Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Saniflush on May 18, 2016, 08:14:45 AM
-
In a long list of bad shit here is another one.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/millions-more-americans-to-be-eligible-for-overtime-pay/ar-BBtb23Q
Moving to fatten low- and middle-income paychecks that have languished for years, the Obama administration on Tuesday unveiled a long-awaited rule that will make millions of Americans newly eligible for overtime pay.
While some businesses welcome the measure, many say it will simply force them to reshuffle salaries to get around the regulation. Others fear it will mean demoting white-collar workers and altering workplace cultures.
The rule, slated to be formally released Wednesday, would essentially double the threshold at which executive, administrative and professional employees are exempt from overtime pay to $47,476 from the current $23,660. That’s expected to make 4.2 million additional workers eligible to receive time-and-a-half wages for each hour they put in beyond 40 a week.
Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said the salary threshold was originally intended to exempt high-paid executives but instead has denied overtime to low-level retail supervisors and entry-level office workers who often toil 50 to 70 hours a week.
“Too few people are getting the overtime that (federal law) intended,†he told reporters. “It’s simply not right.â€
Vice President Biden called the change a critical part of the White House’s goal of “restoring and expanding access to the middle class. The middle class is getting clobbered.â€
The rule represents the administration's most prominent initiative to lift middle-class wages. President Obama's call to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to more than $10 has been stymied by Republicans in Congress. The share of full-time workers who qualify for overtime has fallen from 62% in 1975 to 7% today, according to the administration. The new rule, which would take effect Dec. 1, would allow 35% of workers to qualify.
Many companies expect to convert salaried workers to hourly employees who will need to punch a clock and track their hours, hurting morale in some cases. Some will likely maintain the status of salaried employees, but will still have to monitor their hours and net the extra pay for logging more than 40. Others will lift workers' base pay to the new threshold to avoid paying overtime.
Many small businesses can’t absorb the added cost and will instruct employees to work no more than 40 hours a week, bringing on part-time workers to pick up the slack, says Dan Bosch, head of regulatory policy for the National Federation of Independent Business. Perez said that will still be a plus because it will restore leisure time to overworked employees.
Yet some businesses plan to cut employees' base pay to offset the overtime, effectively skirting the requirement.
“The Obama rule puts a huge cost and regulatory burden on employers, who will face pressure to cut back on benefits and full-time employees,†says Trey Kovacs, policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
But U.S. Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., said it's “long overdue,†adding that “millions of employees are working long hours without fair compensation.â€
The administration, which initially proposed the rule last summer, did make concessions in response to the 270,000 public comments it received. It lowered the new salary threshold to $47,476 from the proposed $50,544.
And it’s allowing employers to apply bonuses and incentive payments to up to 10% of the new salary threshold. The threshold also will be updated every three years instead of annually, rising to $51,000 on Jan. 1, 2020.
Perez said the new rule also clarifies the types of duties white-collar employees must perform to be exempt. That potentially makes eligible an additional 8.9 million workers now misclassified, he said, such as certain administrative employees who don’t supervise anyone.
-
Man, it would really suck to be a Production Manager in this environment.
-
Man, it would really suck to be a Production Manager in this environment.
It's going to cost jobs for me. I'm replacing several of my full time people with part time. They will lose be benefits.
Thanks Obama. Dumbass.
It's not that I'm greedy and don't want to pay them more. I do. I just can't. Forcing me to do so only makes me less able to do so.
-
The rule, slated to be formally released Wednesday, would essentially double the threshold at which executive, administrative and professional employees are exempt from overtime pay to $47,476 from the current $23,660.
I chuckled when I read this. In March I gave my assistant a raise and moved her pay from hourly to salary. Her new salary? $48k. #winning
-
He always likes to lump the middle class verbiage into his rhetoric to garner support. But rarely does any economic plan by him or anyone else ever help the middle class. Total bs and more class warfare.
