How to End All Social Programs

[Packratt]

It's interesing to watch someone blame government for an employer's unwillingness to pay a sustainable wage.

It's interesting to watch someone blame OT laws that are used to prevent employers from overworking their employees in order to keep employment rates at a minimum and profits at an unsustainable maximum.

It's interesting to hear someone complain about not having healthcare but not think for one second that maybe their employer should realise the benefit of keeping their employees healthy and free of worry about the welfare of their families.

Owning a business is a RESPONSIBILITY, and I am tired of seeing people proclaim that employers should be irresponsible.

[Mia]

Kyran, I couldn't finish your (always too long) post because again, it wasn't making sense. Let's take it one small question at a time, can we?

You wanted to work more than 40 hours but he could not afford to pay overtime. So, did you only work 40 hours or did you work more? If you worked more, did you not get paid for them at all, or did you get paid your regular wage for them?

If you not only could, but wanted to work more at that job, why couldn't you pick up some shifts somewhere else?

You are quite possibly the most egotistical person I've spoken to. You indicated that your one example should serve to explain how it is for everyone and I know from personal experience it is false so you are just stupid in the way you try to argue a point!

If it were not for the law, millions of employees would be forced to work more hours than they want to or could without being properly compensated. The part you spoke up where the employer is forced to hire more people is part of the point - if not for the laws many would find it cheaper to overwork those they have than to hire more. (BTW, may companies find it cheaper to consistently pay overtime to those who WANT it than to take on all the other expenses of hiring new people)

And don't say they could go get another job...you didn't like that logic used on you. ;-)

Of course it doesn't work perfectly in every case, tell me about something that does, but these laws do a LOT more good than harm.

Ther are countries, Yemen comes to mind, with very little law. I'm sure there are others. Why are you here if everything is so horrible and too many restrictions on you?

[Mia]

People who make a million dollars a year still borrow money!

[Anniee]

Someone needs to study actual economics - say von Mises. I mean the fallacies in one post alone are inexcusable...but then that's public education for you. They don't WANT people to understand how economics REALLY works.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anniee,)
Someone needs to study actual economics - say von Mises.  I mean the fallacies in one post alone are inexcusable...but then that's public education for you.  They don't WANT people to understand how economics REALLY works.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

how else do you think the party of the IMPEACHED LIAR exists?

"If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain." -Churchill

[tman_ndsu08]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
It's interesing to watch someone blame government for an employer's unwillingness to pay a sustainable wage.

It's interesting to watch someone blame OT laws that are used to prevent employers from overworking their employees in order to keep employment rates at a minimum and profits at an unsustainable maximum.

It's interesting to hear someone complain about not having healthcare but not think for one second that maybe their employer should realise the benefit of keeping their employees healthy and free of worry about the welfare of their families.

Owning a business is a RESPONSIBILITY, and I am tired of seeing people proclaim that employers should be irresponsible.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

What utter bullshit!

Employeers are nothing more than buyers of labor. Laborers sell their services at a fee to employeers. They can simply refuse to sell if the employeer thinks their price is too high.

[Kyran]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Kyran, I couldn't finish your (always too long) post because again, it wasn't making sense<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

*sigh*

If I spend the time, brainpower, and heart to type out a portion of my life, must you complain about the fraction of time it will take you to read it? Who the fuck are you calling egotistical? It's egotistical to tell someone over and over again that their posts are too long; it reflects laziness to read. For God's sake, if you don't READ what I write, how the HELL are you gonna know what I'm saying?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
Why are you here if everything is so horrible and too many restrictions on you?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Because I had a little redhead to feed at home. Do you have any more questions?!

[Kyran]

I found a point made in another thread and am bringing it into this one.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
If you are forced to pay $100 for "Social Program X" and can take that $100 back from the government, then there is no theft. Also, if you want someone to get your $100 taxmoney I fully agree and would oppose any legal action taken thereof.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It was proven to me that taxpayers should always have a say-so over how their taxes are spent. One taxpayer expressed the desire to have her taxes spent on a family member; which is none of our business.

So if some poor person out there gains the Willing Support of a taxpayer, thereby receiving tax money, then no crime is perpetuated. Willing Support must meet the following criteria:

**A taxpayer is limited to the amount of money they pay in taxes. If he pays in $1000, he can't Will to others $1001.

A person to person written agreement where one party allows the other to receive their taxmoney must be respected by the judicial system; to prevent unlawful arrest.

