Economic MumboJumbo

[ThomWV]

Earlier today a coworker, a devout (and that is the word I meant to use) Republican, explained to me why it is to the benefit of workers, both employed and unemployed, that Federal requirements for who must be paid overtime be relaxed. This was his explanation: If overtime pay is not forthcomming people will refuse to work additional hours over the cutomary work week. This will force empolyers to hire additional workers.

I do not know where this bit of economic wisdom came from, I'm sure this idiot did not come up with it all by himself. Have any of you seen this nonsense anywhere?

Thom

God Bless Roberty Byrd

[Rainbowreflect]

1. Totally wrong.

If employers do not have to pay overtime they will keep fewer employees & make them work overtime. The employer saves on overtime pay & benefits they would have to pay to extra worker. And if you refuse to work overtime they can find someone who will.

[PeaceProgProsp]

2. The math and economics of overtime:

The less free time you have, the more you value it.

So, you may be prepared to sell 40 hours of your time each week at $X per hour. But once they start asking you to devote time that you need for your family, recreating, doing laundry, paying the bills, grocery shopping, etc., your employer better be willing to pay $(1.5(X)). In fact, I think that if you were in a position to negotiate with your employer, you'd want 1.5X for hours 41 to 50, 2X for hours 51 to 60, 2.25X for hours 61 to 70, etc. That's because the less time you have for other things every week, the more valuable the hours you have are.

It's pretty basic.

What the Republicans want to do is prevent people for getting paid what their time is worth to them. They want that extra value to pass to employers without the employers having to pay for the full value of that time.

This one is way to obvious.

[papau]

3. setting a condition of employment of working more than 40 hours is legal

in most places that I am aware of.

Indeed, everytime I turn around some company has set yet another GOP type "condition of employment".

It only lets them fire you more easily - with less cost on their unemployment premium.

The idea that folks rejecting overtime will force more hires is cute - today you year-end bonus is being allowed to work after the end of the year - and the response to saying no to overtime would be "a way will be found" to fire you - assuming you are non-union.

[camero]

4. "let's them fire you more easily"

Oh, yes. And as an added bonus, it keeps unemployment numbers down for BushCo. As people who get fired are denied unemployment and not counted as being a part of the labor force.