-
The message that govt has sent to small and medium sized business for decades: Know your place and you best not try to grow. Or, you'll pay dearly. :sad:
-
Man, it would really suck to be a Production Manager in this environment.
Problem is not with the people I have on the floor actually making things. They are already eligible for overtime as non exempt employees. The problem comes in with people in the office who are exempt employees. Those are the ones who are going to fuck the company up.
Why the fuck can't gubment stay out of everyone else's bidness?
-
Problem is not with the people I have on the floor actually making things. They are already eligible for overtime as non exempt employees. The problem comes in with people in the office who are exempt employees. Those are the ones who are going to fuck the company up.
Why the fuck can't gubment stay out of everyone else's bidness?
This was done with the wave of a wand, but....
Checks and balances. Just sayin.
-
This was done with the wave of a wand, but....
Checks and balances. Just sayin.
And it can be challenged in the judicial system.
Checks and balances...just sayin.
-
And it can be challenged in the judicial system.
Checks and balances...just sayin.
Name the last time something given by the government has then been taken back away?
just sayin.
-
Name the last time something given by the government has then been taken back away?
just sayin.
Hopefully Obamacare will be the first.
-
Hopefully Obamacare will be the first.
Only if you vote TRUMP
-
Name the last time something given by the government has then been taken back away?
just sayin.
Well...someone will have to challenge it. Beyond a Facebook post and Snapchat tantrum.
-
And it can be challenged in the judicial system.
Checks and balances...just sayin.
But until then, it's effective.
And autr is right. They never taketh away. Just like aca which was a total farce. They must have threatened to rape Roberts entire family for him to come up with that cockamamie redefine of the legislation as a tax. And when your favorite candidate puts activist judges on the Scotus those checks and balances will be essentially non existent.
-
But until then, it's effective.
And autr is right. They never taketh away. Just like aca which was a total farce. They must have threatened to rape Roberts entire family for him to come up with that cockamamie redefine of the legislation as a tax.
So "they" have a responsibility to right this perceived wrong? Where are you, the aggrieved? Litigate, challenge, defend your rights!
-
So "they" have a responsibility to right this perceived wrong? Where are you, the aggrieved? Litigate, challenge, defend your rights!
Start a Twitter Holy War.
-
So "they" have a responsibility to right this perceived wrong? Where are you, the aggrieved? Litigate, challenge, defend your rights!
Meaning govt. They only add not remove. Ever seen a govt program or dept go away? Very rare.
They wouldn't need to take away if they wouldn't add the bullshit in the first place. Do you really think this crap is a good idea? The people that decide this stuff have absolutely 0 business sense. Zero. Or if they do they just don't give a shit - all in the name of social justice. When the fuck did 23-45k become the entire middle class in 2016?
-
Meaning govt. They only add not remove. Ever seen a govt program or dept go away? Very rare.
They wouldn't need to take away if they wouldn't add the bullshit in the first place. Do you really think this crap is a good idea? The people that decide this stuff have absolutely 0 business sense. Zero. Or if they do they just don't give a shit - all in the name of social justice. When the fuck did 23-45k become the entire middle class in 2016?
The judiciary can't unilaterally take up a cause. A citizen, adversely impacted presumably, must bring suit.
-
And it can be challenged in the judicial system.
Checks and balances...just sayin.
Yeah. Good luck with that.
:taunt:
-
So "they" have a responsibility to right this perceived wrong? Where are you, the aggrieved? Litigate, challenge, defend your rights!
Jesus Christ.
I was kidding before. But you really do live on Fantasy Island.
-
Jesus Christ.
I was kidding before. But you really do live on Fantasy Island.
No, I don't.
An aggrieved party must invoke the judiciary (because the legislative branch is not implicated) before redress may be had.
I'm sorry if basic civics is confusing.
In fact....if a judge took up this cause before a citizen with standing brought an action, you'd have...
clutch the pearls...
ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!
-
No, I don't.
An aggrieved party must invoke the judiciary (because the legislative branch is not implicated) before redress may be had.