Please make sure I am aware of any loopholes, folks. I'm not God, and I overlook details.

[Mia]

The egotistical part is taking one example of one job in your one life and claiming it represents everyone's situation. OT laws didn't benefit you in that one job = OT laws are bad and don't serve their purpose. That's not egotistical?

[Kyran]

No, Mia, it's not egotistical. Just hear me out. OT is unguaranteed, and employers will stop at nothing to hire someone to fill in those hours. No one can rely on OT pay for income. If employers didn't have to pay OT, we could work all the hours we wanted to. People would not need multiple jobs. They'd get all the hours they need at one employer.

My situation does not represent everyone's situation? Why not? What separates me as a worker from other workers? You don't think you are being denied hours at your job? It's not like you can ask your manager to schedule you 8 OT hours every week and get it. An extra shift for you could reduce the time in which you pay off your car, house, or college tuitions.

There is a good reason why I don't want anyone to receive "OT benefits." It's because OT isn't a friggin benefit in the first place; it is a dictation forcing millions of poor Americans to work two jobs.

Whoever is getting OT is exploiting the poor. Figure a $8.00/hr employee goes into overtime for 20 hours. The gross result $12.00 x 20 = $240.00. The employer could have scheduled 30 hours to someone else at that rate; but the government is making him pay some fat union pig while those denied must find another job.

[Mia]

I understand your point in it not being guaranteed - I think this is another issue that it's going to depend on your perspective which way is most beneficial to the employee.

Take one who is able to maintain on his regular wage at 40 hours every week. When his employer needs him to work overtime, he says yea! A 50% raise for these hours means he can make a special purchase or pay extra down on his mortgage or put some away in savings. But if it weren't for the law, his employer could make him work more hours every week than he wants to be away from his family with NO extra pay for it.

Isn't that how the law came to be in the first place? Employers were requiring far too many hours. If it costs the same per hour, it is cheaper to make everyone work 80 hours than to hire twice as many people.

BTW, this 40 thing is weird to me...I have never worked in a job that wasn't based on tips (in college) or commission, where none of these rules apply. Salaried positions are another which get around it. If I worked only 40 hours in a week I'd think I was on vacation!

[Kyran]

Mia, that's an excellent point. Employment contracts are supposed to be written with the terms clearly defined. Nowadays, employers force employees into that one-sided situation where they can change the hours without renegotiating.

Thank you for looking at this in an objective manner.

Employers do understand worker burnout; 60+ hours of work will wear out most people. But some are extremely healthy and put in 80 hours these days.

An employer can try to make an employee work unpaid these days too; but they can get sued for that. If an employer is crooked, the employee's job will always be at stake.

Hours-for-dollars sucks. Trading time for money is the least efficient payment model known to mankind. Businesses operate better on commission. Ya think if those teenage girls in drive thru made a nickel for selling a cheeseburger they'd sell more? It works in every other industry!

I see these common business practices as stone-age. There are several problems to address. One-sided scheduling contracts are one of them. If anyone has a suggestion on how to solve this, without compromising the interests of either party, please speak up.

I have one idea. If employees specify how many hours they can work until burnout, then employers can recognize how to get their money's worth. An employer logically wouldn't pay $15.00/hr for an employee who is so tired he's worth $8.00/hr. It would be better to bring in a fresh person. The employer wouldn't schedule someone over their limit, unless he's an idiot.

Maybe a W-2 paperwork change? I dunno, what other ideas are out there?

[Mia]

But you can't make employers do that without regulation. If they were all as logical as you and had the same goals as you in this case, that might work. But they don't, in too many cases. If they did, the need for the regulation never would have arisin.

It will always remain cheaper to work less employees more hours than to hire more. Due to the additional cost of more employees.

As to having to be an idiot to schedule more hours than an employee can handle and still be effective, there are a lot of idiots out there!

Every employer I have ever has defied very simplistic logic that would work in their favor if they would only see it. As a waitress, I was required to work even with the highly-contagious flu if I could not find someone willing to fill my shift.

That's so smart - infect all of your employees so that even if they don't miss work since they can't, they are all working below capacity.

Someone needs to regulate that in my opinion!