The Part Time Overtime Bill

[fmw]

The Part Time Overtime Bill:

I always liked a job where you could get overtime, sixty hours a week and roll in the cash, but people working two or three jobs are not getting paid for their overtime. That is why I suggest the Part Time Overtime Bill, where part time employers have to pay overtime for their percentage of the Bill. Here's how it works; one employer give forty hours another twenty, one pays ten hours in overtime, the other five. Sunday through Saturday, if you can collect more than forty hours.

Another problem is that all that overtime puts you in a higher income bracket, so all your overtime goes to pay taxes. So maybe it's time for a flat tax?

No it is time to convince federal government to refrain from trying to run businesses. It is addicted to power and control and that power and control often gets out of proper lane.

 

[jonny5]

The Part Time Overtime Bill:

I always liked a job where you could get overtime, sixty hours a week and roll in the cash, but people working two or three jobs are not getting paid for their overtime. That is why I suggest the Part Time Overtime Bill, where part time employers have to pay overtime for their percentage of the Bill. Here's how it works; one employer give forty hours another twenty, one pays ten hours in overtime, the other five. Sunday through Saturday, if you can collect more than forty hours.

Another problem is that all that overtime puts you in a higher income bracket, so all your overtime goes to pay taxes. So maybe it's time for a flat tax?

Im with you on flat tax, but why should anyone be paid forced to pay overtime? I see how it benefits you, but whats the employer get out of that?

 

[Exquisitor]

Im with you on flat tax, but why should anyone be paid forced to pay overtime? I see how it benefits you, but whats the employer get out of that?

Why should employers be forced to pay at all, why not have slave labor?

 

[Galactic Spin]

Nah. Definitely not time for a flat tax.

Hahaha worst economic idea in modern history

 

[jonny5]

Why should employers be forced to pay at all, why not have slave labor?

Because forcing people to work would also be wrong. Now why should employers be forced to pay overtime? What do they get out of it?

 

[Exquisitor]

Because forcing people to work would also be wrong. Now why should employers be forced to pay overtime? What do they get out of it?

An employer has to pay overtime after 40 hours, what do they get out of it?

 

[WorldWatcher]

An employer has to pay overtime after 40 hours, what do they get out of it?

In limited circumstances** paying overtime is cheaper then hiring another employee. There are employer costs associated with staffing (recruiting and hiring new employees) and an additional employee actually costs the employer about 1.3 times the employees salary in total compensation (paid time off, additional employer paid taxes, workers compensations fees, benefits, etc.). So paying and existing employee 1.5 times their normal rate over 40 hours is really close to break even considering there are no additional paid time off, workers comp, and benefits considerations. And where the situation doesn't call for the addition of long term staff because of a short term need, overtime is actually useful to the employer.

**Limited circumstances being such things as:

• A co-worker is out sick, on vacation, or dealing with the death of a family member,
• Special project surge of a short duration,
• Time sensitive call back work that can't wait for a normal shift.

The downside of using overtime for long term solutions though is that the employer is in danger for two primary considerations. First employee burnout, where the employee continues to work but actually becomes less productive because of mental and physical stress. Secondly, the experienced employee is likely to look for work with another employer where they may receive better compensation (wages and benefits) without the stress of constant overtime requirements. That has a negative impact on the current employer because of higher than normal turn over of employees.

WW

 

[Exquisitor]

In limited circumstances** paying overtime is cheaper then hiring another employee. There are employer costs associated with staffing (recruiting and hiring new employees) and an additional employee actually costs the employer about 1.3 times the employees salary in total compensation (paid time off, additional employer paid taxes, workers compensations fees, benefits, etc.). So paying and existing employee 1.5 times their normal rate over 40 hours is really close to break even considering there are no additional paid time off, workers comp, and benefits considerations. And where the situation doesn't call for the addition of long term staff because of a short term need, overtime is actually useful to the employer.

**Limited circumstances being such things as:

• A co-worker is out sick, on vacation, or dealing with the death of a family member,
• Special project surge of a short duration,
• Time sensitive call back work that can't wait for a normal shift.

The downside of using overtime for long term solutions though is that the employer is in danger for two primary considerations. First employee burnout, where the employee continues to work but actually becomes less productive because of mental and physical stress. Secondly, the experienced employee is likely to look for work with another employer where they may receive better compensation (wages and benefits) without the stress of constant overtime requirements. That has a negative impact on the current employer because of higher than normal turn over of employees.

WW

Part Time Overtime would encourage more full and overtime employment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Part Time Overtime would encourage more full and overtime employment.

That makes no sense. Part time employees, those working less than 40 hours per week, don’t get overtime from their employer.

WW

 

[Exquisitor]

That makes no sense. Part time employees, those working less than 40 hours per week, don’t get overtime from their employer.

WW

Employers hire part time, because they don't want to pay overtime and benefits, but if they had to pay a percentage of overtime, they might just give them the hours themselves.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Employers hire part time, because they don't want to pay overtime and benefits, but if they had to pay a percentage of overtime, they might just give them the hours themselves.

Agreed.

It is oven prudent for an employer to hire a part time employee when there are certain full time employees that have to work overtime in a long haul situation. But as a part time employee that person isn't going to be working overtime.

You asked earlier: "An employer has to pay overtime after 40 hours, what do they get out of it?" for which an answer was given.

Under your scenario where and employer has to pay overtime because an employee works for someone else - in such a case - that employer gets absolutely no benefit had in fact it has a negative impact draining resources for no benefit to the employer or their customers.

WW

 

[jonny5]

An employer has to pay overtime after 40 hours, what do they get out of it?

Thats what Im asking.

 

[jonny5]

In limited circumstances** paying overtime is cheaper then hiring another employee. There are employer costs associated with staffing (recruiting and hiring new employees) and an additional employee actually costs the employer about 1.3 times the employees salary in total compensation (paid time off, additional employer paid taxes, workers compensations fees, benefits, etc.). So paying and existing employee 1.5 times their normal rate over 40 hours is really close to break even considering there are no additional paid time off, workers comp, and benefits considerations. And where the situation doesn't call for the addition of long term staff because of a short term need, overtime is actually useful to the employer.

**Limited circumstances being such things as:

• A co-worker is out sick, on vacation, or dealing with the death of a family member,
• Special project surge of a short duration,
• Time sensitive call back work that can't wait for a normal shift.

The downside of using overtime for long term solutions though is that the employer is in danger for two primary considerations. First employee burnout, where the employee continues to work but actually becomes less productive because of mental and physical stress. Secondly, the experienced employee is likely to look for work with another employer where they may receive better compensation (wages and benefits) without the stress of constant overtime requirements. That has a negative impact on the current employer because of higher than normal turn over of employees.

WW

If thats the case, why force them?