TexanManWithPlans
Verified User
. . . why not have overtime start at thirty hours instead of at forty?
. . . why not have overtime start at thirty hours instead of at forty?
Then people will only be scheduled for 29 hours
Then people will only be scheduled for 29 hours
Employers already schedule people for 39 hrs and call it "part-time" as a way to avoid giving employees benefits.
Employers already schedule people for 39 hrs and call it "part-time" as a way to avoid giving employees benefits.
Unfortunately that is exactly what they would do.
Using the same lame excuses for over 40 years.So raising the MW will only reduce it further.
So raising the MW will only reduce it further.
Exactly. The idea of doing what many other industrialized, capitalist countries do -- mandating what benefits employers must provide, as well as hours, wages, and vacation time -- would be anathema to the RWers. They would scream about it even though *they* would benefit as much as everyone else. Because we must never, ever piss off or annoy the employers OR ELSE things.
Using the same lame excuses for over 40 years.
. . . why not have overtime start at thirty hours instead of at forty?
Solution: A Medicare-for-all type plan. Tax the employers more to pay for it. They will no longer need to offer expensive health insurance as a hiring incentive, so will end up ahead. They can then raise wages of the lowest earners. They can also offer supplemental plans much like we oldsters purchase, as incentives to prospective employees, if they want -- but it won't be required. Employees have more cash to spend, better insurance coverage, and better health. Employers save money by not needing to offer those pricey health insurance benefits. People with more money will spend it. Everyone wins.
Then people will only be scheduled for 29 hours
Why mandate such things when MW workers are more often teens or the retired. People in their primary earning years for the most part don't work MW jobs they have careers that offer those things.
Then people will only be scheduled for 29 hours
Question on this...
Who picks up the 11 hours of work that employee would no longer do? Because someone has to work those hours. So who is it going to be? Why would a company go through the process of hiring two people to do the job of one person?
That's why these arguments never make sense to me...just because a worker's hours are cut doesn't mean those hours don't need to be filled.
Its total complete BS to say that minimum wage workers are teens or retired. Its that same lame excuse that you republicans have been using for many years.
No the bureau of labor statistics says it not me or the Republicans.
If MW is $15 and someone works 29 hours that's $535. To pay them time and a half for the 11 hours of OT would be an additional $247.50 for a total of $782.50. Or they could pay another person $165 for the addtitional 11 hours. The savings is $82 per pay period per employee for the employer.