5 ms·

> Being forced to soften the rollout of the policy indicates how much the plan was driven by the government, rather than workers themselves that rely on overtim

> Being forced to soften the rollout of the policy indicates how much the plan was driven by the government, rather than workers themselves that rely on overtime to earn enough money. That changes the story, doesn't it? With so many of us ineligible for overtime in the US, being "management", we may wonder why anyone would work quite that much.

njarboe 8y ago
It seems that in the US that having to pay more for overtime is hurting people more than it helps them at this point. Especially people on the lower end of the wage scale. If you want/need to work more then usually you have too have two jobs with all the extra commuting and scheduling. It would be better if people could work 60hr for one employer instead of two.
- tbihl 8y ago
  That was certainly my experience. I used to ask if I could just report only 2/3rds of my overtime hours to get the same effective rate. Of course, I had no awareness of the software that would be flagging the 'ineffective manager' if I showed up as getting paid the higher rate, regardless of reality.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Shouldnt we be focusing on the fact that people need to work 60 hours rather than accomidating the system that enables it.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Shouldnt we be focusing on the fact that people need to work 60 hours rather than accomidating the system that enables it. "Need" is relative. Programmers don't "need" to work 80 hour weeks, but if it's the difference between getting paid $80,000 and $160,000, some people will choose the longer hours, and there isn't inherently anything wrong with that. So why is it wrong when someone whose base salary is $25,000 makes the same choice?
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      because the programmer has a real choice to choose to make less money, and not work as much, at a different job. The person who's base sallary is $25,000 has no choice to work a different job for less money, esp when every job is making the same demands (you could be 100% certan every service job would be)
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        How does the lower wage person not have the same choice? Working 40 hours pays $25,000, working 80 hours pays $50,000. Why should a person not have this choice?
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    Yes, but there’s no obvious way to solve that problem.
  - golergka 8y ago
    Some people just don't have anything significant value to offer for the society. IQ follows a normal distribution, half is below 100 and 15% is below 85. These are not the people that can produce any products or services that you would be interested in enough to pay them a lot of money. It's not the "system's" property, just a natural consequence of what products and services we want.
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      acting like the system we have now is some kind of natural inevitability is a real laugh.

njarboe 8y ago

It seems that in the US that having to pay more for overtime is hurting people more than it helps them at this point. Especially people on the lower end of the wage scale. If you want/need to work more then usually you have too have two jobs with all the extra commuting and scheduling. It would be better if people could work 60hr for one employer instead of two.

tbihl 8y ago
That was certainly my experience. I used to ask if I could just report only 2/3rds of my overtime hours to get the same effective rate. Of course, I had no awareness of the software that would be flagging the 'ineffective manager' if I showed up as getting paid the higher rate, regardless of reality.
throwaway2048 8y ago
Shouldnt we be focusing on the fact that people need to work 60 hours rather than accomidating the system that enables it.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Shouldnt we be focusing on the fact that people need to work 60 hours rather than accomidating the system that enables it. "Need" is relative. Programmers don't "need" to work 80 hour weeks, but if it's the difference between getting paid $80,000 and $160,000, some people will choose the longer hours, and there isn't inherently anything wrong with that. So why is it wrong when someone whose base salary is $25,000 makes the same choice?
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    because the programmer has a real choice to choose to make less money, and not work as much, at a different job. The person who's base sallary is $25,000 has no choice to work a different job for less money, esp when every job is making the same demands (you could be 100% certan every service job would be)
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      How does the lower wage person not have the same choice? Working 40 hours pays $25,000, working 80 hours pays $50,000. Why should a person not have this choice?
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Yes, but there’s no obvious way to solve that problem.
- golergka 8y ago
  Some people just don't have anything significant value to offer for the society. IQ follows a normal distribution, half is below 100 and 15% is below 85. These are not the people that can produce any products or services that you would be interested in enough to pay them a lot of money. It's not the "system's" property, just a natural consequence of what products and services we want.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    acting like the system we have now is some kind of natural inevitability is a real laugh.