e-petition to sign

claire16c

LadyMissA wrote: »

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?

Ive had a look on the US labor website and it looks like salaried jobs are exempted. Along with lots of other exceptions. i.e anyone who earns over $100,000 a year, anyone in a 'professional' 'executive' or 'administrative' job, also it seems like if you earn over $455 a week. Its pretty complicated and I cant be bothered to read into it more, but I get the impression it mainly applies to minimum wage hourly type jobs.



Anyway - this is one law in the US that the OP thinks is great - but what about the fact most employees there only get about 2 weeks holiday. Lots dont get sick pay. And then theres the massive health insurance issue.

SarEl

tricky1992000 wrote: »

like i said, the US has had such a law since 1938.

No, actually, they haven't. The full provisions of the Act did were not introduced until 1949 as a result of WW2, and during the intervening period not only was overtime pay not regulated but neither was the "national minimum wage" enforced. The Act also does not apply to all employees, nor to all employers, and like much labour law in the US, it is more observed by being ignored or got around, than by its observance.

Whilst I have some sympathy with your basic argument, there is no evidenced correlation between employment conditions and successful economies - good employment conditions do not create successful economies. Increased costs to employers simply mean increased costs to cutomers. The correlation is actually between scarcity of labour and good employment conditions - employers are forced to offer better conditions when they are in competition for labour.

Evilm

This assumes you can make another position to cover the overtime. I know that a lot of places I have worked where the overtime is necessary 1 week a month and the rest of the month (if you had two people in order to cover the hours) they would be forced to do part time to keep both people steeped in the role for when they have to cover overtime. In some roles they need only one person to do it to maintain consistency and and its not a role they can split duties or have an effective 'job share' without spending a lot of extra time catching up on what the other person does.

Bobl

You would need very complicated rules to state who this applies to. As a 'professional' I often work up to 80 hours per week with no extra remuneration, that's just the way it is and depends on the demands of the job at the time, other times I have a quiet week and can work far less, I still get paid.