Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Old 10-03-10, 05:09 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,895
Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

How many jobs would be created if it was illegal to work overtime(except for salaried workers) in the US? Instead of paying someone 30 bucks an hour to work OT-a new worker could work at 12 bucks an hour(saving the company 18 bucks an hour). The paid benefits provided by the employer would be a major problem except with the talk of national health care-it might not be afterall. It might be a problem for high skilled jobs but the people working on salary wouldn't be effected and working more than 40 hrs would be the norm anyways for most of them.
dvd-4-life is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 05:42 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,004
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Believe me, jobs would be lost, as companies would not be able to work as efficiently as they do now.

Many of these ideas sound great, but the fact of the matter is that free markets allocate scarce resources in the most efficient way. There certainly are some very good reasons to interfere with free markets (e.g. to establish minimum living standards), but a free market should be the rule, and interferences should be the exceptions to this rule and therefore should be well explained.
Mark_vdH is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 06:03 PM
  #3  
Moderator
 
TheBigDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,733
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

It might create more jobs. But they'll be filled by people that were previously working overtime and now require a second job. The guy that was working 50 hours per week (40 regular + 10 overtime) will have to work 65 hour per week (40 regular + 25 at second job) to make the same pay.
TheBigDave is online now  
Old 10-03-10, 07:15 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,895
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by Mark_vdH View Post
Believe me, jobs would be lost, as companies would not be able to work as efficiently as they do now.

Many of these ideas sound great, but the fact of the matter is that free markets allocate scarce resources in the most efficient way. There certainly are some very good reasons to interfere with free markets (e.g. to establish minimum living standards), but a free market should be the rule, and interferences should be the exceptions to this rule and therefore should be well explained.
Tired employees do nothing but harm a companies efficiency. I worked overtime for 28 yrs and after 8 hrs the slower I would get and make more mistakes. It would take time for new employees to get into the groove.
dvd-4-life is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 07:17 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,895
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by TheBigDave View Post
It might create more jobs. But they'll be filled by people that were previously working overtime and now require a second job. The guy that was working 50 hours per week (40 regular + 10 overtime) will have to work 65 hour per week (40 regular + 25 at second job) to make the same pay.
If you need to work more than 40 hrs a week to survive,then you are living beyond your means.
dvd-4-life is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 07:34 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Words
Posts: 28,207
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

The unions would rather burn every business to the ground than accept a job without overtime and cushy benefits.
NotThatGuy is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 07:34 PM
  #7  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,839
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

In general, it would take a lot of overtime to create one new job. Especially when you factor in benefits, etc.
Groucho is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 07:48 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,045
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Employers are not interested in creating jobs. They see wages as a necessary evil, no different than taxes. I don't know why people insist that bending over backwards for business is going to change this atmosphere anytime soon.
Jason is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 07:51 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 122,918
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Unions. Sucking up. Nuff said. Close the thread.
Red Dog is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 09:02 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 24,780
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by dvd-4-life View Post
How many jobs would be created if it was illegal to work overtime(except for salaried workers) in the US? Instead of paying someone 30 bucks an hour to work OT-a new worker could work at 12 bucks an hour(saving the company 18 bucks an hour). The paid benefits provided by the employer would be a major problem except with the talk of national health care-it might not be afterall. It might be a problem for high skilled jobs but the people working on salary wouldn't be effected and working more than 40 hrs would be the norm anyways for most of them.
Your math on time and half is quite fascinating.
DVD Josh is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 09:21 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Troy Stiffler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Under an I-10 Overpass
Posts: 21,405
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

As an employer, here's my take... People who are unemployed largely suck at their jobs. If you can't get a job right now, it's because employers are worrying a little more about their money, and apprehensive about hiring people who are questionable. When everything was booming, they didn't care - they were looser and let their hiring people hire whoever.

So, people who work overtime are mostly devoted workers. They're people who need the money, enjoy their job, or just like the idea of working long and hard. If the government were to 'ban overtime', those overtime workers would go out an get second jobs. They're work close to the same amount of hours - maybe a little more - and make just as much money. And the devoted workers would still get the jobs before the deadbeats.
Troy Stiffler is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 09:22 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,895
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by DVD Josh View Post
Your math on time and half is quite fascinating.
If you make 30 bucks an hour working OT ,that means you make 20 bucks an hour straight time. Paying someone straight time at 12 bucks an hour is a hell of alot cheaper than paying a tired and overworked worker 30 bucks an hour .A new employee would start making less than an experienced employee(unless he was a college football or basketball player).
dvd-4-life is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 09:30 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,895
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by troystiffler View Post
As an employer, here's my take... People who are unemployed largely suck at their jobs. If you can't get a job right now, it's because employers are worrying a little more about their money, and apprehensive about hiring people who are questionable. When everything was booming, they didn't care - they were looser and let their hiring people hire whoever.

