash for beer, hobbies, vacations and such. getting a few hours off the following week doesn't buy a case of beer. It would be the employees choice if they want PTO or overtime pay, not the employers, at least that is how I understand it Edited May 4, 2017 by Bray Wyatt
Dorkington Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) In theory, it sounds like a decent idea. The fact that employers can ultimately defer 'compensation' though is a problem, and the bill probably should have been modified to protect the worker from potential abuse. Edited May 4, 2017 by Dorkington
row_33 Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 I've arranged to be paid all my WIP for billable hours, even before they are collected. Nice thing to have negotiated...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 4, 2017 Author Posted May 4, 2017 So you have an issue with the choices some people make? Stupid should hurt. Isn't that right?
Azalin Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 The left thought this was a great idea back when Bill Clinton was pushing for employees to be able to opt for up to 80 hours of time off in exchange for overtime hours worked. Let anyone else make a similar suggestion, and watch them start crying worker exploitation.
Recommended Posts