Skip to main content

View Diary: Overtime pay is a line in the sand for labor (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And yet again, we see the problem with government (3+ / 0-)

    action and laws in general:

    In the name of protection, they inevitably take away freedom, including the ability to choose what is best for yourself and your family.

    I don't question the willingness of employers to abuse comp time, but it's a shame that nobody seems bright enough to come up with one that puts choice in the hands of workers, or at least balances out the difference.

    I know lots of people who would rather have a little more time than a little more money.  Yes, many workers need the extra money. It's also true that many workers' families could benefit from more time.

    Sad that we must choose one group over the other.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun May 05, 2013 at 06:25:23 PM PDT

    •  you miss the whole point . . . (10+ / 0-)
      it's a shame that nobody seems bright enough to come up with one that puts choice in the hands of workers, or at least balances out the difference.
      Employers want control. The LAST thing they want is worker "choice" or "balance".

      You're a libertarian, aren't you?--I thought you not only knew that but were HAPPY with it. Don't employers own employees for the time they're hired? Do employers give their machine equipment, or a lump of raw material that they paid for, a "choice" or "balance"? Why would their bought-and-paid-for employees be any different?

      •  I'm a libertarian just like you. (0+ / 0-)

        Here's what I find funny:

        You moan that employers don't want worker choice or balance.

        Fine.

        But -- What I see here are supposed friends of workers who are opposed to choice or balance.

        Anything for the workers so long as they don't want anything beyond what you think they should want.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun May 05, 2013 at 07:30:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  um, I'm not a libertarian (6+ / 0-)

          I'm a socialist.

          I do not want "balance".  I want worker control.

        •  So you think this bill is worker friendly? (0+ / 0-)

          If not, then what are you complaining about?

          •  Where or where did I say that bill was worker (0+ / 0-)

            friendly?

            Answer:

            No where.

            In fact, although I could be wrong -- it sure as hell wouldn't be a first -- I don't believe I directly referenced the bill anywhere.

            What I think I said is that it's sad that nobody can figure out how to do comp time in a way that isn't abusive.  Beyond having now doubt, I know for a fact that many workers would welcome more time for their familes, at least on occasion.

            It's sad that we can't figure out something that works for those who just want the hours and the money and for those who would like to have some time for the kids.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sun May 05, 2013 at 07:37:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Okay (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              What I see is people here opposing this particular bill and then you are accusing them of opposing worker's freedom.  I don't see anyone here railing against doing "comp time in a way that isn't abusive" so I don't get what's got you so upset.

              I have an agreement with my boss to take compensatory time instead of overtime so I'm one of those people who'd prefer the time over the money.

              •  Not exactly, but...people tend to get focused on (0+ / 0-)

                one thing and read in that light.

                If you'll follow the thread, others started hurling nastiness my way.  

                Lenny, for example, got upset at this:

                it's a shame that nobody seems bright enough to come up with one that puts choice in the hands of workers, or at least balances out the difference.
                I don't think anything in that sentence says I think the bill is good.  

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sun May 05, 2013 at 08:05:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  no, dino, the part I got upset about was this: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JesseCW
                  Employers want control. The LAST thing they want is worker "choice" or "balance".
                  You're a libertarian, aren't you?--I thought you not only knew that but were HAPPY with it. Don't employers own employees for the time they're hired? Do employers give their machine equipment, or a lump of raw material that they paid for, a "choice" or "balance"? Why would their bought-and-paid-for employees be any different?
                  Sorry my point---that we can't have "balance" because the owners don't WANT balance, they want CONTROL, and you libertarians LIKE that--went right by you as you were pretending not to be a libertarian this week.
        •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          That's a big change form last week when you were an " unapologetic conservative".

          "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

          by nosleep4u on Sun May 05, 2013 at 07:50:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  E-n-g-l-i-s-h. It matters. (0+ / 0-)

            Just like progressive does not equal communist (or, at least, I do not believe that it doesn't), conservative does not equal libertarian.

            Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I like to give people credit for being at least a little bit smarter than that.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Mon May 06, 2013 at 01:56:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Because, gawd forbid (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dirtandiron, DontTaseMeBro

      annual leave is socialism.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Sun May 05, 2013 at 06:53:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seriously? That's the best you can do? (0+ / 0-)

        How dare workers want any freedom?
        How dare anybody value something differently from the way you think they should value it?

        Hed Dad -- you had better not want to take your kid to the museum.

        That's wrong because I know what workers are allowed to want and that ain't it.

        So -- I'll try to ridicule a point that I don't remotely understand because, well, I don't understand it any better than I understand the fact that workers are human beings, not cogs.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun May 05, 2013 at 07:33:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Annual Leave is Frequently Blocked (6+ / 0-)

        by systematicly creating situational conditions precluding the utilization of annual leave.

        "Sorry, you'll have to postpone your scheduled vacation.  There's too much to do right now."

        If your lucky you don't work for a firm with a use it or loose it policy and at least get paid for your annual vacation time.

        •  and it would be different (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dinotrac

          with comp time?

          What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

          by happymisanthropy on Sun May 05, 2013 at 09:02:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It converts overtime pay, (0+ / 0-)

            which these kinds of shenanigans can't be pulled with, with more leave - which the employer can use to dick you over.

            "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

            by Australian2 on Mon May 06, 2013 at 03:52:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  If I'm understanding you correctly, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac

      what you're saying is why can't we let the worker decide whether they want to, 1/ be paid time-and-a-half for overtime worked, or 2/ get comp time for overtime worked.

      I think that would be a great way to do it. And I think that any employer who doesn't want to give their workers the choice is, basically, just hoping that they can find a way to screw their workers over and get some labor for free.

      I know I'm not a Libertarian and, for the life of me, I don't know why Lenny Flank is attacking you over your post (unless I'm totally missing your point). You two must have some history on here that I'm unaware of.

      •  Something along those lines. (0+ / 0-)

        It may be that there really is no way to do that without exposing workers to more abuse, but...we have abusive employers now.  Hell, forced overtime is pretty abusive.

        As to Lenny, well, Lenny is Lenny.  Not to worry.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Mon May 06, 2013 at 02:05:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A very neat idea. The problem is that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JDPITALIA

        employers will "encourage" workers to choose the second, and then make it hard for them to take leave-time.

        In practical terms, the first option is not available thanks to the predatory nature of America's rentier classes.

        "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

        by Australian2 on Mon May 06, 2013 at 04:13:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  One way to deal with that is to require payment (0+ / 0-)

          for hours that haven't been used by the end of the year, the quarter, something.

          More specifically, hours that amount to time and a half.

          I still think it's too bad that we must choose to screw workers in order to (try to ) keep employers from screwing workers.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Mon May 06, 2013 at 11:58:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site