11–20 of 44 posts
The definitions of exempt vs. non exempt in the FLSA have always seemed somewhat arbitrary to me. How about we just let employers offer what ever terms they want and employees decide to accept or reject them? As a bonus we can downsize government by getting rid of the FLSA enforcement bureaucracy .
The definitions of exempt vs. non exempt in the FLSA have always seemed somewhat arbitrary to me. How about we just let employers offer what ever terms they want and employees decide to accept or reject them? As a bonus we can downsize government by getting rid of the FLSA enforcement bureaucracy .
Eliminating minimum wage or overtime pay would definitely have a material effect on the economy. Nobody disputes that. If you want to get rid of labor laws, you should either argue that that effect is desirable, or argue that while the effect is undesirable, freedom to contract is more important.
The definitions of exempt vs. non exempt in the FLSA have always seemed somewhat arbitrary to me. How about we just let employers offer what ever terms they want and employees decide to accept or reject them? As a bonus we can downsize government by getting rid of the FLSA enforcement bureaucracy .
Specifically speaking to this law, i don't think it matters as much because IT professionals don't have a weak bargaining position.
- this only covers basic conditions of employment; you're still free to negotiate things that the act doesn't guarantee you
- if you earn more than a certain amount or are in a management position, you don't get certain protections because such legislation would interfere with your freedom to enter contracts on your own terms
It seems pretty fair to me. It's really directed at protecting people who earn minimum or low wages and don't have much other choice. Somebody managing a startup for $1/month -- that's their right to take that risk, and obviously the pay-off is when things hit it big. Somebody who earns more than a certain amount/month doesn't need basic income protection and presumably has freedom to move to a new job to negotiate terms like overtime. (I did at my previous job; I'm currently an independent contractor because I prefer even more flexibility.)
California has a separate state law dealing with IT worker overtime. Does anybody know if this federal bill would supersede state law?
I don't get it. Why would you want to remove the opportunity for overtime from any professional? Obviously the employer has a (potentially huge) finanial incentive. But what's the government's view here?
People paid for their labor are paid by the hour and get overtime. People paid for their thoughts usually get paid per year, and don't get overtime.
I guess the general idea is that you are always thinking, so how would it be possible to decide when you are or are not on the clock?
(Obviously this is a generalization with lots of exceptions, it's just so you have at least an idea of the reasoning (since you asked).)
I don't get it. Why would you want to remove the opportunity for overtime from any professional? Obviously the employer has a (potentially huge) finanial incentive. But what's the government's view here?
I can see why government would legislate to protect minimum or baseline employment rights, but why remove the possibility of earning overtime from a particular group of people? Is this law just about ensuring equivalent practices across all states, or was it simply bought by employers to reduce their costs?