Well, it's a worker protection law in the US. If you work more than 40 hours in a week, you must get paid 150% of your normal rate for each extra hour
Really? I thought overtime need not be paid out at all. If this is true, your laws are actually better than the European laws I know, where it depends on your contract and sometimes need not be paid out at all (although basically no one actually does it).
This system gives the company incentive to shy away from saying, "oh, we need a shift covered? Meh, just make Joe pick up a sixth day every week. Yay, problem solved!"
I don't quite get this. Doesn't this incentivize getting people to work more? Or do you mean forcing a random bastard to do it, who doesn't want to do it, beause they find willing people?
If you're trying to say income shouldn't be taxed at all, I agree with you.
It's not realistic. That is what annoys me about the "taxation is theft" lolbertarians. If they spend it on collective goods for ME, then it is not theft. If they send it to Ukraine or bring in fake refugees to kill me, then it is.
In America there are two common wages: salary and paid per hour. 150% for overtime is typically referring to hourly paid employees. Salaried employees get fucked over and do not receive overtime pay, just a fixed annual wage, regardless of if the work in excess of 40 hours in a given week.
Yeah, though as PooperSnooper said, this doesn't apply to salaried workers. However, that's basically always for things like management, so the position won't stay filled for long if the company tries to lowball. Basically every "regular worker" including things like welders, etc. get paid hourly.
If this is true, your laws are actually better than the European laws I know
Really? Europe doesn't make companies pay more for over 40 hours?
Doesn't this incentivize getting people to work more?
I... guess? If you want the OT, that is. I'm not sure why that's bad, though. Certainly the company wouldn't pay 150% if they didn't have to, so a lot of them are anal about not paying any OT at all and getting their workers out right at 40 hours.
Or do you mean forcing a random bastard to do it, who doesn't want to do it
Yes, that's what I mean. If the premium wasn't there, they could easily force that poor bastard to do it without recourse or concern (because they would pay the same either way).
Yeah, though as PooperSnooper said, this doesn't apply to salaried workers. However, that's basically always for things like management, so the position won't stay filled for long if the company tries to lowball. Basically every "regular worker" including things like welders, etc. get paid hourly.
So how is it decided how many hours you work?
Really? Europe doesn't make companies pay more for over 40 hours?
It differs by country. Some countries ban overtime outright, like France (because it destroys jobs for others, and supposedly because it's bad for workers' health) In other countries, unpaid overtime is allowed as long as it is not the norm. So you can't hire someone for 40 hours and then work him for 45 hours each week, but if it occasionally happens, it's an occupational hazard. Normally, this is reserved for higher-paid jobs, at least by our standards. In practice, it's almost never done except for management positions.
I... guess? If you want the OT, that is. I'm not sure why that's bad, though.
Just my opinion and the opinion of everyone here that Americans work way too much, and that they live to work rather than work to live as we do.
Yes, that's what I mean. If the premium wasn't there, they could easily force that poor bastard to do it without recourse or concern (because they would pay the same either way).
Ah, well that changes things, though I'd much rather have it that companies can't require overtime.
Well, it's up to the company. Technically they can work their managers as hard as they want, but in my experience, they don't really do that -- if nothing else, the managers will quit and take an hourly position elsewhere that they're (hopefully) obviously qualified for. However, if the whole shift calls in sick, somebody has to cover, and sometimes that means the manager.
Edit: also, job listings will usually say that the position is full time or part time. If they go on to cut the full time worker's hours, I believe he becomes entitled to (at least partial) unemployment payments. If they try to add hours to the part time worker's schedule that puts him at 32 hours per week, they are then on the hook to give him full time benefits. So neither one of those scenarios happen much.
the opinion of everyone here that Americans work way too much, and that they live to work rather than work to live as we do.
Well, here if you work 32 hours per week, you are entitled to full-time benefits by law (one of the few sort of good things Obama did), and if you work more than 40 hours, you're entitled to 150% pay. I'd agree that we could use more paid vacation time, but if you've run out, it's pretty common for your boss to approve whatever unpaid time within reason. This is especially a thing for tipped workers, whose "paid vacation time" absolutely pales in comparison to what they make in tips, so unpaid vs. paid time off isn't a big difference to them. In my experience, it's very uncommon for the company to force overtime. For one thing, it's expensive, and for another, there will probably be at least a few willing volunteers who want that sweet, sweet paycheck.
I'd much rather have it that companies can't require overtime.
I don't totally disagree, but I think the "time and a half" rule does a pretty good job of mitigating that, while still allowing those who want to to make bank. I don't think I'd want to do it like France apparently does; sometimes it's nice to have the option. And this way frequently does keep the "occasionally work him 45 hours" thing alive in spirit. It's often too expensive to pay OT regularly, but sometimes it's necessary once in a while -- and that worker would get 5 sweet hours of golden time whenever it does happen.
However, if the whole shift calls in sick, somebody has to cover, and sometimes that means the manager.
I assume this is just restaurants, not construction as I think you referred to earlier, right?
Well, here if you work 32 hours per week, you are entitled to full-time benefits by law (one of the few sort of good things Obama did), and if you work more than 40 hours, you're entitled to 150% pay.
That IS pretty cool - though we don't have such a thing as "full-time benefits". No health insurance, and unemployment insurance is generally a percentage of what you earn (paid by the state).
I'd agree that we could use more paid vacation time, but if you've run out, it's pretty common for your boss to approve whatever unpaid time within reason. This is especially a thing for tipped workers, whose "paid vacation time" absolutely pales in comparison to what they make in tips, so unpaid vs. paid time off isn't a big difference to them. In my experience, it's very uncommon for the company to force overtime. For one thing, it's expensive, and for another, there will probably be at least a few willing volunteers who want that sweet, sweet paycheck.