So, people who work overtime are mostly devoted workers. They're people who need the money, enjoy their job, or just like the idea of working long and hard. If the government were to 'ban overtime', those overtime workers would go out an get second jobs. They're work close to the same amount of hours - maybe a little more - and make just as much money. And the devoted workers would still get the jobs before the deadbeats.
Do employers like to hire people who already have a full time job elsewhere and whose hrs would be limited and troublesome due to having another fulltime job? Working part-time might be different.
dvd-4-life is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 09:34 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 6,306
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by dvd-4-life View Post
If you make 30 bucks an hour working OT ,that means you make 20 bucks an hour straight time. Paying someone straight time at 12 bucks an hour is a hell of alot cheaper than paying a tired and overworked worker 30 bucks an hour .A new employee would start making less than an experienced employee(unless he was a college football or basketball player).
As an employer, that's why I instruct my managers to schedule accordingly so people don't go into overtime. Luckily I'm not in a very skilled business so it's not like there are a couple people that are so good at their job that they need to work all the hours or the business will implode.

No way in Hell do I want to pay somebody $15 an hour for doing something that somebody else at $10 an hour could easily do.

Now, I guess you're just up shit creek if there's only a couple people that can accomplish certain tasks and in order to get those tasks accomplished those couple people need to work overtime, but my response to that would be to train more people to do those tasks. Instead of having to pay overtime to the 2 people that know how to do something, train 2 more people and divide up the hours among 4 rather than 2 people and then there's no overtime.
whoopdido is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 09:36 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Troy Stiffler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Under an I-10 Overpass
Posts: 21,405
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Employers are not interested in creating jobs. They see wages as a necessary evil, no different than taxes. I don't know why people insist that bending over backwards for business is going to change this atmosphere anytime soon.
Maybe if you work for a big, faceless company. I'm always buying stuff for my tech or assistant to work on - even if the profit is minimal. I'd rather keep them busy than send them home.
Troy Stiffler is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 10:13 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,045
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by troystiffler View Post
Maybe if you work for a big, faceless company. I'm always buying stuff for my tech or assistant to work on - even if the profit is minimal. I'd rather keep them busy than send them home.
Unfortunately, those aren't the kind of jobs business and politicians talk about when they talk about the job creation shell game.
Jason is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 10:31 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,535
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by dvd-4-life View Post
If you need to work more than 40 hrs a week to survive,then you are living beyond your means.
Someone earning $8/hr and working fulltime will only pull in $320 per week, which works out to ~$1300/month, before taxes. I don't know about where you live, but around here that'll barely cover rent, let alone food, utilities, and automotive needs. For a wage-earner to reach the unimpressive $30k/yr level, he'd need to earn $14.42/hr, which is just about twice the minimum wage.

On top of that, many people who work two jobs aren't fulltime at either -- for hourly employees in the current economy, fulltime work is the holy grail; most places, far from throwing out overtime willy-nilly, try to keep employees under 40 hours.
Sean O'Hara is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 10:41 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 24,780
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by dvd-4-life View Post
If you make 30 bucks an hour working OT ,that means you make 20 bucks an hour straight time. Paying someone straight time at 12 bucks an hour is a hell of alot cheaper than paying a tired and overworked worker 30 bucks an hour .A new employee would start making less than an experienced employee(unless he was a college football or basketball player).
This logic is nonsensical. Why not just dump the person making 20 bucks an hour straight time, for the guy who will make $12 an hour? Then dump that guy for a guy who will work for $6 an hour?
DVD Josh is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 10:48 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,895
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by DVD Josh View Post
This logic is nonsensical. Why not just dump the person making 20 bucks an hour straight time, for the guy who will make $12 an hour? Then dump that guy for a guy who will work for $6 an hour?
Read #14, I guess thats not logical either.
dvd-4-life is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 10:50 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,895
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by DVD Josh View Post
This logic is nonsensical. Why not just dump the person making 20 bucks an hour straight time, for the guy who will make $12 an hour? Then dump that guy for a guy who will work for $6 an hour?
The Pittsburgh Pirates have been doing this for the last 17 yrs and have been making money doing it,upsetting the baseball purists.
dvd-4-life is offline  
Old 10-03-10, 10:54 PM
  #21  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,839
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by DVD Josh View Post
This logic is nonsensical. Why not just dump the person making 20 bucks an hour straight time, for the guy who will make $12 an hour? Then dump that guy for a guy who will work for $6 an hour?
Joke's on you. I know a guy who will do it for $5.
Groucho is offline  
Old 10-04-10, 03:09 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: in Bush territory!
Posts: 11,613
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Won't be long before half of all service sector jobs are worked by nothing but part-time employees. Just another cost cutting measure as businesses continue to shed benefits.
wabio is offline  
Old 10-04-10, 05:52 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,430
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

Originally Posted by pedagogue View Post
The unions would rather burn every business to the ground than accept a job without overtime and cushy benefits.
Don't worry. If such a stupid law is ever passed, the unions will get a waiver from their minions.
crazyronin is offline  
Old 10-04-10, 03:28 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 27,666
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

There was an article earlier this year from the LA Times about how, to save money, they initiated furloughs, which enabled some nurses to get "raises" due to overtime:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar...ime7-2010mar07
Overtime pay may be putting a dent in state's furlough savings
Furloughs are expected to save the state $1.2 billion this fiscal year. But last year some workers more than offset those cuts with increased overtime.
March 06, 2010|By Patrick McGreevy

Reporting from Sacramento — Like many other state employees, prison nurse Nellie Larot was hit last year with furloughs that cut her salary: It dropped $10,000, to $92,000.