I'm sorry if basic civics is confusing.
In fact....if a judge took up this cause before a citizen with standing brought an action, you'd have...
clutch the pearls...
ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!
It's a wonderful theory polluted, corrupted and co-opted by the political process.
In real life it is next to impossible.
Do you have any idea what it would cost me in legal fees to take up this fight? It would break me. I'm better off being pissed, voting for people who have better sense, hoping they will ease the burden and restructuring my company at a disadvantage to me, my employees and my clients in the meantime.
It's the same ignorant, flawed logic as the $15 minimum wage. Going to cost people jobs, inflate prices and wreck the economy. But fools like Obama and Clinton can pat themselves on the back for "helping".
Fucking idiots.
-
It's a wonderful theory polluted, corrupted and co-opted by the political process.
In real life it is next to impossible.
Do you have any idea what it would cost me in legal fees to take up this fight? It would break me. I'm better off being pissed, voting for people who have better sense, hoping they will ease the burden and restructuring my company at a disadvantage to me, my employees and my clients in the meantime.
It's the same ignorant, flawed logic as the $15 minimum wage. Going to cost people jobs, inflate prices and wreck the economy. But fools like Obama and Clinton can pat themselves on the back for "helping".
Fucking idiots.
To be clear...
You think that advocating for your rights directly (and there are provisions to recoup your fees/costs) is MORE futile than pledging your support to some blowhard and hoping that an organic change in the fundamental mechanics of our government happens?
O.
K.
-
To be clear...
You think that advocating for your rights directly (and there are provisions to recoup your fees/costs) is MORE futile than pledging your support to some blowhard and hoping that an organic change in the fundamental mechanics of our government happens?
O.
K.
As a business owner? Yes.
Did you miss the part where I cannot afford the massive legal fees or the years long slog through the polluted and corrupt court system?
I could drown my business in legal fees with no guarantee of recouping a dime of it should I lose. That's a GREAT fucking option.
Or I could vote for people I hope will understand and help me fix it. Hmm. Break my business or hope to find change? Yeah.
-
As a business owner? Yes.
Did you miss the part where I cannot afford the massive legal fees or the years long slog through the polluted and corrupt court system?
I could drown my business in legal fees with no guarantee of recouping a dime of it should I lose. That's a GREAT fucking option.
Or I could vote for people I hope will understand and help me fix it. Hmm. Break my business or hope to find change? Yeah.
Be a part of the solution or be part of the problem.
Shit in one hand and wish in the other...
You see where this is going.
-
There's common ground here. Yes, an aggrieved citizen, with standing, would have to make the challenge. But K is spot on in saying he'd have to risk everything on principal. Massive....astronomical legal fees with no guarantees of A.) Winning or...B.) The Court awarding fees and costs to be paid by the Defendant.
Take the current case of the Tennessee Sheriff being sued by the Athiest Group over his pro-Christianity Easter message on the departments' Bookface page. I don't post this for any religious debate, but only to point out that he's working on a countersuit, which wouldn't even be remotely possible without a national group defending religious freedom, taking up the case at no cost to the Sheriff.
Without backing, the average Joe has no recourse to fight something of this magnitude on his own.
-
Be a part of the solution or be part of the problem.
Shit in one hand and wish in the other...
You see where this is going.
You have shit in your hands. That's what I got out of it.
-
You have shit in your hands. That's what I got out of it.
That's what I saw when I heard that we should quit our jobs and milk our assets dry to bring a suit to challenge the wand waving at the dept of labor. Yeah. Real feasible.
-
That's what I saw when I heard that we should quit our jobs and milk our assets dry to bring a suit to challenge the wand waving at the dept of labor. Yeah. Real feasible.
Or burn my business to the ground, send all my employees to the unemployment office, lose any state or federal contracts I have, forfeit my house and truck, be unable to send my younger daughter to college and get on the government dole.
That's the reality. You don't tilt at windmills.
