Originally posted by dadudemon
Right. Off topic, but I like the law about what overtime really is. More than 8 hours, overtime. Instead of more than 40 hours, it's more than 8 hours in a day.This stopped some very abusive practices and almost gerrymandering-like schedule packing and cracking to skirt around the 40 hour overtime cutoff.
I had to deal with the 8 hour rule when standing up an IT Site in LA. We had to do scheduling for a very large IT contract of the Federal Government. No overtime was allowed on the contract because the federal government peeps didn't want to pay it. So I had to staff in a way that satisfied the labor laws in all 3 sites I stood up.
It was certainly a logic puzzle of f*ckering in the beginning. But after I saw how abusive some of the other contracts could get with their 40 hour work week, it made sense. One of my employees, after someone reported the abusive cracking and packing of the schedules to get around the 40 hour a week limit, actually got a $6000 paycheck for back pay on overtime worked. He was a good employee. Came into work, did his job, and went home. But his time was certainly abused to get around the 40 hour thing.
So, yes, I agree with the 8 hour rule that CA has. It is a labor law put into place to protect exploited employees. Can't schedule someone to work two 16 hour days in a row but get around having to pay overtime just because the "work week" started anew! 😄 Brilliant and wonderful labor law.
The law isn't quite as cut and dry as you may think. It is possible to work over 8 hours a day without overtime. My gf has a government job and works 9 hour days, but she only works 4 days every other week. She does not get overtime pay. She chooses this schedule over the regular 8 hours 5 days a week schedule so she gets an extra day off. I don't know the specifics of the law, but it seems if employees sign off on working more than 8 hour days like my gf did, they do not get overtime pay as a result.
Originally posted by BackFire
The law isn't quite as cut and dry as you may think. It is possible to work over 8 hours a day without overtime. My gf has a government job and works 9 hour days, but she only works 4 days every other week. She does not get overtime pay. She chooses this schedule over the regular 8 hours 5 days a week schedule so she gets an extra day off. I don't know the specifics of the law, but it seems if employees sign off on working more than 8 hour days like my gf did, they do not get overtime pay as a result.
This is the exact case that can get around the rule: the employee has to sign-off on the schedule in very explicit terms.
There were several employees in CA who complained about not getting to work 4 days, 10 hour shifts. They loved it. So after 1 year where none of the CA employees getting to work 4-tens, we sent some ideas to legal and they said that it has to be in clear terms and signed by the employees that they want to work 4-tens. And we did it. So, yes, you're correct: that specific labor law is not ironclad and I'm quite sure people have been covertly threatened with termination if they did not sing-off their right to the 8+ hour overtime.
However, in general, I think this kind of law is a step in the correct direction. The libertarian side of me says that we shouldn't have laws like this and to let the employee and employer make their own rules. But the relationship, from the beginning, is very one-sided so there will never be equitable terms in these kinds of cases. Hence labor laws need to exist.
I mean, this issue kinda reflects the issues I have with both the social left and social right in regards to sex. My issue with the social right's stance on sex is that it's too authoritarian and puritan and shit, such as with "abstinence only sex-ed," weird attempts to legislate what sex activities are allowed, opposition to gay marriage, etc. This leads to people not being equipped with the knowledge needed to participate in safe sex. Whereas my issue with the social left's stance on sex is that it's too swept up in "sexual liberation" to consider the necessity of sexual responsibility, which is apparent with being so sex-positive as to celebrate sex and suggest that discouraging casual sex is ****-shaming, or the people who are outraged when a pro-life person suggests that nobody is forcing anyone else to have a baby and that people should simply be responsible about and for their sexual activities. This dangerous attitude leads to the growing single motherhood rate.
As Jordan Peterson put it, we're not mature enough as a society to have an open an honest conversation about what the proper place of sex in our society should be.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean, this issue kinda reflects the issues I have with both the social left and social right in regards to sex. My issue with the social right's stance on sex is that it's too authoritarian and puritan and shit, such as with "abstinence only sex-ed," weird attempts to legislate what sex activities are allowed, opposition to gay marriage, etc. This leads to people not being equipped with the knowledge needed to participate in safe sex. Whereas my issue with the social left's stance on sex is that it's too swept up in "sexual liberation" to consider the necessity of sexual responsibility, which is apparent with being so sex-positive as to celebrate sex and suggest that discouraging casual sex is ****-shaming, or the people who are outraged when a pro-life person suggests that nobody is forcing anyone else to have a baby and that people should simply be responsible about and for their sexual activities. This dangerous attitude leads to the growing single motherhood rate.As Jordan Peterson put it, we're not mature enough as a society to have an open an honest conversation about what the proper place of sex in our society should be.
I mean you reflect more or less about how I feel when it comes to casual sex, etc. I'm not looking for a virgin, but nor am I looking for the town pump.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the exact case that can get around the rule: the employee has to sign-off on the schedule in very explicit terms.There were several employees in CA who complained about not getting to work 4 days, 10 hour shifts. They loved it. So after 1 year where none of the CA employees getting to work 4-tens, we sent some ideas to legal and they said that it has to be in clear terms and signed by the employees that they want to work 4-tens. And we did it. So, yes, you're correct: that specific labor law is not ironclad and I'm quite sure people have been covertly threatened with termination if they did not sing-off their right to the 8+ hour overtime.
However, in general, I think this kind of law is a step in the correct direction. The libertarian side of me says that we shouldn't have laws like this and to let the employee and employer make their own rules. But the relationship, from the beginning, is very one-sided so there will never be equitable terms in these kinds of cases. Hence labor laws need to exist.
Definitely. It's good to have a choice, my gf loves getting an extra day off every other week so I'm glad the option exists. It seems like a pretty cool deal.
Originally posted by Surtur
These days it does. Some feminists think if you f*ck a dude and regret it...it is rape, the girl got raped.So damn, by that logic I've been raped by fat chicks.
This reminds me of this young girls talking and they firmly believed that U.S Colleges are now the RAPE capitols of the World...so yea..Bring on the Sex Bots.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean, this issue kinda reflects the issues I have with both the social left and social right in regards to sex. My issue with the social right's stance on sex is that it's too authoritarian and puritan and shit, such as with "abstinence only sex-ed," weird attempts to legislate what sex activities are allowed, opposition to gay marriage, etc. This leads to people not being equipped with the knowledge needed to participate in safe sex. Whereas my issue with the social left's stance on sex is that it's too swept up in "sexual liberation" to consider the necessity of sexual responsibility, which is apparent with being so sex-positive as to celebrate sex and suggest that discouraging casual sex is ****-shaming, or the people who are outraged when a pro-life person suggests that nobody is forcing anyone else to have a baby and that people should simply be responsible about and for their sexual activities. This dangerous attitude leads to the growing single motherhood rate.As Jordan Peterson put it, we're not mature enough as a society to have an open an honest conversation about what the proper place of sex in our society should be.
We're a society of selfish assholes.
One side doesn't want to be told who, when, where, or how to ****,,and the other side doesn't want to pay for their kids (And honestly, both sides don't want to pay. It's just one is willing to put the burdon on society, while the other just doesn't want to pay for society..)
Originally posted by Surtur
Also includes people who donate blood and do not disclose they have HIV. Just awesome. I know some leftist here will try to defend this, I know it. I await the insanity.
Didn't take long to show that you don't really give a shit about people being knowingly infected with HIV but just want to attack imaginary leftist stances.
Unsurprising.