Abolish Worker's Rights!!!

[Britney]

For the past few months, I've been putting in 60+ hour weeks, and bringing home time & a half for every hour past 40. I perform both secretarial work and research assistance for five employers, while also serving as webmaster/IT support for the company. Today, I get the word that my company wants to hire another body to do the secretarial work for two of my employers, thus alleviating me of a few menial tasks (and, of course, my cherished overtime pay).

Modesty prevents me from saying that I am the best employee that company has ever had. The sole reason the company wants to hire an additional employee is because strict rules disallow them from paying anyone overtime over the long term.

I think this rule is complete and utter bullshit. I rely on my overtime pay to survive. It will cost the company $40,000 a year to hire someone to do these tasks, while it only costs them a paltry fraction of that now to keep me doing them... and I can guarantee I do a better job than any bimbo they will likely hire, who will require training, probably lack motivation, etc.

If people want to work, they should be allowed to work. If people want to do extra work, they should be allowed to. I LOVE working overtime, my employers are all ecstatic over my performance, and it looks awesome on my resume to be doing all of these different jobs at once. But because of one stupid bylaw, the bloody company has to hire someone else, and basically force me into finding a second job somewhere else in order to pay the bills.

Illogical if you ask me. And you wonder why China and India are overtaking the US economy. Its because of stupid, inefficient rules like this. Abolish them I say!!! Arrgh, Im so upset right now.

[Muad'dib]

If the company is paying you time and a half for that extra 20 hours, that means whoever they pay will be on regular pay, so over an extended amount of time they'll save money, despite the initial training costs.

Hey, after all, companies are about profit before people. You want the opposite, look to socialism.

[Britney]

newbiezilla said:

If the company is paying you time and a half for that extra 20 hours, that means whoever they pay will be on regular pay, so over an extended amount of time they'll save money, despite the initial training costs.

Hey, after all, companies are about profit before people. You want the opposite, look to socialism.

By hiring someone, its costing them MORE money. Check it out:

Currently, it costs the company ~60,000 a year to have me. But with this other person, it will cost them ~50,000 to have me, and ~40,000 to have this other person.

It costs them more money to pay both this person and me. But because of this stupid rule, they have to do it.

[Muad'dib]

How many hours are they having this other person work? Are they having them only cover the hours you were meant to do? I mean, if you were working a 60 hour week, and they decide to get two people at 40 hours, you'd hardly want your hours doubled would you?

[Britney]

newbiezilla said:

How many hours are they having this other person work? Are they having them only cover the hours you were meant to do? I mean, if you were working a 60 hour week, and they decide to get two people at 40 hours, you'd hardly want your hours doubled would you?

Basically the budget is like this:

If I work at 60 hours per week, I take home around 60k per year.

If I work at 40 hours per week, I take home around 50k per year... while the new person who also works 40 hours a week takes home 40k per year.

so the expense to the company currently is:
60,000 a year, all to Britney.

And after hiring this new person the expense to the company will be:
90,000 a year : 50,000 to Britney, and 40,000 to this new person

(40k is the starting salary for being a secretary to two employers, which is where I started. I gained all of these new responsibilities without an increase in pay, basically because it looks good on my resume, and because I thought the company would be paying me for all extra time such responsibilities take up).

[Muad'dib]

Oooh, crap, thats a bit of a pain in the spotted owl, then. Well, I recall how you posted before of liking competition or something (I think). Anyway, you'll still be able to have the experience from there in the event later you want to find somewhere else.

Edit: Back in a few minutes, if i'm taking a while to reply to your next PM assuming you're on to send one...

[Britney]

newbiezilla said:

Oooh, crap, thats a bit of a pain in the spotted owl, then. Well, I recall how you posted before of liking competition or something (I think). Anyway, you'll still be able to have the experience from there in the event later you want to find somewhere else.

Edit: Back in a few minutes, if i'm taking a while to reply to your next PM assuming you're on to send one...

Sorry its confusing. Those numbers dont really add up, but Im not in the mood to grab the calculator to make them exact. If you want to do it - my exact wage is $20 an hour. Every overtime hour I do is $30 an hour. So 20 * 40 + 30 * 20 is what I make.... thats 1400 * 52 which is 72800. So before taxes thats what I make per year.

