Is This Something?

[Dale Einerson]

I am concerned, not only for business and employment, but concerned this will impact school budgets in a big way, especially in the Northern-most and smaller communities:

The Department of labor (DOL)  has proposed new regulations which could more than double the salary threshold for paying overtime for exempt employees from $23,660 to $50,400 – a whopping 113% increase.
Currently workers who earn less than $23,660 are  covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 and must be paid at least time-and-a-half for each hour they work beyond 40 hours a week.  The proposed changes would dramatically increase this threshold up to $50,400 and index further increases to inflation. Many employees now classified as exempt would automatically become eligible for overtime pay.

[bigoil]

We are addressing already, could be costly. We've had a pretty aggressive stance on what is or isn't exempt so it doesn't effect us too much, most were already hourly in that pay range despite being in positions that at many companies may have been salary.

[Dale Einerson]

It seems the answer to every "we have a job shortage" problem is, reduce the number of jobs!

I was thinking, beyond business, about the schools in the Northern part of our state that may have a number of teachers making less than $50,400 a year, that will be forced to either make them hourly employees (not likely under a labor agreement) and pay OT (the administration of that is tough as calls on cell phones, homework, lesson planning, grading would all need to be supervised to limit OT, or make salaried (which again presents a labor agreement challenge).

I fear a further reduction in teaching positions, as well as a negative impact on Coaches.

[Ghetto]

It would be dangerous to larger districts, where the amount of people making less than $50,000 is so large. Gosh, my hourly rate to coach is maybe  35 cents an hour, so raising it to 52 wouldn't break the bank. 

[Dale Einerson]

I know you are only being a tad sarcastic Ghetto...I will keep saying it...what you Coaches give for your love of the sport and the youth that participate is truly amazing; appreciated.  Though, the primary reason you and others likely Coach is not because of the relatively low compensation, but the intangible rewards.

Having said that, I am concerned this law will lead to lower numbers of Teachers, even bigger student to teacher ratios; likely get Coaches knocked out of a sports budget as it would require reporting of hours, and associated OT, well beyond today's budget.

Understand, if you are above $50,400 annually, then you can put unlimited hours in as an "exempt" person.  If you were below $50,400, then those hours as a Teacher and a Coach would have to be accounted for, OT paid after 40 hours; tell me if you think I may have something here, but there will be cuts in head count and to sports budgets...

And, if this requirement goes into effect during an existing labor agreement that doesn't account for it, it conceivably would open up every contract to renegotiation. 

[Ghetto]

It's a mess waiting to happen. That's for sure. We have to make things complicated that are not. Right now, teachers get paid (at least in MPS) an hourly wage for things they do outside of the work day. It's less than we make as a teacher, but it's understood that if you are in professional development, or are doing something outside your job expertise, you probably don't deserve to get paid what you normally do.

[bigG]

Whereas in smaller districts we don't get that pay. Just part of the salary. We've already shifted to many more non-educator coaches. They do a great job, but often rely on those in the school to handle some things, which is good. This may have come to fruition in reaction to many employers abusing their salaried folks. I never felt my district abused my time; but I'm sure it happens. This is not good for business, though. We're not at a good place to increase min. wage and enact this sort of legislation, IMHO.

[Dale Einerson]

Fruition as a result of lack of jobs means a lack of competition from employers, so best practices go by the wayside.

So, the answer is a plan to reduce the number of jobs...here come the unexpected consequences.

Was on a conference call with the National Small Business Association today and I learned that Teachers are exempted from this rule. 

[littleguy301]

dale,,,,we live in 2 worlds, honestly we do.

The world I live in (manual labor) they cannt fill the jobs that are out there. I hear of companies offering over scale for most in union and in non-union some pretty good pay and benifits. Though many of these companies are not getting people to even fill out an application.

I read a job posting for a non-union contractor and they were explaining the year around offer for experience worker. 30$ a hour with 4 weeks of paid vacation. O/T after 40. 401K with company match 7% and a very detailed insurance package that was very good. Also it stated that if meets quailfication they would gladly start well over 30 an hour. Kicker, had to pass a drug test.

