Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Subject: Assault on labor
http://www.rutlandherald.com/Columns/Article/68029.html
The Bob Herbert article points out the proposed changes to the federal Fair Labor Standards act passed during the depression are likely to eliminate the right to overtime pay (time + 1/2) for as many as 8 million workers.
Reactions?
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
I remember something like this a few years ago, when some senators said they wanted to do away with "time and a half pay" in favor of adding hours worked overtime to vacation time due. I do not like it because I do not want to work over 40 hours a week.
I think this is all BS from Bush. The reason I suspect they want to change the rules are because the CEO who makes 10 million dollars wants to make 11 million dollars, by taking it away from you. There is an easy solution to the overtime problem, buisnesses must hire additional people.
If I was changing out labour system, I think I would look at Germany as a great example. They work 35 hour weeks and are gaurenteed something like 4 weeks vacation for every person. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who worked in Germany.
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
I think that the neo-cons are trying to turn back the hands of time to the turn of the 20th century. Men, women, and CHILDREN worked in factories for 12 hours a day (sometimes more) with very little if any pay. Plus, they had to pay for rent, food, etc. They were basically slaves (even worse) to the bosses. They could be fired at the drop of the hat because they knew that a dozen or more people were willing to fill the job.
During the 20th century, there were many victories in labor. The installment of child labor laws, the mimium wage, etc. Yes, we have come a long way, but we still have a long way yet to go. Now, those guys in Washington are trying to set us (the workers) back a century. I really wish that the people in this country would see what is happening before it is too late.
Cat
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
Quoting:
I think that the neo-cons are trying to turn back the hands of time to the turn of the 20th century. Men, women, and CHILDREN worked in factories for 12 hours a day (sometimes more) with very little if any pay. Plus, they had to pay for rent, food, etc. They were basically slaves (even worse) to the bosses. They could be fired at the drop of the hat because they knew that a dozen or more people were willing to fill the job.
During the 20th century, there were many victories in labor. The installment of child labor laws, the mimium wage, etc. Yes, we have come a long way, but we still have a long way yet to go. Now, those guys in Washington are trying to set us (the workers) back a century. I really wish that the people in this country would see what is happening before it is too late.
Cat
End Quote
Richard Hofsteter, in his book on Andrew Jackso said something like:
The struggle between capital and labor, the house of have and the house of need, can never be entirely stilled...but it is the garantor of freedom in a liberal capitalist state. The struggle goes on. But when will working people recongize their CLASS interests?
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
I think the article was biased. I think bush is doing this to try to stimulate the economy. He might feel that the CEO will invest the money he saves back in the market. Personally I don't think this is a good idea. So far this year Bush has done three things I don't like (Changed FCC regulations, Tax cut for people that don't pay taxes, and this). Oh well.
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
I agree with Screwball that this article is biased. I also want to say that I'm not sure if I agree with this idea or if I disagree. I know quite a few people who are salaried employees. There are pros and cons to it. Just as there are pros and cons to being an hourly employee. True, salaried employees don't receive overtime, but they also can work less than 40 hours in a given week yet still get paid for 40. People are automatically assuming that every company who has workers who fall in this category WILL convert them. Just as they are assuming that the pay will be substandard.
A few years ago, before my mom retired, they switched her department from hourly to salary. Her pay was based on a 40 hour week, as she hadn't worked overtime. Another woman in her department (which had been quite busy over the previous year), had hers based on her average paychecks for 6 months, which included much overtime (they did different jobs). So, although as hourly employees, they made the same amount, as salaried, they made different amounts. Of course, business slowed down, and this lady was being paid as if she was working overtime, when in actuality, she was working less than 40 hours/week.
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
The whole point is this can lead to abuse. If I am an employeer, and I have to pay time and a half, chances are I will not force employees to work overtime unless I really need them. If all I have to pay is regular pay for time over 40 hours, who is to say I will not want a 50 hour work week, and fire everyone who does not work the overtime?
