IT Employment

General discussion


Further proof that BUSH IS EVIL!!

By marbib ·
Bush gives to the rich, takes from the poor. Read this article.
You can read the whole thing at:

House Says ?No? to Bush Overtime Pay Attack

'Both houses of Congress have now spoken -? and they have directed President Bush not to take away overtime pay from working families.'

-- AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney

The House of Representatives dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke by approving a measure that could lead to defeat of President George W. Bush?s proposal to take away overtime pay protections from as many as 8 million workers. President Bush will now have to decide whether to withdraw the parts of his proposal that would take away overtime protection or to defy the wishes of both houses of Congress and insist on his right to take away overtime protection.

The 221-203 vote is the second congressional setback in a little more than three weeks for Bush?s plan to gut Fair Labor Standards Act protections for workers? overtime pay. The Senate voted Sept. 10 to forbid the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing Bush?s attack on working families? paychecks as part of fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill (H.R. 2660). The House passed its version of the bill in July but did not include the prohibition.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Further proof??

by Oz_Media In reply to Further proof that BUSH I ...

Do you really need further proof. Bush is a knob, a wanker, a dork, or whatever you feel is fitting. He has no right running a country and is no more capable than his father was (NO..YOU'RE NOT MY FATHER!!!).

HE has killed HOW many American, British, German and Canadian citizens this year? He has turned many American citizens against Canada and France in an attempt to create peace. He's wrongfully accused people of threats against America, his fav pastime to get the citizens on his side.

I would be really amazed to find out he DIDN'T create Windows.

Hope you guys do better with the next knob you elect.

Collapse -

Get f***ing real!!

by GuruOfDos In reply to Further proof that BUSH I ...

I'm sorry but your 'proof' doesn't 'prove' anything. It hinges on YOUR definition of 'proof' and your definition of 'evil'!

This sort of comment is very subjective and you could take a hundred different people and they would all have different opinions on this subject as no two of those people would necessarily use the same basis or definitions.

It is a fact that by choosing the 'correct' axioms, you can 'prove' anything you want! If you chose the right postulates, you could even 'prove' that black IS white.

Unfortunately most postulates based on subjective feeling are soon shot down in flames. For an axiomatic 'proof', the postulates chosen have to be beyond refute by any kind of 'scientific' method. The axiom must 'stand alone'. If the postulates and axioms can be proven to be correct under any circumstances then you have the makings of a 'proof'. Anything less is simply 'belief' or 'opinion'. Perhaps a valid opinion and one held by many others but NOT in any way, shape or form an 'irrefutable truth'.

Collapse -

You've got to be kidding

by road-dog In reply to Further proof that BUSH I ...

The private sector has been laying off and cutting hours for two years while the federal government has grown in size and spending.

Now the President wants to limit or cut overtime for government employees. I say tough sh1t. Out in the real world, overtime has been a memory for some time, and companies are asking for increased work load.

The federal employees union is lobbying hard to protect extra bucks for fat a$$ union bureaucrats.

I don't care what Congress wants, or what union they're kowtowing to. If the President wants to do anything to limit government spending, then it's OK with me.

Of course, my opinion is invalid, as agreeing with anything this President wants is a mind numbed robot that follows him blindly....

Collapse -

Wrong set of facts

by TheChas In reply to You've got to be kidding

While some federal workers might fall under the scope of the Bush administration proposed changes to over-time rules, the main impact of the rule changes would be to re-classify a large number of private sector employees so that they could be forced to work additional hours with NO additional compensation.

As with many actions of the Bush administration, they claim to be helping everyone by "simplifying" the rules. The "devil is in the details" however.

A close look at the proposed changes to the over-time rules shows that they would greatly increase the number of workers who can be classified as not qualified for over-time compensation.

This is another Bush handout to big business that would result in fewer workers in the workforce. After all, if you can force more workers to work 20 or 30 hours of uncompensated extra time per week, why hire more workers.

Existing union contracts would NOT be affected by the rule changes.

In this case, congress is actually listening to their constituents in attempting to block a rule change that would hurt the working man and the economy.

I am all for simpler rules for business. However, any changes need to be either neutral, or aid the average worker.

I am tired of the Bush administration's open season on the working man, and the environment.


Collapse -

I have a lot to say about this, however

by maxwell edison In reply to Wrong set of facts

I'll just mention one thing.

There's nothing in this bill (or any other, for that matter) that would prevent a company from paying any employee overtime wages - or bonuses - if they would choose to do so. And don't suggest that many don't, because I've seen too many that do. Personally, I work for a company right now that "could" include almost all of its employees (including me) in the "salaried" category, and they wouldn't "have to" pay overtime. But they do anyway (time and a half - and bonuses, too) because, like MOST companies, they realize that they have to be competitive and treat their employees fairly or risk losing them. Moreover, most "salaried" packages are negotiated to include a certain amount of overtime. And it's pure nonsense to suggest that there aren't enough jobs available to compel companies to be fair and competitive when it comes to their employees, because that's not true either.

I'm so tired of the victim mentality that permeates these threads - and society in general. It's always the little guy against big business. The little guy against the rich. The little guy against the government - but only a Republican government, of course. If anyone considers themselves a "little guy", you've made the wrong choice.

Open season, you say, on the working man and the environment? You forgot the sick and elderly, the homeless, education, and, of course, the children.

