e-petition to sign

tricky1992000

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

So what you're saying is that if companies were forced to pay time and a half for overtime; people would do the overtime and increase their salary. That in turn would tell employers that they can avoid this by employing more staff; the new staff would then cost them more as they'd have to pay employers NI, holiday pay and sick pay etc. They'd also have to create enough work (40 hours a week) to justify having the additional member of staff.
The existing staff would then only do their standard hours and lose out on pay (standard rate or time and a half) because there's no overtime.

When this system is in place we could be like America and risking bankruptcy?


Great plan, how much time did you put into thinking about it? or do you just want your boss to pay you time and a half?

like i said, the US has had such a law since 1938, the US debts are not linked to this, i would actually point the finger at military spending. I can take the point on board about extra NI payments etc, but an employer can have a more productive fresh worker, rather than two tired stressed out workers.

LadyMissA

tricky1992000 wrote: »

A labour law like this would provide an incentive for people to take overtime, this would add to GDP,

Its more likely to make some people not work hard during the day in order to get the overtime therefore putting a strain on the company for no extra work.

tricky1992000

You know, i remember hearing similar arguments before the introduction of the minimum wage, that it was going to cost jobs, etc etc. But this did not happen, what happened is people got paid more, they spent more, created services, wanted manufactured goods, had more holidays, it was a boost to the economy, not a hindrance. I am simply not convinced of the arguments against incentivising people to work more, and that is the key to growth.

LadyMissA

tricky1992000 wrote: »

You know, i remember hearing similar arguments before the introduction of the minimum wage, that it was going to cost jobs, etc etc. But this did not happen, what happened is people got paid more, they spent more, created services, wanted manufactured goods, had more holidays, it was a boost to the economy, not a hindrance. I am simply not convinced of the arguments against incentivising people to work more, and that is the key to growth.

How is it to make them work more when you are making them work less? Less work in the day leads to overtime paid at time and a half.

LadyMissA

meer53 wrote: »

Don't some employers pay this anyway ? I can't do overtime because of childcare so don't really know what rates are paid.

I have no idea but I know of a few who pay no overtime

LadyMissA

tricky1992000 wrote: »

most supermarkets have time and a half rate for working sundays, do you pay 50% more for your groceries then?

All salaries are taken into account with prices in the shops or the supermarkets wouldn't be making a profit, would they?

ILW

tricky1992000 wrote: »

You know, i remember hearing similar arguments before the introduction of the minimum wage, that it was going to cost jobs, etc etc. But this did not happen, what happened is people got paid more, they spent more, created services, wanted manufactured goods, had more holidays, it was a boost to the economy, not a hindrance. I am simply not convinced of the arguments against incentivising people to work more, and that is the key to growth.

If incentive is the problem, cutting benefits would be more effective.

scheming_gypsy

tricky1992000 wrote: »

like i said, the US has had such a law since 1938, the US debts are not linked to this, i would actually point the finger at military spending. I can take the point on board about extra NI payments etc, but an employer can have a more productive fresh worker, rather than two tired stressed out workers.

but necessary overtime isn't regular or they'd just take on agency staff - which again would save on some of the costs. Overtime is usually done when and if needed, so to create a new position there'd have to be guaranteed 40 hours overtime every week - constantly.
If there is 40 hours guaranteed overtime and two people are splitting it between them at basic rate, they lose a weeks wage every fortnight.

LadyMissA

tricky1992000

Is the law in the USA for salaried staff or just hourly and weekly paid? I am sure it's not for salaried staff and I think you will find here hourly rated staff get paid for the hours they work (yes ok just at time) but salaried staff could do overtime with no extra pay. IS this what you are getting at - all staff get time and a half, or just hourly rated and weekly paid?

dickydonkin

I submitted an E Petition earlier this week seeking a vote of no confidence in this 'government' and called for an immediate general election.

Unsurprisingly, I received an email today informing me that my petition would not be posted.:(