How is it that a third world country Ike mine pays overtime pay to all employees who work beyond the standard 8 hour work day. 25% of the hourly rate is added to the hours of overtime, plus a night differential rate if you work past 11 pm. +30% if you have to do work during a holiday.
Not being paid for overtime work is very slavery to me.
The reasoning of the judge is because the companies will have to pay billions in OT pay. Fuck them.
What country? Do you offer political asylum to people fleeing dictatorial regimes?
Well we currently have the son of the former dictator as a president so there’s that.
Does he seem like he’s going to do better than his dad?
Sounds like the Philippines.
I assumed it was, but since the poster didn’t mention it, I figured they might have their reasons to be vague.
deleted by creator
How? Your government is probably not as captured.
It’s been the law for 50 years.
That can change. Don’t let it.
We do get overtime pay, this rule was for a very specific segment of workers who were exempt. Being salaried and making under a certain amount. Hourly employees get time and a half for every hour past 40 in a week, federally.
The salaried exception floor hasn’t been raised in forever, it needs to go way up.
It does!
It’s worth noting that the minimum wage in Texas is the same as the federal minimum wage. Which is now, not enough to buy a meal at McDonald’s after an hour.
B-b-b-but Democrats aren’t aligned with the working class!
I mean this would only have applied to salaried employees earning $20/hr or less which I can’t even imagine what type of field that covers since most hourly jobs earn more than that these days.
This is akin to the “pardoning marijuana possession convictions” thing where it didn’t apply to a single person in federal custody and only benefitted 3,000 people (with past convictions) in the entire nation.
This is basically virtue signaling and/or table scraps for us peasants.
But you don’t actually know how many people this would have applied to… you just assume, right?
Edit: It’s right in the article: “The rule would have extended to approximately four million American workers, guaranteeing them overtime pay.”
And a judge even blocked that. What do we think would happen to more substantial changes?
We’ll probably never know because it would require them to actually make a substantial change first.
Try employing logic.
I’d much rather they fight some Texas federal judge over something meaningful than squander the political capital on something that benefits a tiny niche of the country and gets blocked anyway.
Just about the only meaningful thing we’ve seen over the last three Democratic presidential terms was the ACA and they decided to model that after a Republican healthcare plan rather than giving us the logical choice of single-payer in order to appease Republicans who voted against it anyway.
“Here’s what it has achieved”
A list of money given to farmers, shipping companies, automakers, coal towns, energy companies, and anyone else responsible for all the pollution we currently face. It seems like they’re being rewarded for their misdeeds.
Meanwhile oil and natural gas production is booming in the US to record rates: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/wells/
This is exactly the type of shit that I’m talking about. It’s just a bunch of virtue signaling while they funnel our tax dollars to wealthy corporations to be squandered away. You couldn’t actually point to anything specific that came out of this because it’s just a list of money doled out for abstract ‘causes.’ Even the author could only point to two specific examples, $120k to Eugene, OR to train people on brush removal after our wildfires and $118k for air monitoring equipment in a West Virginia town and that’s two years after handing out nearly $400 billion. This reminds me of all the times Democratic presidents have given hundreds of billions of dollars to companies like Comcast and Spectrum for jack shit.
Not sure why you would expect the federal government to be able to do anything with state charges.
I never said I did? I said that it’s virtue signaling and performative at best rather than something that’s actually impactful on the average person’s life.
Democrats love to talk about how much they care for the working class, but their actual actions rarely reflect that.
So … they shouldn’t have pardoned federal cannabis possession convictions?
Are you not capable of responding without fabricating a complete strawman argument first?
This is akin to the “pardoning marijuana possession convictions” thing where it didn’t apply to a single person in federal custody and only benefitted 3,000 people (with past convictions) in the entire nation.
This is basically virtue signaling and/or table scraps for us peasants.
The only thing the federal government can do is pardon federal crimes. That is what they did. You’ve called that action “virtue signalling and/or table scraps.”
It’s unclear whether you A) think that federal cannabis possession convictions shouldn’t have been pardoned (considering your displeasure with the fact that they were), or B) think that such convictions should have been pardoned (as they were), but also don’t like that.
Since B) is not internally consistent - you would need to not like something you think should happen - it’s not unreasonable to ask if you think that such convictions shouldn’t be pardoned. Frankly, neither position is easy to logically square, and you’ve done nothing to assist in that endeavor.
How about you learn about context and read the rest of what I wrote? My complaint with both of these actions is that they’re essentially meaningless for the majority of people and they don’t go far enough. I refer to them as table scraps and virtue signaling because they only give the appearance of taking action without actually fixing anything or improving the lives of nearly anyone. The politicians get to parade around acting like they’re working for our benefit when they’re actually doing very little to help.
In January, it was going to jump to a minimum salary of 59k to be exempt.
If only this logic actually applied. Maybe they wouldn’t make anti-trans laws in that shithole state?
I hope everyone joined whatever gains unions had the last four years
If the US is not a third-world country, then why do they do so many third-world country things?
