Just saw a guy arguing against minimum wage and overtime because he might want to work extra hours sometimes and they wont let him when he wants to. I guess he’d rather put in 100 hours and still make less than he does now, because free markets and all.
So, he wants to work more and not get paid more? That’s…interesting.
He thinks if we get rid of overtime and minimum wage… and the 40 hour work week… and all regulations really, he’ll make more money. Because employers would totally pay him more. But only when he wants to work more. Not like all the time or anything. Cause that sort of thing never happened before unions made all those things happen.
Also watching how my lesbian friend’s “best friends ever” who supported Trump got real quiet about how Trump is now fully supportive of trashing gay people. She’s understandably upset about the VVS stuff. They just ignore it and send cat videos. I mean it’s not their fault they voted for their friend to lose her rights or anything and still support the guy that says he’ll do it. Look at this silly cat! Also I’m voting for you and everything you are to be illegal and sent to a mental institutions again, because I hate black people. But not gay people. But I’m totally willing to ruin your life as long as black people’s lives are potentially also ruined. Maybe you just take one for the team and get fired for being a dirty queer cause some black dude hit on me once and we all know that is wrong.
Well, for non salaried workers, removal of overtime pay requirements can in fact result in them earning more, in certain situations.
If you require overtime pay, it would sometimes make more sense to hire two different workers, and have them both work 30 hours each, rather than having one worker work 60 hours, since overtime pay regulations mean you would need to pay the single worker for the equivalent of 70 hours.
I suppose, but from the worker’s perspective, this is only sustainable for so long; working that many hours in an hourly-wage job sounds like a quick ticket to something bad.
Perhaps, but it’s that worker’s choice. Many would prefer to have the option to earn a bigger paycheck by working more, rather than being forced to only work a limited number of hours.
The problem there though isn’t employee overtime, it’s employer greed. Fundamentally, all structures that privilege the desires or choices of individual workers end up screwing all workers, collectively, as in a struggle of individuals, the legal “individual” that is the corporation wins every time. This is the essence of collective bargaining and labor union theory.
In pretty much every case where the argument against a rule, law, regulation, or practices is “it takes away my choice,” the people making those arguments either haven’t thought it through, are inherently (and ultimately unprofitably) selfish, or are shills for management.
Just my take; yours of course might well be different.
But the problem is that requiring overtime doesn’t result in that guy getting paid overtime, at least not for low skill jobs.
It just takes hiring another part time employee, and thus ends up limiting the earning ability for both of them.
The goal is admirable, but the mechanism fails to achieve that goal.
Could well be; no mechanism is infallible. The question really is, what’s better? There needs to be a happy medium between robber barons and workers of the world, if you know what I mean.
FWIW, hiring a second part time employee often has more to do with benefits packages than overtime pay. Full time employees typically get health benefits and such, but part time employees do not. Those costs are much higher than any typical overtime pay.
Pretty much. I’ve worked at places that did that. The only full time employees were on salary (so they could work us 60+ hours a week without overtime).
Sorry.
… but it does epitomize the Trump voter’s mentality. They’re literally laughing about people not knowing history premised on their own ignorance of history.
Those kneeling NFL protesters are doing it wrong: they need to just be protesting all the other murderous blacks.
What’s amusing is I decided to get into it with someone on FB just yesterday over that very image meme. Nothing I said, no link provided, could convince this genius that the parties had switched positions on the political spectrum, that by pointing fingers at southern racist conservatives he was inadvertently pointing right back at himself. The ignorance of these people is palpable.
“…and to help illustrate our point, we’ll be using this 4-year old spokesperson.”
Posted by a black man in 2017.
Why doesn’t that graph include Whig or Bull-moose support? #Fakenews.
To be fair, by 1865 the Whigs were long gone and the Bull Moose hadn’t been formed yet, but your point is good–it’s a dumb graphic.
As noted here many times, people have this odd idea that the current party structure is how it always has been. I suppose we no longer teach political science of any sort in K-12, because hell even growing up in Georgia I learned about how the parties shifted their ideological stances over time.
At least using the Know Nothings would have made a good joke.
Not only that, but maybe if people realize how bizarre, diverse, and interesting our political history really is, they might actually learn some of it. But no, people just look at today and seem to lack the curiosity to wonder if it’s always been that way. Then again, our educational system and its supporting culture actively discourage most critical thinking.