Guess what, I in a round about way know the company and they got 0 applications in 3 weeks being published on craiglist, internet, job ads and so on. I was amazed to say the least.

This company also explained that they have given big raises and 6 weeks of paid vacation to some of the key guys because their competitors are a knocking at the workers doors.

Then I come on here and read that you state lack of competition and part time and so on. Man in the world I live their is a shortage of workers to say the least. Heck union in the metro are talking thousands of workers short and some unions have contracts signed with other out state unions to bring in workers.

Also, with the mass amount of city workers retiring in the metro, I would say over half of the city workers are paying more than union scale right now to keep the ones they have. Just amazing to say the least.

[littleguy301]

dale, I have to say that I have already heard that some companies are giving some pretty good raises to their salary people to get over that 52k thing. I think that is funny to be honest.

Salary and working people 60 plus a week, come on man that is just plain and simple taking advantage of the worker.

[Dale Einerson]

dale,,,,we live in 2 worlds, honestly we do.

The world I live in (manual labor) they cannt fill the jobs that are out there. I hear of companies offering over scale for most in union and in non-union some pretty good pay and benifits. Though many of these companies are not getting people to even fill out an application.

I read a job posting for a non-union contractor and they were explaining the year around offer for experience worker. 30$ a hour with 4 weeks of paid vacation. O/T after 40. 401K with company match 7% and a very detailed insurance package that was very good. Also it stated that if meets quailfication they would gladly start well over 30 an hour. Kicker, had to pass a drug test.

Guess what, I in a round about way know the company and they got 0 applications in 3 weeks being published on craiglist, internet, job ads and so on. I was amazed to say the least.

This company also explained that they have given big raises and 6 weeks of paid vacation to some of the key guys because their competitors are a knocking at the workers doors.

Then I come on here and read that you state lack of competition and part time and so on. Man in the world I live their is a shortage of workers to say the least. Heck union in the metro are talking thousands of workers short and some unions have contracts signed with other out state unions to bring in workers.

Also, with the mass amount of city workers retiring in the metro, I would say over half of the city workers are paying more than union scale right now to keep the ones they have. Just amazing to say the least.

I hear you LG, I just see it a little differently.  If I read your post right, there is not a lack of workers, there is a lack of workers that are willing to have their privacy violated by intrusive drug testing to get a job with tremendous pay and benefits.  Dude. 

It would seem the potential employer has obvious options, with possible combinations of some or all:
1) Close.  Doing nothing is always an option.
2) Offer more $ and bennies.
3) Drop the drug testing. Or as a minimum, hire somebody through a temp agency for 90 days and then they have 30 days notice prior to the employment drug test.
4) Lobby the government to require any public safety nets require drug testing prior to receiving
5) Hire illegally and don't pay FUTA, SUTA, Worker's Compensation, Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, and Social Security. Will lower the cost of an employee by 50%, and hey, it is unenforced.
6) Check out that amazing H1-B Visa program and import lower cost workers

93 million people out of the job force.  Not part time, out of the job force. 
There are less full time jobs now than in 2007, and the definition of full time changed from 40 hours to 30 hours per week. 
There are 4 million more people in part time jobs; the definition increasing should have decreased the number of part-time jobs...

[bigG]

Maybe there're more full-time employees also working part-time jobs. I honestly don't know many folks on unemployment around me. I like my part-time gig. Flexible scheduling and nice people to work with.

I'll throw a bone to my area(Coulee region). Good work ethic IMO. Like what I see. Can always use more money, though. Been grocery shopping lately? Uff-dah!

[Dale Einerson]

Maybe there're more full-time employees also working part-time jobs. I honestly don't know many folks on unemployment around me. I like my part-time gig. Flexible scheduling and nice people to work with.

If there are more full-time employees also part-time jobs that would, in theory simultaneously increase the number of full-time workers, or part-time workers, as well as the number out of the work force.

