6 ms·

But those things should be forbidden and in the hands of the employee. That said, I have signed the "I will work more than 48 hours if required" waiver at my c

But those things should be forbidden and in the hands of the employee. That said, I have signed the "I will work more than 48 hours if required" waiver at my current employer; mostly because I know it will hardly happen and if it does it will be extra-ordinary and I will be willing to pull with the team. There's nothing wrong with a world where : "We need you to work this weekend" "No thanks, see you Monday" Is perfectly reasonable.

NicoJuicy 13y ago
I'm an employee, it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra. I want to work more, but i see no financial benefit from it for working a day in a weekend (eg. when i have a deadline), nor does my employer. PS. Overhours in Belgum don't get payed a lot or aren't encouraged because of the extra cost. Employees don't mind because their happy to have jobs here... But i shouldn't say that out loud, because it's illegal. But a lot of people work an hour / day for free (from my personal experience here in Belgium)
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  I'm an employee, it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra. I want to work more, but i see no financial benefit from it for working a day in a weekend (eg. when i have a deadline), nor does my employer. I'm not sure I understand here. Surely if you're making more money, then you should expect to pay a portion of that in tax? And you'll see a financial benefit as a result?
  - NicoJuicy 13y ago
    Let's say that a normal hour is taxed 50 %, extra hours are taxed under a different tax tabel, so more % goes to the governement. Also, if you work something more, there is a chance, you get in a higher tax zone. So even if you work more and get more the current month. You are going to get taxed more on the end of the year. As a result, you have earned less on the end of the year (because you get in the higher income zone, so you are taxed more). Edit: below. I didn't fully explained it, but it's complicated then that. If you get in a different tax bracket (didn't knew the term in English), you lose certain financial benefits. I'd wish some Belgian accountant was here to explain it better, although i'm aware of tax brackets. They don't include some financial benefits when you have a lower income.
    - matwood 13y ago
      This is also a problem in the US if you manage to just cross a tax bracket.
      - thecage411 13y ago
        No it isnt. See other comments in this thread.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > This is also a problem in the US if you manage to just cross a tax bracket. Well, it would be, if the US adopted a tax bracket with a > 100% marginal rate. But it hasn't, so it doesn't. Though its a persistent myth, because people don't understand marginal tax rates and confuse them with total tax rates. (Or, for a similar problem, as illustrated in another subthread, don't understand the related concept of how deductions phase out before you reach the point where they are no longer available.)
    - grandsham 13y ago
      I don't think you understand how tax brackets/tax zones work. For example, say there is no tax up to $50000, and a 50% bracket starts at $50000. If you make $50001, you only pay a 50% tax on that one dollar over 50k, the first 50k remains untaxed. This is how pretty much any tax regime in the world works. So while you may have to pay a higher tax rate on extra overtime money earned, it would be just on that money, not on your base pay. It's impossible for you to make less money at the end of the year because you worked overtime.
    - matthewmacleod 13y ago
      I'm not aware of any common tax regime that results in a marginal tax rate of over 100%, which is what you're describing there. Even if your additional income pushes you into another tax bracket, you will only be paying additional tax on the amount made over the lower threshold. In the UK, for example, the top rate of income tax is 45%, and this is charged only on earning over ~£150,000 annually. If you earned £150,100, you would be £55 cash-in-hand better off than if you'd earned £150,000.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  >it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra // I don't agree. Partly the government has to be concerned with the entire workforce. Some people doing more work means that other people may not be employed, or may be under-employed. Preventing overtime, or at least providing financial pressure against it, means that those who don't want to work all hours can avoid it more easily and also helps to make sure companies employ enough workers rather than simply squeezing dry fewer than they really need.
  - NicoJuicy 13y ago
    Lower taxes and companies would hire employees easier. Now we have a very dificult system. Everyone is on probation for 6 months and the governement pays this (interns and a system called IBO). Having 1 full-time employee or doing it all by yourselve is mostly the difference between loss and profit in Belgium (for an SMB). Also, the taxes are so high, every company with > 1000 workmen is subsidized by the governement (most recent example: 7,5 Million € goo.gl/HluVNB for keeping a company here). There is not a single car manufactorer, that makes profits here in Belgium without subsidisement. (a lot of them moved away from Belgium the last years)
    - ama729 13y ago
      > There is not a single car manufactorer, that makes profits here in Belgium without subsidisement. (a lot of them moved away from Belgium the last years) It's the same in Germany though: http://europe.autonews.com/article/20130226/ANE/302269903/volkswagen-govt-subsidy-probe-dropped-by-eu http://europe.autonews.com/article/20130226/ANE/302269903/vo...
