New OT law and the media

Is @Fredrick one?

 

I don't know anyone on this board outside of this board.

 

I know dozens of individuals who work 60-70 and get paid for 40. It's the way it has to be in "journalism." When the news never stops and the dead print product is still coming out 7 days a week, the math doesn't work for 40 hours. So it's always been take it for the team. If you were to put overtime, your life is hell. Your every move is monitored and you are accused of wasting time if you google something, so you work 70 and get paid for 40. It's not complicated if you want your kids to have clothes and food.

 

Except "the way it has to be" is against the freaking law. Both the old law and the new one and the one that'll be reverted if this holds.

If another industry was treating its employees like this they'd do a video expose and lead the i-team package with it. what you're preaching is enabling and it's assanine.

 

I work 40. Anything more I get compensated for as overtime. Only a moron would sidestep the law when the law is on your side.

You're a fool.

 

Dude, if that's the case either:
1) Spend the next two months documenting everything, file a labor complaint, and sue the shit out of them
2) Quit. Find something else. Find another paper. Go work at Home Depot. Flip burgers. Dig ditches (the world needs them, too). For your own sanity, please. The money you're making can't be that good that willing to put up with this and willing to destroy yourself mentally for going on two or three years now.
Adam Carolla had a great philosophy when it comes to work -- ask yourself, "Does it make me money?" and "Does it make me happy?"
You can sacrifice a bit of one for the other. If the answer to both is "no," then you really need to evaluate what you're doing and make some changes.

 

No to both. And some personal situations in my life have made it even more important for me to get out fast. Basically, if I don't make some changes soon (within the next 3-4 months), I stand a good chance of losing my house. And if I lose only my house, that's the best-case scenario.

 

Just got told: Punch the clock the rest of this week to close out the pay period. Then back to the way it used to be next week.

 

Sounds like that's the better of the 2 options, though?

 

I'm confused. So, are you saying you're company is going to abide by the law for three days, then ignore it starting Monday?

 

Burns: Yes, better only in that they don't get to cheat us with their "wonky math" I've referred to earlier. And having figured out some things that help me be more efficient, I may not always get done in 40 hours, but they won't be getting 45-50 out of me any more. This week, they'll get exactly 40. Then I have a wrestling tournament that will last most of the day Saturday, so there isn't any reason to come into the office on Wednesday when there's nothing scheduled for me to cover.

Doc: Kansas was one of the states that sued to stop the law from taking effect, so there's nothing to ignore right now (at least in this state). Also, I think the only reason we have to punch the clock the rest of the week is to close out the pay period. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a time sheet to process on Monday.

 

Today, the 6th, the boss called me and told me my raise was not put in place and will not be until required by law. Status quo in terms of pay received and workload. Forty years in this business, and it's finally the last straw.