Now without overtime pay, I would only make 20 * 40 * 52 = 41600 a year. The secretary would also make that amount... 41600 a year. So the company would end up paying 41600 * 2 = 83200 a year.

Ok so right now it costs the company 72,800 a year, but with this new employee it will cost them 83200 a year. So economically, they are better off just paying me overtime - they save 10400 a year... arent my math skills the envy of first grade!

Anyway... If they dont allow me to continue working overtime, then Im just going to have to ask for a raise to make up for the difference... if they dont grant that, then its time to job search... Still it ticks me off that I would have to find a different job after all this, just because of some stupid bylaw.

[morty14]

See, but there's a major problem with your logic there. You are saying it as if they are paying the new person to just do what you've been doing extra, ie, 20 hours a week. When in fact, they are paying them to do 20 more hours per week than you. In the end, the company will benefit from this hiring. They don't have to pay you the extra money for overtime and they get double the time you worked overtime for not much more. See the logic there?

In any case, we cannot be getting rid of laws like this. Because it will be a downward spiral to complete oppression of workers. Companies start hiring only on the condition that people will work overtime. And for regular wages. Liked working 60 hours to get that money? Well suddenly unless you will work for regular wages during overtime, you won't be a part of the company anymore. And maybe instead of making their workers agree to work 20 hours overtime without pay raise, they decide everyone must work 80 hours a week. Downward it spirals. Now it is 90 hours a week. Maybe 100.
That's why I say 'no' to getting rid of laws like this. It takes the rights of workers away and gives businesses the ability to oppress their workers even further than they already do. If anything, we should be increasing laws to prevent oppression of the working class.

[Britney]

morty14 said:

See, but there's a major problem with your logic there. You are saying it as if they are paying the new person to just do what you've been doing extra, ie, 20 hours a week. When in fact, they are paying them to do 20 more hours per week than you. In the end, the company will benefit from this hiring. They don't have to pay you the extra money for overtime and they get double the time you worked overtime for not much more. See the logic there?

They aren't paying her to do 20 more hours a week than me. She is doing the exact same work in 40 hours that I would accomplish in 20 (actually it was probably more like 10). For the remaining 30 hours, she gets to drink coffee, read the news and talk. Yes, my company pays me the same wage as it pays to others who do 1/3 of what I do and basically spend the majority of their day drinking coffee and talking about nothing.

Your logic is based on the premise that her and I have an equal level of output. She is taking care of two of my five employers. That is all. Where-as I spend maybe 10 hours a week on those two employers, she is being paid to spend 40 hours on them. Does that mean she will be doing more work for those two than I did? No. It just means she will have 400% more time to accomplish it.

[Britney]

morty14 said:

In any case, we cannot be getting rid of laws like this. Because it will be a downward spiral to complete oppression of workers. Companies start hiring only on the condition that people will work overtime. And for regular wages.

What are you talking about? The law prevents anyone who wants to work overtime from doing so longterm. If the law was done away with, it doesn't mean everyone would be forced to work overtime for regular pay. It just means that people would be able to work overtime for longterm if they wanted to. Most people are lazy, and they aren't going to want to do that.

[Muad'dib]

Well, if the law was done away with, the employer would generally look for one employee to do more hours, and a person willing to do more hours...

The interview would predominantly focus on those willing to do more hours, and those who can't work as many hours would have a far diminished chance of finding employment.

[Britney]

newbiezilla said:

Well, if the law was done away with, the employer would generally look for one employee to do more hours, and a person willing to do more hours...

The interview would predominantly focus on those willing to do more hours, and those who can't work as many hours would have a far diminished chance of finding employment.

Whats wrong with that? Companies would be filled with people who WANT to work there, rather than people who are there because they HAVE to work there - the latter work there solely because they have to make a living somehow, and that just happens to be the job they found. People like that (the majority at my company) do the bare minimum expected of them as a result.

If you ask me, I'd rather hire the employee who wants to work and get ahead, rather than the employee with no ambition who is satisfied with his deskjob and happy to remain there until retirement. People should work because they want to, not because they have to. We would be a heck of alot more productive as a society if everyone gravitated toward jobs they enjoy doing.

