03-13-2017, 01:35 PM
(03-13-2017, 12:14 PM)Benton Wrote: And that's got nothing to do with it.
OT pay rules get abused horribly in my industry. I figured out a long time ago, it doesn't matter if you're on time or present or loyal, they're going to work you 50-60 hours and pay you for salary for a flat 40. Don't like it? Pick a different industry. Which is what many folks did 10-15 years ago, and most do after being in it a decade or so. Usually it's around that point that if you aren't at a gray lady or at least an editor, you realize there's not much point in working for 2/3's of a check.
I don't know what industry you're in. But fewer and fewer companies care about whether or not you're on time and present and loyal. What they want is someone who works cheap. Cheap cheap cheap. Cheaper you work, bigger their bottom line. Bigger their bottom line, more inclined they are to let you stay.
Personally, I'm against a minimum wage increase. But OT laws definitely need to be fixed. And loopholes that allow companies to defer taxes and propagate a system where it's easy to not keep profits tethered to wages.
I have never been involved with OT, so my question is, is who said you are being paid for a flat 40? Is there usually an agreement that says you generally shouldn't have to work more than 40 hours? don't new lawyers at a law firm work like 70-80 hour weeks?
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