      - NicoJuicy 13y ago
        It's not the same, in Belgium they got subsidised and they still leave (Ford Genk, ...) :) That's not the same, they stay in Germany... PS. That also costed € 144,000 per employee for firing them :)
- zo1 13y ago
  "I'm an employee, it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra." Working extra means you earn more. You live in a society that taxes a percentage of your earnings. What part of those two concepts don't you understand?
  - eurleif 13y ago
    Stop trying to get an ought from an is.
    - zo1 13y ago
      I'm not using the deriving ought from is logical fallacy. I'm simply pointing out the facts, and the logical conclusions from that. But if you want to be all formal with your argumentation, here it is for you in all its simplistic and formal glory: P1. Taxes are based on percentage of earnings. P2. More work implies higher pay P3. You work more Conclusion1: Your pay is higher Conclusion2: You will pay higher taxes.
      - eurleif 13y ago
        The comment you replied to said that it "should" be possible to work more without being taxed more, not that it "is". So what's your point?
        zo1 13y ago
        I think you're just trying to be argumentative/pedantic for no reason that I can think of or immediately see. Besides, you took one interpretation of "should", and I took another; nothing wrong with both. So you can either choose to be pedantic and continue nitpicking, or you can admit you were wrong in accusing me of a logical fallacy, or bask in the glory that you just watched me make an actual fallacy (before my edit).
dalore 13y ago
"We need you to work this weekend" vs "We want you to work this weekend" But if they said "need" they might actually need you, so you could bargain back with I will need 3 extra holiday days.
- SixSigma 13y ago
  Personally if i knew it was "need" then I would be saying "Ok". I have also heard the sentence "I need a new dress"
prof_hobart 13y ago
I mostly agree - it depresses me that people have managed to be so brainwashed that if you dare to suggest that you only want to do the job that you're being paid for, you are seen as a radical troublemaker (of course, employers insisting that you do at least what you are paid for are seen as entirely reasonable). The one bit I would partly question would be the response to "We need you to work this weekend". Every relationship needs a bit of give and take, and every now and then an emergency, or an unexpected big piece of work might mean that the company really needs you in the office, and (assuming that it's not a huge inconvenience for you) it would be reasonable to expect you to try to help out - in the same way that a "Boss, I need to shoot off early today to pick my kid up because he's had an accident" shouldn't be met with a "'fraid not, you're staying until you've done your hours" response. The important thing, in both cases, is that it's an exception. An employer demanding that you come in every weekend for the next 3 months would be as unreasonable as an employee doing short hours every day because they continually need to run some errand or other.
- freehunter 13y ago
  Of course employers would suggest that if you were hired on salary, they're paying you to work any time they need you to work. I've gotten that line before: "your job is to be on call 24x7". Every employment contract, at least in the US, will say "other duties as assigned".
patrickmay 13y ago
> There's nothing wrong with a world where : > "We need you to work this weekend" > "No thanks, see you Monday" > Is perfectly reasonable. This is likely to lead to another conversation later in the year: "Why did John get the promotion I was up for?" "He provided more value to the company by working those two weekends when we were delivering to our most valuable customer." Do you consider that reasonable as well?
- AlexandrB 13y ago
  > Do you consider that reasonable as well? Yes, assuming the employer considering actual output when they talk about "value" and not "seat time". Otherwise the next conversation is: "Good for him, I'm starting at B co. in two weeks." Also one of the most reliable ways to get better positions & pay appears to change jobs, suggesting your scenario is just a carrot on a stick that rarely happens in practice.
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    I have never seen a single one of my co-workers promoted into a better position, ever, after more than 12 years in the industry. No one. Ever. And that group numbers in the hundreds. The hypothetical scenario is completely bogus.
    - Spooky23 13y ago
      That sounds pretty awful! I've never worked anywhere that promotions were just not given. And I'm including retail/fast food jobs from high school!
      - logfromblammo 13y ago
        I would have expected that career paths in software development would emerge as the industry matures. Instead I have seen promotion paths vanishing, even in older lines of work. The companies where you can work your way up from entry level to executive are disappearing. The only one I am actually aware of that still promotes from within, even up to the top levels, is Publix.
ctdonath 13y ago
Plenty wrong. I've been in a country where: "You need me to work this weekend, and I'm happy to do so with no financial gain. I won't be on this continent for long, so I want to work what time I can to do the best job I can because I take pride in my work." "Don't you dare work this weekend. If you do, as your manager I risk criminal prosecution and jail time." That is absolutely unreasonable.