[Muad'dib]

If less people are getting employed... Well, to state the obvious, we'd be encouraging the growth of unemployment that way.

Plus, of staff having burnouts. I mean, we are, after all, human.

[lucia]

Like you said, it's cheaper to keep more people working longer hours. Soo... that makes it so less workers are hired, and unemployment goes up, right? (Excuse the dumb logic). Plus, it's just a safety precaution, probably from some precedent. I mean, you could make the same arguments about being over the legal limit of alcohol; "it feels good, and I can handle it".

[Britney]

yea I guess you guys are right. There would be more unemployment. Then there would be more beggars on the street hoggling me for loose change every morning (how I despise that. If people didn't give them money, they wouldn't be out there begging; they'd be forced to do something else to survive).

You would think, that with a more competitive workplace (and the resulting high unemployment), people would become very creative in order to make money and survive - such would fuel innovation. But in reality, many people would rather beg than come up with a good idea. Many people are satisfied doing the bare minimum in return for the dregs.

Sure I guess everyone has a right to live their life however they want to, but I don't believe society should help those who don't make any effort to help society (unless there is some valid reason to a beggars lack of output beyond laziness). If I have to work to survive, so should everyone else.

[Muad'dib]

I see where you are coming from, but even in your position and mindset, there would be things to fear from legislation like this being in place...

Employers here already have fired people from places because they were sick one day, and had been working a 50 hour week.

If we give employers too much control and power, we put ourselves in a position we'll regret.

[lucia]

I know where you're coming from, but there was probably some precedent to make this law a reality.

[Muad'dib]

Sadly, I have seen instances that seem to be stepping backwards

[lucia]

Er, like what and where? Germany?

I have this weird feeling that you're from there... But I'm usually wrong.

[Ratwar]

Actually, the law was meant to protect those people who are employed, not the ones that aren't employed.

You see, if a company started forcing it's employees to work overtime or be fired, and there was already a high unemployment rate, the employees would have no choice but to work the longer hours. Now, this would mean that the workers would be basically at the mercy of the employers during times of high unemployment. Therefore, there's a law against it.

Make sense?

[Muad'dib]

lucia said:

Er, like what and where? Germany?

I have this weird feeling that you're from there... But I'm usually wrong.

You're wrong....

Not that i'd tell you if you were right, but you're wrong.

Of course, now you'll assume I am from Germany, which is fair enoguh...

ratwar said:

You see, if a company started forcing it's employees to work overtime or be fired, and there was already a high unemployment rate, the employees would have no choice but to work the longer hours. Now, this would mean that the workers would be basically at the mercy of the employers during times of high unemployment. Therefore, there's a law against it.

I agree, but i'd say its not just in times of high unemployment... Finding a new source of employment isn't ever an easy task, so employees are often in the position they have to "shape up or ship out" as some employers have an attitude like that.

[Ratwar]

newbiezilla said:

lucia said:

Er, like what and where? Germany?

I have this weird feeling that you're from there... But I'm usually wrong.

You're wrong....

Not that i'd tell you if you were right, but you're wrong.

Of course, now you'll assume I am from Germany, which is fair enoguh...

ratwar said:

You see, if a company started forcing it's employees to work overtime or be fired, and there was already a high unemployment rate, the employees would have no choice but to work the longer hours. Now, this would mean that the workers would be basically at the mercy of the employers during times of high unemployment. Therefore, there's a law against it.

I agree, but i'd say its not just in times of high unemployment... Finding a new source of employment isn't ever an easy task, so employees are often in the position they have to "shape up or ship out" as some employers have an attitude like that.

Umm, I tend to think UK actually.

Anyways, you are correct about even in times without high unemployment, but it would become worse in time of high unemployment.

[Muad'dib]

Nope

I agree about the it getting worse in times of high unemployment... There would be wage cuts, too. As people would be so eager for any work at all, that they'd be willing to take less pay.

Employers would put a "less pay or no pay" as in a bad paying job, or none at all.

And I don't think that such a thing is fair, but I think that if I go on a tangent down that way, i'll be going on all day.