Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Overtime

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:28:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
In the United States, if an employee works longer than 40 hours a week then for each "extra" hour he or she will get paid 1.5 times what the normal rate is.
For instance, let's say that you make $10 per hour. You work 48 hours per week. You will make $400 for those first 40 hours and then $120 for those last 8 hours, bringing your paycheck up to $520 per week instead of $480.
To get around overtime, bosses often employ people for less than 40 hours. If you work 35 hours and you just want an extra 15 hours worth of pay you'll find it difficult to locate an employee who will give you job working 15 hours a week (especially an employer who will get you a job that works around your other job's schedule). As a result many people are unable to get a second job. The most preferable option for them would be for their 35 hour job to become a 50 hour job, but due to overtime this isn't going to happen.

What do you think? Should the overtime threshold be raised?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:34:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 10:28:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In the United States, if an employee works longer than 40 hours a week then for each "extra" hour he or she will get paid 1.5 times what the normal rate is.
For instance, let's say that you make $10 per hour. You work 48 hours per week. You will make $400 for those first 40 hours and then $120 for those last 8 hours, bringing your paycheck up to $520 per week instead of $480.
To get around overtime, bosses often employ people for less than 40 hours. If you work 35 hours and you just want an extra 15 hours worth of pay you'll find it difficult to locate an employee who will give you job working 15 hours a week (especially an employer who will get you a job that works around your other job's schedule). As a result many people are unable to get a second job. The most preferable option for them would be for their 35 hour job to become a 50 hour job, but due to overtime this isn't going to happen.

What do you think? Should the overtime threshold be raised?

First, that is not how overtime inherently works, but how it often does. There are exceptions, but we can ignore that for now.

Second, and more importantly, bosses don't have people working 35 hours a week to avoid overtime. They do it to avoid them being "full time", or other contractual reasons.

Third, only a select few industries have issues with uncontrolled labor scheduling, for example, restaurants. So, these people may only schedule 35 hours, so, if need be, if they stay late, they don't hit overtime.
I've had over 40 different jobs, and only the restaurants feared overtime. Everyone else, the 40 hours plus 1 minute could be avoided, or, in the case of one union, 40 hours a week was outright unallowed, unless I was to be paid "full time" which was nearly double the pay.
My work here is, finally, done.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:38:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 10:34:23 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/20/2015 10:28:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In the United States, if an employee works longer than 40 hours a week then for each "extra" hour he or she will get paid 1.5 times what the normal rate is.
For instance, let's say that you make $10 per hour. You work 48 hours per week. You will make $400 for those first 40 hours and then $120 for those last 8 hours, bringing your paycheck up to $520 per week instead of $480.
To get around overtime, bosses often employ people for less than 40 hours. If you work 35 hours and you just want an extra 15 hours worth of pay you'll find it difficult to locate an employee who will give you job working 15 hours a week (especially an employer who will get you a job that works around your other job's schedule). As a result many people are unable to get a second job. The most preferable option for them would be for their 35 hour job to become a 50 hour job, but due to overtime this isn't going to happen.

What do you think? Should the overtime threshold be raised?

First, that is not how overtime inherently works, but how it often does. There are exceptions, but we can ignore that for now.

Second, and more importantly, bosses don't have people working 35 hours a week to avoid overtime. They do it to avoid them being "full time", or other contractual reasons.

Third, only a select few industries have issues with uncontrolled labor scheduling, for example, restaurants. So, these people may only schedule 35 hours, so, if need be, if they stay late, they don't hit overtime.
I've had over 40 different jobs, and only the restaurants feared overtime. Everyone else, the 40 hours plus 1 minute could be avoided, or, in the case of one union, 40 hours a week was outright unallowed, unless I was to be paid "full time" which was nearly double the pay.

So you're saying most industries don't try to avoid overtime and that the full-time label is the actual issue most of the time.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:43:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 10:38:41 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

So you're saying most industries don't try to avoid overtime and that the full-time label is the actual issue most of the time.

Overtime is a sign of poor labor management. It shows either manager incompetence or a shortage of available labor. So, yes, overtime is something companies want to avoid. Why would I want to pay you 50% more?