NicoJuicy 13y ago

I'm an employee, it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra. I want to work more, but i see no financial benefit from it for working a day in a weekend (eg. when i have a deadline), nor does my employer. PS. Overhours in Belgum don't get payed a lot or aren't encouraged because of the extra cost. Employees don't mind because their happy to have jobs here... But i shouldn't say that out loud, because it's illegal. But a lot of people work an hour / day for free (from my personal experience here in Belgium)

matthewmacleod 13y ago
I'm an employee, it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra. I want to work more, but i see no financial benefit from it for working a day in a weekend (eg. when i have a deadline), nor does my employer. I'm not sure I understand here. Surely if you're making more money, then you should expect to pay a portion of that in tax? And you'll see a financial benefit as a result?
- NicoJuicy 13y ago
  Let's say that a normal hour is taxed 50 %, extra hours are taxed under a different tax tabel, so more % goes to the governement. Also, if you work something more, there is a chance, you get in a higher tax zone. So even if you work more and get more the current month. You are going to get taxed more on the end of the year. As a result, you have earned less on the end of the year (because you get in the higher income zone, so you are taxed more). Edit: below. I didn't fully explained it, but it's complicated then that. If you get in a different tax bracket (didn't knew the term in English), you lose certain financial benefits. I'd wish some Belgian accountant was here to explain it better, although i'm aware of tax brackets. They don't include some financial benefits when you have a lower income.
  - matwood 13y ago
    This is also a problem in the US if you manage to just cross a tax bracket.
    - thecage411 13y ago
      No it isnt. See other comments in this thread.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > This is also a problem in the US if you manage to just cross a tax bracket. Well, it would be, if the US adopted a tax bracket with a > 100% marginal rate. But it hasn't, so it doesn't. Though its a persistent myth, because people don't understand marginal tax rates and confuse them with total tax rates. (Or, for a similar problem, as illustrated in another subthread, don't understand the related concept of how deductions phase out before you reach the point where they are no longer available.)
  - grandsham 13y ago
    I don't think you understand how tax brackets/tax zones work. For example, say there is no tax up to $50000, and a 50% bracket starts at $50000. If you make $50001, you only pay a 50% tax on that one dollar over 50k, the first 50k remains untaxed. This is how pretty much any tax regime in the world works. So while you may have to pay a higher tax rate on extra overtime money earned, it would be just on that money, not on your base pay. It's impossible for you to make less money at the end of the year because you worked overtime.
  - matthewmacleod 13y ago
    I'm not aware of any common tax regime that results in a marginal tax rate of over 100%, which is what you're describing there. Even if your additional income pushes you into another tax bracket, you will only be paying additional tax on the amount made over the lower threshold. In the UK, for example, the top rate of income tax is 45%, and this is charged only on earning over ~£150,000 annually. If you earned £150,100, you would be £55 cash-in-hand better off than if you'd earned £150,000.
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
>it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra // I don't agree. Partly the government has to be concerned with the entire workforce. Some people doing more work means that other people may not be employed, or may be under-employed. Preventing overtime, or at least providing financial pressure against it, means that those who don't want to work all hours can avoid it more easily and also helps to make sure companies employ enough workers rather than simply squeezing dry fewer than they really need.
- NicoJuicy 13y ago
  Lower taxes and companies would hire employees easier. Now we have a very dificult system. Everyone is on probation for 6 months and the governement pays this (interns and a system called IBO). Having 1 full-time employee or doing it all by yourselve is mostly the difference between loss and profit in Belgium (for an SMB). Also, the taxes are so high, every company with > 1000 workmen is subsidized by the governement (most recent example: 7,5 Million € goo.gl/HluVNB for keeping a company here). There is not a single car manufactorer, that makes profits here in Belgium without subsidisement. (a lot of them moved away from Belgium the last years)
  - ama729 13y ago
    > There is not a single car manufactorer, that makes profits here in Belgium without subsidisement. (a lot of them moved away from Belgium the last years) It's the same in Germany though: http://europe.autonews.com/article/20130226/ANE/302269903/volkswagen-govt-subsidy-probe-dropped-by-eu http://europe.autonews.com/article/20130226/ANE/302269903/vo...
    - NicoJuicy 13y ago
      It's not the same, in Belgium they got subsidised and they still leave (Ford Genk, ...) :) That's not the same, they stay in Germany... PS. That also costed € 144,000 per employee for firing them :)
zo1 13y ago
"I'm an employee, it should also be my right to work more without the governement always taxing me extra." Working extra means you earn more. You live in a society that taxes a percentage of your earnings. What part of those two concepts don't you understand?
- eurleif 13y ago
  Stop trying to get an ought from an is.
  - zo1 13y ago
    I'm not using the deriving ought from is logical fallacy. I'm simply pointing out the facts, and the logical conclusions from that. But if you want to be all formal with your argumentation, here it is for you in all its simplistic and formal glory: P1. Taxes are based on percentage of earnings. P2. More work implies higher pay P3. You work more Conclusion1: Your pay is higher Conclusion2: You will pay higher taxes.
    - eurleif 13y ago
      The comment you replied to said that it "should" be possible to work more without being taxed more, not that it "is". So what's your point?
      - zo1 13y ago
        I think you're just trying to be argumentative/pedantic for no reason that I can think of or immediately see. Besides, you took one interpretation of "should", and I took another; nothing wrong with both. So you can either choose to be pedantic and continue nitpicking, or you can admit you were wrong in accusing me of a logical fallacy, or bask in the glory that you just watched me make an actual fallacy (before my edit).

