|
I get paid an odd sort of overtime where we're not paid by the hour, but we receive a flat rate per assignment completed. For some tasks that take less time to complete, this works out financially, as I can make about $24/hour, but for some work, which generally takes longer to do, it just plain sucks ($1-2/hour). Management wonders why it's harder to get people to bite at the kinds of assignments that take longer. Unfortunately, their solution to this problem is contracting the more profitable work to former employees that have left the company so that those of us that are still here are stuck with the lovely work that takes longer. To answer the OP's question, I'm in favor of traditional overtime for everyone, but I feel like mandatory enforcement would lead to wage reduction and/or layoffs. TwoSheds fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Nov 22, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
moana posted:The article argues that layoffs would decrease drastically, because they can't just shunt the work off on another worker. Rather than paying overtime, they would have an incentive to hire more workers. I feel like that's an argument that a lot of corporations would make, but I can't see it happening in the real world. Wage reduction or bonus reduction, maybe, but when was the last time your bonus would have paid you as much as overtime? Moot point since I don't get bonuses, but I feel ya.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 02:09
|
|