I'd say the reason why people are not scheduled 40 hours a week where this is commonplace, is due to full-time status, contractual restrictions, or, a necessity due to overall labor costs. If you have a business where productivity spikes throughout the day, it is hard to justify having people working during the lulls (e.g. restaurants in the afternoon).
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:49:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 10:28:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
40% of full time workers work 40 hours a week.
8% work less.
50% more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I'm not sure what you are complaining about, as 92% of full timers are working at least 40 hours.
So, it seems you are complaining that part-time employees aren't working 40 hours, because of overtime, but, clearly, it is due to the fact they are part-time.
My work here is, finally, done.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 10:51:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 10:49:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/20/2015 10:28:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
40% of full time workers work 40 hours a week.
8% work less.
50% more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...


I'm not sure what you are complaining about, as 92% of full timers are working at least 40 hours.
So, it seems you are complaining that part-time employees aren't working 40 hours, because of overtime, but, clearly, it is due to the fact they are part-time.

My source differs.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
I did the math and came to the conclusion that the average full-timer works less than 35 hours a week.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:06:12 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 10:51:51 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/20/2015 10:49:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/20/2015 10:28:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
40% of full time workers work 40 hours a week.
8% work less.
50% more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...


I'm not sure what you are complaining about, as 92% of full timers are working at least 40 hours.
So, it seems you are complaining that part-time employees aren't working 40 hours, because of overtime, but, clearly, it is due to the fact they are part-time.

My source differs.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
I did the math and came to the conclusion that the average full-timer works less than 35 hours a week.

Interesting, since the chart says nothing of full time....
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:10:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 10:51:51 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/20/2015 10:49:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/20/2015 10:28:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
40% of full time workers work 40 hours a week.
8% work less.
50% more.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...


I'm not sure what you are complaining about, as 92% of full timers are working at least 40 hours.
So, it seems you are complaining that part-time employees aren't working 40 hours, because of overtime, but, clearly, it is due to the fact they are part-time.

My source differs.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
I did the math and came to the conclusion that the average full-timer works less than 35 hours a week.

Speaking of math.......
If the average hours in 2011 was 1720, then that means the average wage must have been $23.96/hr. Amazing, since, assuming 40 hour weeks, the median income is only $12.96.
https://www.ssa.gov...
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:19:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Or, let's look at this graph.
Again, similar figures, but, again, no mention of full-time.
http://www.bls.gov...

Notice how the manufacturing jobs are 40 or more (except for one 39.7)?
Notice how the lowest number is hospitality and leisure, and the next lowest is retail? Almost like this is assuredly including part time workers...
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:25:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Now, let's examine why would a business not want to have full time employees?
Well, it often boils down to benefits.

Most part time employees do not get any benefits. Obamacare may have changed that a bit, but doubtful it is too much. They can offer them insurance, but they don't have to pay for it, where they might (or at least a bigger part) for full timers.

Also, there is generally holiday pay which part timers do not get, and paid time off.
401k or profit-sharing, as well.

The reason people don't work 40 hours, is because companies do not want to pay three people full time pay and benefits, when they can just pay four people to do the work, and, sometimes, it is necessary to have four people instead of three - like in retail and hospitality. You don't need six maids on a Tuesday night at a hotel when the rooms are half empty, but will need six when they are all booked on the weekend.
My work here is, finally, done.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:32:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:25:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Now, let's examine why would a business not want to have full time employees?
Well, it often boils down to benefits.

Most part time employees do not get any benefits. Obamacare may have changed that a bit, but doubtful it is too much. They can offer them insurance, but they don't have to pay for it, where they might (or at least a bigger part) for full timers.

Also, there is generally holiday pay which part timers do not get, and paid time off.
401k or profit-sharing, as well.

The reason people don't work 40 hours, is because companies do not want to pay three people full time pay and benefits, when they can just pay four people to do the work, and, sometimes, it is necessary to have four people instead of three - like in retail and hospitality. You don't need six maids on a Tuesday night at a hotel when the rooms are half empty, but will need six when they are all booked on the weekend.

Okay then...should we raise the threshold of what counts as a full-time employee then?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:52:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:32:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/20/2015 11:25:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Now, let's examine why would a business not want to have full time employees?
Well, it often boils down to benefits.

