"Let's all screw the 1 percent"

Where I work, the higher up the chain you go, the more hours people put in. No OT.

The entry-level ones, who are eligible for OT, run out the door at 5.

 

If you are eligible for OT and put in for it without it being approved, you can get fired.

Same thing if you work OT and DON 'T put in for the hours (especially if you complain or brag about doing it).

 

They're being pretty smart.

 

I worked on two daily sports staffs, and in each instance only the SE had a title. But that's neither here nor there.

The post to which I was responding used the phrase "make them work for free." Sorry, that's just silly. There's no way I can take my magic title wand and arbitrarily cut my labor costs. This is true whether there's a law in place or not.

 

You can arbitrarily cut you labor costs by forbidding overtime, unless approved and don't bother asking because it won't be. Or by making hourly employees salaried by waving a wand that gives them a title.

Of course you can't cut your labor costs to zero, that would be impossible, but you can make your labor costs fixed and in doing so reduce your overall personnel expense.

 

I assume you're going with the "anyone can walk away" reasoning. While that's true, where is that person going to go? This is addressed in the OP link by quoting Adam Smith, who faces the reality that the company has too much power in that situation. And it certainly appears that most industries have found and are exploiting this re-classification route.

 

The monopsony argument is pretty tired in this context. Making that case requires a ton of conditions -- barriers to entry chief among them -- that just aren't present to any great degree.

I imagine that many firms do classify employees to get around overtime requirements, but I doubt very seriously there's any bargain gained with respect to wage costs. If there are any economies, they're in monitoring/compliance costs.

 

Doc,

One reason this is an issue is places routinely do this to get around paying the OT requirement.

If it's a manager or CEO working 50/60 hours for six or seven figures, fine.

Problem is, restaurants (and others) will "promote" people to manager or assistant manager, require them to work or be on call 7 days a week and pay the minimum 26K or whatever that exempts them from OT.

That's horseshit. Should make at least $50-60K to be exempt.

 

I was a youngish university employee with two positions that demanded almost full attention. One of the positions was as a one-man SID department, in the days before the internet. Lots of hand-calculating of stats, which sucked balls for football. Also had to attend and do stats, etc., for all athletic events including most on the road. Add in media guide production and the general chores that fell to an SID, I would come in at 6 am most days and stay til 8-10 pm.

This would last for 4-5 weeks at the beginning of each school year. Often wonder why I said yes to that job!

 

At around $50 an hour for OT, I'm not so sure.

 

Wage theft is a huge problem right now in this country and it's hurting all of us (because we end up subsidizing) but especially folks on the low end of the economic spectrum.

 

I'm not understanding what you mean by this. Are you saying that they would get the $50/hour in OT if they stay, but they're choosing not to and leaving at 5 and that it's their choice to stay or go?

I was thinking that they leave at 5 because they wouldn't be allowed to work OT, and that they weren't staying becaus they wouldn't get paid for the extra time.