Career Path > Money Matters

No more OT?

<< < (2/2)

radgal:
First off, I think the law would be looney. However, just 'cause the law says they don't have to pay doesn't mean the groups working with them will agree to it.  Law of supply and demand.  Some union contracts now get benefits not mandated by law so what would be the difference.  Maybe more unions.  Bush should really think on this because more unions isn't what big business wants.  Most staff jobs are salary anyway and don't get paid overtime as it is, right. The poorest workers would still get OT if I understand the proposed law correctly.

Pet_Cow:
Seems like Union busting and killing off labor has once again reared its ugly head. None of you seem to remember a bill introduced by Republicans(under Clinton) making 80 hours over a two week period the base period for straight time. So if you worked 80 hours in one week and nothing the next, you got 80 hours of regular time. Imagine the money that would be saved in an outage during layoffs. I would envision all layoffs taking place every other week, to avoid paying large amounts of overtime.

Now that the GOP has control over both houses and the oval office, they are going to attempt to push this stuff down our throats again.

HousePuke:
I have worked the last two years in a salaried position with no paid overtime.  Virtually everyone working for me far out earned me even though I worked the same kind of hours.  Now due to a re-organization I at least get 1 1/4 time for OT.  That seemed like a God send in my last check.  
I think SloGlo has a good point though, you can only put up with so much.  Even those of us utility pukes with kids in college, mortgage, etc.  That's why they call it work. :-/

darkmatter:
Seems simple to me:

No Checkee, No Techee

[smiley=scream.gif]

idrum4food:
All I know is that I'm in the middle of an outage (7/12s of OT)and desperatly NEED a 6 beer evening but can only stay awake for 2 of em.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page