1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Let's all screw the 1 percent"

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by bigpern23, Dec 26, 2014.

  1. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Salon writer posts clickbait article that actually presents an interesting proposition - rather than raising just the minimum wage, raise the threshold for workers who are guaranteed overtime to those making $69,000/year or less.


    Unfortunately, I think the writer's message will get lost in the combative way this story is written. The goal should not be to "screw the 1 percent." Pitting the two sides against each other is foolish, unproductive and, frankly, unamerican. The goal should be to help the 99 percent, which by extension, helps the 100 percent.

    I'd love to hear the board economists' take on this.
  2. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    I love how the threshold for the "1 per centers" keeps subtly slipping downward.
    When this debate started a few years ago, wasn't it millionaires we were looking to put the screws to? Then it became anyone making $250,000 a year. Then it dipped to about $150,000. Now it's at $69,000, which in a major city probably puts you in the "doing OK, but not exactly rich and definitely not a 1 percenter" category.
    How long before it's anybody making above minimum wage, and one of these silly articles advocates for making that the national standard in all professions? After all, if it's good enough for your lowest worker, it ought to be good enough for everyone!

    EDIT: After skimming through the article, I misunderstood the premise BigPern was pitching. The writer's idea isn't a bad one — salaried workers making less than $23,600 are now currently guaranteed overtime; that's been the standard since 1975; and it should be raised to at least $50,000, with one person advocating a $69,000 threshold — but the title of the piece comes across as another in a long line of "Let's soak the rich!" articles.
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2014
  3. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    The standards for which jobs can be classfied "salaried" should be drastically tightened.

    It's an excuse for employers to work anybody 80 hours a week whenever they feel like it.
  4. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    That's exactly the problem with this article, Batman. It's supposed to be about a proposal that, on the surface at least, makes some sense. But that message gets lost in a "Eat the rich" headline.
  5. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    When overtime isn't paid, the the owners are screwing the employees out of their time and labor, so why wouldn't making them pay for that time be considered screwing the 1 percent?

    That said, the premise is an excellent idea. If there is such a demand for a worker's labor that they need to work those extra hours, then the owners can pay for it, either through overtime or hiring someone else part time.
  6. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Since the last 35 years of our society have been basically devoted to giving the rich a perpetual blowjob, it's OK if we devote a few minutes to wishing to screw 'em over. They've had a free ride for going on two generations now.
    Ace likes this.
  7. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Yes, all rich people have had a free ride. There are no rich people who have busted their asses to get where they are.
    RecoveringJournalist likes this.
  8. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Yes, and none have gotten there by disregarding safety standards; laying off hundreds to protect their annual bonus; etc., etc.

    The Wall Street collapse wasn't triggered by the 1 percenters being too generous; it was cynically selling mortgages to people they knew couldn't pay, betting that they couldn't pay; wrapping those turd mortgages with seemingly-good investments and dumping them on other suckers; and praying their (well-compensated) friends in the government would bail them out when it all went to hell.

    If some 99 percenter on the street had tried that scam, he'd still be wearing orange and being careful not to drop the soap.
  9. JimmyHoward33

    JimmyHoward33 Well-Known Member

    Lots of companies use salary and faux-management positions to require people to work more than 40 hours without paying OT. It's a loophole that should be closed.

    Don't ask your people to put in more than 40 hours unless you're prepared to pay them for their time seems reasonable to me.
  10. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    For the most part, yes. But there is nothing sacred about "40 hours" other than that's the typical work week.

    Some jobs simply demand more than that. If they are salaried, it's up to the prospective employee to decide if 40-PLUS hours are worth that salary.
  11. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Unless their boss makes it quite obvious that salary is contingent upon working more than 40 hours.
  12. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    Depends on the job, even in journalism. In a TV newsroom -- some jobs should be hourly. A producer or a reporter, for example, who works an assigned shift. If there is a breaking news situation that calls for them to work 3 or 4 more hours then, yes, pay them the OT rate.

    I'm salaried and in management even though I am an anchor. There are some weeks where, really, I could work 25 or 30 hours a week and the job would get done. Others are 50 or 55 and that's fine.. All comes out in the wash.

    I don't really care if a certain day takes 6 hours or 11 hours to finish the tasks.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page