There is more going on to this. I think the biggest reason employers want to do away with overtime has to do with not being forced to hire new workers. If I have 50 employees, but we need to do the work of 55, i can just give them all overtime and save the cost of insurance for the other 5 new hires. If I do not have to pay overtime, then what is the differance between 50 people working and 55? Just the benifits paid per person. Companies will have an incentive not to hire new people, and to push the current workers into 50 or 60 hour work weeks.
And if this becomes the norm, then companies will have to do it to stay competitive. And the workforce will not have a choice in finding a company with a 40 hour work week.
I believe that employers should treat their employees like humans, not like robots.
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
I have known many people in jobs with o/t payments, a lot of them needed the o/t to make ends meet.
I'm actually salaried so I get paid nothing for o/t. Now my salary is such that I can afford to eat so the money isn't really the issue but I have 2 problems with this situation.
1. My contract specifies X hours (currently 40) for Y pounds, Never have I recieved extra money in my pay, why should I give extra time?
2. In my previous job, the management obviously considered my time as being cost-free so I found myself doing overtime to avoid the company having to spend money getting the job done properly.
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
Quoting:
I think bush is doing this to try to stimulate the economy. He might feel that the CEO will invest the money he saves back in the market. End Quote
That was the idea (or should I say, that was what the public was told) behind the tax cuts of 2001-that didn't happen. That was also the idea behind the tax cuts of 2003-again, that probably won't happen (I know, it is too soon to tell). This is just another example of the big fat cats getting richer while the working stiffs works hard for less.
If you think that article is bias, here is a list of other articles about it. Maybe there is one in there that you do not think is bias.
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=&p=overtime
Cat
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
Quoting:
I think the article was biased.
End Quote
It WAS biased, but it was not an article, as in news article. If you didn't notice, it was on the editorial page, so it was an opinion piece.
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
Quoting:
That was the idea (or should I say, that was what the public was told) behind the tax cuts of 2001-that didn't happen. That was also the idea behind the tax cuts of 2003-again, that probably won't happen (I know, it is too soon to tell). This is just another example of the big fat cats getting richer while the working stiffs works hard for less.
If you think that article is bias, here is a list of other articles about it. Maybe there is one in there that you do not think is bias.
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=&p=overtime
Cat
End Quote
Absolutely. And no matter how you cut it, cutting off upwards of 8 million people from overtime has got to be seen as a VERY anti-labor move.
Let me also add that lowering the purchasing power of 8 million people can only have a negative effect on the economy, no matter how much of corporate savings from this gets reinvested. This is another example of supply side economics, introduced by Reagan, which Bush pere called "voodoo economics" in the primary. Sure, capitalists (in this economy) need $$$ to invest to increase production, but why invest it in new plany (= new jobs) when you can't sell the increased production because 8 million people are earning less? Supply side economics needs a vibrant, confident consumer base already in place to work. Given that base, there is always a danger of "overheating" the economy with this kind of stimulation.
There is also the question of social justice. If, as we have, we define 40 hours as a reasonable work week, why should we erode that standard? Think of the social implications of parents being forced to work longer hours just to pay the bills. Think of the impact on families and family values.
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
Hey, no child left behind, right? ::)
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
Quoting:
Hey, no child left behind, right? ::)
End Quote
Actually it is called "Compassionate Conservatism."
Cat
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
Quoting:
Actually it is called "Compassionate Conservatism."
Cat
End Quote
Actually its called "no child left untested" (but tha's another topic). ;)
Back to this one: To me, there is just a vast difference between the rhetoric and the actions of this administration. They have raised "doublespeak" to new highs (or lowered it to new lows). When will people wake up and vote their interests? And where are the Democrats?
Subject: Re: Assault on labor
Greedy GOP.
Wanna take away overtime.
I will never (or almost never) vote for a Republican again.
Maybe if they are a social liberal. Like Rudy Giuliani.
People hated him. But he was a great New York City mayor. He cleaned the place up and made it better. Much better.
He made the streets safe for people to walk at night. He was a great mayor before 9/11 too.
He was also pro-choice and pro-gay rights. He off the right wing in his party and the left! I love that!
Rudy rocks!