Morning in America: Butthurt Achieved

[Quality Start Machine]

The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

Proof?

You.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

A Republican, from Alabama no less, has a good idea on workplace legislation.

I agree - why not at least *permit* this practice?

Because the cost of losing all of someone's productivity for 15 hours isn't remotely close to the same as the cost of paying someone an extra 50% in wages for 15 hours?  You wouldn't have them work overtime if you still weren't profiting after paying their increased wage.

I like the idea, but you'd have to have a ratio that was less (probably significantly less) than 1:1 to have this make sense for an employer.

Right now it's *illegal*.  I see no reason for it to be illegal. 

As for the profitability aspect, I can quite easily envision a situation in which an employer uses such a perk to attract more productive workers and comes out ahead on a net basis versus not offering the perk.  It depends more on the particular segment of the labor force used by the employer, and that segment's indifference curves.

I think CFiHP's phrasing was confusing. On first read, I thought he was saying that comp time is a bad deal for employers, i.e. that 15 regular wage hours lost is somehow a greater cost than 15 extra hours paid at time and a half.

But that seemed so crazy that I felt compelled re-read it several times and ultimately decided that he meant that comp time is a bad deal for employees and that it therefore makes sense to prevent employers from using comp time abusively as an end-run around overtime laws.

From all the descriptions I've read, though, this bill wouldn't allow employers to force employees to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay, but would rather just open it up as an option for employees to choose.

No, I meant it was probably a bad deal for most employers.  If someone is working overtime, it's because they're still adding value at time and a half.  Presumably you don't have people work overtime to lower the bottom line.

I don't think many employers would choose to allow time and a half to convert to additional time off at a future time, because that's a total loss of productivity at that future point. 

If an employee getting $10 an hour is worth $20 an hour to me as an employer, I'd rather pay the $15 up front (and pocket the $5) for an extra hour of work than lose $30 the next month when they take the 1.5 hours off (sure, I made the full $20 off their overtime hour of labor, but I'm at a net loss of $10 when they cost me $30 the next month - and more if I now have to hire another worker to cover people's comp time).  The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

I'm all for flexibility for employees, but I wouldn't be shocked if workplaces that can easily define a worker's value based on output metrics (manufacturing, for instance) don't offer this.  I wouldn't be surprised if few employers offer it altogether.

OK... Charitable reading withdrawn.

You really are saying that the reason the Fair Labor Standards Act currently won't allow employers to give comp time in lieu of overtime pay is that said employers wouldn't want to anyways?

???

By your math, no companies would ever hire all-part-time workforces because the employees would cost too damn much. $10/hour for $20/hour of value for 20 hours a week minus $20 of value lost for each of the 20 hours additional hours they could have been working? Why, that's a net loss of $200 a week for every single employee!

[Gilgamesh]

The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

Proof?

Yeah, that's a pretty outrageous claim made without a scintilla of evidence.

Comp time is the only recourse I have in this office when I work past 5, which is every fucking day, typically to 8; bear in mind I start at 7.  We have three attorneys in this office and the caseload of a mid-sized law firm; one would be hard-pressed to prep witnesses, prepare briefs, and conduct all of the necessary pre-trial work without incurring comp time.

Moreover, because of said work, I hardly utilize the comp time that I do incur.

Given all of this, I'd much rather take the overtime, but alas, here I am.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

Proof?

Yeah, that's a pretty outrageous claim made without a scintilla of evidence.

Comp time is the only recourse I have in this office when I work past 5, which is every fucking day, typically to 8; bear in mind I start at 7.  We have three attorneys in this office and the caseload of a mid-sized law firm; one would be hard-pressed to prep witnesses, prepare briefs, and conduct all of the necessary pre-trial work without incurring comp time.

Moreover, because of said work, I hardly utilize the comp time that I do incur.

Given all of this, I'd much rather take the overtime, but alas, here I am.

It's almost as if comp time winds up costing your employer less money for the same amount of work.

But that flies in the face of the economics of employee opportunity cost as told by CFiHP.

[Wheezer]

The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

Proof?

Yeah, that's a pretty outrageous claim made without a scintilla of evidence.

Comp time is the only recourse I have in this office when I work past 5, which is every fucking day, typically to 8; bear in mind I start at 7.  We have three attorneys in this office and the caseload of a mid-sized law firm; one would be hard-pressed to prep witnesses, prepare briefs, and conduct all of the necessary pre-trial work without incurring comp time.

Moreover, because of said work, I hardly utilize the comp time that I do incur.

Given all of this, I'd much rather take the overtime, but alas, here I am.

It's almost as if comp time winds up costing your employer less money for the same amount of work.

But that flies in the face of the economics of employee opportunity cost as told by CFiHP.

