Hi guys,
So, from my last posting experience I have learned that the book I was using is a very difficult read and there are other, better sources to find information.
With that out of the way, i would like to bring up something that is a small passion of mine and that is highly controversial, Politics.
With the primaries under way, I find that I dislike both party establishments. They are both corrupt and talk about how greed is destroying this country. But they both try to implement budgets that better themselves or their family and friends to the detriment of the tax payers. An example of this is tax breaks/government subsidies/bailouts to choose winners and losers in the market place. They also both enact laws that are aimed to help themselves rather than benefit the tax payers as a whole. This can be shown by redistricting laws. Whoever has control re-draws districts to keep one party in control.
I also find that no party is encouraging people to better themselves and actually following through by enacting laws that would help. One side says vote for me and ill give you everything free by taxing everyone more. The other side says they want to open the free market up and then go back on their word.
Now that I am done railing on the establishments, I could go on for a couple pages more, I would like to throw my ideas out there. Please feel free to comment any objections and other possible ideas. I love seeing all sides of the picture.
One, we need to abolish the time and a half for overtime. I have worked on a dairy farm for over 6 years, sometimes working more than 40 hours a week. Agriculture workers are not paid overtime. This is great for me and my boss. I can work 40+ hours a week and make great money. My boss doesnt have to hire another person to do the + hours of work, which is what happens today in most jobs. Most people would not mind working a little extra if asked. I personally know a lot of people that would like to pick up extra shifts so that they could go on a trip or buy something extra for a loved one. But they cant, because the employer, either cant afford to or does not want to, pay the extra overtime that he would not have to pay another worker. The overtime laws are hindering people from making money in the grand scheme of things. I do not believe that people should be made to work tons of hours, but as of right now, both the worker and employer are being hindered by the law.
I have a few more ideas that I will post as time goes on. Please comment with your thoughts and experiences. Like is said before, I love seeing all sides!!
Have a wonderful day!
The Nuke Cow
I find the ridding of overtime to be a very interesting idea actually. Good choice of things to blog about and a great way to drum up some comments.
ReplyDeleteNow for the ridding of overtime. Just to play the other side, I will mention how this places a lot of trust in the system. While it will be fine for good locations where workers have good relations with their employers, but others not so much. I feel that some employers may take this for granted. Such as, if your boss demanded that you work 10-15 hours overtime every week and you were forced to do as such because it would be hard for you to get another job. This overtime ability thus protects the workers. It dissuades an employer to do what was listed above too often.
Also, I am not sure how much the lack of overtime pay benefits both parties. You may be more likely to get more hours over the full-time of 40, but are you likely enough to get enough hours to make more than you would through overtime? In order to make it equal, you would have to be needed 1.5x whatever overtime hours you could secure. Also how much benefit does the boss get for just working with you instead of hiring someone else? In paying you your wage while your working your plus hours, he could just hire someone new and take some of the burden off of you... But there are the hiring fees and money that goes into training someone new. Very true, but some of this can be offset by during that training period paying the new hire less. In this sense as well, over time pay encourages growth. Rather than pay you overtime there is pressure for an employer to hire a new person and not kill his wallet and kill you with work. Then by growing his business, in theory, instead of receiving 50 hours with you and 10 of those being overtime he can receive 100 hours from 2 people (or hire part-time). Throw in the fact that you have 2 people working in tandem, things can be streamlined and a team can do those 100 hours of work, but through division of labor and teamwork, only actually be working 40 hours each. That's called synergy.
This was one long comment. Sorry. So I do think overtime could be adjusted, maybe. But I'm not sure if it is as flawed as it is made to seem. It has real benefits. It protects the employee and encourages growth. It does require action on the boss' part. The boss needs to appropiately calculate when they need one person to work overtime and when it makes sense to hire someone new (taking into account hiring fees). If hiring someone new was completely impossible then overtime would not make as much sense. But there usually is someone that can be hired to fit some need.
You make some good points. But in the event that there is a job that requires 50 hours of work, the boss is now more inclined to create two part time jobs, instead of one full time that would allow a mother or father to sustain a family. Part time jobs are really meant for Highschool students, college students, or second jobs in the event someone cant sustain themselves on their full time job.
ReplyDeleteI think that a better option would be to have a law that states you cannot force a worker to work more than 40-45 hours, but overtime shouldnt kick in until one or two working shifts after that. This would work just like whistle blower cases where you cant be fired by saying no. This would take care of the employers that would take advantage of that. Also, if an employer gets a bad reputation for over extending workers, we see this in the dairy industry all the time, there will be a high worker turn over rate. People will come work, realize that it sucks, then start looking for another job. Once another job is acquired, they will quit and the employer will be looking for another worker.
That being said, this method wont work while unemployment benefits are extended for a year. People will just quit and ride the benefits at the extent of the tax payers. But that is another argument/belief in itself lol.
I do not think the system is completely flawed, just not implemented in the optimized manner. And in this instance, its not really meant for 60-70 hours a week. While in know people that do work that much, most people do not.
On that note, what if I want to work 70 hours a week? I should be able to opt out of the overtime if I want. The government should not have complete authority over what I get paid. It is my business and no one elses how much I work.
Last, whether the boss needs to appropriately hire someone new or not, if its an extra ten hours of work, I would rather give my worker(s) the option of working more than throwing an unknown into the system. Most people would not mind working 50 hours instead of 40. I personally would love to work more hours when I am first starting out. And I would definitely opt out of overtime if it was between them hiring some part timer and me working more. That means less competition in the work place and more money in my pocket.
Dont worry about length lol. Thank you for commenting :)
Hey, this will be going off topic from what you guys were discussing. Y'all hit on a pet peeve of mine, which is government regulation. Not that it's bad, but there are definitely some restrictions where there shouldn't be. For example, seat-belt laws. If I want to drive my car without a seatbelt, or even a motorcycle without a helmet, I should be free to do so without fear of a fine.
ReplyDeleteI understand that there is no reason not to wear a seatbelt, it may save my life. Also, if you have kids, it is definitely your responsibility they travel safely and perhaps laws there are justified. But when it comes to my own life, the government shouldn't be allowed to tell me that committing a criminal act for not being safe, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. That's a hop, skip and a step away from regulating everything I do "for my own good". No thank you.
Sorry about the tangent, Eric's mentioning the idea of opting out of mandated overtime got me thinking.
Tangents are awesome. And I agree to an extent. But at the same time, if you get hurt and cant work, most people will end up on some type of welfare assistance. And if you have kids and end up dying, it will be up to the tax payers to pay for your kid in alot of cases. So I view these laws as protecting the tax payers more than for protecting the individual.
ReplyDeleteThis does pave the way for abuse of power. Government doesnt know when to stop growing. Once they get into your car, they will want to get into your garage and house next.
So, as a solution, I think the national government should stay out of it, and let the individual states make those laws. That way the constituents can vote on it in a more personal setting if that makes sense. This way, if you dont like the laws passes, you can move to a state where the laws dont exist or are less constricting.
As another tangent, I think welfare should be left to the states as well. Once again, there will be more a local atmosphere to it. Some states will leave it to local charities and other more liberal states will try to take care of everyone. There will be in between places as well, and from this, the systems will either thrive or fail on a local level, allowing the constituents to vote in or out the sytems that work.
Thank you for the Tangent The Floor!
Side note: Please call me out if something does not make sense or you would like to know where I get information!
The NukeCow