Plan B Forum

Hello corporate overlords.

Recent changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act regulations may be the first to fall under the Trumpanzee administration. That means approximately 20,000,000 blue collar workers who voted for the President-elect could be affected. Yep, based on exit polling, 41% of his 61 million voters make under $47,000, and would no longer be required to be paid time and a half for hours worked over 40 if the regulations are rolled back. Both the head Trumpanzee and several House leaders have pointed to these rules as top of the line to be repealed in the hours following the inauguration.

Yes, definitely making "America" great again for the men and women who work their asses off. I wonder if those 20,000,000 voters will get the message when their paychecks contract, and their tax rates go up.

only for management, right?

the other overtime rules would stay the same as they have been since I was a teen and first got overtime pay.

or are you saying that trump will do away with all overtime rules

all you do is have to make the right deal with your boss.

if you want salary work you don t get overtime. if you want to remain hourly, you negotiate that with your boss as you are promoted to management.

it is all negotiable.

disinformation. how reaganesque......

No you ignorant ass - I don't spread disinformation, the reality is scary enough.

The details of how OT is paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are set by regulation. The Obama administration issued new regulations that recently raised the pay requirement that makes an employee exempt I.e., ineligible for overtime --- thus making overtime pay available for more hourly workers than before and raising their take home pay. For the line workers. Management isn't eligible for OT because of their job duties.

Trump intends to revoke those new OT rules, taking away that additional pay for tens of millions of workers who make less than $47,000.

Wes doesn't know what he's talking about?

Don't worry, soon there will be lots of manufacturing jobs coming back to America! It's going to be boom times for the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory!

That may be a bit too subtle, Sue......

Oh and FWIW, legally (whether the employer complies or not is a separate issue) an employee CANNOT WAIVE or CONTRACT AWAY his or her rights under the FLSA. So no, as a matter of law, it is not at all "negotiable." Any employee that "negotiates" their rights under the FLSA (even under collective bargaining) is getting screwed.

Kinda like the trumpanzees.......

well, in our steel shop, smart supervisors declined a salary, when offered, and remained hourly.

they ended up making more, as they regularly worked 60 hr weeks.

god forbid people work things out on their own tho.....

lawyers....

and , tho it went away at the end, there was an unwritten rule around here that employees didn t sue the boss when they hurt themselves and the boss didn t run them off after they were hurt.

it sure didn t apply in MA at the shop there tho....

MA is lawsuit heaven.

some kids weren t even allowed to play outside because the parents were afraid that their neighbor would sue them if their kid got a bloody nose or fell out of a tree and broke their arm or something.

it was sad.

thanks lawyers!!!

Yes please, lets blame the lawyers, who give advice to employees on how they are getting screwed by the for-profit companies who are always looking for a way to make another buck (usually at the expense of its employees).

wesw wrote:there was an unwritten rule around here that employees didn t sue the boss when they hurt themselves

Uh, yeah, it's called worker's comp. It means employees don't have to sue their employers when they are injured on the job in order to get paid. Most civilized countries have had it for a hundred years or more.

Scooter wrote:

wesw wrote:there was an unwritten rule around here that employees didn t sue the boss when they hurt themselves

Uh, yeah, it's called worker's comp. It means employees don't have to sue their employers when they are injured on the job in order to get paid. Most civilized countries have had it for a hundred years or more.

Unless the employer is operating illegally without comp coverage, or the employee is a minor, or is off-the-books because undocumented or whatever. We have workers comp here, too. Just because wesw doesn't understand how it works or why it's the law doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

wesw wrote:and the boss didn t run them off after they were hurt.

Which is also illegal. You can't fire someone for making a comp claim. But if you're happy with "negotiating" away your rights and sucking up to a boss who might give you a few pennies so he doesn't have to give a fuck about worker safety, then you have found your workers paradise in Donald Trump and the GOP.

well of course we got workman s comp....., if we wanted it.

it was only 60% tho, and a pain in the ass..., and not timely.

often, if it was only a week or so, the boss would just pay us a full check for the time we missed and we would just handle it thru the regular insurance...

illegal of course, but sensible. that was when we didn t have deductibles tho. not feasible now....

....but that wasn t what I meant...., I meant the extraneous lawsuits.

workman s comp was the norm. especially after the company or companies grew and the people were no longer so closely knit.

wesw wrote:....but that wasn t what I meant...., I meant the extraneous lawsuits.

You can't sue your employer even if you wanted to. It is prohibited by the workers comp statute. You are still an idiot.

wesw wrote:workman s comp was the norm. especially after the company or companies grew and the people were no longer so closely knit.

Your grasp of both labor history in general and the statutory requirement for workers comp coverage in particular is astonishingly weak for someone who claims to have been in the trades.

PPS - giving advice is not "suing." Everything a lawyer does, contrary to the trumpanzee opinion, is not "suing." In fact, the great majority of it is not "suing."

But I need to get back to finishing up a complaint today (yes, that IS "suing,") so I'm done providing free labor law "advice."

Guinevere wrote:But I need to get back to finishing up a complaint today (yes, that IS "suing,")

I'm so proud of you!

I don t want advice, I m not sueing anyone.

I m just telling you how reality used to work.

but you seem to already know everything......

Guinevere wrote:That may be a bit too subtle, Sue......

Too subtle for wes, perhaps, but not for the rest of us.

-"BB"-

Bicycle Bill wrote:

Guinevere wrote:That may be a bit too subtle, Sue......

Too subtle for wes, perhaps, but not for the rest of us.

-"BB"-

I meant for the trumpanzees at whom it was directed. Not to the rest of us.

Sue U wrote:

Guinevere wrote:But I need to get back to finishing up a complaint today (yes, that IS "suing,")

I'm so proud of you!

Done, and winging its way to the court. Contempt. I got a PI 2 weeks ago (after I filed the initial complaint) that this dude continues to blatantly ignore. He'll end up in jail, I suspect.

Sue U wrote:

wesw wrote:....but that wasn t what I meant...., I meant the extraneous lawsuits.

You can't sue your employer even if you wanted to. It is prohibited by the workers comp statute. You are still an idiot.

wesw wrote:workman s comp was the norm. especially after the company or companies grew and the people were no longer so closely knit.

Your grasp of both labor history in general and the statutory requirement for workers comp coverage in particular is astonishingly weak for someone who claims to have been in the trades.

Take wesw, multiply him by 20-40 million - that's how we got Rump. Stupid people, electing a stupid candidate who doesn't care about them ONE LITTLE BIT.

Damn, this will be a great lesson for many, many people . . . too freaking bad the rest of us have to suffer through it, too!