dalore 13y ago

"We need you to work this weekend" vs "We want you to work this weekend" But if they said "need" they might actually need you, so you could bargain back with I will need 3 extra holiday days.

SixSigma 13y ago
Personally if i knew it was "need" then I would be saying "Ok". I have also heard the sentence "I need a new dress"

prof_hobart 13y ago

I mostly agree - it depresses me that people have managed to be so brainwashed that if you dare to suggest that you only want to do the job that you're being paid for, you are seen as a radical troublemaker (of course, employers insisting that you do at least what you are paid for are seen as entirely reasonable). The one bit I would partly question would be the response to "We need you to work this weekend". Every relationship needs a bit of give and take, and every now and then an emergency, or an unexpected big piece of work might mean that the company really needs you in the office, and (assuming that it's not a huge inconvenience for you) it would be reasonable to expect you to try to help out - in the same way that a "Boss, I need to shoot off early today to pick my kid up because he's had an accident" shouldn't be met with a "'fraid not, you're staying until you've done your hours" response. The important thing, in both cases, is that it's an exception. An employer demanding that you come in every weekend for the next 3 months would be as unreasonable as an employee doing short hours every day because they continually need to run some errand or other.

freehunter 13y ago
Of course employers would suggest that if you were hired on salary, they're paying you to work any time they need you to work. I've gotten that line before: "your job is to be on call 24x7". Every employment contract, at least in the US, will say "other duties as assigned".

patrickmay 13y ago

> There's nothing wrong with a world where : > "We need you to work this weekend" > "No thanks, see you Monday" > Is perfectly reasonable. This is likely to lead to another conversation later in the year: "Why did John get the promotion I was up for?" "He provided more value to the company by working those two weekends when we were delivering to our most valuable customer." Do you consider that reasonable as well?

AlexandrB 13y ago
> Do you consider that reasonable as well? Yes, assuming the employer considering actual output when they talk about "value" and not "seat time". Otherwise the next conversation is: "Good for him, I'm starting at B co. in two weeks." Also one of the most reliable ways to get better positions & pay appears to change jobs, suggesting your scenario is just a carrot on a stick that rarely happens in practice.
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  I have never seen a single one of my co-workers promoted into a better position, ever, after more than 12 years in the industry. No one. Ever. And that group numbers in the hundreds. The hypothetical scenario is completely bogus.
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    That sounds pretty awful! I've never worked anywhere that promotions were just not given. And I'm including retail/fast food jobs from high school!
    - logfromblammo 13y ago
      I would have expected that career paths in software development would emerge as the industry matures. Instead I have seen promotion paths vanishing, even in older lines of work. The companies where you can work your way up from entry level to executive are disappearing. The only one I am actually aware of that still promotes from within, even up to the top levels, is Publix.

ctdonath 13y ago

Plenty wrong. I've been in a country where: "You need me to work this weekend, and I'm happy to do so with no financial gain. I won't be on this continent for long, so I want to work what time I can to do the best job I can because I take pride in my work." "Don't you dare work this weekend. If you do, as your manager I risk criminal prosecution and jail time." That is absolutely unreasonable.