I don't think anybody outside of HR was particularly pleased the day the U. of C. forbade both comp time and use of vacation time in less than full-day increments for staff while conveniently overlooking their freewheeling classification of positions as exempt.

[R-V]

The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

Proof?

Yeah, that's a pretty outrageous claim made without a scintilla of evidence.

Comp time is the only recourse I have in this office when I work past 5, which is every fucking day, typically to 8; bear in mind I start at 7.  We have three attorneys in this office and the caseload of a mid-sized law firm; one would be hard-pressed to prep witnesses, prepare briefs, and conduct all of the necessary pre-trial work without incurring comp time.

Moreover, because of said work, I hardly utilize the comp time that I do incur.

Given all of this, I'd much rather take the overtime, but alas, here I am.

Wow, that's hell of a workload for a guy who's not even a real lawyer.

[Shooter]

If an employee getting $10 an hour is worth $20 an hour to me as an employer, I'd rather pay the $15 up front (and pocket the $5) for an extra hour of work than lose $30 the next month when they take the 1.5 hours off (sure, I made the full $20 off their overtime hour of labor, but I'm at a net loss of $10 when they cost me $30 the next month - and more if I now have to hire another worker to cover people's comp time).  The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

I'm all for flexibility for employees, but I wouldn't be shocked if workplaces that can easily define a worker's value based on output metrics (manufacturing, for instance) don't offer this.  I wouldn't be surprised if few employers offer it altogether.

Unless my understanding is wrong, comp time is one-for-one, isn't it? The employee's choices are pay at 1-1/2 times their normal rate, or getting the hour "back."

[Yeti]

If an employee getting $10 an hour is worth $20 an hour to me as an employer, I'd rather pay the $15 up front (and pocket the $5) for an extra hour of work than lose $30 the next month when they take the 1.5 hours off (sure, I made the full $20 off their overtime hour of labor, but I'm at a net loss of $10 when they cost me $30 the next month - and more if I now have to hire another worker to cover people's comp time).  The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

I'm all for flexibility for employees, but I wouldn't be shocked if workplaces that can easily define a worker's value based on output metrics (manufacturing, for instance) don't offer this.  I wouldn't be surprised if few employers offer it altogether.

Unless my understanding is wrong, comp time is one-for-one, isn't it? The employee's choices are pay at 1-1/2 times their normal rate, or getting the hour "back."

The people that I know who can get comp time get it at 1.5x. I  only get comp time for hours worked. That's on the Illinois A.AFSCME contract.. so, I think it varies

[J. Walter Weatherman]

If an employee getting $10 an hour is worth $20 an hour to me as an employer, I'd rather pay the $15 up front (and pocket the $5) for an extra hour of work than lose $30 the next month when they take the 1.5 hours off (sure, I made the full $20 off their overtime hour of labor, but I'm at a net loss of $10 when they cost me $30 the next month - and more if I now have to hire another worker to cover people's comp time).  The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

I'm all for flexibility for employees, but I wouldn't be shocked if workplaces that can easily define a worker's value based on output metrics (manufacturing, for instance) don't offer this.  I wouldn't be surprised if few employers offer it altogether.

Unless my understanding is wrong, comp time is one-for-one, isn't it? The employee's choices are pay at 1-1/2 times their normal rate, or getting the hour "back."

The people that I know who can get comp time get it at 1.5x. I  only get comp time for hours worked. That's on the Illinois A.AFSCME contract.. so, I think it varies

I don't think there's any text submitted for the bill in question yet, but the descriptions I've seen suggest comp time at 150% the overtime hours.

[PenFoe]

If an employee getting $10 an hour is worth $20 an hour to me as an employer, I'd rather pay the $15 up front (and pocket the $5) for an extra hour of work than lose $30 the next month when they take the 1.5 hours off (sure, I made the full $20 off their overtime hour of labor, but I'm at a net loss of $10 when they cost me $30 the next month - and more if I now have to hire another worker to cover people's comp time).  The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

I'm all for flexibility for employees, but I wouldn't be shocked if workplaces that can easily define a worker's value based on output metrics (manufacturing, for instance) don't offer this.  I wouldn't be surprised if few employers offer it altogether.

Unless my understanding is wrong, comp time is one-for-one, isn't it? The employee's choices are pay at 1-1/2 times their normal rate, or getting the hour "back."

The people that I know who can get comp time get it at 1.5x. I  only get comp time for hours worked. That's on the Illinois A.AFSCME contract.. so, I think it varies

I don't think there's any text submitted for the bill in question yet, but the descriptions I've seen suggest comp time at 150% the overtime hours.

I cannot believe that this is still a conversation. 

