4 ms·

It is not the role of the judiciary to define what is just of unjust: they just need to make a ruling based on the law. There is really no difference if someone

It is not the role of the judiciary to define what is just of unjust: they just need to make a ruling based on the law. There is really no difference if someone is paid $20k or $90k: you always must discount that rate if you are not an hourly employee. It is not theft: it is at-will employment and nobody is being forced to take it. Also, the ruling is only being postponed: --- “Due to the approaching effective date of the Final Rule, the Court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits is in jeopardy,” he wrote. “A preliminary injunction preserves the status quo while the Court determines the department’s authority to make the Final Rule as well as the Final Rule’s validity. --- If the law was clear, then there would be no difference between whether the decision is done during the current or future administration. It seems that there is enough ambiguity that the course of action varies depending on who is in power, which appears to indicate to me that the overtime rule by Obama's administrations was on weak grounds regardless.

llukas 10y ago
"it is at-will employment and nobody is being forced to take it." Or you're free to starve, right?
- matt_wulfeck 10y ago
  Yes you are free to starve if you choose so and keeping everyone fed is not the prerogative of a small business. That reality may sound harsh and unfair to you but it doesn't make it untrue. Either way my experience with crappy jobs suggest that it's hard to work more hours because of overtime pay rules. You have to simply work two jobs, which is what many people at places like McDonalds do to make ends meet. All of these rules have unintended side effects.
  - wwweston 10y ago
    > Yes you are free to starve if you choose so and keeping everyone fed is not the prerogative of a small business. "Keeping everyone fed" is an... interesting transmutation of the point you're responding to, which is more or less about whether businesses have any ethical obligations towards whatever employees they have (not "everyone") regardless of what market conditions will bear, and certainly stops well short of the idea that small businesses must generally solve hunger. If the job market is poor enough for a given employee that they don't have any other prospects, should that give an employer license to demand more of their time at the same pay rate? Or perhaps any smaller pay rate? Demand they do things which are health hazards? Coerce into doing illegal things? Demand sexual favors? > Either way my experience with crappy jobs suggest that it's hard to work more hours because of overtime pay rules. You have to simply work two jobs, which is what many people at places like McDonalds do to make ends meet. I don't think labor operations of a McDonald's have much to do with overtime, since the situation you're describing generally means the workers in question have trouble getting to full time. But yes, it probably does have something to do with employers trying to avoid bearing the cost of full-time employees, along with trying to optimize labor supply to indicated demand by buying smaller slices of worker time and pushing the cost of coordinating that worker's time on to the worker. > All of these rules have unintended side effects. Sure, and debating which ones are worthwhile and effective which ones aren't is great. As it turns out, not having many of these rules also has unintended side effects, which we've had a chance to see in action in the past.
coldtea 10y ago
>It is not theft: it is at-will employment and nobody is being forced to take it. That's a strange view of how the world works. But of course if one has never been forced to take a shitty job because they just have no options, one can hold such a view more easily.
- arkem 10y ago
  I don't think it's very charitable to imply that the parent only holds their opinion due to their assumed economic status.
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  I've had plenty of shitty jobs in my day, it was always a choice for me to take them and I was always glad to have them. I used to pull twelve hour shifts on a production line. Did that job for three weeks to save up to move across the country. You always have options. You can always make a plan. If the plan fails, you learn from it and make a better one. But I tell you what, I'd rather have a shit job as an option rather than no job as an option.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >But I tell you what, I'd rather have a shit job as an option rather than no job as an option. That's always the case with any kind of blackmail.

llukas 10y ago

"it is at-will employment and nobody is being forced to take it." Or you're free to starve, right?

matt_wulfeck 10y ago
Yes you are free to starve if you choose so and keeping everyone fed is not the prerogative of a small business. That reality may sound harsh and unfair to you but it doesn't make it untrue. Either way my experience with crappy jobs suggest that it's hard to work more hours because of overtime pay rules. You have to simply work two jobs, which is what many people at places like McDonalds do to make ends meet. All of these rules have unintended side effects.
- wwweston 10y ago
  > Yes you are free to starve if you choose so and keeping everyone fed is not the prerogative of a small business. "Keeping everyone fed" is an... interesting transmutation of the point you're responding to, which is more or less about whether businesses have any ethical obligations towards whatever employees they have (not "everyone") regardless of what market conditions will bear, and certainly stops well short of the idea that small businesses must generally solve hunger. If the job market is poor enough for a given employee that they don't have any other prospects, should that give an employer license to demand more of their time at the same pay rate? Or perhaps any smaller pay rate? Demand they do things which are health hazards? Coerce into doing illegal things? Demand sexual favors? > Either way my experience with crappy jobs suggest that it's hard to work more hours because of overtime pay rules. You have to simply work two jobs, which is what many people at places like McDonalds do to make ends meet. I don't think labor operations of a McDonald's have much to do with overtime, since the situation you're describing generally means the workers in question have trouble getting to full time. But yes, it probably does have something to do with employers trying to avoid bearing the cost of full-time employees, along with trying to optimize labor supply to indicated demand by buying smaller slices of worker time and pushing the cost of coordinating that worker's time on to the worker. > All of these rules have unintended side effects. Sure, and debating which ones are worthwhile and effective which ones aren't is great. As it turns out, not having many of these rules also has unintended side effects, which we've had a chance to see in action in the past.

coldtea 10y ago

>It is not theft: it is at-will employment and nobody is being forced to take it. That's a strange view of how the world works. But of course if one has never been forced to take a shitty job because they just have no options, one can hold such a view more easily.

arkem 10y ago
I don't think it's very charitable to imply that the parent only holds their opinion due to their assumed economic status.
vinceguidry 10y ago
I've had plenty of shitty jobs in my day, it was always a choice for me to take them and I was always glad to have them. I used to pull twelve hour shifts on a production line. Did that job for three weeks to save up to move across the country. You always have options. You can always make a plan. If the plan fails, you learn from it and make a better one. But I tell you what, I'd rather have a shit job as an option rather than no job as an option.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >But I tell you what, I'd rather have a shit job as an option rather than no job as an option. That's always the case with any kind of blackmail.