Most part time employees do not get any benefits. Obamacare may have changed that a bit, but doubtful it is too much. They can offer them insurance, but they don't have to pay for it, where they might (or at least a bigger part) for full timers.

Also, there is generally holiday pay which part timers do not get, and paid time off.
401k or profit-sharing, as well.

The reason people don't work 40 hours, is because companies do not want to pay three people full time pay and benefits, when they can just pay four people to do the work, and, sometimes, it is necessary to have four people instead of three - like in retail and hospitality. You don't need six maids on a Tuesday night at a hotel when the rooms are half empty, but will need six when they are all booked on the weekend.

Okay then...should we raise the threshold of what counts as a full-time employee then?

LOL, in what manner? These are private contracts.
Full time employee means whatever the hell anyone wants it to, for example:
For Obamacare, an FT is someone who works 35 hours/wk
For Unemployment, it is 32 hours
For BLS, IIRC, it is 35 hours.
For something I can't recall, it is 30 hours.

Full time is just a label people use, and the importance of said label is dependent on the circumstances. I work 40 hours/wk, and I am not an employee where I work, because I am a contractor (I am FTE of my temp agency, though).

And, as I first stated, OT is not necessarily guaranteed. If I am salaried, I do not get overtime, as I have no "scheduled" amount of hours. So, in this case, I am a FTE, but not eligible for overtime. (and, it is not uncommon for salaired people to work 50+ hours in a week). I think Obama is trying to crack down on that a bit, basically targeting restaurant managers and things.

But, no, there is no need to define it, except for matters where it requires definition.
After all, a full time employ is not defined by the number of hours they necessarily work, as they may only work 30 in any given week due to being ill.
Hell, my wife is a full time employee, and I don't think she has worked 40 hours ever at that job in a week. She'd like to, but she just can't get the work.

So, I guess I am not sure what you are thinking will change?
My work here is, finally, done.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:54:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:52:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/20/2015 11:32:27 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/20/2015 11:25:29 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Now, let's examine why would a business not want to have full time employees?
Well, it often boils down to benefits.

Most part time employees do not get any benefits. Obamacare may have changed that a bit, but doubtful it is too much. They can offer them insurance, but they don't have to pay for it, where they might (or at least a bigger part) for full timers.

Also, there is generally holiday pay which part timers do not get, and paid time off.
401k or profit-sharing, as well.

The reason people don't work 40 hours, is because companies do not want to pay three people full time pay and benefits, when they can just pay four people to do the work, and, sometimes, it is necessary to have four people instead of three - like in retail and hospitality. You don't need six maids on a Tuesday night at a hotel when the rooms are half empty, but will need six when they are all booked on the weekend.

Okay then...should we raise the threshold of what counts as a full-time employee then?

LOL, in what manner? These are private contracts.
Full time employee means whatever the hell anyone wants it to, for example:
For Obamacare, an FT is someone who works 35 hours/wk
For Unemployment, it is 32 hours
For BLS, IIRC, it is 35 hours.
For something I can't recall, it is 30 hours.

Full time is just a label people use, and the importance of said label is dependent on the circumstances. I work 40 hours/wk, and I am not an employee where I work, because I am a contractor (I am FTE of my temp agency, though).

And, as I first stated, OT is not necessarily guaranteed. If I am salaried, I do not get overtime, as I have no "scheduled" amount of hours. So, in this case, I am a FTE, but not eligible for overtime. (and, it is not uncommon for salaired people to work 50+ hours in a week). I think Obama is trying to crack down on that a bit, basically targeting restaurant managers and things.

But, no, there is no need to define it, except for matters where it requires definition.
After all, a full time employ is not defined by the number of hours they necessarily work, as they may only work 30 in any given week due to being ill.
Hell, my wife is a full time employee, and I don't think she has worked 40 hours ever at that job in a week. She'd like to, but she just can't get the work.

So, I guess I am not sure what you are thinking will change?

I thought the Government provided the definition of "full-time" that all businesses must abide by. Am I wrong?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:55:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Crap. This thread was botched...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:57:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:54:26 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

I thought the Government provided the definition of "full-time" that all businesses must abide by. Am I wrong?