[Gilgamesh]

If an employee getting $10 an hour is worth $20 an hour to me as an employer, I'd rather pay the $15 up front (and pocket the $5) for an extra hour of work than lose $30 the next month when they take the 1.5 hours off (sure, I made the full $20 off their overtime hour of labor, but I'm at a net loss of $10 when they cost me $30 the next month - and more if I now have to hire another worker to cover people's comp time).  The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

I'm all for flexibility for employees, but I wouldn't be shocked if workplaces that can easily define a worker's value based on output metrics (manufacturing, for instance) don't offer this.  I wouldn't be surprised if few employers offer it altogether.

Unless my understanding is wrong, comp time is one-for-one, isn't it? The employee's choices are pay at 1-1/2 times their normal rate, or getting the hour "back."

The people that I know who can get comp time get it at 1.5x. I  only get comp time for hours worked. That's on the Illinois A.AFSCME contract.. so, I think it varies

I don't think there's any text submitted for the bill in question yet, but the descriptions I've seen suggest comp time at 150% the overtime hours.

I cannot believe that this is still a conversation. 

It's one of the better conversations this thread has produced in a while, so shut your whore mouth!!

[Tonker]

If an employee getting $10 an hour is worth $20 an hour to me as an employer, I'd rather pay the $15 up front (and pocket the $5) for an extra hour of work than lose $30 the next month when they take the 1.5 hours off (sure, I made the full $20 off their overtime hour of labor, but I'm at a net loss of $10 when they cost me $30 the next month - and more if I now have to hire another worker to cover people's comp time).  The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

I'm all for flexibility for employees, but I wouldn't be shocked if workplaces that can easily define a worker's value based on output metrics (manufacturing, for instance) don't offer this.  I wouldn't be surprised if few employers offer it altogether.

Unless my understanding is wrong, comp time is one-for-one, isn't it? The employee's choices are pay at 1-1/2 times their normal rate, or getting the hour "back."

The people that I know who can get comp time get it at 1.5x. I  only get comp time for hours worked. That's on the Illinois A.AFSCME contract.. so, I think it varies

I don't think there's any text submitted for the bill in question yet, but the descriptions I've seen suggest comp time at 150% the overtime hours.

I cannot believe that this is still a conversation. 

It's one of the better conversations this thread has produced in a while, so shut your whore mouth!!

It is?  I've nodded off three times just on this page.

[Quality Start Machine]

If an employee getting $10 an hour is worth $20 an hour to me as an employer, I'd rather pay the $15 up front (and pocket the $5) for an extra hour of work than lose $30 the next month when they take the 1.5 hours off (sure, I made the full $20 off their overtime hour of labor, but I'm at a net loss of $10 when they cost me $30 the next month - and more if I now have to hire another worker to cover people's comp time).  The reason it works so well for government employees is because so many of them aren't close to optimally productive, so nobody notices if you're gone an extra day here or there.

I'm all for flexibility for employees, but I wouldn't be shocked if workplaces that can easily define a worker's value based on output metrics (manufacturing, for instance) don't offer this.  I wouldn't be surprised if few employers offer it altogether.

Unless my understanding is wrong, comp time is one-for-one, isn't it? The employee's choices are pay at 1-1/2 times their normal rate, or getting the hour "back."

The people that I know who can get comp time get it at 1.5x. I  only get comp time for hours worked. That's on the Illinois A.AFSCME contract.. so, I think it varies

I don't think there's any text submitted for the bill in question yet, but the descriptions I've seen suggest comp time at 150% the overtime hours.

I cannot believe that this is still a conversation. 

It's one of the better conversations this thread has produced in a while, so shut your whore mouth!!

It is?  I've nodded off three times just on this page.

While you were sleeping, Veet was applied to your knob and bollocks.

[CBStew]

It is not personal, Gil, it is business...


House Votes to Shut Down Labor Board

By Todd Ruger

The National Law Journal

April 12, 2013

   
WASHINGTON — The House voted Friday to shut down the National Labor Relations Board, with one Republican congressman calling the board "worse than useless" since a recent appeals court ruling voided the recess appointments of two board members.

The bill, called the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act, calls for the NLRB to stop activity until the Senate confirms new members or the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's appointments.

The House voted 219-209 to pass the bill, which will likely stall in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Under the bill, the board would also be prevented from enforcing any decision, rule or vote made after Jan. 4, 2012, when Obama made the recess appointments.

Representative John Kline, R-Minn., said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB in January means uncertainty for both employers and employees who depend on the board to enforce the law. He called the board "dysfunctional" and said all its decisions are now suspect.







   



   





   
   
   
       

[J. Walter Weatherman]

He called the board "dysfunctional" and said all its decisions are now suspect.

Your modern GOP: drowns government in bathtub, remarks on body's lack of movement afterward.