-
I could drown my business in legal fees with no guarantee of recouping a dime of it should I lose. That's a GREAT fucking option.
I'm no legal expert, but would this be one of those cases that says that you cannot countersue the government for money?
EDIT - Should note that suing the government is not the only to effect change. Protesting is another way. Unfortunately for business owners, there are less business owners getting hurt than there are management being helped. I'd like to also add that I don't see why this regulation is a bad thing.
-
I'm no legal expert, but would this be one of those cases that says that you cannot countersue the government for money?
You mean "sovereign immunity?"
I don't think the hypothetical lawsuit was a suit for a money damages, but rather a suit to have the executive order declared illegal.
-
You think that advocating for your rights directly (and there are provisions to recoup your fees/costs) is MORE futile than pledging your support to some blowhard and hoping that an organic change in the fundamental mechanics of our government happens?
and now we are back at the beginning where some dipshit who has never run anything remotely considered a business, has made a sweeping change without any thought or care of consequences.
-
and now we are back at the beginning where some dipshit who has never run anything remotely considered a business, has made a sweeping change without any thought or care of consequences.
Right...
So when congress passes a bullshit law, someone must challenge its constitutionality in court.
If the President issues a bullshit exec order, someone must challenge its constitutionality in court.
This is how our govt was designed.
-
Right...
So when congress passes a bullshit law, someone must challenge its constitutionality in court.
If the President issues a bullshit exec order, someone must challenge its constitutionality in court.
This is how our govt was designed.
And the point is being made that the average guy can't do this. Although the "bullshit" law or executive order hurts the average guy.
-
And the point is being made that the average guy can't do this. Although the "bullshit" law or executive order hurts the average guy.
So, we're back to stomping our feet because the system that has been in place for 200+ years is daunting and we're just hoping that some reality-show lunatic will make things better all of the sudden?
It IS possible to challenge these orders, if you quit because the task is too difficult, then that's on you.
-
So, we're back to stomping our feet because the system that has been in place for 200+ years is daunting and we're just hoping that some reality-show lunatic will make things better all of the sudden?
It IS possible to challenge these orders, if you quit because the task is too difficult, then that's on you.
Don't disagree just impractical.
-
Don't disagree just impractical.
I agree that it's impractical...just not impossible.
Most court/litigation matters are impractical.
-
So, we're back to stomping our feet because the system that has been in place for 200+ years is daunting and we're just hoping that some reality-show lunatic will make things better all of the sudden?
It IS possible to challenge these orders, if you quit because the task is too difficult, then that's on you.
It's not daunting, Wes. It's financially ruinous for the vast majority of small businesses. So we prevail on our congressmen and our lobbyists.
I have a business to run. People who depend on me. If I'm throwing all my money and my time at a challenge to an order my business fails and my people are unemployed.
It's not "too difficult". If I had unlimited resources sure. I don't. I also work with the government. I've seen how vindictive it can be. The vast majority of the RFPs to which we respond contain language that requires that we are not engaged in any litigation. If I'm the complaining party I know how that would be perceived.
You really do live in fantasy island.
-
You really do live in fantasy island.
Are you saying he's Tattoo?
-
It's not daunting, Wes. It's financially ruinous for the vast majority of small businesses. So we prevail on our congressmen and our lobbyists.
Then do that.
Don't, however, elect a huckster in hopes that he'll somehow transform the system.
-
Then do that.
Don't, however, elect a huckster in hopes that he'll somehow transform the system.
He's my huckster.
-
He's my huckster.
I'm desperately hoping for a Trump campaign stop in Tuscaloosa...hell, even Bham...where Trump dons a Bama hat.
-
Are you saying he's Tattoo?
Nah....The white suit would be too big.
-
Nah....The white suit would be too big.
I rock a banana hammock on my tropical island.
-
I rock a banana hammock on my tropical island.
Mmmm, sexy children.
-
So "they" have a responsibility to right this perceived wrong? Where are you, the aggrieved? Litigate, challenge, defend your rights!