Very much so.
http://www.dol.gov...

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not define full-time employment or part-time employment. This is a matter generally to be determined by the employer. Whether an employee is considered full-time or part-time does not change the application of the FLSA, nor does it affect application of the Service Contract Act or Davis-Bacon and Related Acts wage and fringe benefit requirements.
My work here is, finally, done.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:58:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:57:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/20/2015 11:54:26 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

I thought the Government provided the definition of "full-time" that all businesses must abide by. Am I wrong?

Very much so.
http://www.dol.gov...

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not define full-time employment or part-time employment. This is a matter generally to be determined by the employer. Whether an employee is considered full-time or part-time does not change the application of the FLSA, nor does it affect application of the Service Contract Act or Davis-Bacon and Related Acts wage and fringe benefit requirements.

So you're saying that an employer doesn't even need to have full-time employees?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 12:10:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 11:58:35 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/20/2015 11:57:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/20/2015 11:54:26 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

I thought the Government provided the definition of "full-time" that all businesses must abide by. Am I wrong?

Very much so.
http://www.dol.gov...

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not define full-time employment or part-time employment. This is a matter generally to be determined by the employer. Whether an employee is considered full-time or part-time does not change the application of the FLSA, nor does it affect application of the Service Contract Act or Davis-Bacon and Related Acts wage and fringe benefit requirements.

So you're saying that an employer doesn't even need to have full-time employees?

There are businesses with zero employees.
Next time you get your hair cut, see if any of them are literally the solon's employee. Chances are good they are not.

Now, can a "normal" business run with no full-time employees? It can. But, most people want the security that comes with that status, and the usual benefits, and, most importantly, the hours (i.e. income).
Common industries with no employees (or very very few, for like, administrative stuff): groomers, stylists, taxis, even handymen/plumber types.

But, there is no law that defines it or requires it. There are laws that define what an employee is, as opposed to a contractor, but not one that says what an employee is entitled to as a full timer, as opposed to part-timer, except that overtime is to be paid after 40 hours in a week, OSHA stuff, other protections.
My work here is, finally, done.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 2:17:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 10:28:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In the United States, if an employee works longer than 40 hours a week then for each "extra" hour he or she will get paid 1.5 times what the normal rate is.
For instance, let's say that you make $10 per hour. You work 48 hours per week. You will make $400 for those first 40 hours and then $120 for those last 8 hours, bringing your paycheck up to $520 per week instead of $480.
To get around overtime, bosses often employ people for less than 40 hours. If you work 35 hours and you just want an extra 15 hours worth of pay you'll find it difficult to locate an employee who will give you job working 15 hours a week (especially an employer who will get you a job that works around your other job's schedule). As a result many people are unable to get a second job. The most preferable option for them would be for their 35 hour job to become a 50 hour job, but due to overtime this isn't going to happen.

What do you think? Should the overtime threshold be raised?

- In France, they pay you nothing for overtime. It's a taboo.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 11:28:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 2:17:10 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/20/2015 10:28:44 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In the United States, if an employee works longer than 40 hours a week then for each "extra" hour he or she will get paid 1.5 times what the normal rate is.
For instance, let's say that you make $10 per hour. You work 48 hours per week. You will make $400 for those first 40 hours and then $120 for those last 8 hours, bringing your paycheck up to $520 per week instead of $480.
To get around overtime, bosses often employ people for less than 40 hours. If you work 35 hours and you just want an extra 15 hours worth of pay you'll find it difficult to locate an employee who will give you job working 15 hours a week (especially an employer who will get you a job that works around your other job's schedule). As a result many people are unable to get a second job. The most preferable option for them would be for their 35 hour job to become a 50 hour job, but due to overtime this isn't going to happen.

What do you think? Should the overtime threshold be raised?

- In France, they pay you nothing for overtime. It's a taboo.

I hear French people are quite efficient at work, so they do well enough despite their 35-hour weeks. :)
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2015 5:38:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/21/2015 11:28:13 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

I hear French people are quite efficient at work, so they do well enough despite their 35-hour weeks. :)

- & the French think Germans are the ones who are efficient at work! Guess, culture gets to either underestimate itself or overestimate its rivals.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...