Note, I didn't mention unemployment, I mentioned out of the work force, and they don't figure into the often discussed unemployment number.  You aren't unemployed until you are looking for a job...

[littleguy301]

dale,,,,we live in 2 worlds, honestly we do.

The world I live in (manual labor) they cannt fill the jobs that are out there. I hear of companies offering over scale for most in union and in non-union some pretty good pay and benifits. Though many of these companies are not getting people to even fill out an application.

I read a job posting for a non-union contractor and they were explaining the year around offer for experience worker. 30$ a hour with 4 weeks of paid vacation. O/T after 40. 401K with company match 7% and a very detailed insurance package that was very good. Also it stated that if meets quailfication they would gladly start well over 30 an hour. Kicker, had to pass a drug test.

Guess what, I in a round about way know the company and they got 0 applications in 3 weeks being published on craiglist, internet, job ads and so on. I was amazed to say the least.

This company also explained that they have given big raises and 6 weeks of paid vacation to some of the key guys because their competitors are a knocking at the workers doors.

Then I come on here and read that you state lack of competition and part time and so on. Man in the world I live their is a shortage of workers to say the least. Heck union in the metro are talking thousands of workers short and some unions have contracts signed with other out state unions to bring in workers.

Also, with the mass amount of city workers retiring in the metro, I would say over half of the city workers are paying more than union scale right now to keep the ones they have. Just amazing to say the least.

I hear you LG, I just see it a little differently.  If I read your post right, there is not a lack of workers, there is a lack of workers that are willing to have their privacy violated by intrusive drug testing to get a job with tremendous pay and benefits.  Dude. 

It would seem the potential employer has obvious options, with possible combinations of some or all:
1) Close.  Doing nothing is always an option.
2) Offer more $ and bennies.
3) Drop the drug testing. Or as a minimum, hire somebody through a temp agency for 90 days and then they have 30 days notice prior to the employment drug test.
4) Lobby the government to require any public safety nets require drug testing prior to receiving
5) Hire illegally and don't pay FUTA, SUTA, Worker's Compensation, Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, and Social Security. Will lower the cost of an employee by 50%, and hey, it is unenforced.
6) Check out that amazing H1-B Visa program and import lower cost workers

93 million people out of the job force.  Not part time, out of the job force. 
There are less full time jobs now than in 2007, and the definition of full time changed from 40 hours to 30 hours per week. 
There are 4 million more people in part time jobs; the definition increasing should have decreased the number of part-time jobs...

I am not against the drug test. I am against the actual results they give. Drug testing is a multi million if not billion dollar business and they catch less than 10% of people and in many cases alot less % than that.

I feel the problem is there simply is not the trained people out there and no one wants to slow down and actually teach anyone a skill or the workers have simply checked out on that.

93 million, that is quite high if you ask me. just under 30% of people have checked out. that math doesnt work unless your talking retired people or SS due to health.

please break the numbers up. We have 70% of people that are looking or working. out of that 70% how many are under 18? there has to be some laws against putting my 11 year to full time work. How about the number of people that are retired? or should they be working full time at 75? Single family incomes, that would be great to be in a situation to have 1 parent at home raising kids but I guess that doesnt matter in your numbers.

93 million is a big number I aint buying, sorry dude I just aint buying it.

[littleguy301]

Maybe there're more full-time employees also working part-time jobs. I honestly don't know many folks on unemployment around me. I like my part-time gig. Flexible scheduling and nice people to work with.

If there are more full-time employees also part-time jobs that would, in theory simultaneously increase the number of full-time workers, or part-time workers, as well as the number out of the work force.

Note, I didn't mention unemployment, I mentioned out of the work force, and they don't figure into the often discussed unemployment number.  You aren't unemployed until you are looking for a job...

Dale,,,do you realize that many construction jobs are thought of as part time or seasonal. Many seasonal jobs are thought of as part time and in the road business how many millions of those nation wide are in that part time classification?

Also, fast food joints and restuarants are in that part time area. Heck not many bar tenders are full time but at the right place they make full time money.