March 19th, 2015 at 5:34 AM
So here in the US, anything over 40 hours requires 1.5 times your regularly paid rate for those extra hours. I personally am not a fan. It really discourages people from hiring employees to work more than 40 hours, and with today's wages as far as "minimum wage jobs" (with "minimum wage jobs" really meaning anything less than about $10/hour or so), you can't really make good money working 40 hours/week.
What results? People work two jobs to get 50 hours/week rather than just working 50 hours/week at one job. It's a lot more stressful to work two jobs, especially when you end up with scheduling conflicts, and you can't commit as easily to one job. That said, it has its advantages too. It's easy to pick up a ton of hours when you need them, and you have a backup plan if you get fired from one job. I've done the whole two jobs thing before, and I've seen the advantages and disadvantages first-hand.
I'm paid just under $10/hour right now, which is good for what I do, but it definitely puts me in the lower working class for sure. That, my friends, is why I'm in college. However, the real struggle comes in when you end up working 36 hours/week because they want to keep a buffer to prevent you from reaching 40 hours. That's 10% of your monthly income that you lose all because they can't risk letting you go into so much as one hour of overtime.
I can't really make the best case against raising minimum wage at least a bit, considering 7.25 is not enough at all to support yourself at 40 hours/week unless you get very creative. However, the 10.15/hour minimum wage seems excessive to me because a large part of the market can't support it, and yes, I have worked minimum wage jobs before. I know exactly how it feels, and in my opinion, the other solution for the average worker is to, well, work more. More work = more productivity = a better America, and when people have to get two jobs because they can't work the 45 hours they need at one job, or they get scheduled 36 hours/week instead of 40, it gets rough. (Not saying 40 hours/week isn't the ideal, but the fact remains. Many of America's lower working class industries can't afford the upcoming $10+/hour minimum wage, and Americans can't afford to work for lower wages and to only get 40 hours/week. )
This thread is in the mature discussions section primarily because this is where most debates end up landing, so just for the sake of consistency, it's posted here. Anyway, what is your general opinion on overtime pay? Should it remain at 40 hours, have the 40 hour limit raised, or be removed altogether to let the market do its own thing? Are the labor regulation laws something that could be considered a good thing?
EDIT: I feel I should clarify my own personal point of view here as well. If a company requires you to work 70+ hours a week, I think that could be considered excessive with today's cost of living, even at low wages such as $8.25/hour that is commonly paid for many lower class jobs. I personally feel the definition of full time should remain, but that the requirements for overtime pay should be adjusted. I do see a huge difference between working 45-50 hours/week at one job, and working 70 hours/week, for example.
What results? People work two jobs to get 50 hours/week rather than just working 50 hours/week at one job. It's a lot more stressful to work two jobs, especially when you end up with scheduling conflicts, and you can't commit as easily to one job. That said, it has its advantages too. It's easy to pick up a ton of hours when you need them, and you have a backup plan if you get fired from one job. I've done the whole two jobs thing before, and I've seen the advantages and disadvantages first-hand.
I'm paid just under $10/hour right now, which is good for what I do, but it definitely puts me in the lower working class for sure. That, my friends, is why I'm in college. However, the real struggle comes in when you end up working 36 hours/week because they want to keep a buffer to prevent you from reaching 40 hours. That's 10% of your monthly income that you lose all because they can't risk letting you go into so much as one hour of overtime.
I can't really make the best case against raising minimum wage at least a bit, considering 7.25 is not enough at all to support yourself at 40 hours/week unless you get very creative. However, the 10.15/hour minimum wage seems excessive to me because a large part of the market can't support it, and yes, I have worked minimum wage jobs before. I know exactly how it feels, and in my opinion, the other solution for the average worker is to, well, work more. More work = more productivity = a better America, and when people have to get two jobs because they can't work the 45 hours they need at one job, or they get scheduled 36 hours/week instead of 40, it gets rough. (Not saying 40 hours/week isn't the ideal, but the fact remains. Many of America's lower working class industries can't afford the upcoming $10+/hour minimum wage, and Americans can't afford to work for lower wages and to only get 40 hours/week. )
This thread is in the mature discussions section primarily because this is where most debates end up landing, so just for the sake of consistency, it's posted here. Anyway, what is your general opinion on overtime pay? Should it remain at 40 hours, have the 40 hour limit raised, or be removed altogether to let the market do its own thing? Are the labor regulation laws something that could be considered a good thing?
EDIT: I feel I should clarify my own personal point of view here as well. If a company requires you to work 70+ hours a week, I think that could be considered excessive with today's cost of living, even at low wages such as $8.25/hour that is commonly paid for many lower class jobs. I personally feel the definition of full time should remain, but that the requirements for overtime pay should be adjusted. I do see a huge difference between working 45-50 hours/week at one job, and working 70 hours/week, for example.