But she more than made up for it by working extra shifts, raking in $177,512 in overtime, according to state records. Her total $270,000 in earnings last year eclipsed the $225,000 paid to Matthew Cate, head of the entire state prison system.



Despite Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to furlough workers three days a month to save money, many employees are taking home paychecks fattened by overtime -- more than $1 billion of it last year.

The total overtime paid in 2009 actually dropped slightly, by $64 million from the year before. But it was up from the $808 million paid in 2005 and $598 million in 2004.

"People want more money," said Larot. The furloughs, which began in February 2009, cut her monthly pay by many hundreds of dollars. Without overtime, she said, "it would be a hardship."

Records show that the top 50 recipients of overtime last year each received more than $100,000 in extra compensation. Most were from the departments of corrections and mental health, which account for more than half of the overtime doled out by state agencies; 35 of the top 50 were registered nurses.

Other top earners include prison guard Lt. Randall Rowland, who collected $133,000 in overtime pay, and California Highway Patrol Officer Kerry Comphel, who received $127,000.

The rising overtime "is unfathomable," said Jon Coupal, president of the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. "It just shows the extraordinary disconnect between the public sector and the real world. No business would operate this way."

State Auditor Elaine Howle has also raised red flags. A review by her office found that more than 100 nurses and psychiatric workers on the state payroll had at least doubled their salaries with overtime, working as many as 90 hours a week.

Two nurses at Napa State Hospital were paid more than $1.3 million combined in overtime during a five-year period ending in mid-2008, Howle found. Beyond the cost to taxpayers, Howle worried that large amounts of overtime could impair nurses' performance and jeopardize patients.

"It needs to be better managed so you don't have employees working significant amounts of overtime and potentially raising health and safety issues," Howle said in an interview.

The auditor had warned in October that furloughs and layoffs would probably increase overtime costs in some agencies, and she called for the state to renegotiate its union contracts to set caps.

Nancy Lyerla, a leader of the largest union representing state nurses, noted that some medical and mental health facilities have to be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. She said the union had warned state officials that furloughs would create staffing gaps that would have to be filled by employees working overtime at time-and-a-half pay.


"They didn't look at what it costs to replace the people on furlough," Lyerla said.

The effect of the furloughs is to cut most workers' regular pay by about 14%, and the state expects to save $1.2 billion this way in the current fiscal year. But on an individual basis, furloughs have not always saved money.

The unpaid time off saves the state $13,650 annually in pay to Larot, but her overtime last year went up nearly twice that amount -- by $25,000 -- from the year before.

Schwarzenegger, who ordered the furloughs to reduce a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall, has taken steps to reduce overtime, his representatives said. The governor signed legislation last year stopping employees from receiving overtime pay in weeks when they also take leave time. He also directed department heads to manage the furloughs so that they do not result in overtime.

Still, "there are some facilities that require 24/7 coverage," said Aaron McLear, a spokesman for the governor.

That is the case where Larot works, in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy. She "legitimately earned" her overtime, with much of it spent overseeing newly admitted inmates on suicide watch, according to Luis Patino Jr., a spokesman for the California Prison Health Care Receivership.

Patino described Larot as "an exemplary employee who takes time off when necessary to maintain her safety and well-being and that of the inmates under her watch."

Howle's audit found that other sites, including wards at Napa State Hospital, frequently overstaffed their shifts. Mental health officials said some units did not accurately report patient and staffing needs to the central office that gives work assignments, and Howle said a consultant should be hired to evaluate whether common staffing levels are justified.

"Overtime has been gamed in California for decades," said Coupal. "Clearly there is a lack of oversight. This needs to be clamped down."

Larot dismissed criticism that employees are taking advantage of a broken system.

"I don't know why people are complaining about the overtime. We work the overtime," she said. "I don't think it's anybody's business."
So basically she made 177,000 in overtime, up 25,000, so even without the furloughs she was making about 150 grand in overtime over and above her base pay. Obviously nursing is a skilled profession, but is there really that huge of a shortage of nurses? They could hire almost two more nurses at her base pay grade...
fujishig is offline  
Old 10-04-10, 05:46 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 19,045
Re: Creating jobs(banning overtime?)

I wouldn't want to be a prison nurse for $270,000, even if that was the base salary.

A more interesting figure would be the total amount California pays out in overtime. A few (and yes, 50 is a few) people pulling in 6 digits aren't wrecking the entire state's budget, even though it does look very bad.
Jason is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.