(Okay, so I mentioned more than one thing.)

Collapse -


by TheChas In reply to I have a lot to say about ...

Max, you are fortunate to be working for a company that values it's employees.

While my present employer does value and compensate it's employees, I have worked for many firms that jump at ANY chance to "screw" their employees.

Of the 7 firms that I have worked for over the past 30 years, at best, 3 valued their employees. This is not just my opinion, I could find at least 10 people from each firm that would back me up. I would have a difficult time finding 2 people that would honestly state that any of these firms valued their employees.

From where I am, it would be hard to argue that companies are taking the value of their employees into account in their business decisions.
I have seen far too many instances where layoff and compensation decisions are based on the political clout of the employee or his supervisor, not the value of the employee to the organization.

I try to have a positive outlook. But, I am concerned that the US is headed back to the "robber baron" days of the late 1800's and early 1900's where the work-force was little more than chattel to the owners of business.

I wish that there was not the need for the laws regulating business, and resultant bureaucracy. However, as long as their are people who believe that the best way to get ahead is to take advantage of others, I will continue to be in favor of controls on the behavior of business.


Collapse -

Absolutely NOT

by Oz_Media In reply to I have a lot to say about ...

"There's nothing in this bill (or any other, for that matter) that would prevent a company from paying any employee overtime wages - or bonuses - if they would choose to do so. And don't suggest that many don't, because I've seen too many that do."

Yes there it will prevent MANY (not all) companies from paying overtime.
I don't know about the US but in Canada, almost ALL companies in MANY different fields will take advantage of the fact they don't have to pay overtime. Most companies here will put you on salary as soon as they can to avoid paying overtime. I have worked as a salaried employee several times where you get overtime, but they didn't have to pay up.
The majority of businesses here will definitely take advantage of the savings and pay NOTHING to overtime from a salaried employee.

I know that this bill doesn't effect Canadians because we already get pushed into a salaried category as soon as we are earning more than our hourly wage. That is the entire reason that I now contract and no longer work full time for a single employer. As soon as they were paying me too much overtime and realized that they'd either have to cut my pay or simply do without my overtime serbices, salary was posed to me, which I immediately shot down and walked out the door over.
I now have a solid contract draughted by my lawyers that outlines ALL stipulations of my pay. It is the only way to get paid properly and not be a victim to a tightwad accounting clerk.

Collapse -

Most companies will continue. . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Absolutely NOT treat their employees fairly and continue to pay overtime, regardless of what they could do. At least that's my contention.

Let's wait and see how many people will start claiming that their employer, all of the sudden, stopped paying overtime but still required 10,20 or more hours (over 40 per week) additional work. It just won't happen.

You're right, this bill won't affect Canadians, and it won't affect MOST American employees either, at least the existing ones in current positions.

There's no way a company will cut a good employee's usual and established annual salary (base pay plus overtime plus bonus) just because it can. Just like it won't cut a person's salary from $20 an hour (or whatever) to minimum wage, even though it could. They will have to remain competitive, and they will.

I don't buy into the notion that companies, in general, look for ways to screw their employees. Sure, there are ones that do, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Collapse -

Not really

by Oz_Media In reply to Most companies will conti ...

"Let's wait and see how many people will start claiming that their employer, all of the sudden, stopped paying overtime but still required 10,20 or more hours (over 40 per week) additional work. It just won't happen."

No I don't think many will BUT they will stop requesting overtime. This makes it harder to near impossible to work after hours on servers and will require people to work while users are logged in, thus causing more incorrectly patched systems, improperly installed software and skipped backup sessions.

"I don't buy into the notion that companies, in general, look for ways to screw their employees. Sure, there are ones that do, but they are the exception, not the rule."

I agree, but if there is no overtime law, nobody is getting screwed, they are just following employment standards acts that say they DON'T HAVE to pay overtime. If they were supposed to pay overtime and didn't, THIS would be screwing the employee, if they don't HAVE to pay and don't, who's screwed ? If they paid overtime when they didn't have to the company would be screwing themselves.

That's like me saying "I'll work until 2PM, after that you have to pay me overtime or I'm going home." They don't have to pay me overtime after 2PM so why WOULD they?
There has to be a minimum set time for daily work hours, generally 8hrs, after that you get overtime. If the overtime laws were removed, companies could expect you to work 10 hours withhout paying overtime and perhapse time/half after 10? It's completely up to the employer.

You seem to understand business practice, why would you pay for hours you didn't have to ? To keep face ? You've seen how many people are whining about the US employment rate in the IT sector there's always someone who will take your position even if they don't fill your shoes in the long run.

Collapse -

And another thing

by maxwell edison In reply to Wrong set of facts

No company can "force" any employee to do anything. The employee (presumably) still has free will and freedom to make his or her own choices.

And another thing:

This is a "BUSH handout to big business"? Too bad the definition of "handout" is so skewed. My definition of a handout is taking property from one person who earned it for the purpose of giving it to another person who didn't earn it. Taxing someone less or loosening regulations isn't "giving" anything. It's just taking less - as it should be.

Too many people are too tolerant of our government TAKING their property. The tens of thousands of dollars the government takes from me - just to give it to someone else who didn't earn it - is disgraceful.

There are too many TAX TAKERS crying "unfair".

I say it's high time the TAX PAYERS start speaking up.


(Where's a ship full of tea when you need one?)

Related Discussions

Related Forums