I don't really get the impression that waiters are overworked, though they may be. But ordinary wage laborers, company men, etc.
I was once talking to a guy here who said that he has plenty of days off. 5 days PTO and 11 "sick days'. Of course, the concept of "sick days" was completely foreign to me. Here, you just call in sick as long as you're sick, there is no limit, which of course has its downsides as well - and above that you have several weeks mandatory PTO.
I don't think I'd want to do it like France apparently does; sometimes it's nice to have the option.
I actually agree. France is the other extreme. But workers shouldn't feel that they have to do it for their career. I've actually met people who do unpaid overtime just for their career, which I think is very bad (even if it were paid).
and that worker would get 5 sweet hours of golden time whenever it does happen.
Here, you pay 50% taxes on your marginal income, so it's not very "sweet" at all!
Really? I thought overtime need not be paid out at all. If this is true, your laws are actually better than the European laws I know, where it depends on your contract and sometimes need not be paid out at all (although basically no one actually does it).
I don't quite get this. Doesn't this incentivize getting people to work more? Or do you mean forcing a random bastard to do it, who doesn't want to do it, beause they find willing people?
It's not realistic. That is what annoys me about the "taxation is theft" lolbertarians. If they spend it on collective goods for ME, then it is not theft. If they send it to Ukraine or bring in fake refugees to kill me, then it is.
In America there are two common wages: salary and paid per hour. 150% for overtime is typically referring to hourly paid employees. Salaried employees get fucked over and do not receive overtime pay, just a fixed annual wage, regardless of if the work in excess of 40 hours in a given week.
Yeah, though as PooperSnooper said, this doesn't apply to salaried workers. However, that's basically always for things like management, so the position won't stay filled for long if the company tries to lowball. Basically every "regular worker" including things like welders, etc. get paid hourly.
Really? Europe doesn't make companies pay more for over 40 hours?
I... guess? If you want the OT, that is. I'm not sure why that's bad, though. Certainly the company wouldn't pay 150% if they didn't have to, so a lot of them are anal about not paying any OT at all and getting their workers out right at 40 hours.
Yes, that's what I mean. If the premium wasn't there, they could easily force that poor bastard to do it without recourse or concern (because they would pay the same either way).
So how is it decided how many hours you work?
It differs by country. Some countries ban overtime outright, like France (because it destroys jobs for others, and supposedly because it's bad for workers' health) In other countries, unpaid overtime is allowed as long as it is not the norm. So you can't hire someone for 40 hours and then work him for 45 hours each week, but if it occasionally happens, it's an occupational hazard. Normally, this is reserved for higher-paid jobs, at least by our standards. In practice, it's almost never done except for management positions.
Just my opinion and the opinion of everyone here that Americans work way too much, and that they live to work rather than work to live as we do.
Ah, well that changes things, though I'd much rather have it that companies can't require overtime.
Well, it's up to the company. Technically they can work their managers as hard as they want, but in my experience, they don't really do that -- if nothing else, the managers will quit and take an hourly position elsewhere that they're (hopefully) obviously qualified for. However, if the whole shift calls in sick, somebody has to cover, and sometimes that means the manager.
Edit: also, job listings will usually say that the position is full time or part time. If they go on to cut the full time worker's hours, I believe he becomes entitled to (at least partial) unemployment payments. If they try to add hours to the part time worker's schedule that puts him at 32 hours per week, they are then on the hook to give him full time benefits. So neither one of those scenarios happen much.
Well, here if you work 32 hours per week, you are entitled to full-time benefits by law (one of the few sort of good things Obama did), and if you work more than 40 hours, you're entitled to 150% pay. I'd agree that we could use more paid vacation time, but if you've run out, it's pretty common for your boss to approve whatever unpaid time within reason. This is especially a thing for tipped workers, whose "paid vacation time" absolutely pales in comparison to what they make in tips, so unpaid vs. paid time off isn't a big difference to them. In my experience, it's very uncommon for the company to force overtime. For one thing, it's expensive, and for another, there will probably be at least a few willing volunteers who want that sweet, sweet paycheck.
I don't totally disagree, but I think the "time and a half" rule does a pretty good job of mitigating that, while still allowing those who want to to make bank. I don't think I'd want to do it like France apparently does; sometimes it's nice to have the option. And this way frequently does keep the "occasionally work him 45 hours" thing alive in spirit. It's often too expensive to pay OT regularly, but sometimes it's necessary once in a while -- and that worker would get 5 sweet hours of golden time whenever it does happen.
I assume this is just restaurants, not construction as I think you referred to earlier, right?
That IS pretty cool - though we don't have such a thing as "full-time benefits". No health insurance, and unemployment insurance is generally a percentage of what you earn (paid by the state).
I don't really get the impression that waiters are overworked, though they may be. But ordinary wage laborers, company men, etc.
I was once talking to a guy here who said that he has plenty of days off. 5 days PTO and 11 "sick days'. Of course, the concept of "sick days" was completely foreign to me. Here, you just call in sick as long as you're sick, there is no limit, which of course has its downsides as well - and above that you have several weeks mandatory PTO.
I actually agree. France is the other extreme. But workers shouldn't feel that they have to do it for their career. I've actually met people who do unpaid overtime just for their career, which I think is very bad (even if it were paid).
Here, you pay 50% taxes on your marginal income, so it's not very "sweet" at all!