Lawyers cost too much. They are the only ones that win in this type of litigation.
Maybe the ABA should take on some of these type cases, pro boner. You know, for the good of America.
-
Lawyers cost too much. They are the only ones that win in this type of litigation.
-
It's not daunting, Wes. It's financially ruinous for the vast majority of small businesses. So we prevail on our congressmen and our lobbyists.
I have a business to run. People who depend on me. If I'm throwing all my money and my time at a challenge to an order my business fails and my people are unemployed.
It's not "too difficult". If I had unlimited resources sure. I don't. I also work with the government. I've seen how vindictive it can be. The vast majority of the RFPs to which we respond contain language that requires that we are not engaged in any litigation. If I'm the complaining party I know how that would be perceived.
You really do live in fantasy island.
Maybe he has never written an RFP...
-
I'm desperately hoping for a Trump campaign stop in Tuscaloosa...hell, even Bham...where Trump dons a Bama hat.
I saw Reagan in Tuscaloosa. He related to his audience. Saw him eating at a McDonald's there too.
Didn't bother me.
-
I saw Reagan in Tuscaloosa. He related to his audience. Saw him eating at a McDonald's there too.
Didn't bother me.
What did you serve him and how much was minimum wage then?
-
What did you serve him and how much was minimum wage then?
Mater sandwich?
-
What did you serve him and how much was minimum wage then?
Minimum wage was like $3.35.
Proud to say I've never worked at McDonalds. Pizza Hut once. But never the arches.
Had a friend who was working at the Northport McDonald's. After Reagan's speech at UA and his meet and greets his motorcade stopped there. He got out, came in and ordered and sat in a booth and ate.
Didn't actually SEE him there. Only pics.
The only pres I've ever talked to was George Bush (baby). He came where I worked and we got to spend time talking to him. Got to say. After talking to him I truly believe that ANYONE csn be president.
-
Minimum wage was like $3.35.
Proud to say I've never worked at McDonalds. Pizza Hut once. But never the arches.
Had a friend who was working at the Northport McDonald's. After Reagan's speech at UA and his meet and greets his motorcade stopped there. He got out, came in and ordered and sat in a booth and ate.
Didn't actually SEE him there. Only pics.
The only pres I've ever talked to was George Bush (baby). He came where I worked and we got to spend time talking to him. Got to say. After talking to him I truly believe that ANYONE csn be president.
I worked at the Golden Arches for a summer, maybe that's why I don't eat there now. I know things.
Kind of met Reagan while in Europe on a Pershing Nuke site, he ate in our mess hall on a visit, walked like he was the biggest, baddest MOFO out there. Shook all our hands, we were just young men then and most of us were star struck.
-
I worked at the Golden Arches for a summer, maybe that's why I don't eat there now. I know things.
Kind of met Reagan while in Europe on a Pershing Nuke site, he ate in our mess hall on a visit, walked like he was the biggest, baddest MOFO out there. Shook all our hands, we were just young men then and most of us were star struck.
I bet he washed after shaking yours.
-
I bet he washed after shaking yours.
Ronnie said Dallas wasn't keen
-
Ronnie said Dallas wasn't keen
He hated me 80's style.
-
Ronnie said Dallas wasn't keen
He shook Dallas' hand and turned to a Secret Service agent and said, "I don't know why but I hate that guy."
-
He shook Dallas' hand and turned to a Secret Service agent and said, "I don't know why but I hate that guy."
Ronnie knew. Wish he had warned us. Not keen at all.
-
Ronnie knew. Wish he had warned us. Not keen at all.
I struggled early in life, my keenness was a super power I didn't know how to control till much later.
(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/miked0003/keen-masturbator-spikes-own-drink-with-rohypnol1_zps8wcoknks.jpg) (http://s164.photobucket.com/user/miked0003/media/keen-masturbator-spikes-own-drink-with-rohypnol1_zps8wcoknks.jpg.html)