13 ms·

The definitions of exempt vs. non exempt in the FLSA have always seemed somewhat arbitrary to me. How about we just let employers offer what ever terms they wan

by gwright 15y ago

The definitions of exempt vs. non exempt in the FLSA have always seemed somewhat arbitrary to me. How about we just let employers offer what ever terms they want and employees decide to accept or reject them? As a bonus we can downsize government by getting rid of the FLSA enforcement bureaucracy .

joe_the_user 15y ago
Sure, and let's let employers remove all other protections as well as the minimum wage and "employees decide to accept or reject them"!
- mindcrime 15y ago
  We should. The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating agreements between employers and employees. It has no real authority to do so in the first place, and nobody ever seems to consider the unintended consequences of even nominally well-meaning regulations. For example, as somebody pointed out above, minimum wage laws don't make sure everybody makes a living wage, they just make sure that some people are essentially prohibited from working. I mean, if I wanted to work for, say, $3.75 / hour, compared to the alternative of $0.00/ hour, why should the government prohibit me from making that deal with an employer?
  - gwright 15y ago
    And there are lots of people who want to work for $3.75/hour. In particular people who have no experience need to offset that fact by charging less for their labor. For them, getting the experience is much more important than getting $8.75/hour + benefits. Teenagers are the classic example of this type of worker. See http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/update-on-wsj-editorial-on-minimum-wage.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/update-on-wsj-editorial-... for some data.
geoffschmidt 15y ago
It's as if you're saying "I don't understand what this part does, therefore it can't be that important." Eliminating minimum wage or overtime pay would definitely have a material effect on the economy. Nobody disputes that. If you want to get rid of labor laws, you should either argue that that effect is desirable, or argue that while the effect is undesirable, freedom to contract is more important.
- gwright 15y ago
  OK. I guess my description of voluntary contracts wasn't clear enough. I think freedom to contract is more important than some national standard regarding minimum wage, sick pay, hours worked per day/week/month, vacation time, etc. Regardless, I was commenting specifically on the exempt/non-exempt distinctions in the law which are terribly vague and open to interpretation as well as easily influenced via politics (i.e. certain industries and occupations will get favored treatment in the legislation due to lobbying efforts and not due to some justifiable public policy goal).
Joeri 15y ago
The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at a lower limit. If you leave market forces at work, you'll get people working at near slavery conditions because they lack other economic choices (or they think hey do, which is the same thing). Remember that some people used to choose slavery before it was outlawed. The lawmaker sets minimum standards so people don't get exploited because they come from a weak negotiating position. Specifically speaking to this law, i don't think it matters as much because IT professionals don't have a weak bargaining position.
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago
  > The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at a lower limit. The people below the limit do not magically increase their productivity above the limit. It simply becomss illegal for them to work. They are the American untouchables, farmed by welfare agencies for grant money or simply discarded.
- locopati 15y ago
  Expanding on your comments... The reason behind labor standards is that without them companies will do everything in their power to take advantage of their workforce (see early 20th century America, specifically coal mining in Appalachia, which, to be honest, hasn't changed all that much - see modern day, specifically the Upper Branch mine disaster and Massey Energy). Labor standards enforce a minimum acceptable standard and prevent the kind of race-to-the-bottom we see now (between states, between regions, between countries). We all need to remember that many of our positions are the exception, not the rule (i.e. we often have the flexibility and freedom to negotiate) There are still hourly contracts in IT and these would be affected by a rule like this. MS gamed the system in WA state to avoid paying overtime while still being able to take advantage of hiring contractors instead of salaried employees (this was in the 90s - unsure if the same system is still in place). Meanwhile, chipping away at the higher salaried workers just makes it easier to chip away at the lower salaried workers (e.g. retail workers, restaurant workers). We're all in this together.

by gwright 15y ago

joe_the_user 15y ago

Sure, and let's let employers remove all other protections as well as the minimum wage and "employees decide to accept or reject them"!

mindcrime 15y ago
We should. The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating agreements between employers and employees. It has no real authority to do so in the first place, and nobody ever seems to consider the unintended consequences of even nominally well-meaning regulations. For example, as somebody pointed out above, minimum wage laws don't make sure everybody makes a living wage, they just make sure that some people are essentially prohibited from working. I mean, if I wanted to work for, say, $3.75 / hour, compared to the alternative of $0.00/ hour, why should the government prohibit me from making that deal with an employer?
- gwright 15y ago
  And there are lots of people who want to work for $3.75/hour. In particular people who have no experience need to offset that fact by charging less for their labor. For them, getting the experience is much more important than getting $8.75/hour + benefits. Teenagers are the classic example of this type of worker. See http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/update-on-wsj-editorial-on-minimum-wage.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/03/update-on-wsj-editorial-... for some data.

geoffschmidt 15y ago

It's as if you're saying "I don't understand what this part does, therefore it can't be that important." Eliminating minimum wage or overtime pay would definitely have a material effect on the economy. Nobody disputes that. If you want to get rid of labor laws, you should either argue that that effect is desirable, or argue that while the effect is undesirable, freedom to contract is more important.

gwright 15y ago
OK. I guess my description of voluntary contracts wasn't clear enough. I think freedom to contract is more important than some national standard regarding minimum wage, sick pay, hours worked per day/week/month, vacation time, etc. Regardless, I was commenting specifically on the exempt/non-exempt distinctions in the law which are terribly vague and open to interpretation as well as easily influenced via politics (i.e. certain industries and occupations will get favored treatment in the legislation due to lobbying efforts and not due to some justifiable public policy goal).

Joeri 15y ago

The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at a lower limit. If you leave market forces at work, you'll get people working at near slavery conditions because they lack other economic choices (or they think hey do, which is the same thing). Remember that some people used to choose slavery before it was outlawed. The lawmaker sets minimum standards so people don't get exploited because they come from a weak negotiating position. Specifically speaking to this law, i don't think it matters as much because IT professionals don't have a weak bargaining position.

Daniel_Newby 15y ago
> The reason behind labor standards is to cut off the the distribution curve at a lower limit. The people below the limit do not magically increase their productivity above the limit. It simply becomss illegal for them to work. They are the American untouchables, farmed by welfare agencies for grant money or simply discarded.
locopati 15y ago
Expanding on your comments... The reason behind labor standards is that without them companies will do everything in their power to take advantage of their workforce (see early 20th century America, specifically coal mining in Appalachia, which, to be honest, hasn't changed all that much - see modern day, specifically the Upper Branch mine disaster and Massey Energy). Labor standards enforce a minimum acceptable standard and prevent the kind of race-to-the-bottom we see now (between states, between regions, between countries). We all need to remember that many of our positions are the exception, not the rule (i.e. we often have the flexibility and freedom to negotiate) There are still hourly contracts in IT and these would be affected by a rule like this. MS gamed the system in WA state to avoid paying overtime while still being able to take advantage of hiring contractors instead of salaried employees (this was in the 90s - unsure if the same system is still in place). Meanwhile, chipping away at the higher salaried workers just makes it easier to chip away at the lower salaried workers (e.g. retail workers, restaurant workers). We're all in this together.