A bit more of a de-developing country
And no, I don’t have a stutter
Had a bit of an Elmer Fudd flashback 😂
Obviously a little late for this administration, but could the next liberal admin try beating them to the punch on this? Are there no liberal friendly judicial districts? Have one of those file a weak lawsuit to uphold the law. Then that could at least be referenced when they attack in a red area.
The problem is there aren’t enough actual liberals left in the DNC. The majority of the DNC is more than happy to screw over workers to the benefit of corporations. What resistance they provide is mostly performative, as their real priorities are dictated by what the large corporate donors are paying for.
No, the problem is there are too many liberals in the party and not enough leftists. Liberals love them some anti-worker pro-corporate welfare and other right-wing policies that only benefit the rich.
Oh for fuck’s sake
Neoliberalism, the ideology of the DNC, is a center right to right wing ideology that inherently favors moneyed interests over workers.
Conflating “liberal” and “Left” like the billionaire-owned media do on purpose only furthers the false dichotomy of the two party system.
Yeah it seems the hexbear “technical” definition of liberal has taken over on Lemmy, and not the definition that, you know, most people use.
I always wonder if I’m just missing some kind of shift in the language and then six replies later they mention they don’t live in the US and I think “aw crap”.
Screwing over workers to the benefit of Corporations is what Liberals are for. You mean there’s no leftist left in the DNC.
Yeah, notice there isn’t a McResistance this time around like there was with the performative pussy hats and shit.
deleted by creator
You’re assuming there will be elections again
The problem is SCOTUS. Anything reaching them is going to come down on the Republican side.
it’s going back to trump’s threshold too. if you were enjoying OT with a 37K salary, congratulations, you’re exempt now
Imagine being a salaried employee and only earning $16.80 per hour, assuming 40 hours a week. I wonder what type of work this even covers as that’s slightly above minimum wage here, and it requires you to work all those extra hours for free.
about the whole “a work week is 40 hours” thing too…
If you’re working 60 hours a week like a lot of the salaried people I work with, that brings your hourly pay down to $11.80. I just can’t imagine why someone would take a job like that when there are so many hourly entry level jobs that pay more than that.
people take shit jobs with shit pay because they don’t have any other options
so many hourly entry level jobs that pay more than that
not for much longer would be my guess
It’s always texas, it’s never not texas, is texas just trying to become mississipi? Because it’s very quickly headed there.
People file their cases in this district specifically because it has a bunch of conservative friendly judges.
Florida man and Texas Judge are the dynamic duo we didn’t really need.
I wish we could just kick Texas out at this point.
Haha. Sucks to be the Texas working class. Won’t get paid for overtime, wives dying from childbirth, lack of good health care, poor education.
Ya voted, la la la la la 🧏
this is a federal court in Texas, that means it’s being blocked nationally.
This is something I really don’t get in the US. How is it that a judge in one state/area/circuit whatever can make a decision that affects the entire nation? Having a bunch of courts spread around the place that people can cherry pick from to get the result they want seems so arbitrary.
so what’s getting shot down are executive orders. unilateral decisions made by the President. they aren’t very strong and can basically be overturned by any federal judge. in the past we all pretended they judges were not partisan and that the judiciary was somehow above politics. recently there has been a strong reversal on that stance from our political right. in the past it was unusual for judges to overturn executive orders without good reason. right now it’s expected that this court specifically week more or less try to overturn anything Biden tries to do.
originally the executive order was meant to be used sparingly and have very little power. that has changed greatly over a long time, but lately they’ve mostly been getting used to get past deadlock in the house and Senate. these days we more or less can’t pass any laws because the Republican party always has at least enough control to block one part of the process and had taken a stance of “block everything the Democrats do to make them look bad until we have unilateral control and can do what we want”. they just finished that plan.
so lately legislation that can’t get past the deadlock created by bad actors in our checks and balances system. the balance against that which we had settled on in the past was executive orders. lately the thing that has changed is that Republicans stopped pretending the judiciary was sacred and started using it as another arm of obstruction. in the past it was understood that such a gross lack of decorum and breaking of political mores would cost a political their career. trump proved that wrong so now they can blatantly use partisan judges to obstruct anything worthwhile that might have snuck through.
Well, then It sucks everywherre woooooo
Get what they vote for!
You seem awful celebratory.
Leopards are hilarious, and I just have no more sympathy left in me. I’m exhausted. I hope they all get to reap what they sow.
Just by federal law, not state law. Of course it will be a race to the bottom for certain states to
attracttake bribes from businesses.
Oh man, wait til you learn what “Federal” means.
Yes yes I get it.
Best get used to it. It’s going to be tough for a while.
Invest in tire companies because managers are going to be buying a lot of them.
Of course protecting workers who needs that. /s
For salaried workers.
Salary workers almost never get paid overtime and generally make more “per hour” than the standard hourly wage already anyway. Also, you literally cannot be forced to work more than 40 hrs a week when salaried. This is also the terms that are agreed to by both parties (usually by contract) before employment begins. Kind sounds to me like if you want to be a salaried employee AND make overtime, that you should negotiate that before beginning employment.
I’m not getting the argument here.
You definitely can be fired for not working more than 40 hours in any state with at-will employment. Or rather, you can be fired for no reason at all, and they don’t need to say it was because of the hours.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
